A House resolution pushing for the longstanding proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution has been revived in the House of Representatives, aiming not only to loosen restrictions on foreign ownership but also to revise the territorial provisions of the Charter.

Ako Bicol Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. reintroduced the proposal under Resolution of Both Houses No. 1 filed on Tuesday. It seeks to amend Articles I, XII, XIV, and XVI of the Constitution, pertaining to the National Territory; Economy and Patrimony; Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports; and General Provisions, respectively.

The resolution closely mirrors RBH No. 7 passed by the 19th Congress, with the only distinction being the addition of a clear definition of the national territory.

Garbin emphasized that the ongoing maritime dispute between the Philippines and China in the West Philippine Sea underscores the urgent need for the country to assert its sovereign rights under international law.

“The National Territory definition is silent on the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf that we have already won in the arbitral tribunal… We should enshrine it in our Constitution. Our President said we will not give not even an inch of our territory,” Garbin told the media, referring to President Marcos Jr.

“We are aligning our national territory with our hard-won arbitral victory, and opening the door for economic growth, while keeping sovereignty and national interest intact.”

The resolution seeks to constitutionally reinforce the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the 2016 arbitral award from the Permanent Court of Arbitration in July 2016, which categorically recognized the Philippines’ sovereign rights in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and rejected China’s extensive maritime claims in the area.

It proposes amending Article I of the Constitution by adding explicit references to the EEZ, continental shelf, and the West Philippine Sea, and by clarifying the Philippines’ sovereign rights over these maritime zones.

The resolution also aims to relax some of the restrictive economic provisions in the 38-year-old Charter and allow Congress to pass economic measures without the need for full constitutional amendments.

These include the 60-40 rule on Filipino-foreign ownership in the development and utilization of natural resources, transfer and conveyance of private land, operation of public utilities, and ownership of educational institutions, except for those run by religious groups and mission boards.

It also proposes a review of the 100-percent Filipino ownership requirement in mass media, as well as the 70-percent citizenship requirement for those engaged in the advertising industry.

The Constitution mandates that foreign equity participation in educational institutions cannot exceed 40 percent, and that educational institutions exclusively for aliens, diplomatic personnel, and their dependents may only be established in the Philippines through legislation.

Efforts for Charter change (Cha-cha) have been routinely initiated by the House in past Congresses, but have never gained traction in the Senate due to several factors, including concerns that it may be a veiled attempt to extend term limits for elected officials.

The House’s RBH No. 7, passed in March last year, mirrored the Senate's RBH No. 6, which proposed amendments to economic provisions concerning public services, education, and the advertising industry, with the sole distinction being the manner of voting.

The Senate, dominated by Cha-cha opponents, has shelved the bill, arguing that it is not a legislative priority and that there are already enough laws to attract foreign investments without amending the Constitution.

Garbin, who chaired the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments in the 18th Congress, has long advocated for Cha-cha, asserting that restrictions on foreign ownership pose a major deterrent to the country’s economic growth.

Senator Robin Padilla, another proponent of Cha-cha in the 19th Congress, has also revived efforts to amend the Constitution through a constitutional convention “so that our government can respond properly to the current needs of the nation.”

President Marcos, who initially dismissed Cha-cha, eventually softened his stance, saying he would be open to revisions as long as they are confined to economic provisions.