AQUINO'S HOUSE ALLIES REV UP CHA-CHA BID, NOY PLAYS COY, WILL MEET SOLONS
MANILA, OCTOBER 4, 2011 (TRIBUNE) By Gerry Baldo and Virgilio J. Bugaoisan - President Aquino was neither here nor there on a proposal initiated by his allies in Congress to amend the Constitution but his allies at the House of Representatives said the Charter change (Cha-cha) effort will be pursued no matter what.
His allies at the House said Cha-cha will push through despite the expressed reluctance of Aquino.
According to Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. there is nothing to fear in the move because the proposed amendments would only be limited to the economic provisions.
Aquino told reporters there is no urgent need for Cha-cha, adding that he is completely against the forming of a constituent assembly (con-ass) but in the same breath, said he would meet and listen to Cha-cha proponents, particularly on their offer to amend only the economic provisions of the Constitution.
During previous Cha-cha attempts however, it was warned by constitutional experts that once the Charter is allowed to be tinkered with, it becomes open to the insertion of proposed amendments aside from economic provisions.
"In the past, it has been a mess because they want to change everything. There's too much time talking about change of government. Now we are focused. We will just hear what the people have to say on these aspects. If they think that is not the problem, then we will let it be," Belmonte added.
Rep. Neri Colmenares and Teddy Casiño of Bayan Muna Party-list also frowned on the move, saying amending the economic provisions; particularly the 60-40 ownership rule would only benefit foreign investors. Belmonte, however, seems to get the support of the minority.
Assistant Minority Leader Mitos Magsaysay of Zambales and Rep. Simeon Datumanong of Maguindanao said that the move would encourage foreigners to invest in the country.
Aquino said he is completely against con-ass and while he believes that there's no urgent need to amend the Constitution, he still would want to listen to the point of view of his allies in the House of Representatives and the Senate who are now pushing to resurrect Cha-cha.
Aquino said that he would sit down with the Cha-cha proponents. "Of course we also need to listen to both sides," Aquino said when asked why he wants to meet with his congressional allies who are pushing for Cha-cha.
Aquino however openly dismissed claims that there is really a need to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution to make the Philippines more investment-friendly as he noted that the economic growth can be achieved even without tinkering with the Constitution so long as investment policies and laws are properly implemented.
He cited the case of China which achieved colossal economic success even without changing their political system.
Aquino maintained that Cha-cha is not urgent so long as issues like graft and corruption, political instability, red tape and inconsistency of policies are properly addressed. He noted however that his position against Cha-cha at this time does not also mean that he is not open to discussions with congressional leaders.
"We're in a democratic country. At least all of these ideas should be explored. But if I'm asked my personal opinion, I don't think Cha-cha is a necessary tool, necessary move at this point," Aquino said.
Aquino's statement came after both houses of Congress declared their intention to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution which is believed to be one of the reasons the Philippines is at the tail-end of Asia's preferred investment destinations.
"The (current) economic provisions, which can be restrictions, are major factors that determine the investment of foreigners as it gives an inkling of the risks and how much should only be invested and how much can be earned. Wages only come second," Magsaysay said.
Colmenares agreed with Aquino saying that the country does not need Cha-cha at this point, saying that the Constitution is not the problem that causes poverty but corruption, wrong economic policies and lack of accountability for those that wield economic and political power.
The Bayan Muna lawmaker added that giving full land ownership to foreigners would pose a security threat to the country considering Manila's conflicting claims in the Spratly islands with China.
In fact aliens are totally prohibited from owning land in China. Will China be allowed to maintain beachheads in Palawan and Batangas if it buys coastal lands in these provinces? Will China be allowed to buy Meralco and other public utilities and hold us hostage if the Spratlys issue is not resolved?" Colmenares said.
"These examples only show that the premises used in justifying Charter Change are totally insane. Nepal, Mongolia and Cambodia which allow unrestricted foreign ownership are as poor as a country rat," Colmenares stressed.
House Minority Leader, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, meantime, lashed back at Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile for telling him that he had anchored his argument on the "unconstitutionality of Senator Franklin Drilon's proposal for a legislative constituent assembly on the 1935 Constitution," telling the Senate President to instead reread the 1987 Charter.
