Deliberations at the House of Representatives on Resolution of Both Houses 7 underpin the need for checks and balances if the amendments to the Constitution pass.

Based on the proposal of the Resolution of Both Houses, which for the Senate is RBH 6, the restrictive provisions of the Charter would be appended with “unless otherwise provided by law” to allow leeway in crafting laws that will relax these provisions.

The difference between the two resolutions remains the manner of voting in a joint session under a constituent assembly. RBH 7 omits the Senate’s version, which has “each House voting separately” on proposed amendments.

Tweaking the provisions is believed to be more palatable than a total revision of the economic clauses that foreign trade groups are urging.

However, giving Congress the authority to relax the rules of the game in the business sector has its drawbacks in terms of the lobby money circulating in the august halls of the legislature.

There are debates about the necessity of tinkering with the Constitution as laws have been passed or amended to go around the limiting provisions of the Charter.

Giving Congress the power to amend the provisions of the Charter may also be contentious.

Retired Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno countered the views of his colleagues like former Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, who had said that including the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law” was the best way to ease the Charter restrictions.

Allowing Congress to use its lawmaking power to amend the Constitution may be questionable, Puno said. He added that the proposed changes will still have to go through a plebiscite.

“The laws that will be passed by Congress for this purpose will not be approved by the people in a proper referendum,” he said.

Puno presented a point to ponder — which is to take the longer step of doing away with the problematic provisions and subject the proposals to a referendum.

“Approval by the people cannot be set aside, cannot be short-circuited,” he said.

“Just repeal the three restrictive provisions of the Constitution that we want to be out. And in addition, you just repeal Article II, Section 19 of the 1987 Constitution, which says ‘the state shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos,’ — including that in the repeal,” Puno suggested.

If the provisions are repealed, Puno said Congress can enact all the necessary laws to attract foreign investments without constantly enacting adjustment measures.

Considering the implications of a Constitution with open-ended provisions may also place the nation and investors in flux, awaiting the actions of Congress.

Another valid point raised during the House proceeding was that tweaking the Charter would involve the President in the enabling law, which may not sit well with the public wanting a Constitution beyond political influence.

Bills will need the approval or veto of the President, thereby short-circuiting the requirements of the Constitution, one of the House members warned.

A potential danger is granting Congress and the President the power to decide on the changes in the ownership restrictions that will make them the target of lobby groups.

The targets are foreign investments, which will be the big multinationals whose capital is beyond the reach of local investors.

The current deliberations are expected to generate the best ways to deal with the lingering problem of attracting foreign investments.

The predicate to all this, however, is the perception of corruption, which is the main deterrent to putting up businesses in the country.

If tweaking the Constitution is expected to further line the pockets of legislators and many others in government, what good purpose will going through the trouble of Charter change serve?