sponsorship speeches

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF REP. GARCIA-ALBANO

REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. Mr. Speaker, esteemed colleagues, the issue at hand is the vital role of

Congress as an institution to fulfill its constitutional mandate of exercising its constituent power when

necessary and crucial to the people’s welfare and the country’s economic progress.

By freeing the people from the monopolistic activities of the rich Filipino elite, the exercise of such

power will be one of the most nationalistic and patriotic acts that this institution can do.

Economic nationalism should not promote the welfare of the small minority of rich countrymen at

the expense of the poor, larger majority. Furthermore, in the landmark case of Tañada vs. Tuvera, the

Supreme Court held that economic nationalism should be read with other constitutional mandates to

attain balanced development of the economy.

While the Constitution, indeed, mandates a bias in favor of Filipino goods, services, labor and

enterprises, at the same time, it recognizes the need for business exchange with the rest of the world on

the basis of equality and reciprocity and limits protection of Filipino enterprises only against foreign

competition and trade practices that are unfair.

It is then my distinct honor, Mr. Speaker, to endorse to this august Chamber the approval of

Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 which proposes amendments to certain sections of Articles XII, XIV and

XVI of the Constitution. The objective of this measure is to provide flexibility to Congress and the

Executive in the crafting of economic policies to meet the exigencies of the times. It is, therefore,

proposed to insert the amendatory phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” into the specific economic

provisions of the stated articles.

The Committee on Constitutional Amendments overwhelming approved Resolution of Both

Houses No. 1 at the committee level because we are convinced that:

Number one, the proposed economic amendments are urgently needed and beneficial to the

Filipino people.

Number two, economic policies are best left to legislation to sustain and propel the country’s

growth.

And lastly, … /amc

(PO – Deputy Speaker Balindong)

REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. ... the country’s growth.

And lastly, the mode of amending the Constitution, following the procedure in the enactment of a

bill, in accordance with the Rules of the House of Representatives, is valid and constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished cosponsors and I will present facts to establish these conclusions.

The Philippine Development Plan of 2011 to 2016 defines inclusive growth as a rapid and

sustained growth that creates jobs, draws the majority into the economic and social mainstream, and

continuously reduces mass poverty. It is true that the Philippines has gained ground in terms of GDP

growth in recent years. However, SWS economic indicators reveal that despite the 7.2-percent GDP

growth in the last quarter of 2013, the trends of poverty, hunger and joblessness have been flat for

several years. Twelve point five million of our countrymen are jobless.

A Pulse Asia survey for the same period reveals the same story. Statistics show that

improvement in unemployment has been marginal from 7.5 percent in 2009 to 7.1 percent in 2013. There

was even a slight increase in unemployment rate in 2013 to 7.1 percent from seven percent in 2011 and

2012.

Moreover, underemployment rates have not improved, recording an average of 19.3 percent in

the last five years. The insufficiency of employment opportunities can be gleaned from poverty statistics

which indicate only a marginal improvement in poverty incidence among the population from 26.3 percent

in 2009 to 25.2 percent in 2012. The magnitude of poor population, however, has increased by almost

half a million, from P2.3 million in 2009 to P2.8 million in 2012. The reason for this predicament is the

lack of opportunities and investments available in the country to generate employment. This conclusion is

the result of the studies of prominent Filipino economists, businessmen and political scientists.

Dr. Clarita Carlos even ventured to say that nationalism, when inward looking, will not be good for

the country because the trend now is towards regionalism. She stressed that a legislative environment, in

preparation for the 2015 ASEAN economic community, is necessary for goods, services, investments and

capital to move freely across the region.

Dr. Gerardo Sicat articulated the same view when he wrote, and I quote: “The many ills in the

country can be traced back to the measures undertaken by the government on the backing of nationalistic

xenophobia to require a citizenship qualification for many types of economic activities. The current

demand to expand opportunities and the role of outside capital has been the result of citizenship

requirements that impeded progress in the country.”

In a research on the effect of the inflow of foreign capital between countries which have legislated

economic policies compared with the Philippines’ experience where the same policies are constitutionally

mandated, the results are, indeed, revealing.

Deputy Speaker Balindong relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Sergio A.F. Apostol. Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, among other ASEAN countries, were chosen for the study as

these three countries started laying the groundwork for their industrial development in the ‘70s with the

Philippines as their model. By the ‘80s, they had all made permanent gains while the Philippines had

been left behind.

How did this happen? They all basically copied the Board of Investments of the Philippines’

structural organization and came up with an improved version by adding new features and incentives to

encourage and attract foreign investments. They patterned their laws from our BOI’s structure and

powers but deviated in a most fundamental way from our policy. They did not incorporate the complex

nationalistic lines that favored domestic enterprises. They simply allowed full foreign capital participation

in their own industrial development programs by permitting ... /mll

(PO – Deputy Speaker Apostol)

REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. … industrial development programs by permitting 100 percent foreign

equity investments to receive incentives.

Moreover, other data revealed that foreign ownership in the primary sectors of mining, oil, gas,

agriculture, and forestry show that, except for Thailand and the Philippines which sets foreign equity to 45

percent and 40 percent, respectively, Singapore, Vietnam and Cambodia showed 100 percent foreign

ownership in all these sectors. Indonesia and Malaysia have varying equity ratios but place foreign equity

from 70 percent to 100 percent. All these countries do not provide economic policies in their

Constitutions, only through legislation.

The issue on whether economic policies should be placed in the Constitution or not was studied

in-depth by the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reform in the PCCR in 1999. The commission

was formed by then President Joseph Estrada to arrive at considered and well-studied conclusions and

recommendations based on objective data, and promote the aspiration of doing what would contribute to

raising the standard of living of the Filipino.

The credentials of the commissioners are impeccable and include the present Supreme Court

Chief Justice, former NEDA Director Generals, legal luminaries, renowned economists, industry leaders,

and educators. Their report states in part, and I quote: “The history of the drafting and adoption of the

three Philippine Constitutions reveals that threshold questions such as the appropriateness of embodying

economic principles in the Constitution and on whether or not these economic principles were to be

further detailed in constitutional policies were not specifically addressed. Under the shadow of more

pressing political and social concerns, discussions on economic policies, such as those in the 1986

Constitutional Commission, became secondary and important public attention to these questions was not

sufficiently given. Even then, whatever discussions took place assumed that economic policies, such as

equity ratio requirements, were to be the subject of the Constitution. This is where the Preparatory

Commission on Constitutional Reform finds its place. For the first time, a deliberative non-partisan body

for the sole purpose of evaluating and recommending proposals on the economic provisions of the

Constitution was established.”

