‘Unless otherwise provided by law’ best way to ease charter restrictions -ex-justice

Adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” in particular economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution was the best solution to relax the restrictions set by the Charter, retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna Jr. said Tuesday.

Azcuna, who was testifying before the House Committee of the Whole hearing on Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) 7, which seeks to amend certain economic provisions of the Charter, explained that the purpose of adding such a phrase was to make economic provisions changeable by legislation.

“This is, to me, the best solution to the economic provisions restriction because economic provisions should be flexible and they should not be cast in stone and 37 years is casting in stone. Economic provisions must be responsive to changes in economic conditions,” Azcuna said.

However, Azcuna added that this phrase should be put in “precise places” in the Constitution as this might affect its bedrock principles.

“Don’t change the bedrock principles, change only the percentages of foreign investments allowed, as well as the percentages of management allowed. So do not change when it says that the national resources belong to the state, don’t change that,” he said.

Azcuna also recalled that the proposal to add the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” had already been proposed in past Congresses.

The ex-Justice recounted that former Speaker Sonny Belmonte had agreed and adopted the idea, which led to the drafting of Resolution of Both Houses No. 2.

But the proposal was not passed.

In contrast to Azcuna’s position, former SC Chief Justice Reynato Puno suggested to the House on Monday that the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions should just be repealed.

RBH 7 seeks to amend the Articles XII, XIV, and XVI of the 1987 Constitution. The measure filed in the House mirrored the Senate’s Resolution of Both Houses No. 6.

The constitutional provisions on public services, education, and the advertising industry would be amended by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law.”

RBH 6 was filed by Senate President Migz Zubiri, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, and Senator Sonny Angara after the Senate and the House leadership agreed in January that the Senate would lead the deliberations on the amendments to the 1987 Constitution as long as the people’s initiative, which was believed to be supported by congressmen including Speaker Martin Romualdez, would be halted.

However, the alleged continuous signature gathering for the PI riled senators and triggered a back-and -forth between members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The signature campaign led by PIRMA, a group that admitted that they sought the help of Romualdez in gathering signatures, specifically asked voters if they favored amending Article 17 Section 1 of the Constitution by allowing all members of Congress to vote jointly on proposed constitutional amendments.

This amendment was a departure from the existing provision, which does not explicitly state whether the House of Representatives and the Senate should vote jointly or separately on proposed amendments to the Charter via constituent assembly.

The Senate had unanimously released a manifesto against the present people’s initiative efforts, saying the House is out to abolish the Senate given that the document for signature asked voters if they were in favor of amending the Charter to allow members of Congress to jointly vote on Constitutional amendments, a setup which would consider the vote of 24 Senators and more than 300 House members.

The Commission on Elections had already ordered the suspension of all proceedings related to the people’s initiative. — DVM, GMA Integrated News