The proposal to amend the Constitution to shift the country toward a federal system of government is dead as a majority of the senators have taken a united stand to oppose it, Senator Panfilo Lacson said Thursday.
“As of last Tuesday… the Senate is solid in its stance not to enter in what lawyers call a cause of action. We will not take appropriate actions that would give [someone] the opportunity to question it before the Supreme Court,” Lacson told the regular “Kapihan sa Senado.”
“So we have agreed that as of now, we’ll just fold our arms and do nothing,” he added.
The matter of Charter change, Lacson said, is still in the committee level in the Senate, and they are still talking about the mode that could be adopted.
“We’re not about to preempt what the committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes and laws is doing,” Lacson said.
Lacson also said the Senate would be trapped if it were to adopt a resolution convening the Senate and House of Representatives as a constituent assembly as a way to amend the Constitution.
The House of Representatives had earlier approved a resolution for that purpose, but it has no counterpart in the Senate.
Lacson said if the administration really wants Charter change, it should do it through a constitutional convention where delegates are elected.
But he said he would agree to a constituent assembly if only economic provisions of the Charter are reviewed and amended.
Lacson said Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s statement that the House would consider separate voting—a key Senate demand—was no guarantee because the concession could be taken back.
“But by the time that we can adopt a joint resolution and we enter a joint session… anything can happen,” he said.
If the House backtracks on Arroyo’s commitment, he added, the senators would be trapped like mice.
“We can no longer get out,” he said.
He also said Arroyo could just be speaking for herself when she talked about voting separately.
“Assuming that she’s sincere and genuine in saying she is for voting separately, she is only one vote despite being the Speaker of the House,” he said.
Senate President Tempore Ralph Recto said he would not take a risk on Charter change, noting any member of the House could insist on joint voting and raise the issue before the Supreme Court.
“I will not risk it as I am against a total revision of the Constitution shifting to a federal form of government that may include a parliamentary system,” he added.
Senator Francis Pangilinan said Arroyo’s willingness to support separate voting was no guarantee and can be challenged before the Supreme Court.
“It doesn’t prevent any congressman or interested party from bringing the matter to the Supreme Court to seek a ruling in favor of joint voting,” Pangilinan said in a statement.
“Looking at the voting record of the Supreme Court in the last two years, a ruling in favor of Con-ass voting jointly is not far fetched.”
“Hence we remain skeptical and we should not let our guard down against the possibility of a House only Cha-Cha as an option for those zealously pushing for Charter change,” he said.
Senate President Vicente Sotto III acknowledged that the proposal to shift to a federal form of government still has a long way to go.
He said lawmakers should focus on implementing the Bangsamoro Organic Law, which could be a model for federalism.
Senator Aquilino Pimentel III said Arroyo must allay the fears of some senators that she seeks to be prime minister in a federal system of government.
“The new Speaker must win the trust of my fellow senators because I can feel the mistrust or distrust of senators towards the new Speaker. They say she might have a hidden agenda,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.
Also on Thursday, former Supreme Court justice Vicente Mendoza said the loss of prestige of a single Supreme Court would hurt the justice system.
Speaking at a forum about the consultative committee’s draft federal constitution on Thursday, Mendoza said the creation of multiple courts would diminish the prestige of the Supreme Court, thereby compromising the ability of the judicial branch to hold the other two branches accountable.
The Federal Supreme Court, he added, would be “but a shadow of the present Supreme Court.”