The PPCR study and recommendations on the specific proposed amendments will be expounded

by the Honorable Rufus Rodriguez. The PPCR report formed part of the discussions on the merits of

reviewing the economic principles of the Constitution during the 11th Congress. Measures were also filed

to this effect during that time.

In the 12th Congress when public consultations were conducted nationwide in all of the country’s

regional development centers, the committee elicited feedback from participants through survey forms.

They were able to express what they thought needed to be changed in the Constitution. Many of the

proposals included economic amendments. Their inputs were collated and published in a book, edited by

the then chair of the committee. During these two Congresses, the participants were also asked whether

they find amendments to the Constitution necessary and what was their preferred mode. The general

sentiment was that it was high time for the Constitution to be amended and they left Congress to decide

on which mode to adopt.

The sentiments of the Filipino people were again sought and reflected in the public consultations

conducted by the Constitutional Commission for the Revision of the Constitution during the 13th Congress.

This commission, headed by Dr. Jose Abueva, was created and tasked to study in-depth and give its

recommendations to the possible revision of the Constitution. The report of the Constitution was

submitted to Congress and the Committee on Constitutional Amendments adopted some of its proposals

through … /ehs

(PO – Deputy Speaker Apostol)

REP.GARCIA-ALBANO. ... some of its proposals through House Resolution No. 1234.

Economic proposals were also filed by several Members of the House.

During the 14th Congress, House Resolution No. 737 propelled the discussion on the feasibility of

increasing foreign equity on land and the exploration, development and utilization of natural resources.

Some Members, in fact, conducted district consultations on the issue when enjoined by its main author,

then Speaker Prospero Nograles. The committee also held public hearings on the matter.

In the 15th Congress, the discussions and consultations focused only on the economic

amendments. Aside from public hearings held in Congress, out-of-town public hearings were held in two

regional centers. Although it was only in these two recent Congresses that talks were focused on

economic reforms, awareness and understanding of the issues governing the need to review the

restrictive provisions of the Constitution among various sectors of Philippine society started in 1998 and

has been ongoing for the last 16 years.

Based on committee records, the positions of key groups have not changed. Whether in favor or

against, their views and perspectives remain as their advocacies. It may be safe to conclude that even if

discussions and consultations on the issue will continue in subsequent years, their positions will not

change.

In like manner, the source of some of the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions were taken

from the 1935 Constitution which was crafted some 79 years ago. It is, thus, imperative that they be

reviewed under prevailing circumstances and relaxed as present-day conditions warrant.

It is also worthy of note that five members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, which drafted

the 1987 Constitution, are in favor of liberalizing these restrictive provisions. They are Dr. Bernardo

Villegas, Atty. Ricardo Romulo, Dr. Wilfredo Villacorta, Justice Adolf Azcuna and Father Joaquin Bernas.

In fact, Justice Azcuna, during the public consultations on Resolution of Both Houses No.1, stated that

the commission did not expect the 1987 Constitution to last more than five years without being amended.

In this 16th Congress, the committee invited leaders and representatives of organizations and

associations from different sectors of society. The list of invitees and resource persons were provided by

majority and minority committee members and included past resource speakers. Filipino social and

political scientists, economists, businessmen, civil society groups were consulted along with

constitutionalists and legal luminaries to give their views again on the proposed amendments.

Consultations were conducted for five committee sessions.

As in the previous Congresses, the number of those in favor of the amendments far outweigh

those against. Those who continue to oppose constitutional amendments still question the pace by which

the committee conducted its public consultations and concluded its deliberations. They said that there

was a “gross lack of democratic consultations that attended the passage of Resolution of Both Houses

No. 1.”

However, it is established from the records that studies on these economic proposals have been

made since 1998 and consultations have been conducted from that time until the present. Moreover,

those opposed to the measure also said that they have two major questions which have remained

“unsatisfactorily addressed to date”.

Despite the fact that these matters were exhaustively discussed and responded to during the

committee deliberations, it is important to bring these issues to light in plenary in order for the whole

Chamber to be clarified.

The issues raised were these:

1) whether Congress can introduce wide-ranging changes in the Charter just like passing a

normal law; and

2) whether Congress can be allowed a free hand in overturning the protectionist pro-Filipino

provisions of the Charter by the mere … /nts

3) (PO – Deputy Speaker Apostol)

4) REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. … 25.2 percent in 2012. This means that one out of every four

Filipinos continues to live in poverty. The survey of the Social Weather Station conducted in

December 2013 reported that 55 percent of Filipinos consider themselves poor, a much

higher figure than the official estimates. It is worth noting that despite their relatively lower

economic growth rate in recent years, our neighboring countries in the region continue to

enjoy low unemployment rate. Malaysia’s unemployment rate has just been around three

percent while Vietnam’s and Thailand’s unemployment rates have been only at 1.8 percent

and 0.7 percent, respectively.

5) “Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand have also made significant strides in reducing poverty. A

striking feature of these countries is that they are more open compared to the Philippines.

They have managed to attract more foreign investments and to export more than the

Philippines. Consequently, they have bigger industrial and manufacturing sectors, and their

economic growth have largely been driven by investments in exports, critical contributors to

success in job creation and poverty reduction.

6) “We can never overemphasize the role of trade and investments in economic development.

Trade and investments jumpstart and sustain economic growth while providing jobs that are

essential in reducing poverty. For this reason, I am pushing for the relaxation of the

restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution regarding foreign investment. While the

macroeconomic fundamentals of the Philippines have been impressive, its share of foreign

direct investment pales in comparison with those of other countries in the region. Please

consider the following: In the ASEAN Region, the Philippines’ share of foreign direct

investments during the period 2009 to 2011 averaged only 1.8 percent, Singapore got the lion

share of FDI at 54 percent, followed by Indonesia at 15 percent, Vietnam at 9.1 percent,

Malaysia at 8.9 percent, and Thailand at 8.6 percent. Total FDI of the Philippines for the

same period amounted to only $4.5 billion. Please take note and remember well that this is

less than a fifth of the foreign direct investment that went into Vietnam, which was $23 billion.

