If no less than the chief interpreter of the law says there is a need to amend the basic code of the land, then the snowballing clamor for amendments to the Constitution is greatly validated, lending urgency to efforts to make such changes happen.

Chief Justice Renato Corona on Thursday supported amendments to the 1987 Constitution,  particularly the changes to the provisions on business and the economy.

But he declined to deal with specific amendments because those issues might be raised before the Supreme Court.

“There are certain provisions that I think will have to be made responsive to the present time,” Corona told reporters covering the European Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines’ membership meeting.

“Remember that this [Constitution] was written in 1987,” he  said. “That was 24 years ago. Over the past years, the international economy and business developments have improved by leaps and bounds, so I believe that it is high time to re-examine the provisions of our Constitution.”

The CJ   said the Charter should be amended “because people change, the way we do things change, [and] business factors have changed”.

Earlier Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile called for amendments to certain portions of the Constitution, especially the economic provisions which are deemed to have been irrelevant or even counterproductive because of globalization and other economic realities.

Constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas earlier echoed his sentiments , favoring “surgical” approach to such amendments.

Even the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines has expressed its support for a revision of the charter.

This convergence of sentiments should be seriously considered by the Aquino administration in the light of recent events on the economic front. 

Corona said the Court did not tackle the economic implications of its controversial June 28 decision on Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co., which limited the term “capital” to common voting shares when applied to foreign ownership limits in public utilities.

He said none of the parties raised the possible negative effects that the decision might have on foreign investments.

“Frankly, no [it was not considered],” Corona said.

“It was purely legal. Nobody even mentioned anything about the economic implications of the decision.”

In its June 28 ruling, the Court held that when applying the constitutional 40-percent limit on foreign ownership in public utilities, the term “capital” referred only to common shares of stock and not to the total outstanding capital stock composed of common and preferred or non-voting shares.