Solons OK with Senate’s Cha-cha, but asks if it is economic-centered
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IN-HOUSE MEDIA COVERAGE
MANILA, Philippines — House of Representatives lawmakers are okay with the Senate taking the lead on Charter change (Cha-cha) discussions, but they admitted that they are eager to learn about the scope of the new possible amendments.
At a press briefing at the Batasang Pambansa complex on Tuesday, members of the House’ so-called “young guns” maintained that Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez made it clear that the Senate will take the lead after Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 is passed.
RBH No. 7 is the House’ proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution, focusing on opening the sectors of public utilities, basic education, and advertising to possible foreign ownership.
READ: Speaker stands by controversial Cha-cha clause for flexibility
Only economic provisions
“I think our Speaker, who gave us clearly, you know, his leadership direction, (said) that we will let the Senate take the lead. But I think when we are tackling RBH 06, he made it very clear to all of us and to the nation that as far as the House of Representatives is concerned, we are specifically only interested in the economic provisions, that needs to be very clear,” Lanao del Norte 1st District Rep. Khalid Dimaporo said.
Article continues after this advertisement“That that’s what our leader Speaker Martin Romualdez wants for the Filipino people. As far as the constitutional convention is concerned and what contents there are, I think there has also been a counterpart that has been filed here in the House so we can more or less give it to the Senate on a silver platter. Sila na lang mag-decide on what they feel is best for the Filipino people,” he added.
Article continues after this advertisementREAD: House not ‘bullying’ Senate as debates part of democracy – reps
Dimaporo and the other lawmakers were asked about Senator Robinhood Padilla’s recent statements where he said that he is considering another Cha-cha bid, months after filing an RBH focusing on political provisions.
Constitutional convention
Padilla’s proposed mode of amending the constitution would be a constitutional convention, where delegates would be voted in by the people. This is one of the three ways to amend the 1987 Constitution, with the other two being constituent assembly where members of Congress are considered members of the convention, and through a People’s Initiative (PI).
PBA party-list Rep. Margarita Nograles said Senator Padilla can do this — file bills, seek amendments to the Constitution. However, she also clarified that the House, under Romualdez, only supports the amendment of economic provisions.
“Well as far as that, the Senate can do that, the good Senator can do that as part of his job as a legislator. It’s part of the constitution, you can file a bill or resolution to that extent, but as far as here in the House we’re concerned, we have tackled that, we have exhaustively looked into the economic provision solely,” Nograles said.
“We have yet to see what the Senate will do there, as to what aspect of constitutional convention will be used, as to what is its scope. It’s under the Senate, but we have yet to see […] but it’s within their right to discuss that, to look into that,” she added.
Nograles however hopes that the Senate can still look into RBH No. 7 — which was crafted from the Senate’s own RBH No. 6.
“But we have finished RBH No. 7 at least in our end here in the House and I hope they also look at what Congress has finished, and maybe discuss things especially what regards to what has exhaustively been discussed, what we’ve heard on the economic provisions,” she noted.
Discussions between the two chambers of Congress were intense at the start of the year, due to disagreements as to how the 1987 Constitution should be amended. The Senate accused the House of being behind the PI — and ultimately, to supposedly abolish the Senate.
But the House leadership maintained that they are not behind the PI, adding that they only seek economic amendments and not political changes.
