JPE, Miriam clash on bicam Cha-cha

Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago are once again engaged in a clash, this time on the matter of the feasibility of amending the Constitution through a mode being proposed by Sen. Franklin Drilon labeled by him as a “bicameral constituent assembly.”

Enrile issued a challenge to Santiago, telling reporters in an interview yesterday to put to test his position on Charter change (Cha-cha) before the Supreme Court.

“I’m not as bright as she is, but I can assure you that she can take it up. She can go to the SC and I think she will lose,” the upper chamber chief said.

Santiago, chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments,

openly expressed her strong dissent on the manner constitutional changes has been recommended by her colleagues to be taken up during a bicameral session, where only the economic provisions would be amended, and done through the same process as legislating a bill in Congress.

“I believe it is unconstitutional. What they are proposing is that the constitutional amendments should be passed as if it is an ordinary bill, that is to say. it should be passed in the House, then passed in the Senate, and then there should be a conference committee.

“I am aghast at that proposal because to say that a constitutional amendment should be passed the same way as an ordinary bill is an oxymoron.

“By definition a Constitution is higher than ordinary law and therefore you cannot possibly adopt the procedures for ordinary legislation to a constitutional process. How can you possibly amend the Constitution which is the highest law of the land by a mere procedure which is normally reserved for ordinary bills? There should be a higher level of sovereignty involved,” she said.

She then explained her position, which contradicts the position of Enrile and Drilon.

“So my position is, if it was presented in my committee, of course I will hold a public hearing, but it will not be on the substance, only on the procedure. We are just discussing procedure so far. I am not necessarily against liberalizing the investment climate—that may or may not be good, I will have to study that more deeply. But with respect to the procedure, it is so wrong. It is dead wrong. I’m sure that if it were brought up in the SC, even only as a hypothetical question, it would easily be rejected. But in our system, the SC cannot issue decisions on hypothetical issues.

“I am sorry to douse cold water on all those fervent hopes about inviting foreign investments, but the truth of the matter is, it does not take a constitutional amendment to invite foreign investors to come to our country. It is certainty and stability. Any businessman will tell you that what will invite investments in our country is not whether we allow them to own the enterprise or limit them only to 40 percent ownership. That is not the core issue. The issue is always is the economic regulatory system so certain and stable that when an investor comes with his money and capital and invests it in our economy, he will be sure that in the next 20 to 30 years the rules will remain the same. That’s the main reason we don’t have foreign investments because the rules keep changing all the time. Plus, the degree of corruption of course distorts the rules,” she pointed out.

The proposal to tinker with the 1987 Constitution remains to be still a recommendation since no senator has filed a resolution or bill so far.

“I’m just going to keep still,” she said.

Already, Malacañang is hard put to explain its setting aside of European projects in the Philippines despite the increasing pattern of suspension or even cancellation of big-ticket projects that went to European contractors, although Malacañang claimed that such was not deliberate.

In a press briefing, presidential spokesman Edwin Lacierda said President Aquino decided to either suspend or even cancel the implementation of some projects that went to Europe-based companies such as the Belgian Baggerwerken Decloedt en Zoon (BDC) which was contracted to rehabilitate the Laguna Lake and the French consortium Eiffel-Matiere SAS which was tasked to building modular “roll-on-roll-off” ports all over the country, not because it was the previous administration that entered into a contract with them but because of alleged irregularities.

“We need to clarify. We’re not against foreign governments. We are not against the European governments. We looked into some of the projects and some of the projects we found were not in accordance with law. And we are looking into it and reviewing it and canceling it not because of who the personalities (involved) are…European-based but more on the legality of each project entered into. So that’s what we are looking into and we’d like to assure the French ambassador, we’d like to assure the EU, that there is no concerted effort to do European bashing here in the country. We look into each specific project and we evaluate them accordingly,” Lacierda explained.

The cancellation of the Belgian project which might even force the government to pay P4 Billion in damages for a project that never materialized and the suspension of some portions of the French RoRo project has been raising serious concern among the members of the European business and diplomatic community as they observed Aquino’s apparent aversion to European contractors.

And while BDC had to file a suit to claim P4 billion from the government, Aquino voluntarioly pledged a Chinese firm involved in the botched Northrail project that the government would reimburse its expenses.

This unsettling economic policies of the Aquino administration are largely being blamed for the administration’s failure of the much-vaunted Public Private Partnership (PPP) scheme to attract direct investments is not taking off.

Lacierda however denied this and insisted the the PPP projects are all on track, especially with the appointment of Cosette Canilao as PPP executive director.

“We have hired, for instance, advisers to some of the projects. But we believe that by next year we would be able to launch the other PPP projects,” he said.

But despite these pronounce-ments of Santiago, Enrile said there’s no stopping them from seeking revisions of the economic provisions of the Constitution.

“Yes (we proceed with the plan) and let her go to the SC and question the constitutionality,” said Enrile.

When asked on his view on Santiago’s legal opinion, Enrile said those opposed to the idea should re-read the Constitution.

“I’m not like her who studied the constitution, I know my Constitution. I studied under very good professors,” he said.

Meanwhile, oppositors to the move to change the economic provisions of the Constitution dominated the hearing conducted by the House committee on constitutional amendments yesterday even as they pointed out that relaxing the economic provisions of the Charter would be bad for the economy.

The views of the oppositors were summed up in what Ibon Foundation said in their position paper — to remove nationalist provisions will be bad for Philippine development.

Sonny Africa of Ibon also told the members of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments that foreign investments is not going to help the economy.

Africa, who showed comparative studies on the economic situation of some members of the Association of Southest Asian Nations (Asean) , said that removing the restrictive economic provisions is not needed to lure foreign investments, noting the current trend is for the institution of regulations and restrictions and not on liberalization.

Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casino said that it is now obvious that there is a big clamor to junk the charter change move.

“The different sectors of society particularly the peasants, teachers, students and workers have spoken and they have voiced their firm opposition to Charter change. There was even a rally at the gates of Congress opposing the constitutional amendments,” Casino added.

The Philippine Constitution Association in a position paper read by lawyer Mariano Tajon also opposed charter change.

“We honestly believe that amending the Constitution by piecemeal will not be a wise move because the economic provisions are interwoven with all the provisions of the Constitution,” Tajon said. Tajon is Philconsa Vice president for Litigation.

The Philconsa maintained that if ever the Constitution is amended, it should not be done through “staggered and selective process” but should be a complete overhaul.

He said that the sentiments of the Filipino people is that “these God-given patrimony are not negotiable.” –Angie M. Rosales and Gerry Baldo with Michaela del Callar and Virgilio Bugaoisan, Daily Tribune