HOUSE leaders yesterday rejected the proposal of Ilocos Norte Rep. Angelo Marcos Barba to extend the terms of congressmen from the current three years to five years, saying the only constitutional amendment that the House of Representatives supports is removing the Constitution’s “restrictive” economic provisions to encourage more foreign investments.
“We are sticking with that advocacy, because that is what we think will be good for the country and that is what we believe the people will accept,” said House Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe.
The term extension proposal is contained in Resolution of Both Houses No. 8, which Barba filed yesterday.
The amendment seeks to grant members of the House of Representatives a five-year term with one re-election.
The current term runs for three years and members of the House can serve up to three consecutive terms, as specified in Article VI, Section 7 of the 1987 Constitution.
Dalipe said the House-espoused economic Charter amendments had already been sent to the Senate early this year for the upper chamber’s consideration.
He was referring to Resolution of Both Houses No. 7, authored principally by Speaker Romualdez. The House approved it on third and final reading in March and transmitted it promptly to the Senate.
“So those are the proposals of the House. Procedurally, I am not sure if we can entertain another constitutional amendment resolution, although I believe the House is inclined to confine itself to economic Charter reforms,” Dalipe said.
Cagayan De Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, chairperson of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, also shot down the proposal.
“I think the House leadership will not favor this proposal. The Speaker has repeatedly declared that the push for Charter reform at this time is confined to amending the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions,” Rodriguez said.
He also noted that President Marcos Jr., in a speech marking Constitution Day last February, stressed that he only supports the proposal to amend the economic provisions of the Constitution.
Like Dalipe, he also said that the House has already approved the resolution seeking to amend the economic provisions “so the ball on the proposed changes in the Constitution’s economic provisions is now in the Senate’s court.”
ORAL ARGUMENTS
Meanwhile, Sen. Robin Padilla yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to set for oral arguments his petition seeking the court’s determination what voting mode ConÄ£ress should use when approving amendments to the Constitution.
In his motion, Padilla said there is a need for the magistrates to conduct oral arguments on his petition to clarify the issues and legal points related to the contentious mode of voting.
“In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court,” Padilla, who is the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, said.
Padilla said his latest motion is “filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case.”
Padilla, on August 5, filed an instant petition with the High Court seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution on whether Congress should vote jointly or separately when approving amendments to the Charter.
Padilla sought the SC’s “authoritative declaration” on the following issues: whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution, and when voting jointly, should the requirement of 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 3/4 vote by the House, or 3/4 of the combined membership of the two chambers.
He also asked the High Court to rule whether the Senate and House should jointly convene and assemble when calling a constitutional convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Padilla also asked the magistrates to rule if the requirements of 2/3 vote will be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House, or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House when voting jointly.
Lastly, the lawmaker also asked the SC to rule on the question of when voting jointly, should the requirement of “majority vote” under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House, or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.
He stressed that only the SC has the power to address what he termed as the “existing actual controversy.”
‘ON HIS OWN’
Senate President Francis Escudero said Padilla’s decision to run to the SC to seek clarification on the voting mode issue was solely that of the former actor’s and is not an act of the Senate.
Escudero said Padilla did not consult him or other senators regarding his actions.
“Liwanagin ko, ‘yan ang personal niyang desisyon. Hindi yan kinonsulta o tinanong sa akin o sa sinumang miyembro ng Senado (I want to make it clear that it was his [Padilla} own decision. I was not consulted, no senator has been consulted),” he said.
The Senate leader added: “Personally, ang aking pananaw, at hindi ko sinasabi na tama ito, wala pang jurisdiction ang Korte Suprema dahil premature ang pagkakahain ng kaso dahil wala naman justiciable controversy na nire-require ng korte bago ito mag-assume ng jurisdiction sa anumang petition na inihain sa kanila (In my personal view, and I am not saying that I am right, the Supreme Court still has no jurisdiction [to decide the issue] because the petition was filed prematurely since there is still no justiciable controversy, which is a requirement before the SC can assume jurisdiction over petitions that are filed with them),” said Escudero, who is also a lawyer.
Escudero clarified that his statement was his personal opinion and is not intended to preempt the SC’s decision.
“It is not for me to preempt the court. I simply think that it is premature. That’s my own legal opinion on the matter,” he said. — With Ashzel Hachero and Raymond Africa