7) “I am hoping that by introducing the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” to provisions

of foreign ownership restrictions in our Constitution, we can provide the key that will unlock

the barriers to entry of needed foreign investments and the creation of jobs. I hasten to add

that the amendments will just be a key because Congress would still need to pass the

appropriate laws, but I believe, as with most, if not all of you, that this easing of foreign

ownership restrictions will provide a strong and unequivocal signal to foreign investors

interested in the Philippines.” And I end my quote of the Speaker’s speech.

8) In conclusion, introducing these amendments is not a panacea to the country’s problems.

Other affect factors which are needed to attract foreign direct investments are adequate

infrastructure, skill levels, quality of the general regulatory framework, clear rules of the

game, and fiscal determination.

9) That being the case, as the highest policy-making body of this country, it is incumbent upon

Congress to provide a quality general regulatory framework and to clear the rules of

investment policies in order to send a strong signal to investors that the Philippines is the

best destination to do business and invest big capital. Congress shall then fulfill its

responsibility of making the Constitution work for the Filipinos, a living instrument responsive

to their needs to provide jobs, put food on their table and provide security and opportunities to

them and their families to grow and have quality of life.

10) This, in essence, is the economic development goal enshrined in the Constitution under

Section 1, Article XII …

11) /abb

12) (PO – Deputy Speaker Balindong)

13) REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. … under Section 1, Article Xll on National Economy and

Patrimony, and I quote, “The goals of the national economy are a more equitable distribution

of opportunities, income and wealth, a sustained increase in the amount of goods and

services produce by the nation for the benefit of the people and an expanding productivity as

the key to raising the quality of life for all, especially the underprivileged.”

14) In closing, Mr. Speaker, much as it has been heralded that the FDIs have increased in

the last several years, it is with dismay that I quote from a GMA News Online article released

yesterday citing the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas as stating that foreign direct investments

dropped 59 percent in February compared to the figure last year. Let us not wait until things

become worse. It is high time that we pass Resolution of Both Houses No. 1.

1) SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.)

2) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Thank you.

3) Mr. Speaker, distinguished colleagues, Constitutions are designed to meet not only the

vagaries of contemporary events. They should be interpreted to cover even future and

unknown circumstances. It is to the credit of its drafters that the Constitution can withstand

the assaults of beacons and infidels but at the same time bend with the refreshing winds of

change necessitated by unfolding events.

4) As one eminent political law writer and respected jurist explains, the Constitution must be

quintessential rather than superficial, the root and not the blossom, the base and framework

only of the edifice that is yet to rise. It is but the core of the dream that must take shape not

in a twinkling by mandate of our delegates but slowly in the crucible of Filipino minds and

hearts where it will in time develop its sinews and gradually gather strength and finally

achieve its substance.

5) In fine, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution cannot, like the goddess Athena, rise full grown from

the brow of the Constitutional Convention, … /lab


7) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). ... of the Constitutional Convention, nor can conjure by mere fiat an

instant Utopia. It must grow with the society it seeks to restructure and march apace with the

progress of the race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that

will keep it, far from being a petrified rule, but a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of

the nation. Tanada vs. Angara, GR No. 118295, May 2, 1997, 272, Supreme Court Reports

Annotated, quoting Justice Isagani A. Cruz.

8) Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 1987, the Filipino nation adopted the present Constitution.

Excluding the Malolos Constitution of 1899, the organic acts during the American period such

as the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Philippine Autonomy Bill of 1916, and the Japanese-

sponsored Philippine Constitution of 1943, the present 1987 Constitution is one of three main

Constitutions approved by the Filipino people, the other two being the 1935 Constitution and

the 1973 Constitution.

9) The 1987 Constitution, Mr. Speaker, continues with the protectionist tradition, also called the

economic nationalism in both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. According to the report of

the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms chaired by former Supreme Court

Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa with former Prime Minister Cesar E.A. Virata, with former

Ombudsman Conrado Vasquez, with former UP Law Dean Froilan M. Bacungan, former

Silliman University President Cicero D. Calderon, former Secretary of Education Onofre D.

Corpuz, present Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes A. Sereno, Dr. Bernardo M.

Villegas, among others, as Commissioners, dated December 20, 1993, some important

provisions of the 1987 Constitution are a continuing reflection of a spirit in our fundamental

laws since 1935 and were carried over into the 1973 Constitution. That spirit or tradition in

nationalistic protectionism was embodied in several provisions of the following Articles,

namely: Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, and now,

finally, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution or the National Economy and Patrimony.

10) This inward-looking nationalism in our Constitution was articulated in provisions that reserved

stipulated areas of enterprise to Filipino citizens. What many do not realize is that Philippine

protectionism can be directly traced to United States colonial policy. After the American

takeover of the Philippines, the United States policy makers prohibited large American

corporate investments in agricultural and industrial interests in the Philippines that would

compete with agricultural and industrial interests in the United States. It was not to protect

the Filipino businessmen but to protect present, at that time, present American interests in

business and in agriculture in America, such that no other Americans would be able to come

to the Philippines and invest here and compete with the American enterprises in America.

That basic policy, Mr. Speaker, was spelled out in US Public Law 235 of the US Congress,

approved on July 1st, as early as 1902, which first became the Organic Act of the Philippines.

Part of this colonial tradition, also derived from US Public Law 235, was that economic

development in the Philippines would have to be supported by domestic, I repeat, domestic

capital resources. The natural consequence of such exclusionary policies was the inability to

undertake important development projects and enterprises due to lack of capital. This is part

of the report ... /atc


12) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … due to lack of capital. This is part of the report of the PCCR or

the Philippine Commission on Constitutional Reforms.

13) Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the nationalist provisions were therefore intended to protect the

agricultural and industrial interests in the United States and not really the Filipino

businessmen. That is part of history.

