“I do not know if we can convene immediately even if the resolution is approved today.” – Hon. Prospero Nograles, Speaker, House of Representatives
The approval of House Resolution No. 1109 (ConAss) has been met with everything but sobriety – even the very leadership of the House of Representative has failed to comprehend its approval in the light of the provisions of the very Constitution they seek to amend.
It is unfortunate that most of our Representatives never attempted to understand where ConAss lies in the Constitutional scheme of things. However, it is even more unfortunate if we resort to labels identifying ourselves as ‘Anti-ChaCha’ and placards articulating our ‘No to ConAss’ without an appreciation of the dynamics in our Constitution, however flawed it may seem to many.
Charter Change refers to either the revision or amendment of the Constitution. Amendment would refer to ‘isolated or piecemeal change only’ while revision would pertain to a ‘revamp or rewriting’ [Cruz, 1996]. Article XVII provides that both involve two (2) steps – proposal and ratification.
Constituent Assembly (ConAss) is among the modes of proposing either amendments or revisions to the Constitution. A reading of the Article would show that there are the three modes for proposing changes: (a) Constituent Assembly [Section 1 (1)]; (b) Constitutional Convention [Section 1(2)]; or (c) by a People’s Initiative [Section 2].
For the first mode, Congress – and by ‘Congress’ we mean not merely the House of Representatives but must necessarily include the Senate – may convene itself into a Constituent Assembly ‘upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members’ [Emphasis mine.] As ConAss, the Senate and House of Representatives become a constituent body exercising special power to formulate a new constitution or propose amendments to the constitution. A caveat though, our Constitution does not explicitly state whether the two houses of Congress will be voting jointly or separately.
Congress may call for a Constitutional Convention (ConCon) ‘by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members’ or by a simple majority vote, Congress can submit the decision (on whether or not to call a ConCon) to the electorate. [Again, emphasis mine.] Under ConCon, it is imperative that the delegates to the ConCon is from a direct election by the people. The number of delegates is entirely the discretion of Congress.
Finally, proposals may also be made by our own initiative. We, the People, may directly propose amendments to the Constitution upon petition of at least 12% of all registered voters, and provided that every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. The last sentence in Section 2 of Article XVII makes it imperative for Congress to enact legislation to implement this provision.
Congress has the sole discretion to decide on which mode to employ in proposing changes to the Charter, save, perhaps, for the third mode on People’s Initiative. Be as it may, Article XVII makes it imperative that the product of either ConCon or ConAss must be submitted to the people for ratification through a referendum. [Section 4]
Finally, the Supreme Court, even after Congress has convened itself into a ConAss, can still strike down such measure if it appears that the conditions precedent to the convening of the ConAss was attended with ‘grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction’. [Section 1, Article VIII] Hence, even if it is the sole discretion of Congress to choose which mode of proposing changes to the Charter, the Supreme Court can still come in and strike down such as unconstitutional.
In other words, while we may rage against the railroading of the ConAss resolution by our Honorable Representatives (Aside: I cringe whenever I hear them refer to themselves as ‘representatives’ – they seldom genuinely represent our interests), we must do so in the light of what the Constitution actually provides. Although we are all glad that we, as a people, are edifying ourselves (about time that we do) with the provisions of our Constitution and are engaging in healthy debates, let us not fall prey to our emotions.
The House of Representatives may have passed the resolution but such would remain meaningless if the Senate refuses to pass an equivalent resolution. Again, Mr. Speaker, without a similar move by the Senate, the resolution doesn’t mean anything and you cannot ‘convene immediately’.
Again, this is a call for sobriety. If we do not want ConAss as a mode of proposing changes to our Constitution, then let us make sure the men and women who are supposed to represent our opposition would, in fact, represent our sentiments. If not, let us turn to our Senators – Senators Arroyo and Pimentel have categorically stated that the Senate will not pass a similar resolution. If the Senate fails us, the Supreme Court has proven time and again that it heeds reason and fairness.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Now, that’s more like it! Amen.
Why do you people insist on being innocent. Dinadaya nga eh, binibili ang boto and then the choices are limited to one trapo heir to another trapo heir.
