Now that the House has passed the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH6) calling for a constitutional convention to amend the 1987 Constitution, it is the Senate’s role to approve or deny its passage, which it earlier said is costly and unnecessary, for now.
Just with the same lightning speed it rushed the Maharlika Fund bill, Congress again hurriedly passed the Resolution of Both Houses 6 (RBH) calling for constitutional convention to amend the 1987 Constitution (supposedly for economic provisions but hidden from us is political term limits extension that House members salivate over).
They passed the RBH on third and final reading and then forwarded to the Senate for approval, which based on recent trends would not sit well with the senators. As one congressman said the hybrid concon they are pushing is the “unconstitutional route to charter change.”
Boasting a supermajority votes of 301, the House, led by Speaker Martin Romualdez said that investment reform by way of tweaking the Constitution’s economic provisions could be the “final piece in the puzzle” of improving the country’s economic and investment environment.
He said the lower chamber aims to limit its Charter-rewriting initiative to the “restrictive” economic provisions of the basic law “in the hope that the changes would pave the way for the country to attract more foreign investments.”
“We need additional investments that would create more job and income opportunities for our people. We need increased capital to sustain our economic growth momentum,” Romualdez said.
Only six lawmakers have voted against RHB 6 while one representative abstained.
“We now have 300 House Members as co-authors of RBH No. 6, and more are signifying their intention to be coauthors. This means we now have not 2/3 or 3/4 votes, but more than 93 percent of total House membership in solid support of the Con-con proposal,” said Majority Leader Mannix Dalipe said.
RBH 6 is principally authored by Speaker Romualdez, Majority Leader Dalipe, Rep. Rodriguez, Camarines Sur Rep. LRay Villafuerte and the Kapatiran Party. RBH 6 was supposed to be done after public hearings and consultations in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao were done.
Through the resolution, the House and the Senate resolve to call a con-con “for the purpose of proposing amendments to the economic provisions, or revision of, the 1987 Constitution.”
The resolution notes that among the three modes of proposing amendments to the Charter, the calling of a convention “would be the most transparent, exhaustive, democratic, and least divisive means of implementing constitutional reforms.”
Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, who voted “No” to RBH, said the House of Representatives conducts an unconstitutional route to Charter change in holding sessions singly in considering the Joint Resolution without meeting with the Senate in joint session.
Lagman reiterated that the constituent power of the Congress is exercised in three different modes: acting as a Constituent Assembly directly proposing amendments to the Constitution; calling for a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution; and submitting to the electorate the question of calling for a Constitutional Convention.
“When the Congress exercises any of the three modes of its constituent power, it must meet in a joint session because: The Congress consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate,” he said.
“Verily, when the Constitution provides for “the Congress,” it indubitably refers to the two Houses. When the Congress exercises non-legislative functions, it invariably meets in joint session like when it: declares the existence of a state of war and confirms the President’s nomination of the Vice President in the event of a vacancy in that office during the term of the Vice President; decides whether to revoke the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; canvasses the vote for President and Vice President and, in case of a tie, to break the tie; and decides a dispute between the President, who has once declared himself unable to discharge the duties of his office but later claims to be fit to resume, and a majority of his cabinet, holds otherwise,” added Lagman.
According to Lagman, Cha-cha is out of step now, saying the Congress and the President must exert all efforts and allocate the necessary resources to addressing the present economic woes of the country particularly on gripping poverty, escalating inflation, lack of food security, and the adverse effects of a possible recession.
“Verily, the Constitutional Convention can amend the political provisions of the Constitution, including extension of term limits or changing term limits, which could be the furtive agenda for calling for Cha-cha,” he said.
Lagman said liberalization of the economic provisions is not the sole magnet to foreign direct investments (FDIs), citing Taiwan and South Korea which achieved newly industrialized country (NIC) status without much inflow of foreign investments.
“Charter change is not the panacea to all our woes. Cha-cha is not a magic wand to solve all of our pressing socioeconomic ills,” he added.