14) Mr. Speaker, a survey of East Asian economies, Japan, Korea, and the others, and their

approaches to foreign investment policies disclose that invariably, the mode of regulation by

all these countries is by legislative action rather than constitutional mandate. There are no

provisions in the Constitution of East Asian countries that prescribe specific citizenship or

foreign investment equity ratios similar to those in the Philippine Constitution. Thailand is

only one exception where its Constitution contains a restriction against foreign ownership of

mass media companies; but public utilities, their Constitutions have no restrictions; natural

resources, no restrictions. And so save for this in Thailand for mass media ownership, there

are no constitutional restrictions on the development of natural resources, on the operation of

public utilities, or the grant of congressional franchises, on investments and advertising and

education, nor even on land ownership in countries where private ownership is recognized—

of course, China does not recognize private ownership. Numerous laws and regulations in

these countries do exist regulating or limiting foreign investment. Nevertheless, we should be

noting that economic planners in cooperation with the legislature in these countries, the

legislature in these countries are afforded the flexibility, the flexibility to modify economic

policies from time to time without contravening the fundamental law of the land.

15) Furthermore, Gerardo P. Sicat, in his column, “Closed Doors” in the Philippine Star, wrote an

article entitled, “Three ASEAN neighbors and their Constitutions.” In it, he briefly provided a

brief overview of the Constitutions of Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. What did the survey

of Gerry Sicat show? It showed, Mr. Speaker, that Indonesia’s 1945 Constitution was written

prior to its independence and it served to guide the young republic in its early years. After a

period of time, another provisional Constitution replaced it when President Suharto took over

power in 1960, he found the 1945 Constitution to his liking and re-adopted it as the

Indonesia’s Constitution.

16) What does it contain in relation to economic provisions? The present Indonesian Constitution

which is being enforced today in Indonesia contains general statements on the country’s

political principles and the only economic provision that could be read in it is that which

provided that the major means of production are to be controlled by the State. There is no

ratio. There is no limit. That is why these provisions practically gave the government of

Indonesia the authority, the government and the legislature of Indonesia, the authority to

undertake economic policy as it saw fit.

17) Malaysia’s Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is a political statement about the structure of the

Malaysian Constitution, federation. It lays down the political structure of Malaysia which is

headed by a monarchy alternating among federal state members of Malaysia. It is a brief

Constitution and has no, zero, near nada economic-related provisions.

18) Thailand’s constitutional history is probably the most volatile in this world. This can be said

judging from the number of Constitutions of Thailand, 17 since 1932, that have been adopted

to define Thailand’s government. One thing common in Thailand’s many Constitutions is that

they did not contain economic provisions. Without any direction on how the Constitution

meant to govern the economy, Thailand’s various governments addressed the economic

problems of the country as they saw fit. The guidance of the economy was fluid and less …

/adf


20) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.) The guidance of the economy was fluid and less contentious

than the politics of the nation. As a result, the agriculture industry in Thailand and the

services industry developed smoothly over time.

21) Mr. Speaker, clearly, therefore, our neighbors in ASEAN, in East Asia, deemed it best to

leave economic policy to their legislators rather than fix it in their Constitution.

22) Professor Sicat also wrote in 2006 and 2007 that it is time to find a better definition of

economic nationalism or the protectionist tradition, a definition that involves the principle of

competition as a central element. Economic agents, our producers and consumers, when

faced with competition, always led to a solution that improves the outcome for all. When

Filipinos find themselves in a competitive environment, they do as well as other nationalities.

How else do we explain the fact that we have a lot of countrymen who excel in the field of

management and in technical work when they are placed in entirely foreign settings? One of

the most hostile environments is when a person works abroad in a foreign company without

the normal protection of its own government.

23) According to Dr. Sicat, competition need not drive out social justice and fairness. There is a

big place for that through the actions of the government, but for rules of business and daily

affairs, competition should be central or else we will become, as we have become, a nation

propelled by undue coddling—cronyism, favorites, unfair rules, opaque processes, etc. At

home, there is a tendency for a lot of producers to seek the shelter and patronage of the

government.

24) Mr. Speaker, competition implies acceptance of open trade environments and the

rejection of monopolies as a way of organizing the economy. Other countries try to attract

foreign investments by giving them a welcome equal to the opportunities available to citizens.

In our country, there is a tendency to make rules convoluted and difficult. Of course, these

rules begin with the constitutional provisions that should be revised if we are to attract

investments effectively.

25) Mr. Speaker, economic nationalism should not promote the welfare of a small minority of

rich countrymen at the expense of the poor and large majority. The demands for monopolies,

special advantages and accommodations that tilt the playing field only to citizens create

opportunities for monopolistic positions of the few who could take advantage of those

opportunities. The result, Mr. Speaker, is monopoly position over certain opportunities.

Many of the ills of the country can be traced to the measures undertaken by the government

on the backing of the nationalistic xenophobia to require citizenship qualification for many

types of economic activities. The current demand to expand opportunities and the role of

outside capital has been the result of citizenship requirements that impeded progress in this

country.

26) According to Dr. Sicat, liberalizing the restrictive provisions of the Constitution on foreign

investment is not contrary and not inimical to its philosophy of pro-poor and pro-Filipino.

27) In the case of Tañada vs. Angara previously cited, the Supreme Court reconciled the

Filipino First policies enshrined in the Constitution with the imperatives of globalization. The

old-school protectionists argued that the national treatment and parity provisions of the WTO

agreement placed nationals and products of member countries on the same footing as

Filipinos and local products and rendered meaningless the constitutional injunction for an

economy effectively controlled by Filipinos.

28) Deputy Speaker Apostol relinquished the Chair to Deputy Speaker Pangalian M. Balindong. 29) 30) Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court replied that economic nationalism should be read with

other constitutional mandates to attain balanced development of the country. The Supreme

Court further stated that “x-x-x the Constitution indeed mandates … /tel

31) (PO – Deputy Speaker Balindong) 32) 33) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … the Constitution indeed mandates a bias in favor of Filipino

goods, services, labor and enterprises, at the same time. Said Constitution recognizes the

need for business exchange with the rest of the worlds. The Constitution did not intend to

pursue an isolationist policy.” The Constitution, according to the Supreme Court, “did not

shut out foreign investments, goods and services in the development of the Philippine

economy. While the Constitution does not encourage the unlimited entry of foreign goods,

services and investments into the country, it does not prohibit them either. In fact, it allows

an exchange on the basis of equality and reciprocity, frowning only on foreign competition

that is unfair.”

