Do you agree on a bill passed by the House of Representatives stipulating 100% foreign-owned utility companies in the Philippines?
Discuss the pros and cons of the said bill.
(Supporting Details Attached)
Transcribed Image Text: House passes bill allowing 100% foreign ownership of public services
Published 5:07 PM, March 10, 2020
Updated 4:56 PM, April 14, 2020 Mara Cepeda (Rappler)
MANILA, Philippines (UPDATED) – The bill that would allow foreigners to fully
own public services like transportation, communication, and power firms in the
Philippines successfully hurdled the House of Representatives.
On Tuesday, March 10, 136 lawmakers voted yes to House Bill (HB) No. 78,
which would give a distinction between how a public service and a public utility is
defined under Commonwealth Act No. 146 or the Public Service Act, in effect allowing
foreigners to fully own public services in the Philippines.
A total of 43 legislators – including several allies of President Rodrigo Duterte -
voted against the bill, while one abstained from the vote.
Under HB No. 78, public services are those which are "non- rivalrous or imbued
with public interest," such as:
Marine repair shop
Wharf or dock
Canal
Public market
Irrigation system
Gas
Electric light
Heat and power
Water supply and power
Petroleum
Sewerage system
Telecommunications system
Wire or wireless communication system
Transcribed Image Text: HB No. 78 then limits the definition of public utility to any person or entity that
operates, manages, or controls for public use the distribution of electricity, transmission
of electricity, water pipeline distribution, and sewerage pipeline.
But HB No. 78 not only makes a distinction between public services and public
utilities, it also leaves out the 60-40 constitutional rule on foreign ownership.
The Senate version of the bill remains pending at the committee level. It has to
be approved by senators on 2nd and 3rd readings before Duterte can sign it into law.
Opposition lawmakers have long argued the measure is unconstitutional.
This is because Section 11, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution currently reserves
the ownership, operation, control, and management of public utilities to Filipino citizens
or to corporations or associations, and at least 60% of its capital stock should by owned
by Filipinos.
Gabriela Representative Arlene Brosas said the bill would now allow foreigners
to own "critical" public services like telecommunications and transportation.
She also said the passage of HB No. 78 "more or less fulfills the goal of
economic charter change without tinkering with the 1987 Constitution."
"Foreign ownership of our mobile communication services, mass transits, and oil
extraction will not improve the quality of services. Rather, it will leave us all vulnerable to
external shocks and risks at the expense of course of ordinary consumers, in the form
of higher fares and fees," she added.
But House committee on economic affairs chairperson Sharon Garin, who
sponsored HB No. 78 in the plenary, said it does not violate the Constitution.
She cited jurisprudence from the Supreme Court (SC) in the JG Summit Holdings
vs Court of Appeals case, where the justices upheld the removal of shipyards from the
definition of public utility.
Garin also said that in the National Power Corporation vs Bataan provincial
government case, the SC also ruled that "power generation is no longer considered a
public utility operation."
"The Supreme Court has upheld the removal of sectors previously considered
public utilities.. It should be further emphasized that [the bill] is entitled to the
presumption of constitutionality which every treaty, executive agreement, and statute
enjoys," the AAMBIS-OWA representative said in a statement.
"The burden of proof is on the petitioner to clearly demonstrate that the assailed
statute is unconstitutional," she added.