Excerpts of Interpellation
Transcript of Senator Risa Hontiveros with resource speakers during the RBH No. 6 hearing
February 05, 2024

Senator Risa Hontiveros: Bago yung mga hinanda kong tanong, I would like to follow up yung usapin ng prejudicial question which I believe actually a couple already of our resource persons raised, beginning po with Justice Mendoza.

So my staff looked at the records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission at Kung Pwede, Mr. Chair, I'd like to read one paragraph where it says, "Mr. Regalado, I also noticed that both Sections 1 and 2 are premised on the anticipation that the Commission, not only the Committee, will opt for a unicameral body... In the event that a bicameral legislative body will carry the day, has the Committee prepared contingency proposals or resolutions?"

Sumagot si Mr. Suarez, "Yes, in that situation, we would propose to include the words, in joint session assembled." And then nag-follow up question si Mr. Regalado, "but still maintaining the same number of votes?" Mr. Suarez: "The Commissioner is right." Mr. Regalado: "Thank you."

So at tingin ko po, Mr. Chair, relevant po ito pertinent dun sa prejudicial question na kung anong rules ang dapat i-apply. The word "assembled" kasi po suggests a physical, as proposed earlier by Justice Mendoza. So parang ang intent po nga ay may pagkikita, pero magbobotohan ng hiwalay dahil nga may same number of votes.

Maybe our framers, those physically present, and if Chris Monsod is still online, maybe our framers could shed light on this. At kasi kaya nga po ako nagmungkahi ng suspension kanina para po magkaroon ng clarity yung ating proceedings. So just to add a little bit to that, just a little more clarity at this point in time.

Could our framers of the Constitution shed light on this issue, Mr. Chair? Or would

Justice Mendoza or Chief Justice Davide like to address this first? Justice Mendoza. Former SC Justice Vicente Mendoza: Yes, that's what they really decided in the Constitutional Commission, and it was only by reason of oversight that the corresponding phrase was not placed there. But the other provisions of the Constitution were amended. Oversight lamang. Oversight.

SRH: So by oversight, Justice, ang hindi po nailagay ay yung "in joint session assembled"?

Mendoza: "in joint session assembled".

SRH: Pero yun po sana yung intent ng framers, at least based on the records of the deliberations?

Mendoza: Yes, because we speak only of separate voting if they're in joint session.

Kasi kung if they're not in joint session, no sense in saying, "voting separately." Kasi talagaang magkahiwalay. But precisely because the intention is to compel the two houses to come together and assemble so that the enacting clause will say, "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House in joint session assembled by the vote of three fourths voting separately, hereby propose..."

SRH: Maraming salamat po. So malinaw, assembled. Okay. Pero, klarong-klaro at consistent voting separately.

Mendoza: Yes, because this is just one house. What is required is for the two houses. Sabi ko nga, I don't believe you were here, Senator, when I said it, kung gusto ninyo makita kung anong ginawa when after the war, right after the war, we had a government, the Congress with two houses.

When the problem of parity rights came up and that required constitutional amendment, the two houses met together at nakalagay doon sa certification of the secretaries, that the two houses met together. Where? In Lepanto, Sampaloc, where Congress was holding sessions. So that illustrates the application of that provision. Thank you.

SRH: Salamat po. Opo wala pa po ako doon. Pero yung mga magulang ko buhay na po noon. Would either CJ Davide or Justice Azcuna like to add to this or Chris Monsod?

Former SC Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr: I stick to my original position also that there are two ways for Congress to propose amendments. One, in joint session, voting separately or in ordinary legislation with one body proposing a proposal for amendment to a constitution and approving the same by three-fourths votes. And then that should be submitted to the lower house or to the upper house as the case may be, voting also by three-fourths vote. And then plebiscite already.

Mendoza: Mr. Chairman, if I can just say a few more words. To amplify what I said.

Beyond this debate about construing the silence of the constitution, there is some benefit if the two houses come together.

They can exchange views regardless of their status as senators or congressmen. The constitution contemplates the same. They are not senators or congressmen. They are members of a constituent assembly, isang body lamang.