34) The idea that economic policy making ought to be the responsibility of the country’s economic

policy planners and Congress became a common theme in the discussion on the economic

sectors and eventually became a major principle in the recommendations of the Preparatory

Commission on Constitutional Reforms.

35) The PCCR recommended reposing the responsibility for economic policy formulation in the

Executive Department and Congress, where it properly belongs. The commission believed

that the policies on equity participation, management, ownership in economic enterprises and

factors of production are dynamic and, therefore, must not be carved in stone. These

questions are better addressed by the electorally accountable bodies of government, which

must decide these questions after weighing the costs and benefits attendant to such decision.

36) It is important that Congress be given the flexibility to adopt economic policies that respond to

the requirements of the environment, restricting or liberalizing them as the needs arise and as

opportunities present themselves.

37) Mr. Speaker, the 1987 Constitution has removed from the policy-making institutions of

government the prerogative to determine and shape national economic policy in line with the

changing economic environment. A fundamental problem is encountered, for instance, in

Section 1, Article XII, which dictates that the economic base shall be agricultural development

and agrarian reform, precluding a shift to other economic models for development.

38) Mr. Speaker, plainly, the government and economic managers believe that liberalizing some

of the restrictive provisions of the Constitution will promote the country’s competitiveness in

an integrating global economy.

39) Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to fear. The Regalian Doctrine that in the case of natural

resources and land use, coupled with the inherent regulatory and supervisory power of the

State all over persons and entities doing business in the Philippines, are effective

mechanisms to assure full protection of the national interest. Fundamental changes in the

legal framework are needed to respond and take advantage of developments in international

trade and competition.

40) In a study of the different Constitutions of other Asian countries, it was discovered that no

provision in the different Constitutions contained such specific restrictions on foreign

investment. Similarly, no constitutional provision affecting foreign investment in the areas of

advertising, mass media and the practice of professions were discovered.

41) Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a consistent rule that governments and legislatures are

allowed the flexibility in regulating economic matters.

42) Mr. Speaker, to serve the country’s economic interest, we have to afford maximum flexibility

to Congress and the country’s economic managers to determine from time to time policy and

regulation regulating foreign investments.

43) Now, we go to the specific provisions as envisioned by Resolution of Both Houses No. 1

authored by our honorable Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr., which will only cover three

articles: Article XII, Article XIV and Article XVI.

44) What does paragraph 1, Section 2 of Article XII—how will it now read … /fac


46) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … Article XII—how will it now read under the Belmonte proposal?

Now, the section will read, this is now Section 2, paragraph (1), Article XII: “All lands of the

public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential

energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are

owned by the State.” That is the Regalian Doctrine. “With the exception of agricultural lands,

all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and

utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State.”

Now, here is the sentence where we have the restrictive provisions: “The State may directly

undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-

sharing agreements with Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least sixty per

centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens.” And the provision of the Resolution of

Both Houses No. 1, after this sentence, we add UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW. “Such

agreements may be for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more

than twenty-five years, and under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In

cases of water rights for irrigation, water supply, fisheries, or industrial uses other than the

development of water power, beneficial use may be the measure and limit of the grant.”

47) Mr. Speaker, arguments in favor of liberalizing the energy and mining sectors stress that

liberalization would support and create jobs through the inflow of capital and technology and

expertise. Removal of the constitutional limitations will not result in total liberalization, but

merely transfer the regulation of these sectors to Congress. According to the report of the

Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms, the resulting flexibility will enable

economic planners to develop policies responsive to changing circumstances.

48) The tree farming and fisheries sectors have not been faring very well. Foreign capital and

introduction of new technology are necessary to revitalize these two sectors. More

importantly, the conservation and replenishment of these resources can be better assured.

Depletion of resources has been exacerbated by the lack of planning and technical know-

how.

49) On the energy sector, data from 1992 show that the Philippines produced 10.26 million

barrels of oil, has five geothermal fields which displaced 89.10 million barrels of fuel oil

equivalent, produced 8.88 million metric tons of coal, and produced hydro energy which

displaced 72.38 million barrels of fuel oil equivalent.

50) For 2012, data from the Asian Development Bank show that the country produced 260,000

metric tons of crude petroleum, 7,349,000 metric tons of coal. Further, the 2010 data show

that in total, the Philippines produced 23,417 kilotons of oil equivalent which is way below the

381,449 kilotons produced by Indonesia.

51) The financial requirements, Mr. Speaker, for energy resource development will have to be

supplied by the private sector and foreign capital and will require hard currency, as the main

costs for these projects involve the purchase of foreign technology, equipment and expertise.

52) One reason why Mindanao is suffering so much in the energy crisis is precisely because no

foreigner can come to the Philippines, no foreign corporation, because of the requirement of

60-40 in public utilities like electricity generation. And so, we have a situation in Mindanao

that in most parts of Mindanao, six to 12 hours of brownout are presently happening.

53) On the fisheries and marine resources, the adoption of the 200-mile Exclusive Economic

Zone (EEZ) in 1979 extended the maritime jurisdiction of the Philippines by a half million …

/ala


55) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … by a half million square kilometers of territorial waters. The total

marine territorial water area including the EEZ is about 2,200,000 square kilometers. The

coastal area of the Philippines is 26.6 billion hectares, which is 12 percent of the zone. The

coastline length is about 17,460 kilometers, double that of the continental United States. The

oceanic area of the Philippines is 193.4 million hectares or 88 percent of the zone.

56) The Philippines has continental shelves in the 200-mile economic zone. It is in these

continental shelves where most commercial fisheries are located for an area comprises about

27 square kilometers.

57) Data from the National Statistical Coordination Board show that total Philippine fish

production in 1998 was at 2.79 million metric tons—1998, 2.7 million metric tons. It even

reached 5.16 million metric tons in 2010. Mr. Speaker, since then, it has been lessening with

total fish production in 2012 of only 4.86 million metric tons.

58) Mr. Speaker, the fisheries sector has been in a decline and the problems are exacerbated by

continued increases in fishing efforts resulting from population growth in coastal areas.

