Writing at FV is a time-consuming endeavor and I do not have the time. But glancing at FV does not require so much time and looking at it lately, I was shocked to find the collective “Voice” shrilled and frayed over HR 1109, a resolution that some say is a precursor to the extension of the reign of the queen in Malacanang.
The conundrum of voices here at FV over the resolution that convenes the lower house as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of Tralala sent tremors to my self-absorbed activity and self-imposed furlough, and brought me back to punch my keyboard at the expense of my personal endeavor that requires my undivided attention.
I can only look with envy at some prolific contributors here that can mass-produce literary pieces on coffee-breaks, or others that can churn out articles after articles with classic theme of “beating around the bush” and mindless of the footprint their masterpieces leave on the minds of the readers. I look at the readers with circumspect and with studied caution hence I have to think a while before I smoke my keyboard.
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Some say it is like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched and must be viewed with sanctimonious reverence. {Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826)} Some say it was made by the people and the people alone can unmake it. It is a creature of their own will and lives only by their will. {John Marshall (1755-1835)}.
So if you were a Jeffersonian in thought, your protest against HR 1109 is justified. The Constitution which is too sacred a covenant will be soiled if the scoundrels in Congress will be allowed to touch it, but if you were of Marshall’s insight, the constitution can be rewritten by the people, or by the people’s representatives in Congress.
But which Congress constitutes ¾ that can propose amendments to the Constitution? HR 1109 was quite certain that ¾ of congress is the total number of congressmen and senators minus 25%. Or if there are 265 congressmen and 24 senators, ¾ of that number is 217. The Resolution which the House has portrayed to have been unanimously passed on June 2, 2009 with the “ayes” drowning the “nays” brought back old memories of the 1973 Marcos constitution which was ratified by viva voce in the barangay halls of the Republic.
The House claimed that the recent vote of the House on HR 1109 constituted ¾ of Congress voting to act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the constitution. Its leadership calls everyone to visit Art. XVII of the Constitution and be enlightened by the reality that the said article did not say that ¾ of Congress means ¾ of the House and ¾ of the Senate convening in a joint session or separately which unlike the previous article it has replaced, was clear enough to state that ¾ of Congress refers to both houses voting jointly or separately.
The House reads Article XVII of the Constitution to mean that ¾ of Congress is 217 all congressmen without Senators, or 217 regardless of whether the number have congressmen and senators component in them.
But take note that the FV writer that started this brouhaha in an Open Letter said that there were 170 Congressmen who approved the resolution and therefore the number is short of 47 votes of Congress that is authorized to make amendments to the Constitution. He has not intimidated that he has inside information of the insidious plot in the house to present this Resolution as having been voted by at least 217 congressmen and therefore would force through the throat of the nation that it is now authorized to tinker with the Constitution and prolong the reign of the queen.
Except for a couple of Senators who twitted the claim of the House about what constitutes ¾ of Congress, the general sentiment of the Senate was totally dispassionate. The House is free to believe whatever legal nuances it has on the constitution, but the interpretation of the provisions thereof is lodged with the Supreme Court. We must analyze how this looming battle in the judicial trenches will be fought and its outcome decided.
Interestingly, the members of the Supreme Court of the Republic, unlike the members of SCOTUS, were appointed to the bench with unknown legal and moral philosophies in life and have clinched their seats less on their academic credentials but more on patronage.
Unlike a U.S. Supreme Court jurist whose confirmation hearing probes on her background as a legal scholar, the Senate of the Republic does not inquire into the mindset of each jurist appointed to the bench, and so we care less if a magistrate is judicial policy maker, or a simple interpreter of the law, or simply one without passion with the law and a total scoundrel that can be trusted upon to deliver the desired output of his patron, in which case, prediction of the outcome of the case is totally unavailing. But we can somehow be guided by “precedents”.
The clarity of the Court’s position was proven during the Marcos era and one more time in its peroration of a “constructive resignation” doctrine that made GMA temporarily a queen. We have not noticed any stark difference between the Marcos Supreme Court and the Supreme Court now, and one can hazard a guess that it will vote pretty well along the same lines.
A legal scholar said of the U.S. constitution:
“For more than two centuries justices, scholars, and people on the street have debated the proper method of interpreting the Constitution. Advocates have sparred over several contrasting approaches: strict, or narrow, versus broad construction (interpretation); conservative versus liberal; interpretivist versus noninterpretivist; and activist versus nonactivist. In general this is a debate between those who believe that the wording of Constitution should be read narrowly and those who argue that in many instances the words themselves provide no guide to the outcome of a case.”