So the benefit of exchange is there, which you cannot have if you leave this policymaking to Congress by law. Because one house will be acting here, the other house will be acting over in Quezon City. You will not have the benefit of exchange of views.

SRH: Thank you, Justice. And CJ, in the second instance, you said the second way that Congress could amend the constitution, as if through ordinary legislation, and even if as you proposed by three-fourths vote, still consistently voting separately, obviously, in that second way.

Mendoza: I agree, Senator. Because you represent two different interests. The national interests. Because interest is represented by the Senate, the local interest is represented by the House. That's the essence of bicameralism.

Senator Sonny Angara: With your permission, Senator Risa. It's on this point, very specific. Justice Mendoza, what if the House and the Senate had a Zoom meeting? Would that fall within the contemplation of the constitution?

Because we had Zoom meetings and Zoom bicameral meetings during the pandemic. So that's not provided in the constitution, but neither is it prohibited. Thank you. So I'm wondering, would that fall within your contemplation of a joint session? Or you need to be physically present in the same room?

Mendoza: Yes, well, probably. You can find some reason for not meeting together.

But as long as you do not discriminate between the Senate and House of Representatives. But if you meet in one place, senators and congressmen, and then in another place, senators and congressmen, I think you can see there that there is an effort at bicameralism, excused only by pandemic.

Angara: Okay, thank you, Justice. Thank you, Senator Risa, for the interjection.

SRH: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're very kind, Justice, that we'll find some reason not to meet together. I can't comment on that anymore. Justice Acuna, would you like to add anything to this question before I ask Chris Monsod?

Former SC Justice Adolfo Azcuna: Mr. Chair and Madam Senator, I believe that, although the records would show that *(unclear) Suarez said they would, in the event bicameralism was adopted, they would accordingly what is now Article 14, to reflect voting together, but voting separately. The fact is, he did not, he did not change it there, leaving an ambiguity to the manner in which Congress will achieve the three-fourths vote.

So ultimately, it will have to be the Supreme Court that will decide what is the manner in which this three-fourths vote by Congress will be achieved. So it is good, I believe, that the Senate is now going through the process of adopting a proposed amendment by way of resolution of the Senate and the House voting separately and meeting separately and submit that later to the Supreme Court, to be decided whether that is a proper manner of proposing amendments to the Constitution.

Ultimately, we have to have this resolved by the Supreme Court. I think Justice Suarez, in leaving the ambiguity without changing the wording, wanted it to be determined by the Supreme Court, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, Madam Senator.

SRH: Thank you, Justice Azcuna, which is precisely why, Mr. Chair, I hope that we can clarify this one way or another. Hopefully, the simpler and the shorter time duration way. In any case, to my first question, may mga assurances that these discussions, first only concern the economic provisions specified in RBH 6. At nagbanggit din po sina CJ Davide at Justice Mendoza tungkol dito. But a constituent assembly throws the whole 1987 Constitution wide open for review and possible distortion even and no provision is actually safe. Tama po ba yun?

Davide: I mentioned earlier, no? Touching on the economic provisions would in effect also affect the declaration of state principles and policies. The moment that it will change any particular principle or policy, it would be a revision. Because the provision now on the article on national patrimony for instance, or on the general provisions or on education, are only implementative of the declaration of principles and state policies. The moment you change it, you have to automatically change also the fundamental principles of state policies.

SRH: At bukod po doon sa in effect amending or revising basic principle or state policy, kahit may assurances o agreements pa, prior to limit the scope of the discussions, wala namang magpipigil sa kahit sinong miyembro ng Kongreso to propose other changes.

Halimbawa, legislators could initiate changes in our basic laws on foreign ownership even of land, on term limits, on the frequency of land, on the number of elections, on limitations on the use of governmental power, even the fundamental rights of citizens. Tama po ba ito?

Davide: Those matters have to be taken up really. It is more than an amendment. It in effect would be revisions of fundamental principles. For instance, in the matter of the plebiscite on the proposal in the PI regarding a change in the manner of voting, it would be joint, and therefore in effect it would eliminate the Senate.