59) In order, Mr. Speaker, to reach the desired increase in production, the industry will have to

develop increased capacity for its distant water fleets, exploit new fishing grounds, strengthen

policing and surveillance of fishing grounds, and establish new infrastructure facilities. These

are the types of improvements that require capital investments that could be supplemented or

complemented by foreign technology and foreign expertise.

60) On the mining sector, Mr. Speaker, the Philippines is a nation endowed with rich mineral

resources that rank among the world’s largest.

61) Data from the National Statistical Coordination Board show that for 2010, the Philippines

produced 40,800,000 metric tons of gold, 41 million metric tons of silver, 236,800,000 metric

tons of copper concentrate, and 33,500,000 metric tons of nickel concentrate.

62) Estimates indicate that developing the major copper and gold finds in Tampakan will require

an investment commitment of over US$2 billion. The projections of the government indicate,

Mr. Speaker, that foreign sources will have to provide the major part of the needed funding.

63) On timber and forestry resources, in 1934, the Philippines had a total of 17 million hectares of

forested land. Today, there is only, at most, 5.4 million hectares forest area, of which less

than a million hectares are virgin forests. Data from the National Statistical Coordination

Board show that the Philippine production of logs has been declining from 3 million metric

tons in 1985 to only 957,000 metric tons in 1994, and only 862,000 metric tons in 2012.

64) In 2011, Conservation International listed the top 10 most endangered forests, characterized

by having all lost 90 percent or more of their original habitat, and each harboring at least

1,500 endemic plant species. From their list, the Philippines was included with only seven

percent remaining habitat. Further, data from the Asian Development Bank showed that in

1990, the Philippines has a deforestation rate of -83. In 2011, it was -71.

65) Mr. Speaker, the use of additional foreign technology, expertise and capital could prove

beneficial in the reforestation of denuded areas. Undoubtedly, a more progressive policy in

the management and planning of forestry and timber resources is essential for sustainable

use … /amc


67) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). ... is essential for sustainable use and rehabilitation of resources,

and this is really lodged to Congress to meet the needs of the times.

68) The next article to be amended is Article XII, paragraph 1, Section 3. These are lands of the

public domain. It will now read as follows: “Lands of the public domain are classified into

agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public

domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted.

Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private

corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain, except

by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-

five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area.” And that is why the bill, the

proposed Resolution of Both Houses adds the phrase, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED

BY LAW.

69) Section 7 of Article XII will now read as follows: “Section 7. Save in cases of hereditary

succession, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, no private lands shall be

transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to

acquire or hold lands of the public domain.”

70) Mr. Speaker, allowing foreigners to own land is always the subject of much debate. The

issue relates only to a small portion of the total Philippine land area of 30 million hectares.

Fifteen point eight million hectares are non-alienable and non-disposable, with the remaining

14.1 million hectares being alienable and disposable. Of these, only 8.11 million hectares,

representing only 27 percent of the total land area of the Philippines, are judicially and

administratively titled.

71) Land in the Philippines are either public or private. Those titled lands are divided into

government-owned lands and private lands. Private lands are further classified according to

their use. Private lands are further classified in the following, agricultural, according to their

use. The presumption is that lands are agricultural and are always afterwards classified

further as industrial, commercial and residential, so always first agricultural. It begins

alienable disposable and then it becomes industrial, commercial and residential.

72) Mr. Speaker, the bulk of private lands is devoted to agriculture and residential use. A small

portion is classified as commercial or industrial. It is this latter minor fraction, currently

estimated at less than one percent of the total land area, which has direct relevance to

foreign investment as it is under review with regard to constitutional restrictions on foreign

ownership.

73) Mr. Speaker, the arguments in favor of liberalizing ownership of industrial and commercial

land, only industrial and commercial land, one percent of the total land area of the Philippines

of 30 million hectares, emphasize the increase in investment opportunities, the preference of

foreign investors to own land on which they build their factories and the increase in job

opportunities. This is a logical consequence of the desire of every entrepreneur to control the

factors of production. Ownership also strengthens commitment of the investor to the

enterprise or project.

74) The Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms was of the view that ownership of

agricultural and residential lands ought to remain, agriculture and residential ought to remain

with Filipinos, but in order to further economic growth and productivity in other sectors, the

ownership of private lands devoted to commercial or industrial uses ought to be liberalized

and made available to foreign investors in accordance with the guidelines established by law.

75) The next amendment, Mr. Speaker, is paragraph 1, Section 10 of Article XII ... /mll


77) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … Section 10 of Article Xll, which will now read as follows: “Section

10. The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency, when

the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or

associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such

higher percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments, COMMA (,)

UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW. The Congress shall enact measures that will

encourage the formation and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by

Filipinos.”

78) Section 11 of Article Xll, will now read as follows, and it is very important, this is about public

utilities: “No franchise, certificate, or any form of authorization for the operation of a public

utility shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations

organized under the laws of Philippines, at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned

by such citizens,” and then we have the amendment, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY

LAW. Likewise, “The State shall encourage equity participation in public utilities by the

general public, COMMA (,) UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

79) Mr. Speaker, infrastructure connects people, provides public services, that assure a basic

standard of living, facilitates and enhances domestic and foreign trade and enables a country

to develop and become globally competitive. It is the backbone of a country’s economic

development program. Essentially, transportation, communication, power and water are the

sectors that comprise the basic structure of the country.

80) Data from the Asian Development Bank show that in 2003, the latest data available to the

Asian Development Bank, the Philippines had 200 million kilometers of total road network,

with total road density of 670,000 per thousand square kilometers of land area, and only 9.9

percent of all the roads are paved. These are national roads, secondary, primary, provincial

roads, municipal roads, and barangay roads. Only 9.9 percent of the roads are paved.

81) The arguments in favor of further liberalization of public utilities emphasize the need for

additional capital and financial flows into the sector in order to achieve higher economic

growth targets. Liberalization would only be in keeping with the trend in other Asian

countries. The development of infrastructure is achieved by investment in utilities and

franchise sectors. Often cited as a major impediment to foreign investments, the need to

improve the infrastructure of the Philippines plays a crucial role in the economic prospects of

the nation. The lack of domestic capital renders foreign direct investments the most likely

source for development projects. As an added feature, there are incidental benefits to

welcoming foreign investors such as the introduction of technology and management

expertise, broader employment opportunities and healthy beneficial competition to the

consumers.