Part of these rallies, I guess, is theater. As theater it will also seek to educate other Filipinos. The threat of a revolution is a genuine one with a genuine justification: the Hello Garci and the cases of Executive corruption. You can also include the disappearances.
I must repeat: the power of the “sovereign” electorate does not reside on its right to vote alone. That is stupid. If we can only exercise our power through the ballot box then we are indeed powerless… given what I indicated above.
Exactly my sentiments Brian B. There are many roads that leads to freedom and enlightenment and there are many prescriptions that will all contribute. Namecalling and denigrating and sterotyping is the lowest form of argument they say but I say too that these are tools to render us inert and saps energy to fight the injustices that we see plainly with our open eyes.
@BongV: Thanks :)
@BrianB: I can totally understand -> ‘and then the choices are limited to one trapo heir to another trapo heir’. I used to call it the Tyranny of the Term Limit – a classic failure, imho. The term limits set by the Local Government Code has perpetuated the very evil it has sought to obliterate.
@BrianB and @Rosa: I purposely stopped with the Supreme Court. If reason and fairness has also evaded the two branches – and I mean only the legislative and judiciary, then it is time we resort to these ‘other tools’.
These rallies though are part of a democratic country. They are not insober. Put another way, media is not the only avenue for informing the public.
i say that for as long as you can rally, no matter how hollow your cause is, and come back home to your family alive and free, there is no reason to resort to violence to attain your ends.
Amen seconded.
Sounds familiar to bong, doesn’t it?
I can also sense it beyond the text, don’t worry.
O ano, gangster si Ria? :lol:
If we raised sobriety as an issue in so far as the governed is concerned, then with more reason then that we raise sobriety in the way the politicians banded together to railroad 1109.
We have witnesses and their testimonies will form part of history. It is happening now as it will be happening hence.
Who cares about the witnesses and their micro-novelas.
At the end of the day, it boils down to people saying YES.. or NO.
and who is “raising” sobriety as an “issue”? the post is calling for an act of sobriety on all of us, not arguing whether it’s good or bad. and how can politicians be united, i.e. “banded together”, without being sober?
The sober truth is that the House can’t amend the Constitution to fit its own desires without having to go through other political institutions…and then getting the majority of the voting population to sign off on it.
If you feel offended by 1109, that’s your right. If you reject the idea of ChaCha, great. If you want to join a peaceful rally, you can.
Ultimately, you will be able to express your beliefs in a vote.
What’s wrong with that? What more do you want? Pls explain.
great scholarly post, elena, and that’s not because we share the same last name (lol). thanks.
nevertheless, if i may add my two-cent worth for the sake of discussion, it seems to me that while the sc may review the lower house’s action in an actual “justiciable” case, it can only be disturb, as you correctly pointed out, on a clear showing of abuse of discretion. for a tribunal composed of individuals that are all beyond reproach “like caesar’s wife” inside and out, that should not be a problem. i don’t question here the integrity of our supreme court justices but the issues they could be facing are heavily laden with political color that partisan sentiments would be hard to overcome. a politically neutral and ‘stateman-like’ court that knows its place in a republican democracy would strictly observe principles like separation of powers and inter-departmental courtesy and give them more than a token recognition.
assuming that the senate was duly given ample opportunity to participate and vote in the convening of a constituent assembly and in adopting a joint resolution, but refused, for its own reasons (not at all unknown to us), the sc, imho, could very well find the matter a ‘political question’ for which it has no jurisdiction nor any authority to dip its fingers.
i don’t believe i saw anything in the constitution that specifically requires separate resolutions of both houses in adopting a constituent assembly where participation is open to all the members of each house. if i may ask you, please enlighten me.
errata: be DISTURBED not “disturb” (2d line, 2d par.) also, “dip its fingers INTO” (last line, 2d par.)
To all Soldiers and Officers of the AFP:
Gloria Arroyo, Nograles, etc…are trying to perpetuate their
power in the Philippines. They want to change the Constitution. So
that they can remain in power.
You have the power to potect and defend the Filipino people and the
Constitution. Which we all had fought for in EDSA I. It is the blood,
sweat and tears for some of us.
