Retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio (File photo)
MANILA – Retired Associate Justice Antonio Carpio on Wednesday expressed “qualified” support for the passage of Resolution of Both House No. 6 and No. 7 of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively, seeking to amend particular economic provisions of the Constitution.
“I support RBH 6 and RBH 7,” Carpio said at the consultative session on Charter change organized by Democracy Watch.
Both resolutions seek to amend Articles 12 (National Economy and Patrimony), 14 (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports), and 16 (General Provisions), with the aim of opening the Philippine economy to foreign investments by easing restrictions on foreign ownership of public utilities, educational institutions, and media and advertising with, among others, the phrase “unless otherwise provided by law.”
Carpio, however, said his support is on the condition of “reciprocity in investment opportunities,” wherein foreign investors are granted the same investment privileges in the Philippines as what Filipino investors receive in their countries.
He said that if both Houses can reach an agreement on RBH 6 and RBH 7 and pass them, it could “significantly advance the prospects of charter change.”
Carpio stressed the importance of these resolutions in enhancing the Public Service Act, citing the need to adapt to global changes such as advancements in technology.
He also emphasized the significance of foreign investments in critical sectors like internet infrastructure, stressing the necessity for the Philippines to remain competitive on a global scale by embracing technological progress.
However, the former Supreme Court justice noted that the political nature of the people’s initiative (PI) has caused prevalent negative perception on charter change
“I think Charter change advocates started on the wrong footing with the people’s initiative which originated as a revision of the political provisions of the Constitution,” Carpio said.
“Adhering to the provisions of the Constitution, whereby both houses of Congress deliberate and vote separately with a three-fourths majority, would be more appropriate.”
Last March, the House of Representatives finished their plenary debates on RBH 7 and approved it on third reading without amendments.
The Senate subcommittee tasked to handle the proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, meanwhile, has continued its discussions on RBH 6. (PNA)
