By Jethro Andrada
Resolution of Both Houses No. 2 (RBH 2) passed its third and final reading in the House of Representatives June 1, with a landslide vote of 251-21.
RBH 2 proposes changes to certain foreign and economic policies in the 1987 Constitution, making it the first resolution under the Duterte administration to tackle an economic charter change.
Supporters of RBH 2 have stressed its importance for economic recovery, while critics warn that the bill could open up the country to foreign exploitation.
What will change?
RBH 2 will make amendments to several sections under Article 12, Article 14, and Article 16 of the Constitution by adding the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law.”
The sections to be amended include Constitutional provisions about State duties and Filipino ownership in the media, the advertising industry, the education sector and the country’s natural resources.
AKO Bicol Partylist Representative Alfredo Garbin said that this would provide Congress flexibility to tweak the policies of key sectors depending on the country’s present condition.
“The Constitutions of other countries, notably the United States and our neighbors in ASEAN do not cover economic policies,” Garbin said in a House hearing last March, “hence their governments are free to pursue whatever economic policies are needed in response to the changing demands of time.”
He explained that RBH 2 is part of a long-term strategy to recover from the pandemic and ready the country’s economy for foreign direct investments (FDI).
“We have to lay the foundation,” Garbin stressed, “and to send a signaling effect to the investment community that while we are recovering from this pandemic and the damage it caused our economy, we must seek to resolve the issue along with encouraging the inflow of foreign direct investment.”
On the other hand, Albay Representative Edcel Lagman argued that all Constitutional provisions containing “unless otherwise provided by law” were only meant for Congress to enact the said provisions, not change or reverse them.
“With respect to RBH 2, the purpose of the phrase ‘unless otherwise provided by law’ is to dilute, to diminish, or even to disregard the constitutional mandate of granting governance to Filipinos in the ownership and operation of public utilities and vital enterprise,” Lagman concluded, “so that would be the great difference between what the Constitution provides, and what the RBH number 2 would like to do by future legislation.”
What are the risks?
When the House of Representatives approved RBH 2, youth leaders and progressive organizations launched ‘Kabataan Kontra Cha-cha,’ an emergency press conference to unite calls against the impending economic charter change.
Youth representatives from different organizations and areas of the country expressed common disagreement over the resolution, saying it would burden local workers and compromise national sovereignty, among other concerns.
Colleen Mañibo of the National Union of Students of the Philippines warned that RBH 2 could make education less accessible and more expensive due to commercialization.
“Gumagapang na nga sa hirap ang mga estudyante,” she said, “mas lalo lamang hindi magiging abot-kamay ang edukasyon para sa mga nagmumula sa hanay ng mga anakpawis dahil sa banta ng matinding komersalisasyon ng sektor ng edukasyon.”
(“Students are already experiencing difficulties,” she said, “education will only be further inaccessible to them because of the threat of commercialization in the education sector.”
Meanwhile, Raoul Manuel of Kabataan Partylist was convinced that RBH 2 would further endanger the economy than revive it due to foreign exploitation.
“Ang pangako na lalago ang ekonomiya kung lalo itong bubuksan sa foreign ownership ay...isang malaking scam,” he stressed, “binebenta na ang ating teritoryo sa China, isusuko pa natin ang iba't ibang sektor ng ekonomiya sa dayuhang kumpanya. Ano na lang ang matitira sa mga Pilipino?”
(“The promise that the economy will grow if we open it up to foreign ownership is...a huge scam,” he stressed, “We are practically selling our territory to China, and now we also want to give up the different economic sectors of our economy to foreign companies? What will be left for Filipinos?”)
Quezon City Representative Kit Belmonte struck a similar chord in the House plenary on RBH 2 last May 25, warning that the Philippines could end up like Sri Lanka, who had to surrender one of its major ports to China because it owed Beijing roughly $1.4 billion.
RBH 2 is now in line to be discussed by the Senate in Congress’s third regular session from August to February next year, according to Garbin.
Comments