These people are doing illegal activities for their selfish interests. Most of them did not participate in the struggle. But were
serving the former Dictator Marcos. Some were just plain political
opportunists.
If the Dictator Gloria Arroyo will fall. You will fall with her.
You have your families, your careers and yourselves to look after.
Any military people participating in the grab for power of this Evil
Unano will be tried in our Military Tribunal. Look at the case of
MANCAO and DUMLAO. People who they attached their futures are
nowhere to be seen. They cannot help them.
Hayden Toro: tinatawagan mo ba ang mga sundalo na mag-Trillanes?
Huwag naman lalo na hindi ka apektado kung mag-putukan dahil nasa Calfornia ikaw. Ang kailangang gawin ng militar ay sumunod sa Constitution, hindi ba?
Pag nag-putukan, masama sa bisnes. :lol:
No, We are just calling them to protect the Freedom and Rights of
the Filipino people. Defend the Contitution.
Some of these Military personnel were our comrades in EDSA I.
I know what they are thinking. Do not follow illegal orders.
If the Evil Unano will fall. You will fall also.
She did not even participate in the struggle. She is just a
beneficiery of it. Now she wants to destroy it. She did not even
gave an effort in the struggle.
what struggle, toro? did you have to fire a shot as a soldier or did you rip off your uniform, put a red headband, grab a sign saying “marcos alis diyan”, and joined the crowd jerking a thumbs-down sign up and down the air?
Cali? Looks more like Lansing, MI.
“we must do so in the light of what the Constitution actually provides.”
Spoken like a true patriot/ess.
I myself has been saying the past few days that the movers and shakers of this Res1109 are still playing by the rule book we call the Constitution.
Isn’t the process of democracy, particularly the aspect of the rule of law, great? The moves to change the rulebook of our society are subject to the present existing rulebook. We cannot again hardwire or jump start as in the past EDSAs.
We may not get it right the first times, but we must keep trying. I’m not ready to sing Virna Lisa’s tune too soon. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wWTqd1OJ9U&feature=related
Rebels are not us. :)
By default, the Senate and the HOR do business separately. (I believe that this two-chambered function of our legislative department is NOT customizable – comparing it to a default operation of a computer operating system.)
As pointed out by domingoarong over at djb’s site…
The 1987 Constitution has Article VI to spell out the bicameral nature of the Legislative Department.
Its Sec. 1 spells out that the Congress = Senate + HOR.
Its Sec. 16 spells out that “a majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business” and, this I will add to domingoarong’s comment, that “each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”
—–
Sec. 58 of the House Rules spells out that all measures approved by the HOR shall be transmitted by the Sec. Gen. to the Senate for the Senate’s concurrence.
—–
Notice that the HOR initially “did its business” of adopting HR 1109. Now, it’s up to the Senate, “doing its own business,” to concur with the infamous Resolution or to come up with its own similar Resolution. Simple majority of EACH House is required for EACH House to do business.
—–
Hence…
Just as there is
a CONCURRENT Resolution
of the House of Representatives
and the Senate of the Philippines
providing for a joint session
to hear the State of the Nation Address
of the President of the Philippines,
There should also be
a CONCURRENT Resolution of both Chambers
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.
(Please notice that I used above the exact wordings of the title of HR 1109.)
How will you convene the Congress?
Is it just by calling (or inviting) upon the Members of Congress to convene?
Is it just by adopting a Resolution of one House calling for Members of Congress to convene?
yes, baycas, but the bone of contention really is whether the representatives and the senators should, or need not, vote separately. as far as i know, the only instance where a separate voting is required in a joint session is when the purpose is to declare the existence of a state of war. thus, when the constitution wants a separate voting, it says so in unmistakable terms, thereby precluding reliance to haka-haka.
btw, the house rules you quoted was adopted in November, 2007 by a different HOR. in any event, each house of congress has the power to determine its own rules – at any time – in the absence of a specific constitutional provision to the contrary. what it creates, it can change, modify, or destroy, for good reason that it itself determines.
So, are they now in joint session as a result of HR 1109, a unilateral Resolution at that and in total disregard of the bicameral nature of the legislative department? Are they now in joint session just because the HOR ALONE can muster a strength of three-fourths vote required for constitutional tinkering?
