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 peoples welfare and the countrys 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 Taada 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 countrys
growth.
And lastly, /amc
(PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
REP. GARCIA-ALBANO. ... the countrys 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 BOIs 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 11
th
Congress. Measures were also filed
to this effect during that time.
In the 12
th
Congress when public consultations were conducted nationwide in all of the countrys
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 13
th
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 14
th
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 15
th
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 Constitutions 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 16
th
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. Malaysias unemployment rate has just been around three
percent while Vietnams and Thailands 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 Speakers speech.
8) In conclusion, introducing these amendments is not a panacea to the countrys 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
6) (PO Deputy Speaker Apostol)
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 1
st
, 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
11) (PO Deputy Speaker Apostol)
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 Indonesias 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
Indonesias 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 countrys
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) Malaysias 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) Thailands 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 Thailands government. One thing common in Thailands many Constitutions is that
they did not contain economic provisions. Without any direction on how the Constitution
meant to govern the economy, Thailands various governments addressed the economic
problems of the country as they saw fit. The guidance of the economy was fluid and less
/adf
19) (PO Deputy Speaker Apostol)
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 coddlingcronyism, 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 Taada 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 countrys 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 countrys 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 countrys economic interest, we have to afford maximum flexibility
to Congress and the countrys 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 XIIhow will it now read /fac
45) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
46) REP. RODRIGUEZ (R.). Article XIIhow 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
54) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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 tons1998, 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 worlds 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
66) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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
76) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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 countrys 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
84) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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
95) (PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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 16
th
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 changeall 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
(PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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 16
th
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
(PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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 decidesimple majority, two-thirds majority, three-fourths majority, voting either
jointly or separatelyall 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
(PO Deputy Speaker Balindong)
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.