Time is fast running out for Gloria’s chachacheros.  Political and financial arrangements for the 2010 national elections are underway. They had a long shot with federalism thrown into the mix but the debacle that attended the GRP MILF MOA on Ancestral Domain in the Supreme Court has put a massive dent on the snout of the chacha choo choo train in the House.  

As a piece of English Grammar and Composition,  the 1987 Constitution is notorious for an insufferable verbosity in many of its provisions which can boast neither brevity nor wit.   But it can also be dangerously terse and ambiguous.  Take the matter of “ConAss” — the mechanism by which Congress is empowered to propose changes to the the Charter – 

Art. XVII Amendments and Revisions Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention.

A major Constitutional conundrum has arisen around Section 1(1) above because two entirely different meanings may be given to the clause “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members”.   It all depends on whether the Congress’ two chambers, House and Senate, are to  ”vote jointly” or “vote separately” to propose amendments or revisions for ratification at plebiscite.

There are those who argue that the Constitution here means “voting jointly” at the end of Art. XVII Section 1(1). By the way, this phrase occurs exactly once in the present 1987 Constitution, in the famous “Martial Law Provision” on the Executive:

1987 Article VII Section 18.  . . . . Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

So WHY have the Palace, the House and the Supreme Court been unable to do such a seemingly simple thing as establishing a “unicameral form of ConAss” similar to the above provision, where the Congress members vote as individuals and so the Lower House by itself would have the required 195 or so votes (238 House Members plus 23 Senators gives 261 total) to satisfy the three fourths super majority rule?

A good reason is that the House Rules themselves acknowledge the voting separately principle!

Section 105. (Rules of the House of Representatives) Form of Proposals and Procedure for Adoption. – 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.

Recall that in late 2006, the House under Jose de Venecia tried to amend its own Rules by deleting the last sentence in the above rule, in preparation for proposing a parliamentary form of government without Senate concurrence.

It was imperative therefore that the House Majority Members successfully repeal the Rule on chacha before it could undertake the dastardly deed of serving their own political ambitions by lifting term limits on the President and possibly themselves under a parliamentary system of govt!

But then, as now, there is very strong assurance from all authorities that the House would not survive a challenge in the Supreme Court by the Senate to such a unicameral ConAss attempt.

Now in the run-up to the 2010 elections, there are renewed attempts for a “last dance” chacha for Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. (The opposition Daily Tribune reports.)  MLQ3 (Manuel L. Quezon III) says in a recent comment here at Filipino Voices:

if you take a cha-cha scenario seriously, then think of the stages it’s already reached:

1. it has been in committee, the house has gone through the motions of “consultations” since may, it’s made ritual overtures to the senate and been rejected, laying the predicate for the case being brought to the supreme court.

2. at committee, it’s thus gone through first reading. reporting it out of committee means it’s at second reading. between now and xmas break for congress in the 2nd week of december is ample time to approve it on 2nd and 3rd reading.

3. vacancies will only fortify an already present admin majority in the sc. between the 2nd week of december and early january is ample time to deliberate on a case that the justices can say will be attended to with dispatch to forestall a constitutional crisis.

4. the opening of the budgetary floodgates between mid january and say, march or april when a plebiscite could be scheduled, would lead to a political feeding frenzy for cash and a campaign that would steamroll all other issues beneath it.

I am not as “optimistic” as MLQ3 about the realistic prospects of the chachacheros.  I concede that theoretically the House majority is but a single Supreme Court decision away from being able to propose amendments or revisions for plebiscite with about 195 vote super majorities in the House alone (three fourths of 261 Congress Members = 238 House Members and 23 Senators).

But what a decision that would be!

It would destroy the very concept of a bicameral Congress, since the House could make the Senate irrelevant–the ultimate institutional tyranny of numbers–on the crucial matter of constitutional amendments and virtually every other aspect of government.  

As a fundamental Act of Congress, the passage of a bill into a law requires a simple bicameral arithmetic. No law may be passed, not even to rename a street, without the unanimous vote of consent from both Houses of the Congress.  In the case of ordinary legislation, such as the national budget, the President may ratify or veto any Act of Congress.  Likewise, any proposal from Congress to revise or amend the Constitution may be ratified or rejected by the people at plebiscite. 

It makes not a whit of sense to assert that we would require the consent of two Houses of Congress for such a mundane purpose as renaming a street, yet would give the Lower House the keys to amending or revising the Constitution. 

However brazen and crazed with impunity the President and her men are, and no matter how thoroughly the Supreme Court be benched with willing sycophants, it would still take an act of truly infernal intellectual decrepitude and utter bankruptcy to reverse the body of judicial decision making here and abroad on the nature and processes of a bicameral legislature in a democratic republic. It would be as if the DOH were to try to repeal the laws of biology and epidemiology, or the DOST to deny the laws of physics, and still expect to be respected or credible. 

But it is not an absolute or dictatorial authority that the Supreme Court wields.  Its decisions must have logical, moral and intellectual consistency and integrity, and must be able to withstand the critical scrutiny of judges, lawyers and ordinary citizens, now and for posterity. They cannot afford to display any obvious stupidity.  So,  while it is true that the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says, there are immovable logical and conceptual limits beyond which the Supreme Court would invite ridicule or mockery for obvious errors on the most basic principles, such as those that govern a bicameral Congress.

There seems to be some idea that the administration forces would start with proposals that many Senators have themselves supported, such as the reform of the Constitution’s decidedly anti-competitive “nationalist provisions”, perhaps to gain their participation in a Constitutent Assembly to be called for the purpose.  It would simply be too much for them to start right off the bat extending their own terms or something scandalous like that. 

Assuming that the the Supreme Court gives the House the right to convene a Constituent Assembly  with or without the participation of Senators as individuals, I cannot see the House Members being able to exclude Senators from the proceedings of any Constituent Assembly that may be convened. 

Filipinos could then learn a different meaning of the word “filibuster.”

Fatal error: Call to undefined function p75HasVideo() in /homepages/39/d169067170/htdocs/voices/wp-content/themes/NewFV/single-default.php on line 57