In a statement, Lagman said that contrary to Enrile's pronouncement, he (Lagman) was referring to the 1987 Constitution when he made the statement and that it was the senator who was actually looking at the 1935 Charter when he agreed to the proposal for a separate voting of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
"Senate President Enrile must be jesting when he said that I anchored my arguments on the unconstitutionality of a "legislative constituent assembly" on the 1935 Constitution," said Lagman.
Last Sunday, Enrile asked Lagman to refer to the 1987 Constitution before warning against an "infirm" attempt to amend the Charter through a bicameral constituent assembly.
"Lagman should again study the Constitution because his arguments are based on the 1935 version, not the 1987 Constitution," Enrile was quoted saying. "The 1987 version says Congress must hold a joint session and then (legislators) will propose an amendment (that would be considered approved following a) three-fourths vote, with each chamber voting separately."
"The 1935 Constitution does not have that provision. It only says Congress may propose amendments to revisions of this Constitution, period," Enrile said.
However, Lagman said it should be Enrile who should reread the1987 Constitution as Drilon's proposal contradicts the 1987 Constitution which explicitly states that while an amendment to the Charter maybe proposed by Congress, it should be approved by a ¾ vote of all its members.
"It should be Enrile who should reread the 1987 provisions and comprehend the grant of power to propose constitutional amendments to the Congress as a constituent assembly in the light of the leading and prevailing case of Gonzales vs. Comelec wherein the Supreme Court categorically distinguished legislative authority from constituent power," said Lagman.
"Moreover, the 1987 Constitution requires "a vote of three-fourths of all the Members." The clear import of this provision consists of: the convening of a joint assembly or session wherein the requisite vote of all members could be determined; and no "separate voting" of the House of Representatives and the Senate is authorized because there is no Chamber or institutional representation in the constituent assembly," Lagman explained.
The Albay solon said the infirm variation of the constituent assembly endorsed by Enrile does not only propose using the legislative format as basis of the proceedings but authorizes separate voting of each House, "both of which do not find anchorage in the 1987 Constitution."
"If there is any relevance of the 1935 Constitution to the current debate, it is on the fact that it confirmed that in a constitutional assembly, the Congress must convene in joint session; and (2) in contrast, it called specifically for a separate voting of the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, while the 1987 Constitution does not," said Lagman.
Meanwhile, Gabriela Rep. Luz Ilagan dared President Benigno "Noynoy" Aquino to prove he has no hand in the proposed charter change by shooting down any effort to have the Constitution amended.
"I dare President Aquino to shoot Charter Change efforts down. If President Aquino genuinely believes economic growth is possible even without Charter Change then he should steer the members of his party away from pursuing this futile and harmful task of introducing amendments to the Constitution," said Ilagan. "The PNoy administration should walk the talk on Cha-cha."
"Mixed signals are indicative that Malacañang is but playing it safe and holding the Cha-cha cards close to its chest. The truth of the matter is that Malacanang is agog over removing restrictions on foreign investments as it targets membership to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) group. "
Ilagan recalled that US Ambassador Harry Thomas has categorically asked the government to pursue Charter Change and remove restrictions on foreign land ownership as a requirement for the Philippines' membership to the TPP.
Instead Ilagan said, Congress should tackle measures that will impact on the needs of the majority of Filipinos such as the repeal of the eVAT and the repeal of the oil deregulation law.
It's Congress, not the President that can call the shots when it comes to the matter of amending the country's Constitution, Enrile said for his part.
The upper chamber leader, who continues to unleash a mouthful against Lagman whom he has been exchanging views on the planned revisiting of the 1987 Constitution, noted the role President Aquino would be playing on this particular issue.
"Well, I respect his opinion. I respect the opinion of the President but that is a mere opinion on his part. That is his position. But it's up to Congress, not the President, to amend the Constitution. The authority was given to Congress. Even if the President wants to amend the Constitution, if Congress will not act, he cannot do it. But if the Congress will, the President cannot do anything. He cannot veto the measure," Enrile, told reporters in an interview.
Proponents of Cha-cha in Congress, are close political allies of the President and this includes Belmonte and Drilon, who broached the idea of adopting the mode of amendments via what he dubbed as "bicameral constituent assembly." Charlie V. Manalo, Angie M. Rosales
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------
