BY WENDELL VIGILIA and RAYMOND AFRICA
SENATORS can always join congressmen in a joint session if they cannot adopt their own rules on how to approve a resolution proposing amendments to the 1987 Constitution, deputy speaker David Suarez said yesterday.
“We in the House have been very transparent from Day 1. You have seen the flow of our deliberations, you see that we have rules to follow also based on the Rules of the House. So for the Senate, you can adopt our rules, or if not you can join us in the deliberations. And we can be one happy family,” Suarez told a joint press conference with other House leaders.
Senate deputy minority leader Risa Hontiveros said the minority is confident that Charter change (Cha-cha) will not be approved in the upper chamber. Based on the minority bloc’s “political mapping” and statements of senators in past discussions on Resolution of Both Houses No 6 (RHB 6), at least seven of their colleagues will vote “no” on the resolution, she said.
“We need at least seven. They need 18 to approve RBH 6. So, we just need seven [no votes] to stop RBH 6),” Hontiveros said in mixed Filipino and English, an interview with the Senate media.
Based on the rules, both chambers of Congress need to have the approval of at least three-fourths of its members for Charter change to prosper. In the case of the Senate which has 24 members, it needs at least 18 affirmative votes to approve RBH 6.
Hontiveros said the situation is still “fluid” but based on the other senators’ statements, RBH 6 will be voted against by at least seven senators.
The two houses of Congress have been holding their respective committee hearings on the proposal to amend the “restrictive” economic provisions of the Constitution, aiming to vote separately on the amendments even if the Constitution, which requires a three-fourths vote of all members of Congress, is silent on how the voting should be undertaken.
Suarez’ tongue-in-cheek comment about senators joining congressmen in a joint session came after Sen. Francis Escudero raised a “prejudicial question” last week that the Senate rules do not allow Charter change via a resolution approved with a three-fourths vote of all members.
The House’s Rule 21, Section 144, states that: “Proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any Member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”
The House, convened as the Committee on the Whole, has been holding hearings on Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 since last week, while the Senate constitutional amendments subcommittee chaired by Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara has been conducting its own hearings on RBH No. 6 authored by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri.
The Senate subcommittee has already held three hearings on RBH No. 6 since February 5, merely three weeks after the House commenced discussions on RBH No. 7 on February 26.
Suarez pointed out it is Senate majority leader Joel Villanueva’s responsibility to craft the proposed rules, like majority leader Manuel Jose Dalipe at the House.
“Well, definitely the majority leader would have to address this issue, because here, when it comes to the rules, it’s majority leader Mannix Dalipe who makes sure that there are rules governing committees and House deliberations, and the way we conduct ourselves,” Suarez said in mixed Filipino and English.
“So my suggestion is look into it and ask the Senate majority leader to craft or propose rules since he’s reportedly one of the authors of RBH 6. They should have also prepared and planned how to go about it,” he added.
Suarez, however, said the easiest way is for the Senate to just adopt the House rules in toto: “Well, if they don’t have rules, probably the best advice is for them to just come here at the House because we already have governing rules, or they can always adopt the rules that the House is conducting itself with,” he said.
Suarez said he was hoping that the Senate would be able to address the matter as soon as possible, especially as it initiated discussions on economic Cha-cha even before the House did.
Zambales Rep. Jefferson Khonghun, an assistant majority leader, expressed disappointment over the Senate’s shortcoming, which he said could disrupt proceedings and delay the measure’s passage.
“This is where you will see the sincerity and transparency of the procedures in the House of Representatives because it’s clear that we have rules to follow,” he told the press conference.
NO VOTE
Aside from the minority bloc, composed of Hontiveros and Senate minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III), the senators who are likely to oppose RBH 6 are senators Grace Poe, Nancy Binay, and Cynthia Villar.
Villar, in a chance interview, said she is inclined to vote “no” to RBH 6.
“I think it’s not that important because we can do that [amendments] through legislation. We already passed the [amended] Public Services [Act]. So there are only two left — education and media [advertising] and I think we can also that through legislation),” Villar said.
Poe, in past hearings, have been very vocal in saying Cha-cha is not needed this time as the chamber has remedied the so-called strict economic provisions of the Charter by amending the Public Services Act, Trade Liberalization Law, and Foreign Investments Act.
Binay earlier said amendments to the economic measures passed in the 18th Congress were sufficient enough to encourage investors and help revitalize the economy.
Villar said that several business groups in the country oppose Cha-cha as what they want is the strict implementation of the Ease of Doing Business Law.
Hontiveros said the statements of their colleagues and that of the business sectors are “strong signals” that Cha-cha is not needed this time.
