By Butch Fernandez & Jovee Marie N. dela Cruz
SENATORS on Wednesday reached a consensus that they would stand by their position that the House of Representatives and Senate should vote separately in revising the 1987 Constitution, thus, presenting a stalemate scenario, as congressmen insist on joint voting.
Emerging from a public hearing, senators remained undecided on the preferred mode for tinkering with the Charter, either through Congress with senators and congressmen convening as a constituent assembly (Con-ass), or by electing delegates to a constitutional convention (Con-con).
However, Senator Francis N. Pangilinan, chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, told reporters that what was made clear at the hearing was that senators firmed up their position that the Senate and House should be “voting separately” if Charter change (Cha-cha) is to be done by lawmakers sitting in a Con-ass.
“It is a stalemate on the issue of [the Senate and the House] voting jointly of proposed constitutional amendments,” he said.
‘Railroaded’
At the House, which approved on Monday Concurrent Resolution 9 seeking to convene Congress into a Con-ass, members of the minority bloc slammed the leadership of the lower chamber for “railroading” the passage of the measure.
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman of the First District of Albay, Party-list Rep. Lito Atienza of Buhay and the Makabayan bloc asked the House leadership, led by Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez, to respect the legislative process.
“The inordinate fast-tracking of the approval by the House of Representatives of the concurrent resolution calling for a constituent assembly to recommend the shift to a federal system by amending the 1987 Constitution confirms the critical view that the supermajority will railroad Charter change,” Lagman said.
“The leadership of the House, with the support of the supermajority, is addicted to expediting the approval of bills and resolutions without affording dissenting representatives the full opportunity to ventilate their opposition.”
After approving the resolution, the House leadership said voting in the Con-ass should be done jointly.
Rep. Roger G. Mercado, chairman of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, invoked Article 17 of the Constitution. Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by [1] Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its members.”
“Congress, upon the vote of all its members, so, both houses will be convened and upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, meaning the House of Representatives and the Senate, then we can propose amendments to our Constitution,” Mercado said.
Unanimous vote
But even Senate Minority Leader Franklin M. Drilon confirmed the “unanimous vote” of all senators during a closed-door caucus “that the Senate and the House should be voting separately if the lawmakers convene as a constituent assembly to craft the Charter amendments.”
“In my 20 years as a senator, there’s just a few times where there is unanimity. The unanimity was shown yesterday when all the senators said ‘no, we should vote separately,’” Drilon said. “In fact, there was a rumor that one or two senators may opt to attend a supposed joint session with the House to amend the Constitution, and Sen. Panfilo M. Lacson Sr. warned no senator has been authorized to do that, and may face sanctions. In the first place they have no authority.”
Lacson said: “I will vote to expel the senator if he or she goes there.”
Drilon indicated that Lacson’s position was unanimously supported by the senators because “there was no disagreement.”
“But what is significant is that how serious the senators feel about our power to vote separately [on Cha-cha], so that any indication that any member of the Senate will defy that kind of unanimous opinion can be subjected to sanctions,” Drilon added.
Drilon also supporterd former Chief Justice Renato Puno’s view that the Supreme Court cannot interfere in the congressional process of amending the Constitution and how the Charter should be changed “because this is a political exercise and a political question, outside of the sphere of power of the Supreme Court to review actions and decisions of the government.”
Should a deadlock arise in voting to adopt proposed Charter amendments, Drilon conceded that “then there is nothing to work on; the Constitution will stay if there is a deadlock.”
Rubber-stamp?
Lagman, meanwhile, urged lawmakers not to be a rubber-stamp of the President. “What happens now in the House will certainly happen in the projected constituent assembly composed of the supermajority blindly allied with the President.”
Atienza said the House leadership should give its members enough time to scrutinize all the measures, especially the Cha-cha proposal.
“The issue is procedure, the correct way of making laws especially when you are talking about the fundamental law of the land. We are talking about changing the Constitution, revising the Constitution and probably even changing the system of government,” Atienza said.
The Makabayan bloc also denounced the abrupt approval of House Concurrent Resolution 9. “If anything, it is but an outright show of power of the supermajority and undisputed proof of how Congress now merely acts as a rubber-stamp of the executive.”
Alvarez admitted that, while he has the support of the supermajority in the lower chamber for Con-ass, he has no idea if there is enough number in the Senate in support of the proposal.