Charter amendment has ‘most dangerous insertions’ – Colmenares
Human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares met with the members of Cebu media on Tuesday, March 5, to discuss Charter Change. CDN Digital photo/Niña Mae Oliverio
CEBU CITY, Philippines — Human rights lawyer and activist Neri Colmenares has once again informed Cebuanos on Tuesday that the amendment of the Constitution has the ‘most dangerous insertions’ and it also made him worried.
This was what human rights lawyer and activist, Colmenares said in a press conference on Tuesday, March 5, in Cebu City.
Colmenares was in the city to attend the various forums on information campaigns against Charter Change (Cha-cha) which were organized by some educational institutions and members of the Catholic church.
READ: Garbin: Signatories of people’s initiative fully understood content
Colmenares, who chairs the Bayan Muna Partylist, wanted those who were against the Cha-cha to speak out because they were worried about the three modes that were simultaneously used to amend the charter.
“This is the most dangerous Cha-cha kasi this is so well-funded, well-organized, and this is the first time in history na (that) they are exploring the three modes of Cha-cha,” he said.
According to Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, the three modes of amending the constitution can be done through: People’s Initiative (PI), Constitutional Assembly (Con-ass), and Constitutional Convention (Con-con).
“Ang Con-con kasi, they had the bill passed last year pending sa senado ang Constitutional Convention Bill. Ang second is yung People’s Initiative which they started in January…and ngayon suspended sa Comelec (Commission on Elections) but it’s still alive. Yung pangatlo is yung Con-ass. Yun yung ginagawa ngayon sa House at sa Senate yung in RBH (Resolution of Both Houses No.) 6 and 7,” he said.
(The Con-con, they had the bill passed last year pending the Senate, the Constitutional Convention Bill. The second is the People’s Initiative, which they started in January…and now suspended by the Comelec (Commission on Elections) but it’s still alive. The third one is Con-Ass. That is the one done now in the House and Senate and that is RBH (Resolution of Both Houses No.) 6 and 7.)
Colmenares recalled that the past administrations’ attempt on Cha-cha only used one to two modes.
He said, former president Fidel Ramos used PI, then former president Joseph Estrada used Constitutional Correction for Development (Concord), then with former president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo who used Con-ass and PI, and former president Rodrigo Duterte with Con-ass.
Meanwhile, former president Benigno Aquino III had none.
READ: Senate, House clash over people’s initiative for Charter change
‘Unless otherwise provided by law’
Apart from the usage of the three modes of amendment for the constitution, Colmenares also claimed that using the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” would mean that the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions could centralize powers to Congress.
However, according to Mandaluyong City Rep. Neptali Gonzales II, Colmenares’ claim was merely a “scare tactic.”
Gonzales said he considered Colmenares a friend, but the Mandaluyong representative thought that his former colleague’s statement was just a scare tactic.
“Si Neri, kaibigan ko ‘yan, nakasama ko sa Congress ‘yan nang matagal, we call each other ‘brother.’ But with due respect to what he stated yesterday, sa akin tingin ko lang dyan, pananakot lang ‘yan eh,” Gonzales, who is the floor leader of the House committee of the whole tackling Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7, said.
(Neri is a friend of mine, he is my colleague in Congress, that has been for a long time, we call each other ‘brother’. But with due respect to what he stated yesterday, the way I looked at it, that is just scare tactic.)
Gonzales said that the phrase would be necessary because it would make changing foreign ownership rates simpler, as it would be very difficult to change provisions in the charter once they would be set in stone.
READ: Duterte: I support Cha Cha as long as…
Inserting the phrase
Under RBH No. 7 and the Senate’s RBH No. 6 — which the House version was mirrored from — three parts of the 1987 Constitution would be amended by inserting the phrase “unless provided by law”:
- Section 11 of Article XII (National Patrimony and Economy), where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in the provision that bars foreign ownership of a public utility shall except in a case where 60 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens
- Section 4 of Article XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports) where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in the provision that bars foreign ownership of basic educational institutions except in a case where 60 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens.
- Section 11 of Article XVI (General Provisions) where the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is inserted in two portions: first, the provision that bars foreign ownership in the advertising industry except in a case where 70 percent of the total capital belongs to Filipino citizens; and in the provision that limits foreign investors participation in entities to how much their capital share is.
ALSO READ: Rama pushes for open, democratic approach to charter change
‘Most dangerous insertions’
For his part, Colmenares told Cebu reporters that the phrase would give power to the Congress to amend the Constitution.
“Halimbawa niyan ay ‘bawal ibenta ang lupa sa mga dayuhan, maliban na lang kung magpasa ang kongreso ng batas’ ‘yun ang ibig sabihin no’n,” Colmenares said.
(For example, it would mean that ‘it is prohibited to sell land to foreigners, except if Congress will pass a law’ that is what it meant.)
“The phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” is one of the most dangerous insertions in our constitution because it arrogates unto Congress the power to amend the Constitution through a mere law. Batas lang. Hindi na niya kailangan ng three-fourths vote, majority of vote lang papasa ang batas (It is only law. It would not need the three-fourths majority vote to pass it into law),” the lawyer added.
Colmenares also expressed the same sentiments during the hearing of the House committee of the whole on RBH No. 7.
However, former Supreme Court chief justice Reynato Puno who was present at the start of the RBH No. 7 discussions in February said that using this phrase might pave the way for questions on constitutionality.
In the past, even other former presidents had attempted to change the Charter but only used one to two modes. / with reports from Gabriel Pablico Lalu, INQUIRER.net
Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.