82) Section 1, of paragraph 2, Section 4, we are now going to Article XlV, Section 4, Paragraph

2: “Educational institutions other than those established by religious groups and mission

boards, shall be owned solely by the citizens of the Philippines or corporations or

associations, at least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such citizens,” and

Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, would add, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

“The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino equity participation in all educational

institutions. The control and administration of educational institutions shall be vested in the

citizens of the Philippines.” The proposed amendment is, you add COMMA (,) UNLESS

OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

83) According to the Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms, in areas of investment

in education, there seems to be no compelling reason to preserve constitutional restrictions

on foreign equity participation. Any protection or regulation is better accomplished and can

be periodically adjusted, when necessary or desirable, … /ehs


85) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … when necessary or desirable, through appropriate legislation.

86) Education is a particularly vital sector in that the participation of an educated citizenry in

governance is essential to the vitality of a democratic state.

87) It is undeniable that the education sector has been undergoing difficulties with regard to the

sourcing of funds for infrastructure, modern equipment, resources and increased salaries for

teachers. The latest techniques of education involve greater use of information technology

and alternative media, all of which require large amounts of investment. Equally important is

that education is the largest single item in the national budget. Maintaining a virtually closed

system makes the financial cost of its upkeep almost exclusively a responsibility of

government. This could be shared with or even alleviated by investments in schools from

foreign institutions.

88) Fears of colonial education are unfounded as the conditions prevailing during the colonial era

no longer subsist. Globalization has reinvented the concept of nationalism. Education today

is a global concept requiring that Filipino graduates are able to compete with their

counterparts from other countries. Even under a colonial educational system, the Filipinos

opted for independence. This shows that there is no relationship between patriotism and

nationalism and the citizenship of owners and administrators of schools. Moreover, the

curricula of the schools will be prescribed even if the ownership is with foreign equity of

investments. The curricula of schools will be prescribed and supervised by the Department

of Education and the Commission on Higher Education. At present, in fact, the Constitution

already allows foreigners, through religious orders and mission boards, to own and operate

schools. Now, there appears to be no compelling reason to distinguish between religious

orders and mission boards on one hand, and private educational institutions, from equity

investment from foreigners, on the other hand. The Preparatory Commission on

Constitutional Reforms likewise is proposing, therefore, that we should be able to open our

educational sector to foreign ownership.

89) In 1997, the total enrolment of the Philippines was just a little over 19 million with 2,598,000

in private institutions from pre-school to secondary level because it is in private education that

foreign investments will come because public education is always with the government.

90) Data with the Department of Education and the Commission on Higher Education show that

for 2012, the students enrolled in private institutions up to the secondary level already

number 2,956,060 students. This does not include the 3,317,530 students enrolled in tertiary

schools up to the doctorate programs in private schools.

91) The Preparatory Commission on Constitutional Reforms finds that the nationality and capital

ratio requirements for educational institutions need not be addressed by the Constitution and

are better left to legislative or policy determination, consistent with the principle of academic

freedom. Considering the long-term implications of upgrading the educational system,

particularly at the tertiary level, and the increasing competitiveness of these institutions

throughout the world, every advantage should be availed of to ensure the best possible

education for the Filipino youth which remains the greatest asset and hope for the future of

our country.

92) The last provision that we would like to tackle is Section 11, Article XVI on General

Provisions.

93) “Section 11. The ownership and management of mass media shall be limited to citizens of

the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations wholly owned and managed

by such citizens.” And the amendment is UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW.

94) “The advertising industry is impressed with public interest and shall be regulated by law for

the protection … /nts


96) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). … for the protection of consumers and the promotion of the general

welfare.”

97) Next paragraph.

98) “Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations, at least 70 percent of the capital of

which is owned by such citizens, shall be allowed to engaged in the advertising industry,” and

the amendment is UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW

99) And the third paragraph here states: “UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, the

participation of foreign investors in the governing body of entities in such industry shall be

limited to the proportionate share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing

officers of such entities much be citizens of the Philippines.”

100) Similar to the education industry, the Preparatory Commission finds that there seems to

be no compelling reason to preserve constitutional restrictions on foreign equity participation

in mass media and the advertising industry. Any protection or regulation is better left to

appropriate legislation.

101) Mass media, Mr. Speaker, includes print and broadcast media, such as newspapers,

magazines, radio and television. Advertising is the promotion via these media of goods and

services. There are capital and/or technology-intensive industries that must keep pace with

rapid changes. Due to digitalization and the revolution in information technology, television,

telecommunications, computers, and the internet are converging in ways previously

unforeseen. Large amounts of capital are required for the acquisition of the latest equipment

and technological innovations.

102) The fear of foreign influence through control of television, radio and newspapers is

unfounded, since “de-territorialization” of knowledge and information dissemination has long

since enabled access to global audiences; foreign media is already here, there is no denying

their influence on the Filipino.

103) Regarding the advertising industry, it is noted that the top firms are partly foreign-owned

already. A further increase in foreign participation would adversely affect the validity of

Filipino advertising, but that is what competition is all about. And therefore, the Preparatory

Commission has concluded that nationality and capital ratio requirements for mass media

and advertising need not be addressed in the Constitution.

104) Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, this 16th Congress is now given the chance to leave a legacy

of the Filipino people, a legacy that will be handed to them under the leadership of our

beloved Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr.

105) The 1987 Constitution is now 27 years old. Despite previous attempts, no constitutional

amendments had been approved and accepted by the Filipino people.

106) Today, the Filipino people clamor for changes in the Constitution that will improve their

lives. The protectionist tradition or economic nationalism as embodied in the Constitution has

resulted in less foreign direct investments, more unemployment, and less income for our

people.

107) The least we, as legislators could do is to lift these prohibited limitations in the

Constitution as proposed by Speaker Belmonte and let economic policy making be performed

by the elected Representatives of the people in Congress.

108) I ask all my distinguished colleagues to stand up and be counted for change—all for the

inclusive growth of our beloved Philippines.

15) SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF REP. BARZAGA

16) REP. BARZAGA. Mr. Speaker, my dear colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen.

