IT’S been a year since the Public Services Act was enacted, but its promised benefits have yet to be felt, and they will not likely be felt, especially if the economic provisions of the Constitution are not amended, Sen. Robinhood “Robin” C. Padilla said on Tuesday.
Besides still lacking implementing rules and regulations, the Public Service Act’s constitutionality is being questioned by some groups, the senator said, a day after President Ferdinand R. Marcos signalled he did not consider Charter change a priority.
Advocates for Charter change in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, led by Padilla, have said they are unfazed by the President’s remark and will proceed with hearings on the matter.
On Tuesday, in flagging the problems behind the amended PSA law—once touted as a magnet for foreign investments—Padilla said: “Paano natin ibebenta sa foreign investor na meron kaming na itong public utility pwede na kayong mag-invest dito? E, one year na, wala pang IRR. Kinukwestyon pa ng maraming nagrereklamo at sinasabi nila na unconstitutional ito. Kung ikaw ba, investor ka, makita mo gusto ko
mag-invest sa public utility na yan at nabalitaan mo, teka may nagkukuwestyon, magbibigay ka ng pera (How will we attract foreign investors with the Public Service Act when it still has no IRR, and some groups are still questioning its constitutionality? If you were a foreign investor and you learned about these issues, will you still invest in the Philippines)?” he said in a radio interview.
Also, Padilla has started working on the timetable to amend the economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution, aiming to bring it to the people in a plebiscite that will coincide with the barangay elections this October.
Zubiri: No majority backing
However, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri on Tuesday affirmed anew that majority of senators are not keen to do controversial Charter changes.
“Well…Charter change was never really in our agenda,” Zubiri told reporters.
The Senate leader added, partly in Filipino, “as you can seem there are about 20 legislative priorities being discussed in the LEDAC [Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council]. Charter change is not yet there. So, if Sen. Robinhood wants to tackle charter change in his committee, he has the mandate to do so.”
Zubiri added: “He [Padilla] can do so, but it is not a priority of our administration, particularly [because] we would like to finish the 20 priority measures still pending with us.”
Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, said he wants to speed up the process through a Constituent Assembly, and removing political provisions from the equation.
“We should have a committee hearing first. Under the Constitution, the ratification should not be earlier than 60 days nor exceed 90 days. So we have a short time to make sure the plebiscite lines up with the barangay elections, so we can save funds,” he explained.
Padilla aims to have the amendments hurdle the bicameral level by August, and have the plebiscite coincide with barangay elections on October 30. He does not agree with a constitutional convention as a mode for amendments, describing it as more expensive, and prone to opening the door to tackling political provisions.
Also, he said he is not worried by the lack of support in the Senate, noting Sen. Ronald dela Rosa had sought to amend the Charter’s economic provisions in the 18th Congress while Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian is also seeking to do so in the 19th Congress.
Meanwhile, Padilla said he holds no hard feelings against President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. for saying that amending the Charter is not his priority, since it is not the President’s mandate to take steps to amend the Constitution.
“The President, when he was a lawmaker, believed in amending economic provisions in the Constitution to bring in more foreign investments. Now that he is the President, this is not his mandate, so there›s nothing wrong with it,” he said, speaking in mixed English and Filipino.
“His priority is to implement the law. But it is not his mandate to amend the Constitution. Besides, it is the people who will decide on the proposed amendments to the Charter’s economic provisions,” he added.
Padilla reiterated that the Constitution’s economic provision must be amended to allow more foreign investments—and in turn, generate jobs for Filipinos.
He said framers of the Constitution also admitted they “rushed” their work, leading to some restrictive economic provisions.
“At the time, the country had just experienced People Power, and the framers of the Constitution wanted a nationalistic Charter. It was very good—for 1987. It’s 2023 now. Did the restrictive economic provisions benefit us? No, because foreign investments are limited to 40 percent,” he asserted.
He added that at a time of globalization when the Philippines has participated in many international trade agreements, the restrictions in the Constitution may be a stumbling block to the entry of foreign investors.
“We should not suffer because of this. We should not get by on borrowings. So I hope the economic provisions can be amended so we can be on a par with our Asian neighbors whose economies are open to foreign direct investments,” he said.
Marcoleta slammed
Meanwhile, a party-list group called out Rep. Rodante Marcoleta for his alleged inconsistencies on the Cha-cha issue.
“In the Visayas leg of the House of Representatives’ public consultations held yesterday at the Iloilo convention center, Rep. Marcoleta asserted that removing restrictions on foreign ownership via charter change is essential for the country as he responded to Rep. Biron, who argued that bureaucracy is a bigger problem than the Constitution when it comes to development,” said Kabataan party-list.
“Thank you for addressing some of the ills of our bureaucracy and I think our government is very serious in addressing this, but we also need the key towards a holistic approach on how our country can be developed and free from the clutches from a very restrictive provision in our constitution,” Marcoleta was quoted saying.
However, noted the party-list, “Rep. Marcoleta’s previous tirade to shut down ABS-CBN for allegedly having breached foreign ownership rules puts cracks in the credibility of his own and the entire charter-change lobbying campaign initiated by members of the House of Representatives. It exposes that his advocacy whether it be for or against foreign ownership rules, is not based on any evidence-based stand, principled analysis or ideal of national development, but on self-interest. Of course, politicians especially those from dynasties stand to gain most from term extensions and the removal of term limits to further entrench themselves in power.”
Image credits: Joseph Vidal/Senate PRIB