TWO former associate justices of the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday told senators there is no constitutional requirement for a joint voting of the two houses of Congress to approve proposed amendments to the Constitution via the constituent assembly (con-ass) mode.
During the initial hearing of the Senate sub-committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes on the Senate’s version of proposed Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 6, former Associate Justices Adolfo Azcuna and Vicente Mendoza said voting to approve the recommended constitutional amendments should be done separately.
“There is no requirement for a joint voting,” said Azcuna, who was invited as a resource person and legal expert on the issue.
He said that once both houses of Congress have come up with their own versions of the amendments, they will vote separately to approve these.
For his part, Mendoza said: “They (senators and congressmen) vote separate for the obvious reason that the members of the Senate are smaller than members of the House (of Representatives),” Mendoza said.
But while the two legal experts agreed on the mode of voting, they differed on the issue of jointly or separately meeting to discuss proposed revisions.
Azcuna said there is no need for the two chambers to conduct joint meetings or hearings.
He pointed out that there are three modes of amending the Charter — through a con-ass, constitutional convention (con-con), and the people’s initiative.
RBH No. 6, he noted, calls for Congress to convene as a constitutional assembly.
“So, Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 is under that con-ass. There are only three methods.
If the first method, which is through Congress acting as a constituent assembly, they don’t have to meet jointly,” he said.
“That is, you can present your resolution in the Senate and the other resolution in the House. You compare both, and then you reconcile versions, come out with a final version, and then vote three-fourths in the Senate, three-fourths of the House. That is con-ass.
That is method number one. So, that’s what we seek, to do con-ass,” he also said.
But Mendoza said both houses of Congress should meet jointly in discussing the proposed amendments and have a healthy debate.
“There are benefits to be derived from such procedures. Why? Because the two house of Congress under Article 17 (Amendments or Revisions) will have to meet as one body without any distinction, whether they are senators or congressmen, except that when it comes (to) the time for voting,” Mendoza said.
“They’re required to meet as a body,” he stressed, adding that a joint meeting will have the benefit of “give and take” as the debates will guide the public on whether to support or reject the approved amendments through a plebiscite.
“So that when the proposed amendments are submitted to them (the people) in a plebiscite, they will be able to vote wisely as they should,” he also said.
RBH No. 6 was filed by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate president pro tempore Loren Legarda, and Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara after President Marcos Jr. tapped the upper chamber to lead discussions on Charter change after he observed that the people’s initiative campaign allegedly being pushed by congressmen was “too divisive.”
The resolution enjoins both houses of Congress to introduce amendments to the Charter through a constituent assembly but independently discussing the proposals and voting separately.
House members have frowned at the Senate’s position to discuss and vote separately on proposed Charter changes.
The people’s initiative, which was subject of a controversial signature drive allegedly pushed and funded by congressmen and other proponents, had also proposed the joint voting of lawmakers to amend the Constitution.
PADILLA RESOLUTION
To settle the issue of the voting mode, Sen. Robin Padilla yesterday filed RBH No. 7 which seeks to amend Section 1 of Article VXII (Amendments and Revisions) of the 1987 Constitution and specifically state that the two houses of Congress should vote separately.
Padilla said his measure would address the long-standing issue whether the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote jointly or separately in amending the Charter.
“There is a need to amend the aforementioned provision in order to be consistent with the intention of the framers of the Constitution to adopt a bicameral legislature and to leave no room for interpretation as to the manner of voting which over the years have caused disputes among both the Senate and House of Representatives,” he said.
Under RBH 7, Padilla proposed that Section 1 of Article XVII be amended to allow any amendment to – or revision of – the 1987 Constitution to be proposed by Congress, “by a vote of three-fourths of both houses in joint session assembled, voting separately; or a constitutional convention.”
In an interview on ANC Monday, Padilla said the issue of voting jointly or separately must be resolved before Congress tackles other aspects of amending the Constitution.
“Kasi hindi matatapos ito, legal question ito. Pati judiciary, maraming comments. Kung ang comments ma-absorb nating lahat ang gulo gulo na. Kaya pwede sana magkaroon tayo, itong Congress na ito, ang 19th Congress, matapos ang usaping ito at magkaroon ng finality kung ano ang nasa Art 17 Sec 1 na yan (This is a never-ending legal issue. Even among those in the judiciary, several comments have been made. If we just absorb those comments, we’ll get confused. So, I hope the 19th Congress will address this with finality),” he said.
REWORD RBH 6
Azcuna suggested that the Senate rephrase the clause “Be it resolved” in the closing paragraph of RBH No. 6 to “Be it enacted,” pointing out that senators are proposing amendments to the Constitution, not crafting a law.
He said the resolution should read: “Be it resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives in Congress assembled and so forth and so on.”
“You’re not proposing to make a law. You’re proposing to amend the Constitution and you have to signal to our people that you are no longer acting as a legislative body. You are acting as a constituent assembly,” he said.