It would eliminate the Senate because you have the massive majority of the lower house. So the moment you approve what is in the PI, it will open the floodgates of everything. Eventually, all changes will be done without already the voice of the Senate.

SRH: Which is why po, CJ, Mr. Chair, the Senate opposes and continues to oppose the People's Initiative. Pero meron din po akong agam-agam at gusto ko pa rin itanong yung possible scenario kahit sa pamamagitan nitong RBH 6 as an initial doorway na dadaanan that - couldn't it lead to that scenario in a constituent assembly in Congress jointly assembled that any representative or even senator could then, once the door has been opened to amendment o lalo na revision ng isang basic principle pa, fundamental policy na pwedeng kahit sino sa amin, in effect, mag-propose ng amendment o revision to any and all parts of the Constitution?

Davide: Under Section 1 of Article 17 that there are two ways of revising the Constitution. Amendment or revision may be done by Congress or by a constitutional convention. The third proposal, however, can be done by the People's Initiative.

We are talking here of amendment by Congress itself and therefore it should be a constitutional assembly acting as a ConAss, no? But considering that the Constitution is not very, very clear about it, mentions only joined, we have the proposal of Father Bernas, one of the commissioners, it could be done in either of the two ways we have taken up much earlier. Either by way of ordinary legislation with the two bodies voting separately and in a separate session or in a joint session voting separately.

SRH: Hindi po ba parang nagbubukas kami ng Pandora's box at hindi natin alam anong lalabas dito from the depths of that Pandora's box once the process is initiated? Mr. Chair, Justice Azcuna.

Azcuna: It cannot go outside of the resolution because of the requirement that a proposed bill or resolution shall have only one subject. If they will add to the Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, for instance, they will amend it to include a political subject that will be in violation of the rule that the proposal shall have only one subject.

So if they want to bring in extraneous matters it should be another resolution and the Senate will not agree to it so it won't be a joint resolution. So this joint resolution is limited only to economic provisions. In fact you can put that in the title: "A resolution to amend economic provisions and for no other purpose," something like that. Then, in other words limited to the rule of one resolution, one subject matter.

SRH: Thank you Justice Azcuna, I'm glad to have that on record as we continue to deliberate this Resolution of Both Houses and in the Senate hearings on the fraudulent People's Initiative.

It was clear as day how many members, unfortunately, of the House were willing and able to use the influence and the resources also of government to advance certain interests. Even in those early days, tila buong makinarya ng gobyerno ang nagamit para lokohin ang mga Pilipino para sa makasariling layunin.

At sa ganitong klima, and again, I'm proceeding on the premise that of a Pandora's box, not something that can 100% be limited, with all due respect by that, one bill or one resolution, one subject rule. So ano po yung assurance natin na hindi lang ililipat yung ganyang makinarya para isulong whatever comes out of RBH 6?

Mendoza: I think that attempt by People's Initiative to amend the Constitution when acting as a Constituent Assembly is the clearest admission on the part of those proposing it that unless you provide you change the Constitution, the requirement should really be joint session, voting separately.

Kaya nga ho gusto nilang baguhin doon sa People's Initiative itong procedure na ito that is the clearest proof of what I'm saying is the meaning of Constituent Assembly, meaning joint session, voting separately.

And the best illustration of that as I said application is when Congress met after the war. It was a bicameral Congress that we had and they were passing a very important proposed amendment: Parity. Parity. Parity economic provisions. And what they did they met together, according to this certification of the secretaries, they met together in the session hall of the House of Representatives. And where is that? In Sampaloc, Lepanto, Sampaloc that's where Congress was meeting at that time.

That to me is the clearest example. And that is to be found in the opinion of Justice Briones in the case of Mabanag vs Lopez-Vitug, 78 Philippines p. 1, p. 77 in particular.

SRH: Salamat po, Justice Mendoza. I'd just like to go into at least my first question, Mr. Chair, on the legitimacy of the need to amend the economic provisions na yun yung heart and soul nitong RBH No. 6.

Noong Disyembre, noong nakaraang taon lamang, so just two months ago, binibida ni presidente, yung mga nakalap niyang investment pledges that he hadsa napakarami niyang biyaheng international in Tsina, Switzerland, Japan, Estados Unidos, UK, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore at Saudi Arabia.