Also, in effect, are you saying that merely a majority (while doing their own business) of the HOR can convene the Congress for the purpose of proposing amendment/s or revision/s to the Constitution?
Why talk of “three-fourths” already when the simple majority of the Senate has not yet concurred with the 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?” Or, why not ask first Lito Lapid to initiate a Senate Resolution similar to HR 1109?
Both Houses each create Resolutions just to hear the SONA…more so, if each House would want to convene the Congress for the purpose of proposing amendment/s or revision/s to the Constitution!
—–
Ambiguity exists in the provisions (Item A below)…in the minds of those who are perceived to have a sinister plot…
Whereas, in the minds of those opposing a Senate-less constituent assembly, the Congress votes separately by default operation.
The following is culled from the comments section of the blog post “Western-style Democracy:”
In (3) Par. 4, Sec. 28, Art. VI. “4. No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.”…
How will you interpret such stipulation?
thanks, baycas, for your quote from djb’s commentary. i cannot, and don’t intend to, dispute the clear provisions of the constitution. that said, all the provisions you quoted supports my position that when the constitution wants a SEPARATE voting by a jointly-assembled congress, it say so in no uncertain terms. it did not do so in the case of amending or revising the constitution by a “constituent assembly” under sec. 1(1), art. xvii (which i noticed you stayed away from), the very provision under scrutiny here. why should we assume that the omission was an oversight on the part of the framers?
the provisions you quoted are not relevant to this discussion. no one here is claiming ambiguity with respect to any of them. so, your reference to “sinister plot” is a red herring to say the least.
when a provision of a constitution or statute is clear, it requires no interpretation. it must be applied according to its plain meaning.
Bencard,
I didn’t stray away from Par (1), Sec. 1, Art. XVII because, I believe, the lawmakers are still not there yet. Upon adoption of HR 1109, the lawmakers are still halfway through in convening Congress for the purpose of proposing amendment/s or revision/s to the Constitution.
I’ll re-post my questions:
how in tarnation can they be in “joint session” physically when the senate is boycotting the HOR’s call? what else can the HOR do other than to “invite” the senators nicely and appeal to their sense of duty, patriotism and statesmanship? you don’t expect the congressmen to put a gun to the senators’ head to force them to participate, do you? we all know that the senators are more concerned with their job security than any need for a constitutional amendment. i am convinced that in an honest debate concerning their continued existence, they would have a difficult time
justifying why they should stay; and, considering they are vastly outnumbered, that could be a foregone conclusion, imho.
i believe the constitution cannot be interpreted in such a way as to enable either house to impede, obstruct or prevent a constitutional exercise of power to amend or revise it when the situation calls for it, simply by refusing to participate.
as to lito lapid, do you think his “resolution” would see the light of day, even assuming that he is subject to somebody’s bidding and that he doesn’t mind putting his job in jeopardy? frankly, i consider this suggestion a cheap shot and i don’t appreciate it.
Concerning the power behind the determinant verb–CONVENE–and how it was misapplied earlier, Sec. 3 (1) of Article XVII (Transitory Provisions) of the 1973 (MARCOS) Constitution provided that:
“Section 3. (1) The incumbent President of the Philippines shall initially convene the Interim National Assembly and shall preside over its sessions until the interim Speaker shall have been elected. He shall continue to exercise his powers and prerogatives under the nineteen hundred and thirty-five Constitution and the powers vested in the President and the Prime Minister under this Constitution until he calls upon the Interim National Assembly to elect the interim President and interim Prime Minister who shall then exercise their respective powers vested by this Constitution.”
It is worthwhile remembering the sad footnote that it was this same verb, CONVENE, in the opening line, “The incumbent President shall initially convene,” that decided the fate of Filipinos and the Republic in 1973; for Marcos, the “incumbent President,” decided NOT to immediately CONVENE.
This time around, as regards HR 1109, the Senate should perhaps duplicate what Marcos did ages ago.
