MANILA: Senator Robinhood “Robin” Padilla on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court (SC) to set soonest the oral arguments for his petition to resolve the issue of whether both houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately in tackling amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Padilla filed an urgent motion to set the case for oral arguments, in his capacity as incumbent senator of the Republic, two days after filing a petition for declaratory relief on constitutional matters related to Sec. 1(1) and 3, Art. XVII of the Charter.

“In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court,” he said in his motion.

Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, added that his motion is “filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case.”

Last Aug. 5, Padilla filed an instant pet
ition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.

The instant petition sought the High Court’s “authoritative declaration” on the following constitutional issues:

–Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene, as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution;

–When voting jointly, should the requirement of 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 3/4 vote by the House; or 3/4 by the 24 senators with all members of the House of Representatives;

–Whether the Senate and House should jointly convene and assemble when voting for calling a Constitutional Convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;

–When voting jointly, if the requirements of 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII, be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House; or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and
all members of the House;\

–When voting jointly, should the requirement of “majority vote” under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.

Padilla said he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes “due to the ambiguities of these provisions,” and invoked the High Court’s constitutional power to “settle an existing actual controversy” which are purely questions of law “as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions.”

“Without the Honorable Court’s declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist,” he said.

Political amendments

Meanwhile, Cagayan de Oro City 2nd District Rep. Rufus Rodriguez assured that the House, under the leadership of Speaker Martin Romualdez, will not conside
r any constitutional amendment proposals that are political in nature.

As chairman of the House Constitutional Amendment Committee, Rodriguez clarified this matter in reaction to Resolution of Both Houses No. 8, proposing to lengthen the term of office of congressmen from three years to five years, with a limit of two consecutive terms or 10 years, instead of the existing three 3-year terms or nine years.

The resolution, which was filed on Monday, is authored by Ilocos Norte Rep. Angelo Barba.

‘I think the House leadership will not favor this proposal. The Speaker has repeatedly declared that the push for Charter reform at this time is confined to amending the Constitution’s restrictive economic provisions,’ Rodriguez said on Wednesday.

The collective stand of the Speaker and House members on economic Charter reform, Rodriguez said, is consistent with the unequivocal declaration of President Marcos in his Philconsa speech on Feb. 8 this year.

‘I want to make it clear: This Administration’s position in in
troducing reforms to our Constitution extends to economic matters alone, or those strategically aimed at boosting our country’s economy. Nothing more,’ Rodriguez quoted President Marcos as saying.

Rodriguez pointed out that the economic Charter amendment proposals of the House, principally authored by Speaker Romualdez, have been sent to the Senate months ago for its own consideration.

‘So the ball on the proposed changes in the Constitution’s economic provisions is now in the Senate’s court,’ he said.

Source: Philippines News Agency