In the past years, much preoccupation and debate have gone into whether the country should pursue economic growth by pure legislation — as already authorized by the Constitution, or whether passing new laws is inadequate, and constitutional amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution be pursued.
After a tedious process, both Congress and the Senate met jointly as a Committee of the Whole.
It should be pointed out that the Committee on Rules cannot “amend the Constitution”. The rules are simply set out for procedural matters like membership, quorum etc.
Last week, the Senators and the Congressmen, upon clear signals sent by the President, met as a Committee of the Whole to set the ground rules for the deliberations on the proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the Constitution.
The setting of rules took the whole session, as both groups of Senators and of Congressmen argued on the fine points of the rules.
The Committee tackled the following visions of the Constitution:
“Article XVII. Amendments or Revisions.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every Legislative District must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution, nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution under Sec. 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Sec. 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite, which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition”.
While the clear articulations of the President signaled his preference for both Houses to vote separately, many of the members in the Committee on Rules took the opportunity to still delay the process by arguing on the definition of Congress: “1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or 2) A constitutional convention.”
Cong. Edcel Lagman insisted that “Congress” be defined as making up both houses of Congress, and therefore, meant that one cannot separate the Senate from the Congress as that would create two assemblies instead of one.
On the other hand, Mandaluyong Rep. Neptali Gonzales II insisted that Congress should, as intended in the Constitution, be considered as one body, albeit, the two Houses voting separately should be counted as one body.
Either interpretation may stand, according to former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, but who recommends that the question be presented to the Supreme Court which is the final interpreter of the Constitution.
Former Chief Justice Puno set the following conditions before a question may be presented to the Supreme Court: a) “ripeness” of the issue; b) petitioner’s standing; c) grave abuse of a right; and d) the requirement for Constitutional interpretation.
So at the level of the Committee, the members are still debating on one body or two bodies, with the Senate comprising 24 members, and the House of Representatives comprising 316 congressman.
In the mean time, Senate President Miguel Zubiri informed the Committee of the Whole that the Commission on Elections had set aside P12 billion to cover the cost of the plebiscite, suggested to delay deliberations, and hold the plebiscite together with the local and Presidential elections in 2025.
So as the Rules Committee takes its time, an opportunity might be open, if we read Senator Zubiri’s signals, to go for a proposed Constitutional Convention which (Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention) would be the most representative of the people, excluding incumbent Congressmen, and local government officials.
Since time is no longer of the essence (which Congress was in such a rush to complete), the plebiscite budget can be used to select the representatives to the Constitutional Convention. A separate budget may be incorporated with the 2028 local elections.
When the amendments are ratified, the people will then have a Constitution of its own will.
________________________________
Author’s email: [email protected]