He also said the Senate should place the clause “unless otherwise provided by law” in “strategic” places of the economic provisions sought to be amended “so that you will not alter the basic principles of protecting our people.”
He said the upper chamber should also delete the word “basic” at the start of the Charter’s provision on education, “otherwise you open the gates of changing the very substance of the economic provisions itself.”
“So, I would suggest don’t use ‘basic.’ Let the Congress decide what kind of education should be open to foreign investments,” he said.
RBH No. 6 seeks to only limit Charter changes to provisions related to public service, education, and advertising.
TRASH PI
Amid the call of Zubiri for a ceasefire on the PI issue, Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said the Commission on Elections (Comelec) should permanently trash all processes related to the people’s initiative as a mode for Cha-cha.
In her opening statement during yesterday’s hearing, Hontiveros said the sub-committee hearing should signal the suspension of the discussions on the “fake” PI in both houses of Congress.
She, however, urged the public to be vigilant as there may be efforts to resurrect the initiative.
“Kaya sana nga ‘yung temporary suspension ng Comelec proceedings sa PI, maging permanent na rin. Itapon na natin sa basurahan ‘yang PI na yan (I am hoping that the Comelec’s temporary suspension of its proceedings related the PI will now be made permanent. Just throw that PI bid in the garbage bin),” she said.
Last January 26, the poll body suspended all its proceedings related to the gathering of signatures, including the acceptance of signature sheets submitted by the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), the lead organization behind the PI signature campaign.
In his ANC interview, Padilla said he spent money from his own pockets to enlighten the people about Charter change for a shift to a unicameral form of government via the PI mode.
Padilla said he “contributed” money to those who attended his meetings for them to buy hamburgers when he went around the country to do his own Cha-cha effort. “Pang Jollibee nila (For them to eat at Jollibee),” he said, referring to a popular fast-food chain the country.
He said he gave the monies after graduation ceremonies where he was invited to give a speech.
Padilla clarified what he did was not similar to the PI signature drive for the Cha-cha being pushed by PIRMA since he did not give money to the people who signed his petition.
He insisted that the PI mode remains to be a valid method of introducing revisions to the Charter but has now become unacceptable after it was allegedly “bastardized.”
“The PI effort containing the question should be scrapped because it goes against the Constitution. But the PI itself should not be scrapped,” Padilla said in Filipino, adding: “We may have a problem with the recent PI but let us not attack the PI as a process. What we should attack is the way the recent PI effort was conducted.”
HOUSE BACKS SPEAKER
The House of Representatives yesterday adopted a resolution defending Speaker Martin Romualdez from “intense assault from the Senate in violation of the principle of inter-parliamentary courtesy and undue interference in the performance of its legislative and constituent functions.
In House Resolution No. 1562, which was signed by 287 lawmakers, the House also denounced the “confrontational tactics used by the Senate, which are detrimental to the spirit of cooperative governance and the public’s confidence in parliamentary processes.”
The resolution was adopted after Zubiri called for a ceasefire between the two Houses of Congress over allegations that congressmen led by the Speaker were behind the PI signature campaign aimed at introducing amendments to the Constitution’s economic provisions.
The measure expressed “unwavering solidarity and support to the leadership of the Honorable Speaker Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez, and upholding the integrity and honor of the House of Representatives.”
Among those who authored the resolution were Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe, Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr. of Pampanga, Deputy Speaker David Suarez of Quezon, Surigao del Norte Rep. Robert Ace Barbers, Camiguin Rep. Jurdin Jesus Romualdo, Quezon Rep. Mark Enverga, Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, Rizal Rep. Jack Duavit, Bataan Rep. Albert Garcia, Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Rufus Rodriguez, Romblon Rep. Eleandro Jesus Madrona, Ilocos Sur Rep. Kristine Singson-Meehan, and BHW party-list Rep. Angelica Natasha Co.
The three-man militant Makabayan abstained from voting.
The resolution said the Senate “conducted an investigation (on the PI campaign) without a clear legislative purpose, specifically directed at discrediting” Romualdez and the House.
“While taking criticisms is part and parcel of a healthy and working democracy, the House takes exception to the recent statements and allegations made by the Senate that undermine the independence, reputation and integrity of the House of Representatives and the leadership of the Speaker,” it said.
The House expressed its “strong objection to the accusations, viewing them as a breach of inter-parliamentary courtesy and a challenge to the integrity of the parliamentary institution.”
It said in the face of these “unfounded indictments, the Speaker has taken the cudgel in shepherding the members in steadfastly defending the integrity and honor of the House of Representatives by strictly discerning and observing mutual deference to a co-equal legislative body.”
“With its slogan ‘One House, One Voice’, the House of Representatives stands united in rejecting the unfounded accusations, commits itself to defend the dignity and integrity of the institution, and gives its full and unwavering support to the Speaker,” the resolution stated. — With Wendell Vigilia