But however this will be resolved, “the Congress” is merely authorized to PROPOSE; the Constituent Power (as with the Electoral Power) is the primordial sovereign power the Filipino People, the sovereign, forever reserve and perpetually retain, a power they do not relinquish to a government they established to be exercised exclusively by them as the electorate to ratify amendments to, or the revision of, the Constitution they created or, if circumstances deteriorate (which I think will not), as People Power.
Well reasoned argument and great discussions. I wasn’t sure I was on FV for a moment. Bencard, take care, your intelligence is showing, and the skilled argumentativeness of your chosen profession.
I’m not an attorney. I can only say that dismay over the process is justified. Leaders are expected to serve and protect the Public Trust. They didn’t, with a rushed procedure that cut off discussion and hid the proponents behind a voice vote – dealing with the most cherished document in the Land. The Chief Leader has not led, and, indeed, has remained strangely silent while her country has had a minor seizure.
That, too, is a betrayal of Public Trust. To see people upset, and to do nothing. . . This notion that “it is all up to Congress and there is nothing we can do about it is”, ummmmm, what is the word I am looking for?
Vacuous . . .ahahahahaha . . . suspicious . . .?
If the Senate and the Supreme Court fail to stop this irresponsible “rush to revision”, what do you recommend? Live with what people who appear capable of ignoring Public Trust write into the Constitution?
Joe
joe, in our country (and i know in yours, too), the “Chief Leader” has his/her own sphere of authority. in our democratic scheme of governance, we have what is known as separation of powers. i’m surprised that you’re suprised about pgma’s silence and hands-off policy. your criticism of her public neutrality on the matter is a classic illustration of “damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t”.
the recent unevent called “anti con ass protest rally” estimated at 6,000 “same old same old” indicates that the real “people” are weary and leary of these imitation “people power” rallies with all the hate slogans and rhetoric from the same old naysayers who fail, again and again, to capture the hearts and mind of the people that count.
in my estimation, the real “betrayal of public trust” is the hardhearted refusal of the senators (all, including strange bedfellows enrile and pimentel), who seem to put their job security above the interests of the nation, to participate in the process.
True, but lack of trust is a big reason she is damned if she does or doesn’t. She does not have to articulate a position on the Congressional action, thereby influencing it. Indeed, she should confirm that she is not allowed to meddle in Legislative affairs, and is not meddling. Otherwise people will believe the stories that they are told that she IS meddling.
Street rallies are a means of expression for those lacking other means. I agree they become trite, and as I have posted elsewhere, I don’t think they reflect well on the Philippines overseas.
I would agree with your assessment on the Senate if I saw the House process as forthright, open, and rational. Unfortunately, I see it as underhanded, closed, and biased – perhaps infused with meddling from the Executive branch. The Senate is wise to choose not to play in that game, as to play is a continuing abridgment of Public Trust (in my layman’s opinion).
I don’t trust the House and I don’t trust the Executive branch. How can I trust people to produce a good Constitution that places the interest of the public first if they can’t abide by the spirit of the one that exists? I’d rather keep the old one until there is a process in place that I respect. It says the right words . . . they are just ignored.
Joe
too bad, joe, that you see “it” the way you do. tough luck. if, as you say, you cannot trust our agencies of our government such as the house and the executive (i assume you trust the senate), there’s no sense arguing about it. the fact, however, remains that your lack of trust doesn’t matter at all. you’re not even a voter. i wish i could say it more gently.
Oh, I have not earned the right to vote, Ben. So no need to say anything gently. But if my puny little voice in the wind helps in any way, I shall keep yammering.
I don’t think my mistrust is any different from what many Filipinos feel, nor does it exist for specious reasons.
Put another way, the horses in office aren’t even trying to lead my ass to water.
Always a pleasure hearing from you.
Joe
Joe,
Pls provide some examples of a House Resolution which took longer to pass, which had 5 hours of oppositors’ speeches and that wasn’t passed by a voice vote.
Meanwhile, pls describe how 1109 changes anything in the Constitution. If there is no revision, how can it be rushed?
If the Senate and SC reject any “irresponsible” actions, where is the problem?
If the Senate and SC somehow decide to accept any actions, and the next step is a national plebescite, why would it worry you that every voter will have his/her say?
Pls demonstrate this attack on the “Public Trust”. Pls show an infringement. Pls show what legal or illegal process has made you “dismayed”.
