Enrile on Cha-cha: No way before 2010 polls

MANILA, Philippines — Charter change (Cha-cha) before next year’s elections?

“No way!” said Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile.

“I’m almost certain it will not happen before 2010. Maybe it will happen after that,” Enrile said at a dinner with Inquirer editors and reporters on Wednesday.

Enrile said he was supporting moves to amend the Constitution through a constitutional convention after next year’s balloting. He said he was open to proposals to adopt the parliamentary system, but warned it has “its own weaknesses also if you will not put safeguards.”

Enrile cited lack of time and widespread opposition to the move initiated by allies of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo in the House of Representatives in June by passing by voice vote House Resolution No. 1109.

The measure calls for the convening of a constituent assembly (Con-ass) to amend the Constitution even without the participation of the Senate, citing a vague provision in the Charter purportedly allowing Congress to do this by a three-fourths vote.

Critics said the resolution that could pave the way for the adoption of a parliamentary system was meant to keep Ms Arroyo in power beyond the end of her term in 2010.

‘Many defects’

Enrile said that the 1987 Charter hammered out and ratified under the Aquino administration had “many defects,” pointing to the multiparty system, the vague provision on Con-ass voting, deletion of the Sabah claim in the territorial boundaries of the country and discouraging foreign oil exploration offshore.

“The wording on the present Constitution is so loose,” he said, adding there are many unclear provisions that are open to different interpretations.

He cited Article 17, Section 1: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or (2) A constitutional convention.”

Bicam body votes separately

Enrile insisted though that voting to amend or change the Constitution under the present Charter was separate for both houses since, he said, the Constitution contemplated two houses comprising the Congress.

“If you have a rational mind to interpret the Constitution there will be no difficulty because it is not the House of Representatives that is considered Congress, nor the Senate,” he said. “It must be the combination of the two ... We’ve adopted the principle of bicameralism.”

Being separate is part of the “checks and balance embedded in the Constitution—they check each other. What the other side does is not finished until agreed upon or worked upon by the other side, and vice versa.”

Each of the two Houses has separate officers, journals, records and number of membership, said Enrile.

“It has to be joint and separate voting,” he said, explaining that a Con-ass was a joint session of both Houses—“two Houses brought together and they must vote separately to determine the quorum of each house separately.”

Return to two-party system

Enrile said that if the framers of the new Constitution would want to stick with the presidential system, then they must adopt the two-party system contained in the 1935 Constitution.

Presently, he said anyone could form a party for election purposes only and there’s no party discipline.

“You are a member of one party today. Tomorrow, you’ll be a member of another party. Where before, even imperfect as it was, you are a Nacionalista, you are a Nacionalista. You are a Liberal, you are a Liberal.”

In short, he said a multiparty system was not suitable to the present presidential system. “You can never have a president that will represent a majority.”

He said providing a runoff election with a multiparty system in a presidential setup—which also needs constitutional amendment—would be expensive.

“Given our very passionate way of handling politics in the country, you lengthen the agony of the nation,” he said.

Foreigners can own lands

Enrile favored allowing foreigners to own land “if they create it themselves,” referring to reclaimed offshore areas.

“Dry lands should be preserved for our race,” or reserve crop lands suitable to crop production—cornlands, coconut lands or ricelands, he said.

But sandy areas not needed for agriculture or places that are only suitable for residential purposes could be given to foreigners, he said.

“I can’t see any valid reason to oppose foreigners owning lands that are reclaimed … if they come here, bring their capital, develop infrastructures and these generate employment of Filipino people and create wealth for Filipinos,” he said.

60-40 Pinoy ownership

But he maintained that 60-40 business ownership structure in favor of Filipinos should stay in the Constitution if it concerned exploitation of natural resources on-shore—timber, gold, copper, croplands.

He said Filipinos, who have the capital, could very well mine minerals, harvest timber and engage in other business ventures “on-shore.”

But offshore, foreigners should be allowed to own business shares above the present equation in oil exploration since only multinational oil companies have the means and technology to drill oil in deep waters surrounding the country, said Enrile.

Copyright 2009 INQUIRER.net and content partners. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.