Ayon sa kanila, nasa P2.484 trillion ang nakalap na pangakong foreign investments. At sa lahat nito, as in sa bawat isa nito, wala namang condition na kailangan nating baguhin ang kaluluwa ng bayan, ang Saligang Batas. So on the heels of that success di umano, eh bakit biglang ngayon ay sasabihin kailangan natin ng Charter change?

Maybe, Mr. Chair, if I could ask Mr. Africa if he could comment on this? So Mr. Africa my question is bakit biglang ngayon sasabihin na kailangan ang Charter Change in relation to FDI, eh binibida ni Presidente pagkatapos ng maraming state visits nila last year in his first and a half year, just last December, sinasabi nila more than 2 trillion pesos ang investments, without the shadow of the need for Charter Change for each of them.

IBON Executive Director Sonny Africa: Actually feeling ko po I apologize for that might be a rhetorical question, because well unang una, media and advertising and education aren't really very big areas for foreign investment. So kung magkaka-argument na "On no, there would have been more sana," I doubt that there would have been more.

Pero precisely I do agree if those pledges were there and we assume that they are real they didn't need the Charter Change, much more they didn't need this specific charter change right now or changing the other provisions. I think it affirms your point po.

SRH: Salamat po, Mr. Africa and then maybe we have one more question. I need to follow up a question to Mr. Africa.

In like manner, Mr. Africa, kanina foreign pledges without any quid pro quo on charter change - - kahit sa binuong Philippine Development Plan, referred to by Christian Monsod earlier, 2023 to 2028 na pinamunuan ng NEDA at si Presidente ang Chair nun. So nilatag yung kabuang plano para sa ekonomiya ng Pilipinas para paramihin ang trabaho puksain ang kahirapan pataasin ang kalidad ng buhay nating mga Pilipino.

Eh nagawa na po ba natin? I mean is it going well, yung implementasyon ng buong PDP na yan? At saka do you know sa 450 pages ng PDP na yan meron po bang kahit isang pagbanggit na kailangan baguhin ang Constitution in order to implement the plan?

Africa: I don't recall po seeing anything dun sa PDP pero siguro ang pinakamahalagang punto po dyan - is the PDP doing well? Sa amin, mahalaga for the record, despite yung pinakamalaking mabilis economic growth last year actually between November 2022 and November 2023, nabawasan ng 70,000 jobs.

And the biggest reason na sinasabing lumiit yung unemployment rate to 3.9% is because maraming discouraged workers, maraming hindi naghahanap ng trabaho. Walang trabaho pero hindi binibilang as unemployed.

Pero siguro ang key point po, I think, even our economic managers in their heart of hearts - absent any political influence - they know there is so much more that needs to be done and that can't be done and isn't being done right now na hindi kailangan ng Charter Change.

I mean nadinig ko po yung isang statement about anong pwedeng gawin para tulungan yung mga mamayan na walang charter change - actually ayun yun, and I think I do agree ganun ka simple lang yun. Kung may gusto gawin ang daming pwede gawin. Ngayon kung papasok pa sa possibility ng charter change makaka-distract lang siya, makakagulo lang po siya.

SRH: Kasi nga yung isang focus ng RBH6, public utility. So talking about the, for example the telecommunication sector, so nervous system siya nung modernong ekonomiya, kailan lang binuksan ng Kongreso sa pamamagitan ng amenda sa Public Services Act. Dun po, sinasabi ng NEDA na yung problema ay yung duopoly yung diumanong duopoly ng GLOBE at PLDT Smart, at kahinaan ng NTC bilang regulator.

So hindi magamit ng ibang kumpanya ang towers nitong dalawang gigante, mahal mag text at tumawag sa mga subscribers ng bagong kumpanya, sa GLOBE at PLDT. Hindi makuha ng NTC yung frequencies na hindi naman ginagamit nitong dalawa para magamit sana ng mga bagong kumpanya, at saka kahit maliliit na cable companies na pwede sanang gawing mura ang internet ay kailangan pang kumuha ng prangkisa, well sa ating Kongreso.

