When predators smell blood

The other retired Supreme Court justices at the hearing indicated that the vague provision on the manner of voting in a Constituent Assembly was the target of the PI to undermine the Senate.

Illustrious magistrates invited to the Senate hearing on the Resolution of Both Houses 6 last Monday brought to light the real intent of the People’s Initiative to bypass the provisions of the Constitution and create a unicameral Congress.

Whoever came up with the idea of a PI to have Congress vote on important measures such as amending the Constitution as one body is extremely cunning.

Retired Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza said the intent of the PI proponents was reflected in the aim of amending the Constitution to specify a Constituent Assembly.

The other retired Supreme Court justices at the hearing indicated that the vague provision on the manner of Congress voting as one in a Constituent Assembly was the target of the PI to undermine the Senate.

Mendoza said the purpose of the PI was the most explicit admission on the part of those proposing it that, unless you change the provisions of the Constitution, the requirement for voting is a joint session but voting separately.

Under a con-ass, a three-fourths vote is needed to introduce changes to the Charter, but it needs to be stated if the two chambers should meet the requirement jointly or separately.

The PI then would propose the rewording of the Charter to specify a unicameral action.

“That is why there is a need to change the procedure, and that is the clearest proof that the real intent of the drafters is for a Constituent Assembly meeting in joint session but voting separately,” Mendoza explained.

He gave an example to illustrate the definition of two chambers of Congress after World War 2.

“It was a bicameral Congress that we had, and they passed a very important amendment: Parity in the economic provisions. What they did was to meet together in the session hall of the House of Representatives. And where was that? In Lepanto, Sampaloc, that’s where Congress was meeting at the time,” he recounted.

Mendoza said it was only “by reason of oversight” that the corresponding phrase was not placed to clarify the con-ass process.

Ex-Chief Justice Hilario Davide said a PI does not apply to the proposed changes. The moment that a particular principle or policy is changed, that would be a revision.

Congress turning unicameral will allow the House to initiate more considerable constitutional revisions.

Davide said a change in the manner of voting would, in effect, eliminate the Senate “because you have the massive majority of the House. So, when you approve what is in the PI, it will open the floodgates to everything. Eventually, all changes will be done without the voice of the Senate.”

Davide, a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution, pointed out that “there are no valid, serious, and compelling reasons” to amend the Constitution.

“If at all there is a need to amend the Constitution, it must, foremost, be for the best interest of the country and the people now and in the future and not for a chosen few. It is to solve serious problems, not to create new ones. It must be in pursuance of and in compliance with the declared principles and state policies,” he stressed.

Former SC Associate Justice Adolf Azcuna said the heated situation can be resolved through the simple act of both chambers meeting and deciding whether to push through with Charter change.

And the vote should be separate as that is the only way envisioned in the Charter.

Once again, Filipinos are reminded that laying the Constitution open to tinkering attracts the vilest form of opportunism.

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