CHIEF Justice Renato Corona on Thursday supported amendments to the 1987 Constitution, and in particular the changes to the provisions on business and the economy.
But he declined to deal with specific amendments because those issues might be raised before the Supreme Court.
“There are certain provisions that I think will have to be made responsive to the present time,” Corona told reporters covering the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines’ membership meeting at the New World Hotel in Makati City.
“Remember that this [Constitution] was written in 1987,” Corona said.
“That was 24 years ago. Over the past years, the international economy and business developments have improved by leaps and bounds, so I believe that it is high time to re-examine the provisions of our Constitution.”
Corona said the Charter should be amended “because people change, the way we do things change, [and] business factors have changed.”
His remarks followed similar calls from Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile on the need to amend the Constitution’s economic provisions.
Corona said the Court did not tackle the economic implications of its controversial June 28 decision on Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., which limited the term “capital” to common voting shares when applied to foreign ownership limits in public utilities.
He said none of the parties raised the possible negative effects that the decision might have on foreign investments.
“Frankly, no [it was not considered],” Corona said.
“It was purely legal. Nobody even mentioned anything about the economic implications of the decision.”
PLDT chairman Manuel Pangilinan described the decision as “economic suicide,” while the Philippine Stock Exchange warned it could trigger an exodus of foreign funds from the local bourse.
Corona said some business groups had relayed to him their desire to be heard on the issue.
“We’re just waiting for all the pleadings to be submitted to the Court before we set the date for oral arguments,” he said, adding he might tap experts to explain the economic implications of the high court’s ruling.
In its June 28 ruling, the Court held that when applying the constitutional 40-percent limit on foreign ownership in public utilities, the term “capital” referred only to common shares of stock and not to the total outstanding capital stock composed of common and preferred or non-voting shares.
The Court also ordered the Securities and Exchange Commission to use that definition to determine if PLDT violated the 40-percent limit.
The ruling stemmed from a complaint filed by human rights lawyer Wilson Gamboa that sought to annul the sale of the government-acquired 111,415 Philippine Telecommunications Investment Corp. shares in PLDT shares to Hong Kong-based First Pacific Co. for P25.2 billion.
Gamboa argued that the sale violated the constitutional limit on foreign ownership of a public utility, and that the respondents committed grave abuse of discretion by allowing the sale of the PTIC shares to First Pacific.
The petitioner said that, as a result, First Pacific and NTT DoCoMo, a minority stockholder, ended up owning 51.56 percent of the PLDT equity, which was the 40-percent limit. –Rey E. Requejo, Manila Standard Today
#WearMask #WashHands
#Distancing
#TakePicturesVideos