“So, those are parts of the very strong signal from various sectors. The [position of the] private sector, business sectors are even echoed by their counterparts in the foreign chambers of commerce. Across domestic to foreign business persons and organizations, they are saying that Charter change is the least we need. That [strict economic provisions] are not the core problems to attract more domestic and foreign investments),” she said.
SUSPENSION
Hontiveros said discussions on RBH 6 should be suspended until the issue on rules on how the Senate will convene to tackle the resolution has been resolved.
Escudero last week cautioned his colleagues against proceeding with hearings on RBH 6 without a clear set of guidelines that are contained in the Rules of the Senate.
Hontiveros said, “Hanggang hindi pa nare-resolve yung rules tungkol sa Cha-cha, tungkol sa con-ass in particular, at kung itong ginagawa naming mga hearings at embodying con-ass, baka dapat i-suspend myna, hindi na muna ituloy. (Until the issues are resolved about this Cha-cha, about con-ass [constitutional assembly] in particular, and whether these hearings we are conducting embodies con-ass, the discussions [on RBH 6] should be suspended),” she said.
Hontiveros, however, said that the proponents of Cha-cha will still push for it even if the Senate votes against its approval since President Marcos and Commission on Elections chairman George Garcia have made statements that the plebiscite for Cha-cha can held simultaneously with the 2025 midterm elections.
Another indicator, she added, is that the Comelec has not yet issued specific guidelines on how people will withdraw their signatures which were submitted to the poll body on the “people’s initiative” signature campaign.
EARLY PLEBISCITE
House members again batted for an early plebiscite on the proposed amendments even if Zubiri has already said that President Marcos Jr. prefers to hold it simultaneously with the 2025 midterm elections to save billions in funds.
The lawmakers were reacting to veteran election lawyer Romulo Macalintal who said holding the plebiscite together with the May 2025 local-congressional elections would be unconstitutional.
Suarez said the plebiscite should not be held simultaneously with the midterm elections because “we cannot allow the Constitution to undergo political mudslinging and be politicized by what happens during midterm elections.”
Another reason, he said, is that the Constitution be tackled in the same level as midterm elections because it deserves a separate and focused discussion so that the people will be enlightened before voting on it.
Bataan Rep. Geraldine Roman said the Macalintal’s statement “affirms the House stand that a separate plebiscite should be held and the idea of holding it together with national elections is counterproductive.”
“It is also a reminder to our colleagues in the Senate that we would have to work with a sense of urgency. If the ultimate goal is basically to approve RBH 6, it should be approved at the time when we do not have to hold a plebiscite alongside the national elections,” she said.
Roman urged senators to shed their “irrational fears” that the House would eventually consider political amendments, saying “no politician in his right mind would actually try or even attempt to introduce political amendments when for the longest time, we have been assuring our friends in the Senate that we are only interested in amending the economic provisions.”
CONSTITUTIONALITY
Macalintal expressed doubts over the constitutionality of hold the 2025 national and local elections simultaneously with the plebiscite.
“With all due respect to President Marcos, his position to hold plebiscite to amend the Constitution alongside the 2025 national and local elections is not tenable or of doubtful constitutionality,” said Macalintal.
He noted Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that the ratification of any amendment to or revision of shall be done “in a plebiscite,” and neither “in an election” nor in an “election and plebiscite.”
“In other words, any such amendment or revision should be submitted for the people’s ratification in a plebiscite independently of the election of public officials,” said Macalintal.
He said he agrees with the personal position of Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Garcia that the plebiscite for Cha-cha must ideally be held separately from the election of public officials.
“Chairman Garcia was correct when he previously said that such plebiscite cannot be done together with the May 2025 midterm elections as it requires a separate and single plebiscite so that the people can focus on whether they should allow such amendment or not,” noted Macalintal.
SUPPORT FOR ZUBIRI
Several senators said they signed a resolution expressing support for Zubiri.
Sen. Juan Edgardo Angara said he was one of those who signed the resolution to show support to Zubiri amid “persistent” rumors that a change of leadership is in the offing in the Senate.
Angara said he does not know how many of his colleagues have signed the resolution which he described as a sort of “loyalty check” on Zubiri.
Angara said he does not know where the rumors about a change in Senate leadership may have come from, but it certainly was from “outside of the Senate.”
Sen. Jinggoy Estrada said there is no truth that there will be change in their leadership.
“To quell all speculations, there’s no truth to it,” Estrada said.
Villar said she heard of such a resolution but she was not approached to sign it.
Villar said she heard it was Zubiri himself who asked their colleagues to sign the resolution.
Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian said he signed the resolution “to show my support to SP and gratitude and to defend also the institution after the PI (people’s initiative) came out.” — With Gerard Naval