HR 1109 is unconstitutional. Period. Kailangan pa bang i-memorize yan? Our legislative system is bicameral.
unfortunately for you, madonna, it doesn’t work that way, uh uh, not on your or anybody’s say so. you may interpret the constitution any which way you want but it only serves to feed your own and other’s ignorance. there are due process and appropriate authority to determine what the constitution really means on disputed provisions.
LOL. Ignorance, my foot. You’re the one playing “ignorant” Bencard. I have come to respect you even if we don’t see eye to eye on issues, but to call people who have opposed HR 1109 as ignorant, because they/we see it for what is is — as a naked move for power, and for power’s sake — is sad.
“…a naked move for power, and for power’s sake.”
Madonna,
What are we guaranteed will be the result will be from this “power move”? No-el? Extended terms? Single party dcitatorship?
That’s what’s being said by some.
But saying that and then ignoring, omitting or disclaiming the other relevant, factual realities is being either ignorant or manipulative. It’s hard to say that politely.
It’s very clear that the House would have to go through the Senate, SC and a popular vote to do all of these evil things being bandied about loosely.
What is sad is that the media is selling these distortions with a straight face (actually, with a stern, troubled, concerned face).
Maybe people can see through that. Maybe that’s why — aside from the repeat performers — no one else showed up at the “rally”. Maybe the “People” themselves should be given a little more “Trust” and faith afterall…..
madonna, far from playing ignorant, i usually make it a point to provide a basis, either factual or legal, for any assertion of FACT that i make. in the absence of such a basis, i make sure to disclose that it is only my opinion, or product of my own perception or faith.
it seems to be a pinoy habit to make motherhood statements and expect others to take them as gospel truth. thus, you often hear one saying: the people say this and the people say that, as though what they are saying is the sentiment of all the people of the land.
btw, what has a bicameral legislative system got to do with a house resolution. if one house can effectively cancel the other through recalcitrant refusal to cooperate, why maintain two houses that are constantly at war with each other resulting in gridlock that is inimical to the the nation’s interest?
Sorry, but 1109 is NOT unconstitutional.
There is not one single Constitutional expert who claims it is. Even anti-admin Fr Bernas says it is not. 1109 by itself is nothing. The real issue is whether or not the House (only) actually convenes as a ConAss and starts trying to make amendments.
————-
Yes, we all know the system is bicameral. Yes, we also know that — in most instances — the House and Senate must vote seperately.
But we also know that, when specifically describing the methods of constitutional amendment, the words just say the whole Congress and don’t say “seperately”…as the words do elsewhere.
Hence the ability to “read” this in different ways. Happens all the time. That’s why there is an SC.
Whatever the SC will rule, so be it. Easy!
————–
So why would anyone say that 1109 is “unconstitutional” if it clearly isn’t? Maybe they just don’t know the reality.
Or, or just maybe they DO know…..but then why would they say the opposite???
Hmmmmmm…….
thanks, Bencard, for the lively discussion.
i invite you to read lawyer Jun Bautista’s take on this matter. i also left comments there, if you want to read them.
you’re welcome, baycas. it’s my pleasure. btw, i’ll look at atty. bautista’s post and try to learn something, hopefully.
I always go back to the following provisions where confusion as to interpretation may lie (simply because “voting jointly” and “voting separately” by the Congress are lacking):
I go back because I was already curious three years ago how the process is carried out as regards Tax Exemption (Item No. 3) and Presidential Grant of Amnesty (Item No. 1). Two provisions that I think were already operational unlike Constitutional Amendment/Revision Proposals by the Congress (Item No. 2) and Constitutional Convention (Item No. 4) which weren’t tried and tested yet even up to now. I wasn’t able to research on the topic due to lack of time and perhaps I was waiting then for someone to answer my queries.
Anyway, last night I got hold of the answers…
Re: Tax Exemption:
Republic Act 9504
News reports even say that the Congress omitted the bicameral conference meetings to pave the way for its immediate enactment and implementation.
But the process is just like passing a law, i.e., both Houses voted separately. How does it conform to the required vote by “majority of all the Members of the Congress?” I guess it does, by “default” separate voting inherent to a bicameral legislature.