So sinasabi ng NEDA kahit noon pa man bago pa man ipasa ang amyenda sa Public Service Act wala sa "border," wala sa, - at NEDA na to ah - wala sa constitutional restrictions ang problema. So nandito po sa loob ang problema, ibig sabihin sa bawat industriya. At wala pa tayong ginagawa sa Senado kahit matagal nang nakasalang ang OADT o Open Access in Data Transmission Bill.

So yung una sa last two questions ko sa ngayong hapon Mr. Chair, sa palagay po ba natin ay papasok ang kapital, Pilipino man o dayuhan kung nakikita nilang may dalawang higanteng nakahambalang at walang ginagawa ang Kongreso upang payagan ng iba na ayusin ang serbisyo sa mas murang halaga? So to Mr. Africa still, Mr. Chair.

Africa: I'm sorry po I can't speculate if a big telecom provider would come here, but I think historically a lot of transnational corporations have come in even if may corruption as long as they have the connections to be the ones taking, getting the inside track. So this is a general statement lang po but dun sa specific na question yan I don't know, but also to be clear even the big telecommunication firms they do have substantial foreign capital already.

So they know how to operate so it's not like again, it's not like bulag sila na magtatable read pa sila kung kumusta yung mga bagay bagay. They know how things operate and they think if that is going to be an advantage for them, they will use that.

And last point po - in a lot of ways a lot of the anti-corruption campaigning the last years has been led by foreign transnational corporations sa mga jurisdictions na wala silang kilala. Sa mga jurisdiction na may kilala sila gagamitin na rin yung same connections nila just the same as any domestic provider.

SRH: Salamat Mr. Africa. Huling tanong ko para ngayong hapon Mr. Chair, alam po ba natin na sa Thailand lubhang mas mura ang serbisyo at mas mabilis at malawak ang internet, pero sila po ay may batas din na nagsasabing bawal maging majority owners ang dayuhan? Gayon pa man yung apat sa top five na telecoms companies nila ay nakapagpasok ng kapital - like you were saying earlier that many of these big transnationals kahit sa telecoms sector may sarili ng foreign capital sa resources nila - nakapagpasok ng kapital mula sa mga kumpanya sa Singapore, China at saka Norway. So alam po ba natin ito and could you please enlighten us further about this?

Africa: I think that's a very good point kasi sa aming pagkwenta, Thailand has 49% cap on foreign ownership, Malaysia has 30%, 49% for certain services. Vietnam is capped at 49%. Indonesia is also capped at 49% for the infrastructure, for the facilities.

So I think that is a good case in point - - yung demonization ng publicly owned corporations and also demonization of local corporations, pinakita ng maraming mga kumpanya dito sa ating region, hindi actually balakid doon as long as pinapatakbo ng tama.

At para sa amin, kung bubuksan lamang yan, yung ilang beses na nabanggit na lack of control over a strategic industry, actually mas delikado yun kung di natin alam ang ginagawa natin. Mas hirap actually ibigay sa dayuhan yun kasi kung di na nga natin na mamonitor yung lokal what more, wala tayong kakayanan to monitor yung di hamak, mas makapangyarihan, mas malakas mas nakakalamang dayuhan, so delikado po yun in terms of national security interest natin.

SRH: Salamat Mr. Chair, and when I come back in the second round I will take off from that point, precisely yung reaction ko sa ideya ni Presidente ngayon magpasok ng third party, posibleng foreign. Eh hindi nga natin mapabehave ng maayos pa yung NGCP ano pa kayo kung may third party at kung foreign pa yun. So maraming salamat.

And lastly I think what you pointed out Mr. Africa is that it's not one single or most important factors, FDIs, it's a whole package of policies and practices para mapakinabangan talaga ng bansa ng public good lalo na dito sa mga public utilities natin at saka critical industries. Maraming salamat, Mr. Chair.

- -

SRH: If I could ask two or more questions about the economy. Sa power generation sector naman, within the whole realm of public utilities and public services. So, brownout pa nang brownout, parang shades of the early 1990s. At sa huli, tatlong araw nag-blackout hanggang sa Panay at saka Guimaras Islands.

