SEN. Robin Padilla yesterday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to settle whether Congress should vote jointly or separately when approving proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution.
Padilla personally went to the SC and filed the petition seeking declaratory relief on Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution.
A declaratory relief is a special civil action that can be filed by any person interested under a will, contract or other written instrument whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order, regulation, ordinance, or any other government regulation.
Padilla said he asked the SC to settle the “ambiguities” of Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution so he can effectively carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes.
He added that only the SC has the power to address what he called as the “existing actual controversy.”
“Without the Honorable Court’s declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist,” he said.
In his petition, 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 if 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 vote 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 for a constitutional convention (con-con) 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 a majority vote in the House, or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.
Padilla said that while many resolutions have been filed seeking to amend the Constitution, these measures have remained pending before the two chamber’s committees because “neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives want to give in to the other’s interpretation. In other words, the same misinterpretations caused by the ambiguities, which Congress seeks to resolve, are preventing all of its efforts to resolve the controversy.”
To recall, the House of Representatives on March 20 this year approved on third and final reading Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 to amend the Constitution.
The said resolution was patterned after the Senate’s proposed RBH No.6, which was filed by Senators Juan Miguel Zubiri and Loren Legarda, and former senator and now Education Secretary Juan Edgardo Angara.
Marathon public consultations were held to discuss RBH 6, but these stopped when Zubiri resigned as Senate President and Angara quit as chairperson of the sub-committee which was spearheading the discussions.
Senate President Francis Escudero has said that Cha-cha is not in the Senate’s priority agenda.
Padilla said it is high time for the SC to rule on the contentious provisions to put an end to the endless bickering over the matter.
“Alam nyo po sa matagal na panahon, 37 years, pinagtatalunan kung paano natin aamyendahan o rerebisahin ang ating Konstitusyon. Sa panahon ko po, di ko siya pwedeng tulugan kasi sa matagal na panahon ito ay natulugan. Ako po ay, di naman lingid sa inyong kaalaman, nag-away ang Senado at House of Representatives (As you all know, for the past 37 years we have been debating on the issue on how to amend or revise the Constitution. I cannot remain silent on the issue anymore. I am also mindful of the bickering between the Senate and the House of Representatives on this issue),” he said.
He noted that even one of those who drafted the Constitution, former Comelec commissioner Christian Monsod have admitted they failed to address the issues that he raised before the SC.
“Nagkaroon din tayo ng pagdinig, ang ating hinahangaan na tao tulad ni Chairman Monsod, sila ang mga nagsulat ng Constitution. Sinasabi nila na talagang may pagkukulang sa usapin kung paano natin aamyendahan at rerebisahin ang Constitution (We held several hearings, and even those who drafted the Constitution, such as Chairman Monsod, admitted, that they failed to address some things ln how to revise or amend the Constitution),” he said, adding only the SC can resolve the issue.
