Resolution of Both Houses # 001:

Resolution of Both Houses proposing amendments to

certain economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines particularly on the
articles XII, XVI & XVIII

Camille Anne C. Bautista

Summary of the House Bill # 1
What are the Implications (Approved or Disapproved)

Constitutional Amendments

Introduction

There have been renewed discussions regarding the need to amend the 1987
Constitution. The Law Professor agrees that a constitution must not remain static, it
must always be dynamic and reflect or adjust to what the current situation of the country
requires. It does not follow that what may have been applicable in 1987 is still applicable
today. We can only hope that whoever is tasked with amending the Constitution does so
while thinking about the country and not him or herself.

At the onset, it would be wise to distinguish amendment from revision. Amendment

means an isolated or piecemeal change in the Constitution. On the other hand, revision
is the revamp or the rewriting of the entire instrument1.

Under Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution there are three ways to propose
amendments. The first is by Congress through a vote of 3/4 of all its members. By 3/4
vote, it is understood to be 3/4 of the Senate and 3/4 of the House of
Representatives. Generally, Congress has both constituent and legislative
powers. Their constituent powers include the power to formulate a constitution or
propose amendments or revisions and to ratify the same. Legislative power refers to the
power to pass, repeal or amend ordinary laws or statutes. In amending the
Constitution, the Congress will be exercising their constituent powers.

The second method of proposal is through a constitutional convention. The Congress

may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a
majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.

1
http://www.abogadomo.com/law-professor/law-professor-archives/changing-the-constitution
The last method of proposal is made by the people through initiative. This is done
through a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters therein. However, no amendment shall be authorized within five
years following the ratification of the Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
thereafter.

Summary of the House Bill # 1 and Its Implications – Constitutional Amendments

(Charter Change)

During its first deliberation on RBH 01, the Committee heard the views of numerous
resource persons from various fields and sectors on the proposal to amend the
economic provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution2.

RBH 01 was filed by Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. (4th District, Quezon City). The
proposed amendment of Articles XII (National Patrimony and Economy), XIV
(Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) and XVI (General
Provisions) of the Constitution entails the insertion of the phrase “unless otherwise
provided by law” in relevant sections of the said Articles that gives Congress the
flexibility to adjust, through legislation, the country’s economic policies in response to
the needs of the times.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez (2nd District, Cagayan de Oro City), who sponsored the
resolution in behalf of the author, stressed that amending the restrictive economic
provisions of the Constitution is important to sustain the country’s economic growth
achieved during the administration of President Aquino. The proposed changes, he
said, will increase the flow of foreign direct investments (FDIs) into the country which
will accelerate the creation of jobs and economic opportunities and reduce poverty.

2
Committee Daily Bulletin, Volume 77, A publication of the Committee Affairs Department dated February 18,
2014
On the question of what mode will be adopted in amending the Constitution, Rep.
Elpidio Barzaga Jr. (4th District, Cavite) explained that RBH 01 will be processed like a
bill which, after due deliberation and approval at the Committee level, will be submitted
to the plenary for debate and approval, and then transmitted to the Senate for
concurrence. He also said that the proposed amendments will still have to be ratified by
the people in a plebiscite.

Citing Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, Rep. Barzaga emphasized that Congress is
empowered to amend or revise the Constitution upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members. He elaborated that in the exercise of its constituent power, Congress may act
on the measure without having to convene itself into a constituent assembly.

Rep. Neri Colmenares (Party-List, BAYAN MUNA) earlier stated that a constituent
assembly is a more prudent way of amending the Constitution to avoid any challenge in
the Supreme Court as to its constitutionality.

The Philippine Bar Association (PBA) agrees with the proposed mode of amendments
while the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) opposes it.

Allaying fears that the Committee might go beyond amending the economic provisions,
as specifically expressed by Rep. Antonio Tinio (Party-List, ACT TEACHERS), Rep.
Rodolfo Fariñas (1st District, Ilocos Norte) underscored that since riders are prohibited
under the Constitution, insertions or amendments to the resolution outside the scope of
its title are not allowed.

The Foundation for Economic Freedom, Makati Business Club, Wallace Business
Forum and the Joint Foreign Chambers of the Philippines, represented by the American
and Canadian Chambers of Commerce, presented their study and research on the
urgency and merits of relaxing the foreign equity restrictions in the Constitution.
Political scientists Dr. Jose Abueva and Dr. Clarita Carlos expressed favorable views on
the resolution. The IBON Foundation and WeGovern, led by former Rep. Liza Maza,
were against the resolution, and so were the representatives from the sectoral groups
including the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU),
Pagkakaisa Para sa Tunay na Reporma sa Lupa (PATRIA), and the Ecumenical
Bishops Forum.

The Association of Retired Justices of the Court of Appeals expressed reservations on

the insertion of the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in certain sections of the
Constitution, particularly in reference to the limitations set on foreign ownership of
corporations, as it may decrease Filipino equity rather than increase it. The group noted
that the Constitution has been crafted to be pro-Filipino.