So, alam po ba natin, and of course by this I mean, if you could please elaborate on this for us, na higit dalawang dekada nang bukas ang power generation sector, as Chris Monsod also mentioned earlier, para sa 100% na pagmamayari ng banyaga.

Pero sa dalawang dekadang iyon, ay hindi naman naengganyo na maglagak ng kapital dito, yung mga dayuhan para suplayan ng kulang at pupundat-pundat na ating kuryente. So, bakit po kaya?

Africa: Amin po, balik kami dun sa earlier na point. Mahirap i-manage ang industriya na wala kang alam. So, kung uurungan ng gobyerno yung pagkakaroon ng direct interest sa industriya ng kuryente, tas aasa ka lang sa sasabihin sa inyong kumpanya, parang weird, di ba? Parang sabihin mo dun sa kumpanya to be self-incriminating. So, sa amin, it is a starting point.

That's also why I think, bakit sa Malaysia, sa Indonesia, maraming may restriction dun sa foreign investment. But also, may direct stake. May direct stake yung governments in utilities because it's easier to manage things you know about eh. So, sa amin, we don't know what happens sa Visayas. Siyempre, nakakaawa pakinggan yung balita.

But, bottom line, it's hard to manage what you don't know anything about. And sa amin, that whole trend towards privatization, isang nawala yun eh. Yung kakayanan natin bilang gobyerno na responsibly manage ang isang industriya. So, much worse nga yan. Hindi maganda na hindi mo makontrol ang lokal na negosyante. At even worse, hindi mo makontrol ang dayong negosyante na may ibang dimension ng strategic interest sa bansa.

SRH: So, I guess, Mr. Chair, Mr. Africa, ibig sabihin din, magandang may paghuhunos-dili din ang gobyerno in terms of privatization, especially in sectors na may mas malaking public interest at stake and umalam.

We can't forever give the excuse na hindi yan alam ng gobyerno, mas alam lagi ng private sector. Maganda kung mag-upscale din ang capacities ang gobyerno precisely to take care of and to regulate areas na siya yung pangunahing magbabantay ng public good for the citizens. And balanced yung, syempre, profit orientation naman na nasa kalikasan ng private sector.

Mr. Africa, you could bear with me just to complete these, maybe last two questions about the power generation sector. So, alam po ba natin na sa Vietnam naman, tulad dito, sa Pilipinas, nagbukas sa mga dayuhan para sila'y pumasok sa generation sector. Pero generation, hindi sa transmission, hindi sa distribution. Pero bakit po kaya, kahit halos sinlaki lang tayo ng Vietnam, population-wise, bakit kaya yung installed capacity nila ngayon, ay lumaki nang halos tatlong beses, 2.86 times, halos triple, na ang laki kumpara sa installed power generation capacity ng Pilipinas. So, what was the decisive factor there?

Africa: Yung infrastructure, mag-gastos talaga siya eh. So, napaka-taas ng startup doon. Kaya nga, natural monopolies sila. I think Vietnam is a good case in point. Kasi much as maraming naiinis doon sa pakikialam ng Vietnamese government, kasi sosyalista, komunista, whatever - hindi po masasabing terorista - ang bottom line, they were and are state-owned enterprises.

At kung state-owned enterprise yung papasok, una, mas mababa yung cost of capital. Ikalawa, mas madali yung mga licensing, all the regulatory issues, parang that's ironed over eh. So, I think magandang point yan. At siguro kailangan din i-correct, hindi totoo na bukas na bukas yung Vietnam. Doon sa aming PowerPoint, submitin namin yung report, yung restrictions across the Vietnamese economy, from telecommunications to power to transport, very strongly restricted pa rin siya. Apart from having state-owned enterprises, even sa manufacturing.

So, hindi totoo na free market economy yung Vietnam. Hindi rin totoo na pumasok yung foreign investment, dahil free market economy siya. Pumasok ang foreign investment kasi may mapagkakitaan siya dun sa Vietnam. Under, not necessarily free market economy, under whatever economic regime na meron nila, kumikita sila eh. And I think that's the bottom line for any foreign investor.

