Egos gone astray

Con-ass will leave to Congress the task of Cha-cha, but the Constitution is vague about the interplay between the Senate and the House.

The Charter change express should examine long and hard where it is heading and consider canceling the trip since the debate has been reduced to who is the king of the hill between the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The egos of the legislators have muddled the issue that it is now impossible to have an intelligent discussion on what President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. wants, which is to allow for a more flexible Charter to attract foreign investments.

The People’s Initiative gambit fueled the feud. The House leadership adamantly denied having a hand in the signature campaign. Still, the aim was a giveaway — it sought to include a provision in the Charter that would specifically indicate a single vote among members of the two chambers in a constituent assembly or con-ass.

A con-ass is one of three modes for Charter change or Cha-cha, the other two being a PI and a Constitutional Convention or con-con.

A con-ass will leave to Congress the task of Cha-cha, but the Constitution is vague about the interplay between the Senate and the House, merely stating the requirement that Congress must convene and a three-fourths vote is needed to pass a proposal.

The debate stems from the provision’s meaning, whether it is three-fourths of the Senate and the House of Representatives voting separately or as one body.

Senators, of course, will not agree to a single vote since the House, dominant in number, will get what it wants.

Thus, both chambers are now working on a misnomered Resolution of Both Houses, with two different numbers and contrasting provisions for the con-ass to work.

House leaders insist that nowhere in the Constitution is it stated that the two chambers should vote separately.

“Our colleagues in the Senate cannot and should not insist on that language,” warned Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr.

Experts invited to the Senate hearing, including some delegates to the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Charter, said the contentious provision intended that the Senate and the House vote separately.

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said the two chambers “will have to meet as one body without any distinction, whether they are senators or congressmen, except when the time to vote comes.”

“They vote separately for the obvious reason that the members of the Senate are fewer than the members of the House, but otherwise, they’re required to meet as a body,” Mendoza said.

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna, one of the framers of the Basic Law, said the Senate’s participation in a legislative process is indispensable and is dictated by the provisions of the 1987 Constitution, which indicate that Cha-cha must be an “act of Congress” that requires the role of the Senate.

Azcuna said it should be the Senate and the House working together for an act to be considered as undertaken by Congress.

“Let’s say you have 315 representatives and 24 senators. You have 339 in all, and three-fourths of that is 254. Of the 254, 13 must be senators. Otherwise, it is not an act of Congress,” Azcuna said.

In effect, the House’s interpretation of the provision will create a unicameral body not provided for in the Constitution.

The former magistrate saw through the PI ploy since the one-vote formula can’t pass through a con-ass.

“If we want to change the voting, it has to be done by a Constituent Assembly, not by an initiative. In a constituent assembly, you need the Senate to participate, that’s why it cannot be done,” he pointed out.

The Cha-cha debate has turned into a battle of bloated egos that Filipinos should be spared from.

*****
Credit belongs to: tribune.net.ph