In our Republic, we can predict the outcome of a case in our Courts.
But are we not supposed to have faith in the wisdom of our elected congressmen to amend the constitution for after all we elected them to the office to perform precisely what they had been mandated to perform, to “sit as constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution?” Or had we been affected so much by Benign0’s old-familiar refrain, that these bozos are the representation of ourselves as a people and therefore they are as half-wits and dimwits as ourselves to be entrusted with solemn duty to tweak the fundamental law of the land? Thus our expletives over HR 1109 is indicative of distrust not only with our legislative branch and the judiciary but of ourselves.
But are we not entitled to consider our present recriminations misplaced because we have yet to see how the House will brew the constitution but we were already bellyaching on the treasonous sell-out by which our distinguished congressmen offered us HR 1109?
If the recipe is abhorrent to our taste, are we not supposed to spew it out and reject it in a plebiscite that is called to ratify the amendments? Why do we have to protest so much on an issue the resolution of which lies within our sovereign capacity to resolve? Or are we just like our leaders fickle at the sight of wads of bills and boneless at an offer of convenience? In that case, our redemption is far from the horizon.
Popularity: 3% [?]
Writing in the FV is a Patriotic Duty to me. I manage a business.
I have to look that it is not going bankrupt. However, I set aside
time to Post on the Blog Site to inform our fellow Filipinos what
they are facing. To discuss with them the issues affecting their
lives. And to give informations. It is one way of giving back what
is given to me. I live in the US. But, I grew up in the Philippines.
Hear. hear.
First, tell me if this is “profession-appropriate”?
If not, I will make few observations if the good gentleman may yield?
The Philippine Constitution already says the right words. There is simply no enforcement, no teeth.
It isn’t the foremost problem of the land.
There seems to be no clear rendition of the changes people hope to see made. It is just being thrown into the air, seems to me. So that it will land without term limits and plunder laws maybe . . .
Joe
Right Joe, the constitution is only as good as the people behind it.
We may be lost here.
It is like a woman who consented. Will you then just touch part of her?
sexist.
The now-controversial Sec. 1 of Article XVII declares:
“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 …”
So, the question hangs–Does “all its Members” vote JOINTLY or SEPARATELY?
Take careful note that, under this particular provision, it is “The Congress” that the Constitution empowers to propose and that it is “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members” that the Constitution requires to be cast to authorize the adoption of amendments to, or revision of, the 1987 Constitution thus proposed which, in turn, is required to be submitted to the people as sovereign for ratification.
Sec. 1 of Article VI defines what constitutes “The Congress”–the branch of government empowered to propose:
“Section 1 … the Congress of the Philippines … shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives …”
By this definition of “The Congress” alone, it is already quite evident that, without the participation of the Senate, the House of Representatives on its own, or even vice-versa, cannot claim to be “The Congress”–a body distinctly bicameral as defined.
Pars. (1) and (2), Sec. 16 of Article VI describes the manner in which the leaders of the two separate and distinct Houses are to be chosen and the basic procedure required beforehand to be complied with fully to convene “to do business”:
“Section 16. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives, its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members”; (2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business.”
Note that the term “quorum” is defined as “the minimum number of members required to be present in a meeting or assembly before any business can be transacted.”
Thus, upon convening, it is abundantly clear that the constitutional requirement of a “majority of each House” to constitute “a quorum to do business” must be satisfied at the outset before the two separate and distinct Houses of “The Congress” can proceed with the “business” of, in this particular case, proposing amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution,
What this means, of course, is that the Presiding Officers of “the Congress of the Philippines”–the Senate President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives–must first of all convene and call the roll of members of their respective Houses to determine whether “a majority of each House” is present to “constitute a quorum to do business” so that whatever resolution may be approved later during the session is to be deemed officially binding as an “Act of Congress,” irrespective of whether the session–even the manner of voting—is held “jointly” or “separately,”
The mere act of casting the required “vote of three-fourths of all its Members”–irrespective of whether the tally is counted jointly or separately–is of no moment and cannot be regarded as binding, unless each House beforehand is declared convened and the roll call constitutes “a quorum to do business,” not only in the House of Representatives, but in the Senate as well.