SRH: And like Mr. Chair, Mr. Africa, you were showing how in different, different countries sa home region natin, may iba't ibang percentages set or cap set on foreign investments. Dito sa partikular na halimbawa ng Vietnam, pinapakita nyo rin, yun na nga, the package of policies and business practices, either allowed or supported and regulated by the state. Na the companies can turn a profit, pero merong ding standard set by the government para sa mamamayan nila na mas strictly na mao-observe.

And then, kagaya po ng telecoms na pinag-usapan natin kanina, may nakahambala sa pagpasok ng kapital sa power generation at hindi ang border restriction o ang constitutional provisions na naman ito. And as you were talking about, pinapatunayan din ito ng Vietnam na kahit, as you were also describing, hawak pa rin ng gobyerno at lokal na kapital ang transmission at ang distribution ng kuryente.

At kahit nga as you were enumerating for our region earlier, may maximum na 49% limit ang foreign capital dito sa transmission at distribution ay maglalagay pa rin ang dayuhan ng kapital sa power generation. Because given the whole environment created by government and what exists of civil society in Vietnam, at yung private sector participation, domestic or foreign, ay kumikita pa rin yung mga kumpanya.

So, just to bring it home, ano po kaya yung pumipigil sa dayuhang kapital na magpundar ng mas maraming kapital sa power generation sector natin nitong nakaraang dalawang dekada? Mr. Chair.

Africa: Siguro correction muna, as far as we know, in Vietnam, yung distribution and transmission ay sarado to foreign investment. As far as we know, I mean, we can double check that.

Pero, I'm sorry po, I can't speak for foreign investors here. Pero I think it makes sense eh, yung sinasabing predictability, even predictability of corruption, it's a big thing eh. So, whether it's predictability and the ease of doing business, I mean, there are different ways to package it. Mas mura yung infrastructure, less corruption na binabayad from our permits, less cumbersome.

I think that actually might be what should be addressed eh. At gusto ko namin i-stress talaga. May mali sa pag-iisip na, yung flexibility ang hinanap ng foreign investors. Kasi, because besides in so many utilities, in most of the region, at least in the major economies, marami pang foreign restrictions, but they have more investment than us, Malaysia's thrice, I think, than us, Thailand is double us, despite the restrictions in the utilities, it means hindi yung restriction yung nakakabara sa pagpasok.

So, it's so simple-minded, I think it is a very reductionist argument, to absurdity talaga. And I think it's so easy to understand. It's easy to repeat something over and over again and believe in it. Pero, I think the facts show otherwise talaga.

SRH: Salamat, Mr. Africa, for pointing out yung it's not the restrictions, it's not the so-called flexibility, but really more of predictability, restrictions they can live with, but also enough space to still conduct their business there and as you said, remain sustainable, if not profitable.

So, yung huli ko lang po for today dito sa power generation sector. So, ngayon naman po sa pamamagitan ng legal opinion ng DOJ, ay madaming dayuhang kapital na ang nagplano at pumila para puinan ang power supply gap na matagal nang saninang napakamahal na kuryente dito sa atin.

So, yung huling tanong ko for today, Mr. Chair, Mr. Africa, pero nababalitaan po ba ninyo na maaari daw madiskaril ito? Ayon sa BDO, halimbawa, at ayon din sa mga bagong renewable energy players dito sa atin, baka pala dobleng laking kapital ang kailangang ilagak kada megawatt ng renewable energy kaysa sa inaasahan nila.

Alam po ba natin ang dahilan nito? RE was supposed to be the game changer in the energy sector. So, bakit ngayon there's a sudden unpredictability about that positive next step that we'll be able to take?

Africa: Heard about that po, but I'll reserve comment na lang po muna. Pwede naman mamamayang hapon, but we want to study it further. Pero nabalitaan na nga po namin yan. So, not now sana po.

SRH: Salamat, Mr. Africa. Salamat, Mr. Chair. Abangan ko na lang or konsultahin ko diretso si Mr. Africa once they've completed their study on that issue.