Can the process be similarly applied re: Proposal for Constitutional Amendment/s or Revision/s?
I guess the process may not be convincing enough to alter the Pro-ConAss’s conviction because it’s just like passing any other law.
Let’s consider an example on Amnesty Grant by the president if ever there is one…
From the glimpse of how this 2007 amnesty –
Proclamation 1377* –
is being handled, the bicameral legislature (with both Houses voting separately) is in the works.
So, in two constitutional provisions where the vote from “all the Members of the Congress” are involved, the Houses voted separately.
From a layman’s point of view, I believe that the other two provisions [Items No. (2) and No. (4) above] must follow the norm of separate voting in a bicameral legislature. The words “all the members” must not be taken literally as both Houses do business separately. Leaving out some words (e.g., “jointly” or “separately”) doesn’t alter the true meaning of the provisions. There is NO ambiguity.
The interpretation of the constitutional provision in question is actually a no-brainer to all lawmakers…UNLESS, of course, they are in a hurry and have a sinister plot!
—–
*Link won’t appear because it’s a government site. Anyway, one may google Proclamation 1377 – concurred by HOR, not yet by Senate.
baycass, if, as you and atty. bautista seem to conclude, that a separate voting by both houses is automatically required for every congressional action , why should the constitution even bother
to add the specific proviso, i.e. “voting separately”, in (1) declaring a state of war; (2) declaring a president’s disability to discharge his/her office; (3) proclaiming a winning candidate in case of tie; and (4) confirming a successor vice president. were the framers being unnecessarily verbose or disingenuous in stating what was already a given?
The 1986 Constitutional Commission was in a hurry that they omitted words (or perhaps supplied more words than what is required) in some points that, to them, are trivial then but to some of us now are big things.
Big things that the political wise guys would rather thresh out during crunch time (You see the Congress is One ConAss-divided-in-2 already and the proponents of the Economic Revisions of the Constitution should have filed their corresponding bills – which will require separate Houses’ three-fourths vote – a long time ago. Now, the HOR want to speed up the process and CONVENE by a Resolution a One Big Joint-House ConAss).
However, these sins of omission and/or commission, in no way, diminish the intent of the framers of the Constitution…and that is, to always preserve check and balance in government.
Well, I am not here to second-guess the framers or even perhaps read what are in their minds during that time…for I leave that to the eminent constitutional experts.
Now, as to your question “why should the constitution even bother
to add the specific proviso, i.e. ‘voting separately’?”
Again, I go back to the summary where the words “voting separately” is included in the provisions. They total five (5) and not four as you mentioned. Note that in all five instances the words “both Houses” of the “Congress” are written. The default operation of “voting separately” has to be specified simply to remove doubt or confusion in the minds of readers.
Whereas, in the four (4) instances where “all the Members of Congress” appear, the Congress (Senate + HOR) is simply told to operate by default, i.e., “vote separately,” as it is happening in the tried and tested Granting of Amnesty by the president and Tax Exemption.
Note further in C, that “voting jointly” has to be specified BECAUSE the word “Congress” is only the one mentioned and they (the Congress) has to deviate from its default operation of “voting separately.
I don’t blame the 1986 framers and will not ever criticize them in my lifetime! They did a marvelous job! Only the political wise guys of today…of course, I ABHOR!
I stand corrected:
“BOTH HOUSES OF THE CONGRESS VOTING SEPARATELY” only appears four (4) times in the 1987 Constitution.
In Summary B, Item No. 2 should be omitted. I apologize if I created confusion.
Bencard, you’re right, only 4 provisions contain the words/phrase.
sorry, baycas, i’m not buying it. that’s exactly what you are doing – second guess the framers. let the courts do it. right or wrong, their interpretation will prevail, not yours or mine. btw, lay-off the “political wise-guys” thing. each side can claim that of the other.
As it was then and as it is now, we Filipinos are living in an acute state of delusion. So, many of us if not all thought that we are living in a democracy but the reality of it is that we, except those that we elect to rule us, are inside a cheap fish bowl or looking glass.
