Last night the House of Representatives adopted, in marathon session, House Resolution 1109 titled "A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CONVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION, UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS." The resolution portion states: "Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the members of Congress be convened for the purpose of proposing amendments to, or revision of the Constitution upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members and that upon its being convened shall adopt its rules of procedures that shall govern its proceedings."
This move commences the House Majority's march to "amend" or "revise" the Constitution through its interpretation of Article XVII (Amendments of Revisions), Section 1 (1) of the 1987 Constitution which states that any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by "The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members." The specification of the words "amendment" or "revision" in the same phrase is not an enumeration of mere synonyms. From the records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, amendment envisages a change of specific provisions only, while a revision may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. Thus, if a constituent assembly is validly convened with powers to revise the constitution, it possesses extraordinary powers beyond mere executive or legislative powers but going into the hear of the fundamental law of the country, subject only to ratification by a majority vote of the Philippine electorate in a plebiscite.
HR 1109, adopted reportedly on voting viva voce, on its face does not appear to be the act making Congress a constituent assembly. However, what it actually does is unclear from the Resolution itself (I do not have information on whether this was clarified in the House debate last night). One possibility is that the resolution authorizes the Speaker of the House to convene a constituent assembly under authority of this Resolution, which will then come into being only after such convening is approved by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of its members. But it is also possible that the House leadership position is that the Resolution has already made itself into a constituent assembly, ready to adopt a rules of procedure to govern its proceedings. Its output, assuming this will involve proposed amendments or revisions, is the one that will require the approval of Congress by a vote of three-fourths of its members. We will know how they propose to implement the Resolution when the House leadership makes its next move. We will also know what the Senate's position is on its participation in the constituent assembly.
Already there are calls for meetings to organize a public opposition to the move by the Lower House. There is one happening today, 9am, at the Clubhouse in Cubao (former Seafood Market).
In addition to what the people will do to oppose HR 1109 and however it will be implemented, an equally important battle will be on the manner of voting for the proposal by Congress to amend the constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, Article XV (Amedments), Section 1, the Congress, "in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may oppose amendments to this Constitution..." HR 1109 argues that "in joint session assembled" and "voting separately" are "essential words" deleted and no longer contained in the 1987 Constitution, and that such deletions embodies a "clear and manifest" intention of the 1987 Constitution to change the manner of proposing amendments or revisions to the constitution by Congress.
The debate on this issue, affecting as it will our political future, cannot be left to the lawyers that will argue this matter before the Supreme Court. We all need to have our own position on this. The matter should be debated as widely, publicly, and popularly as possible.
Off the bat, without having looked at the Records of the 1987 Constitutional Commission and whatever jurisprudence on the matter there is, the deletion was first introduced in the 1973 Constitution when there was shift from the then bicameral system as we have now to a unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa). Thus the provision on the matter of voting must also necessarily change as there was no more Senate and House of Representatives to speak of. It is possible that in the 1987 Constitution there may have been an oversight not to reinstate the manner of voting, even if there was a shift back to bicameral legislature. Of course it is farfetched to think that the Commission would commit such serious oversight. In fact in the commentary by Bernas on the 1987 Constitution on the provision, he gives a one-sentence assertion: "It should be understood that the two houses of Congress vote separately." This statement is footnoted by "I RECORD 375", however I do not as yet have the contents of such record.
Will have a more definite take on the matter on my next post.
This move commences the House Majority's march to "amend" or "revise" the Constitution through its interpretation of Article XVII (Amendments of Revisions), Section 1 (1) of the 1987 Constitution which states that any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by "The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members." The specification of the words "amendment" or "revision" in the same phrase is not an enumeration of mere synonyms. From the records of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, amendment envisages a change of specific provisions only, while a revision may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. Thus, if a constituent assembly is validly convened with powers to revise the constitution, it possesses extraordinary powers beyond mere executive or legislative powers but going into the hear of the fundamental law of the country, subject only to ratification by a majority vote of the Philippine electorate in a plebiscite.
HR 1109, adopted reportedly on voting viva voce, on its face does not appear to be the act making Congress a constituent assembly. However, what it actually does is unclear from the Resolution itself (I do not have information on whether this was clarified in the House debate last night). One possibility is that the resolution authorizes the Speaker of the House to convene a constituent assembly under authority of this Resolution, which will then come into being only after such convening is approved by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of its members. But it is also possible that the House leadership position is that the Resolution has already made itself into a constituent assembly, ready to adopt a rules of procedure to govern its proceedings. Its output, assuming this will involve proposed amendments or revisions, is the one that will require the approval of Congress by a vote of three-fourths of its members. We will know how they propose to implement the Resolution when the House leadership makes its next move. We will also know what the Senate's position is on its participation in the constituent assembly.
Already there are calls for meetings to organize a public opposition to the move by the Lower House. There is one happening today, 9am, at the Clubhouse in Cubao (former Seafood Market).
In addition to what the people will do to oppose HR 1109 and however it will be implemented, an equally important battle will be on the manner of voting for the proposal by Congress to amend the constitution. Under the 1935 Constitution, Article XV (Amedments), Section 1, the Congress, "in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may oppose amendments to this Constitution..." HR 1109 argues that "in joint session assembled" and "voting separately" are "essential words" deleted and no longer contained in the 1987 Constitution, and that such deletions embodies a "clear and manifest" intention of the 1987 Constitution to change the manner of proposing amendments or revisions to the constitution by Congress.
The debate on this issue, affecting as it will our political future, cannot be left to the lawyers that will argue this matter before the Supreme Court. We all need to have our own position on this. The matter should be debated as widely, publicly, and popularly as possible.
Off the bat, without having looked at the Records of the 1987 Constitutional Commission and whatever jurisprudence on the matter there is, the deletion was first introduced in the 1973 Constitution when there was shift from the then bicameral system as we have now to a unicameral legislature (the Batasang Pambansa). Thus the provision on the matter of voting must also necessarily change as there was no more Senate and House of Representatives to speak of. It is possible that in the 1987 Constitution there may have been an oversight not to reinstate the manner of voting, even if there was a shift back to bicameral legislature. Of course it is farfetched to think that the Commission would commit such serious oversight. In fact in the commentary by Bernas on the 1987 Constitution on the provision, he gives a one-sentence assertion: "It should be understood that the two houses of Congress vote separately." This statement is footnoted by "I RECORD 375", however I do not as yet have the contents of such record.
Will have a more definite take on the matter on my next post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment