Sen. Imee Marcos said on Monday, February 5 that foreign investors and locators never once mentioned anything about amending economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution.

In her opening statement during the first Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes chaired by Sen. Sonny Angara, she said that this was her experience as the former Chairman of Economic Affairs being close contact with most of country's foreign investors and locators almost daily.

She said that they mention the need for lower rates of electricity, infinitely better infrastructure, less red tape, and a predictable and reliable regulatory framework.

"At no point did they say that the Constitution needed to be changed," she added.

Senate President Juan Miguel "Migz" Zubiri filed the Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 proposing amendments to Articles XII, XIV and XVI of the 1987 Constitution, which he drafted together with Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda and Angara.

On the other hand, she said that she also puzzled by the list that has been provided for public services citing the "many problems" they have had with National Grid Corporation of the Philippines and the constant investigations in the Senate.

Meanwhile, she said that while they're fully aware that basic education as well as all aspects of private education are shrinking in revenue, in number, and in employment, she is puzzled as to why it will be turned over to foreigners which will allow the children to also be "converted into aliens".

Lastly, she said that the advertising aspect is also "somewhat bizarre" given that the large advertising multinationals are already present in the country and that advertising involves very little investment at all.

Aside from the economic aspects, she also asked for some clarity on the manner by which the so-called restrictive provisions will be amended.

She said that the Senate version passed indicates a Constituent Assembly without mentioning the name but clearly stating that three-fourths vote would be involved. However, she said that the House version calls for a Constitutional Convention or at least that’s what she understood from what was passed in third reading in March earlier last year.

"So if we could be elucidated on the process for the Con Con, which would clearly be far more expensive and which would in fact surrender the control of both Houses over the subject matter once the Constitutional Convention has been elected and convened," she said.

"So, what safeguards do we have and what choice do we have between the ConCon and the Con Ass which once again is a difference between the two Houses," she added.