17) The third US President, the author of the US Declaration of Independence and one of the

founding fathers of the United States of America, Thomas Jefferson, said: “No work of …

/rmm


REP. BARZAGA. “No work of man is perfect. It is inevitable that, in the course of time, the

imperfections of a written Constitution will become apparent. Moreover, the passage of time will bring

changes in society which a Constitution must accommodate if it is to remain suitable for the nation. It was

imperative, therefore, that a practical means of amending the Constitution is provided.”

And because no Constitution is permanent and perfect, the framers of our Constitution, from the

Malolos Constitution up to the 1987 Philippine Constitution, have provided a mode to amend or change

any of the provisions of our organic law. Thus, we have Article XVII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

which provides in part:

“ARTICLE XVII

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:

(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or

(2) A constitutional convention.”

Since sub-section 1 of Section 1 of Article XVII grants Congress the power to amend the

Constitution by three-fourths votes of all the Members, this august Body has adopted a procedure within

which to amend our organic law. Thus, we have Rule XX of our own Rules, specifically dealing with

proposals to amend the Constitution, and I quote:

“Rule XX

Proposals to Amend the Constitution

Section 140. Proposals. – The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its Members,

may propose amendment(s) to or revision of the Constitution.

Section 141. Form of Proposals and Procedure for Adoption. – Proposals to amend or revise the

Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any Member. The adoption of

resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the

enactment of bills.”

I wish to emphasize that Rule XX, pertaining to proposals to amend the Constitution, has been

present in the Rules of Procedures of various Congresses including the 16th Congress. Rule XX has

been adopted without any objection coming from any Member of the House of Representatives.

Unfortunately, in the course of the deliberations of Resolution No. 1, some of our colleagues have

questioned the approach being adopted by this Body regarding Charter change. They advocate the idea

that the amendment to the Constitution must be made by the Senate and the House of Representatives in

a Joint Session, voting separately. A glance at the constitutional text in Article XVII categorically shows

that there is no command that Congress must be in Joint Session.

A noted constitutionalist and a member of the Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987

Constitution, Father Joaquin G. Bernas has actually supported the position of this House, and I quote, “It

will be noticed that the Constitution does not dictate how Congress can do it, except to require that the

outcome be approved by three-fourths of all its Members. … /abb


REP. BARZAGA. … by three-fourths of all its members. This means that aside from the

requirement of three-fourths vote, Congress is free to decide how it will go about the task.

“What are the options open to Congress? First, the two Houses may come together in joint

session for the purpose of proposing amendments. How they are to organize themselves and by what

majority they are to decide—simple majority, two-thirds majority, three-fourths majority, voting either

jointly or separately—all these are for Congress to decide.

“Second, both Houses might decide to do it the way they pass ordinary legislation; that is, as they

are, where they are, but voting separately by a three-fourths majority and only coming together the way

they do in ordinary legislation to reconcile the differences.

“Several years ago, I proposed the second method, and theoretically, it was adopted by Members

of Congress, but it was never acted upon. I am informed that at least the House of Representatives is

considering this method. But does the Constitution allow it? My usual answer to such question is, if it is

not prohibited, whether stupid or wise, it is allowed. In this case, I believe it is wise. How so? For a

number of reasons.

“First, the Constitution says that Congress may propose amendments but leaves much of the

detail how to do it to the wisdom of the illustrious Members of Congress.

“Second, it is wise because, among others, it will allow for a focused debate and avoid rambling

discussions. It will also allow Congress to prioritize urgent matters and have them approved in a plebiscite

earlier and give them the satisfaction of having something to show to the people they serve.

“The current Constitution was drafted and ratified in 1986-1987 in the wake of People Power

Revolution. All these years, it has remained virginal, it has been praised but also criticized for various

reasons.”

It must be emphasized also that the Senate is in conformity with the mode which we have

adopted in amending the Constitution.

From July 5, 2013, the date the resolution was filed up to the present, no Senator has publicly

stated that the course which we have taken is unconstitutional. Even the legal heavyweights in the

Senate, the noted constitutionalists, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and

Senate President Franklin Drilon, and even the young brilliant lawyers in the persons of Senators Chiz

Escudero and Alan Peter Cayetano did not make any statement before the press that our step is not

permitted under Article XVII of the Constitution. As a matter of fact, Senator Ralph G. Recto, on February

18, 2014, filed a resolution similar to the resolution which is the subject matter of our discussion.

Let us compare Resolution No. 1 of Speaker Feliciano Belmonte and Senator Ralph Recto. First,

both the House and the Senate resolutions are entitled, RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NO. 1. /lab


REP. BARZAGA. ... are entitled, RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NO. 1.

Second, the resolution of Speaker Belmonte and the resolution of Senator Recto are practically

the same in their title which is, Proposing Amendments to Certain Economic Provisions of the 1987

Philippine Constitution Particularly on Article XII, Paragraph 12, Article XIV, Paragraph 14, and Article

XVI, Paragraph 16.

Third, both resolutions have seven “Whereas” clauses and after the seventh “Whereas” clause,

both have the same tenor and wordings:

“RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, by a vote of three-

fourths (3/4) of all its Members, each House voting separately, and pursuant to Article XVII of the

Constitution, to propose amendments to Articles XII, XIV & XVI of the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of

the Philippines, with the following proposals:”

It is evident, therefore, that the Senate has actually adopted the same route which the House of

Representatives has taken.

Some of the restrictive economic provisions which we seek to amend were part of the 1935

Constitution included again in the 1973 Constitution and, again, incorporated in the 1987 Constitution.

They have been there from 1935 up to the present, 2014, or for a continuous period covering a span of

79 years.

My colleagues, we are called upon to amend the provision which for a long period of time has

deterred our economic growth. For some, they say, never tinker with the Constitution, never attempt to

change it.

I end, therefore, where I began by quoting again Thomas Jefferson. “Some men look at

Constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the Ark of Covenant, too sacred to be

touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human and suppose what

they did to be beyond amendment. Let us follow no such examples nor weakly believe that one

generation is not as capable as another of taking care of itself and of ordering its own affairs. Each

generation is as independent as the one preceding, and as that was of all which had gone before.”

Thank you very much, my dear colleagues.

sponsorship speeches

Documents