MEMBERS of Congress, and I’m referring to both houses, are expected to craft laws which would best best serve the interest of the people. Unfortunately, however, a group of lawmakers who were responsible for the enactment of Republic Act 11659 not only betrayed the very people they have vowed to serve, but have even exposed all of us to security threats.

Last week, at a media forum, two prominent lawyers, Larry Gadon and Ferdie Topacio, assailed RA 11659, also known as the “Public Service Act,” saying it was not only unconstitutional but also poses a threat to the country’s economy and security.

According to the two lawyers, the lawmakers effectively amended the Constitution when they redefined public utility as public services so that the former term would now only refer to electricity distribution and transmission, petroleum and petroleum products, pipeline transmission systems, water and wastewater pipeline distribution and sewerage systems, seaports and public utility vehicles.

With the Public Service Act, airports, railroads, railways, subways, wire or wireless telecommunication services, and wire or wireless broadcasting stations are no longer considered as public utilities, thereby opening them up to 100 percent foreign ownership.

The new law, Gadon and Topacio claimed, overturned what has been protected for almost a hundred years by all the Constitutions adopted by the Filipinos to govern the country, as the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions have declared that public utilities which include airports, railroads, railways, subways, wire or wireless telecommunication services, and wire or wireless broadcasting stations, should have at least 60 percent Filipino ownership and foreign ownership to be limited to 40 percent.

In order to run around the constitutional provision, the two lawyers said, the lawmakers redefined the coverage of public utility by removing from it airports, railroads, railways, subways, broadcast stations and wireless telecommunication, but retained seaports, electricity distribution, transmission of petroleum and petroleum products, water distribution and sewerage systems, and public utility vehicles.

By doing this, they have arrogated to themselves the power solely vested on the Supreme Court — the interpretation of the law.

Under this new Public Service Act, the United States no longer needs to invoke EDCA, or the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, to put up military bases. They would simply put up their own airports over which they have absolute control and who knows what they would be putting out there. We have just become targets of whichever opponents the US might pick. But again no.

Maybe other countries could also put up their own military bases here in the disguise of commercial airports. And presto! We have just become their mini battlegrounds. Why bring the war to their respective territories when they can do their battles here, thousands of miles away from their countries.

Actually, even when the bills were still being deliberated at the Senate and the House of Representatives before being signed into law by former president Rodrigo Duterte last March, lawyer Ariel Inton, president of Lawyers for Commuters Safety and Protection, had already expressed his opposition to the then proposed law.

According to Inton, proponents of the measure came up with a brilliant strategy of amending the Constitution without resorting to legal processes. The proponents insist that we have to lift the nationality requirements for the industries which used to be listed as public utilities to attract foreign investors.

However, Inton said, a study revealed that it is not the nationality requirement which turns off these foreign investors, but the corruption, inadequate structures and bureaucratic red tape which are allegedly synonymous with setting up business here in the Philippines. These, according to Inton, are what should be addressed by the government.

Proof of this, according to the LCSP president, is the fact that even months after RA 11659, there are still no foreign takers.

But even with or without any foreign taker, the threat to the national economy and security remains. And that is aside from the fact it is in direct violation of the Constitution.

To remedy the situation, RJ Javellana, president of the United Filipino Consumers and Commuters, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Supreme Court seeking to declare RA 11659 unconstitutional.

Respondents to the petition are Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri and House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

In his petition, Javellana said “the country cannot afford to leave these public services in the hands of foreigners whose interest or agenda may be detrimental to national interests.”

Of course. But if I may add, we also cannot leave the fate of the country to lawmakers such as those who crafted the bills leading to RA 11659 who view foreign interest as far superior to that of the people whom they have sworn to serve.

Risking impeachment?

It’s been almost half-a-month since former media man Benny Antiporda was suspended as acting administrator of the National Irrigation Administration by the Office of the Ombudsman over some petty complaints filed by some disgruntled employees of the agency, but up to now, we haven’t heard of any action from the Ombudsman with regard to the graft cases filed by Antiporda against some NIA officials.

Except maybe to ask for their counter-affidavits in relation to the case. A legal procedure denied by the Ombudsman to Antiporda when they handed him his suspension order.

To recall, a group of concerned NIA employees filed a case against Antiporda last November 3 and 12 days after, on November 15, the Ombudsman’s office, without furnishing Antiporda a copy of the complaint and asking him to answer the said complaints, issued a six-month preventive suspension against the acting NIA administrator, signed by no less than Ombudsman Samuel Martirez.

Acting on an anonymous complaint with haste, even suspending the respondent without according him any chance to refute or answer the allegations against him? And I had always thought Martirez to be a brilliant legal mind. He was even appointed as associate justice of the Supreme Court before being appointed ombudsman. Was he aware he was denying Antiporda his basic right when he signed his suspension order without asking him to present anything to answer his accusers who, at that time, were nameless and faceless? Take note that officers and members of the NIA Employees Association of the Philippines have categorically denied any hand in the filing of the complaint against Antiporda, and on the contrary, even expressed support for him.

Isn’t Martirez courting impeachment? According to some lawyers I have talked to, the ombudsman could be liable for betrayal of public trust for the manner in which he handled Antiporda’s case. But then, they may be wrong as they might not be as brilliant as Martirez.