The midnight voting to approve HR 1109 has been an acoustic victory. If future social scientists, legal scholars, and historians will later want to find from available journal or document as to who did, in fact, vote for HR 1109 to those who did not – no available material will tell. And it is so because, on purpose, voting came via viva voce. The stronger the sound appears to be ‘ayes’ than the ‘nayes’, the former will have it. But again, always as always, people will want to find out  even question why a house resolution invested with overarching constitutional implication can just be voted upon by the mode we would here call – voice-say. At the very least, there must have been left a piece of scientific evidence that interested parties can revisit like maybe an electronic record from a sound radar, a sonar maybe, whatever – but is there?

The resulting responses to this viva voce would have been as to, one: why did it not proceed by nominal voting instead and two: how for the sake of posterity will people know who voted for HR 1109 against those who did not – since their voice ought to the voice of their respective constituency. In other words, it maybe likened to something of a ‘crime perfect’ – no one will be blamed since nothing is in evidence.

Now let’s shift quickly to yet another point. There were to have been at least three committee hearings held over 1109, the second being the time when constitutional experts Fr. Joaquin Bernas and former Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza of the Supreme Court Mendoza were in attendance as resource persons plus an official memorandum from yet another expert (a law dean, must be Dean Agabin?) read by Rep. Rufus Rodriguez although with some desistance from Chairman Victor Ortega who rather wanted the memo merely inserted into the record. It is these 1st and 2nd which I have witnessed but I would assume that even on the 3rd such hearing, it would have merely a continuation with no other new ‘positional edifice’ to have been constructed. Then came that evening affair in the nation’s history – 1109 won – at the dead of the night.

In gist, what are the points of agreement as well as disagreement discussed over 1109? First, the resource persons would rather that a constitutional convention be the mode opted to rather than just a constituent assembly. The mode via a people’s initiative was certainly not part of their equation. Fact is, Fr. Bernas deems as wiser a ConAss apparently gauging from what is in the air. For another, the committee tried to know if voting can be done with Congress in joint session which Rep. Datumanong had in fact discussed in length citing even those instances where joint meeting of HOR and Senate is held to take up martial law, SONA (State of the Nation Address), et cetera. Taking from these traditional proceedings, Datumanong thought it can extend as to apply even in matters pertaining to revising the Constitution. Still for Fr. Bernas, the infamous resolution should be treated just like any other bill where both HOR and Senate are voting separately.

In the 2nd committee hearing, Rep. Golez were to have raised a most important observation. Conversant with the Rules of Procedure of the House and the workings in the Committee on Rules, he did not fail to stressed that the whole proceeding following the time the resource persons have been excused are but – out of order – extending as it does beyond the 4 p.m. when all business should be taken up at the Plenary Session. But unfortunately, Committee Chairman Victor Ortega ruled that Golez’ observation cannot be well taken.

This gave rise to the very occasion when the Chairman tried to show a letter he sent to the Chairman, Committee on Rules asking that the committee goes on to deliberate on 1109 apparently signed and approved – beyond the designated 4 o’clock p.m. time. However, on document scrutiny, Golez was sure and firm that the same was not properly approved and signed by Chairman and much less by co-signatory Minority Floor Leader as consistent with the rules.

It also must be borne in mind that as far as the resource persons are concerned, 1109 should be voted upon by a vote of ¾ with HOR and Senate voting separately and not jointly. The rationale of this has always been overemphasized which is that it should not become a number’s game where obviously the administration legislators consist the majority of those who will vote for 1109.

Thus, rightly so, the Committee has just chosen to disregard if discard the wisdom of the ages. Neither Justice Mendoza nor Fr. Bernas became their patron saint. Now that the HB 1109 is approved, let us just begin to watch the next pecking order.

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