Sure we got the feel specially on election day, but that’s how far it goes. Just the feeling of having it, a democrazy.
How many years are we going to live this way? Well, the answer could be only for today (???) or we will just keep blowing the wind from our noses.
We’re not on the same side on this one, of course, those words can be used interchangeably depending on one’s point of view.
Constitutional experts have their authoritative way of explaining things. I’ll do it my way…as I understood it.
Here’s hoping you read my summation…
Now, I would pose this question:
If in Summary A and in Summary C (provisions enumerated several comments above) the use of the phrase “all the Members of Congress” are identical, how come “voting jointly” was added in C?
Notice the hierarchy of Summary A to Summary C? A, being the norm, precedes C, which is a deviation to the norm.
Here’s a test — Invert deviation C to become the norm:
Thus, all the Members of the Congress vote jointly. How come in concurring with Amnesty Grants and in passing Tax Exemption…the Congress votes separately?
so:
it becomes parliamentary – voters will still be selling votes, trapos will still be buying votes, corruption still reigns. same o same o.
i saw your summation, baycas. as i said , let’s just leave it at that. meanwhile, as the whole objective of this thread goes, i think, let’s have some sobriety and let’s leave the name -calling and other appeals to emotion, out for now. thanks to you, too, baycas.
Nice job showing both sides of the debate, baycas and bencard. Much detail, good reasoning and no fighting, name-calling.
It can be done.
To me, this just shows that the Constitution is a bit sloppy…and hence needs cleaning up. There may have been too much “cut-and-paste”, as I understand different previous constitutions were used as reference/guides. Indeed, I think that some parts were written under the assumption that there would be a unicameral legislature.
Ultimately, despite accusations or emotions, only the SC can decide this specific issue of “seperately or as one?” A pretty standard situation; it happens all the time.
i agree with realitycheck that this HR1109 is unconstitutional…as per Rep Roilo Golez says…the committee of Constitution and Amendments cannot approve this HR1109 without the sponsorship and debates…as far as I remember that Rep Villafuerte withdraw his support for this HR1109 who happened to be the sponsor…and that’s why the opposition congressman walked out and say this is railroading. i watched their hearing on television and really i was so amazed being an ignorant to constitution…by hearing the arguments of those opposing the HR1109 i would say that GMA’s really pushes this HR1109 for what reason i do not know…though i can speculate that this is not for the interest of the Filipino people as a whole.
Point of clarification.
My comment in part, reads: “If we raised sobriety as an issue …”, with of course, emphasis on the word “if” as a conditional syllogistic argument.
This was rebutted with that comment that reads:”and who is raising sobriety as an issue?”.
At the very least, hasn’t the author of the blog,”A call for sobriety” actually raised it as an issue?
Or hear it from bencard himself (oh he shares the same last name with the blogger whom he did not fail to ‘acknowledge’),”i think, let’s have sobriety…”
One can be lost in the maze of useless semantics.
I find these statements very amusing, to wit:
1. “when a provision of a constitution or statute is clear, it requires no interpretation. it must be applied according to its plain meaning”.
If you were a resource person, can you really offer the above statement as a very scholarly, very intelligent, and very expertly opinion to justify or rationalize HR 1109?
2. “in an honest debate concerning their (Senate, or senators) continued existence, they would have a difficult time justify their continued stay”
This is the intellectual tragedy
3. And more to this point, he man says further that senators are there to ‘impede, obstruct, prevent a constitutional power to amend or revise it when the situation calls for it, simply by refusing to participate”.
What’s that?
4. And then again, he went on to define public trust by saying: “betrayal of public trust is the hardhearted refusal of the senators who seem to put their job security above the interests of the nation to participate in the process”.
Correctly reading bigenya, I know that she subscribes to the notion of both Senate and House as regard any amendment or revision of the Constitution.
I know, too, that bigenya would have wished that the Representatives in the case of the present crop of congressmen and congresswomen are those who really represent the people’s sentiments.
Lastly, bigenya did believe that the whole exercise (Con Ass or charter change) would have been meaningless if Senate refuses to pass an equivalent resolution.
All told, the views of bigenya do in fact run counter with those of bencard. In other words, their lines of thought do not really coincide.