Speaker Feliciano Belmonte Jr. reasserted his stand against amending the Constitution to extend the term limits of elective officials, stressing that his position only favors revisions to the Charter’s economic provisions.

Belmonte said he believes that the general sentiment in the House of Representatives is against term extension.

 “I'm against term extension. I'd like to confirm that's my stand,” the Speaker said. “There are no political amendments as of this moment pending before us,” he added.

Belmonte is one of the vice chairmen of the administration Liberal Party and  also   sits as honorary chairperson of the National Unity Party (NUP).

Dasmarinas City Representative Elpidio Barzaga Jr., the NUP’s vice president for external affairs, echoed Belmonte’s statements, saying that any insertion of political amendments to the current plenary debates on proposals to change outdated economic provisions in the Constitution “would be declared out of order.”

Barzaga served as sponsor of Belmonte’s Resolution of Both Houses No. 1, which seeks to provide Congress with powers to amend the  Constitution’s economic provisions,  during last week’s House plenary debates on the issue.

Belmonte’s resolution seeks to lift the constitutional limits on foreign ownership and investments.

Barzaga said these economic amendments are necessary to spur economic growth and generate more jobs. He stressed that the measure is limited only to providing  Congress with the  flexibility in relaxing constitutional restrictions to foreign ownership.

Belmonte, for his part, assured the public that no political amendments will be inserted into his proposal.

“We have it very plain. Those are two different matters. You cannot put in political amendments in the current economic provision debates because it will be an entirely new matter, which has to start on its own initiative,” Belmonte explained.

Belmonte noted that even the Commission on Elections said political amendments cannot be enacted and signed into law in time for the 2016 elections, considering that these would still have to undergo a plebiscite to determine if voters approve of such changes.