Constitutionalists on Monday offered differing opinions on the Resolution of Both Houses 6, which proposes amendments to the “restrictive” economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

During the first public hearing of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments on RBH 6, framers of the 1987 Constitution, as well as proponents of Charter change, gave their opinions on the latest attempt to amend the Constitution.

For retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr., one of the framers of the Constitution, Charter change, or cha-cha, would not solve the country’s problems with foreign direct investments.

“Our problems are not due to the restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution. They cannot be solved by removing its restrictive economic provisions and completely leaving to Congress the future under the clause ‘unless otherwise provided by law,’” Davide told the subcommittee.

On the contrary, amending the economic provision of the Charter “would create more serious and disturbing problems and consequences,” he said.

Authored by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, and Senator Juan Edgardo Angara, RBH 6 proposes amendments to economic provisions concerning public services, education and the advertising industry.

Former Commission on Elections chairman Christian Monsod, another framer of the 1987 Constitution, said that RBH 6 would pave the way for abuse by corrupt officials.

“[It] will open the door wider with the insertion of that phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ in the economic provisions,” Monsod said.

“There is nothing special about them that will address this so-called problem of restrictions against foreign direct investments,” he added.

Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Justice Adolfo Azcuna said he is in favor of removing all restrictive economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution, stressing that restrictions and economic policies should not be in the Constitution.

Azcuna, also one of the framers, suggested that the two chambers reconcile to discuss how to proceed with RHB 6.

“The ideal way is to have resolutions of both Houses worded the same way, that’s why it’s called resolution of both Houses. It should not differ and it should be approved the same way with the same wording. That’s why a joint hearing is not necessary but you should caucus together,” he said.

“So that there’s no conflict. If it is approved by three-fourths of the Senate and approved by three-fourths of the House then you submit it for a plebiscite. That’s the solution,” he added.

Jointly or separately?

For his part, former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said the Senate and the House of Representatives must vote separately in amending the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution via a constituent assembly.

Citing Article 17 of the Constitution, Mendoza pointed out that the two chambers “will have to meet as one body without any distinction whether they are senators or congressman except when it comes time to vote.”

“They vote separately for the obvious reason that the members of the Senate are fewer than the members of the House, but otherwise they’re required to meet as a body,” he said.

The 1987 Constitution provides three ways to change the Charter: through a constitutional convention, a constituent assembly, or a people’s initiative.

To recall, the 24-member Senate heavily criticized the petition for a people’s initiative, allegedly carried out by the members of the House of Representatives.

The PI proposes joint voting on constitutional amendments via a constituent assembly of the Senate and House of Representatives.

The senators lamented that should the PI succeed in its goal, which they claimed proposes only one change — to eliminate the Senate from the equation — they no longer could avert an overhaul of the entire Constitution.