To repeat, the existence of “a quorum to do business” in each House is a requirement the Constitution specifically prescribes; otherwise, a failure to comply with this constitutional command necessarily invalidates any resolution passed by whatever number of votes cast, tallied “jointly” or “separately,” as the case may be.
Thus, the requirement of a “quorum to do business” upon convening, consisting of a “majority of each House” in “The Congress” stipulated in Sec. 16(2), must not be confused with the voting requirement for the adoption of amendments to, or revision, of the Constitution provided in Sec. 1 of Article XVII quoted above, which is now understandably the subject of intense scrutiny–“a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.”
The phrase “of all its Members” may of course be understood to mean “jointly” or “separately”; but, however this particular voting requirement may later on be interpreted by the Courts to connote, the separate requirement of a “majority of each House” as the “quorum to do business” upon convening remains steadfast to be complied with strictly.
For what must be repeatedly emphasized at this point is that the constitutionally required “quorum” is a command precedent for each House to satisfy in order to be allowed, officially, “to do business”–in this particular case, to debate and adopt “any amendments to, or revision of,” the 1987 Constitution.
Hence, House Resolution No. 1109 proposing amendments to the Constitution cannot be regarded as a valid resolution of “the Congress of the Philippines” as required under Sec. 1 of Art. XVII, unless it can be authenticated that the Senate President has already convened the Senate to vote on the said HR 1109 and that the roll call taken at the beginning of the session “constitutes a quorum to do business.”
To conclude, even if it has already mustered “a vote of three-fourths of all its Members,” the House of Representatives alone is NOT “the Congress” of the Philippines empowered to propose amendments to the Constitution.
domingo,
Article VI of the Constitution is different from Art. XVII. The latter specifically refers to amendments of the Constitution and this comes as a latter provision.
As my favorite professor would say: Every proponent, whether pro or con, has a veritable arsenal of authorities to support his position.
It is an interesting legal question and it will be finally tilted in favor of the person who can most bankroll the position.
JCC
I suppose what you mean is that the term “the Congress” used in Article VI is different from “the Congress” appearing in Article XVII. So, how does “the Congress” convene in Article VI and how does “the Congress” convene in Article XVII?
look at it purely from constructional aspect. later provision controlling what seems to be a “conflict” in earlier provisions. also from the point that article vi is about how congress peforms it duty while article xvii is specific to constitutional amdendments. specific provisions more in point than the general provisions of how Congress “convenes” in article vi.
but we have to go the the records of the 1987 Con-Con if your position that article xvii is controlled by art. vi, but even if the records is in your favor, the court is not bound by it. it is free, under the tripartite concept, to say what the law is.
The present Constitution is an embodiment of our RIGHTS and FREEDOM.
I was there in the struggle for its birth. Some of my Comrades lost
their lives. It is not just a DOCUMENT. It was our Hopes, our Dreams.
Our lives were at stake to produce it. It was our blood, sweat and
tears.
Unfortunately, most of our Politicians and Leaders were just mere
Fence Sitters, then. Some were supporters of the Dictator we were fighting.
They dont see any Value of it. Because, not a sweat had they exerted
in the struggle. Like any opportunist. They see it only as a step board for their political self interests.
ANYBODY ATTEMPTING TO CHANGE THIS SACRED DOCUMENT WILL FACE SERIOUS
CONSEQUENCES…
‘later provision’ will be different from ‘latter provision’ although the author may have meant the two to be the same thing. perhaps, everybody ought to self-edit their work for now.
ideas like ‘the constitution is only as good as the people behind it’, and ‘in favor of the person who can mostt bankroll the positon’ reflect certain mental images or constructs that may not be too easy to comprehened, rumblings as they are. perhaps, these should be avoided wheneve discussiong purely legal points.
art. VI is all about the legislative department telling us precisely that ‘legislative power is vested in the Congress of the Philippiones which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives’ while art. XVII delves on amendments or revisions which again simply tells us that ‘any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by (1) The Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of all its Members;…’.
what records? what tripartite? the “text” can suffice. perhaps, if we go around the text, ‘miseducation’ can quickly replace knowledge.
primer,
if you study law, comprehension of what I posted above would come but naturally.
Based on this site http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1000.htm
Jefferson favors that the US Constitution be changed occasionally. But that’s beside the point.
Anyway, I’m in favor of CHACHA, but I’m concerned that some people who has a genuine interest for change via CHACHA will be frustrated if CON-ASS without the Senate’s participation is pursued.