Under the 1935 Constitution, the two houses of Congress, voting separately, may propose amendments to the Charter. The 1973 Constitution had no provision requiring separate voting because its legislature was unicameral—the Batasang Pambansa. Under the 1987 Constitution, the two-house Congress was restored, but the charter is silent as to whether both houses should vote jointly or separately.
The distinction is important because a separate vote by both houses suggests a greater scrutiny of proposed amendments to the Constitution. That’s because two chambers (and not just one, as in a joint vote) give rise to more scrutiny and debates.
Years ago, Representative Edcel Lagman announced his own surreal take on how the 1987 Constitution may be amended.
Lagman opined that since the 1987 Constitution contains several sections which explicitly require both houses of Congress to vote separately, the silence of the 1987 Constitution—on how the two houses should vote when proposing amendments to the Charter—should be construed to mean that both houses must vote jointly as one chamber. To support his view, Lagman cited a decision of the Supreme Court which, it turned out, was impertinent to his position.
After styling himself as a champion of charter change, Lagman got his allies in the House of Representatives to approve a resolution calling on both houses to convene as one constituent assembly, with the House of Representatives as the dominant chamber, and to vote jointly on any proposed amendments to the Constitution.
To those who are not familiar with the jargon, when Congress proposes amendments to the charter, it convenes not as a legislative assembly (which enacts laws) but as a constituent assembly.
The resolution excluded the Senate from the political equation because at that time, the Senate was not too keen on charter change—senators feared that proposals for charter change may trigger a popular call for the abolition of the Senate.
Lagman’s theory was debunked by Father Joaquin Bernas, one of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution. Bernas said the silence of the Constitution on how the vote is to be taken is a result of a clerical oversight of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which prepared the current charter. Bernas maintained that when Congress sits as a constituent assembly, both houses must vote separately.
The Bernas view is logical. If both houses of Congress must vote separately when Congress enacts legislation changing the name of a public school, both houses should likewise vote separately when Congress proposes amendments to the fundamental law of the land.
Surprisingly, the Senate did nothing to stop the resolution.
When Lagman insisted on his surreal theory, a public interest advocate challenged the constitutionality of the resolution before the Supreme Court. Soon thereafter, when public opinion mounted against the resolution, Lagman and his congressional allies abandoned their unconstitutional dream, and nothing was heard from them again regarding charter change.
When President Rodrigo Duterte announced his plan to allow the burial of ex-President Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, Lagman found another opportunity to promote himself by opposing the president’s plan. Lagman soon joined his left-wing friends who filed, in the Supreme Court, petitions to stop the Marcos burial at the heroes cemetery. They alleged that Marcos does not deserve to be buried among heroes because of abuses which supposedly took place during the years Marcos ran the Philippines under martial law.
Radical groups apparently assumed that the Supreme Court will yield to the angry street mobs protesting the Marcos burial. That explains why they protested in the streets when the Supreme Court voted to dismiss the petitions against the Marcos burial at the military cemetery.
Not all decisions of the Supreme Court are well-received by the general public. Every citizen has the right to disagree with, and even openly criticize its pronouncements. At the end of the day, however, everyone must either comply with or acquiesce in the rulings of the highest court of the land. The rule of law demands it.
Thus, to disagree with the reasons the Supreme Court gave for dismissing the anti-Marcos petitions is one thing. To advocate unreasonable, unconscionable measures to undermine public acceptance of the tribunal’s ruling is another.
This is where Lagman comes in. After the Supreme Court dismissed the anti-Marcos petitions, and upon learning of the recent burial of the ex-president at the Libingan last November 18, Lagman went on a rampage in the news media. His protestations sounded almost as if the Supreme Court justices who voted against the anti-Marcos petitions didn’t pass law school.
Lagman’s harshest words were for Marcos himself. He said that the remains of the ex-strongman should be dug up to ascertain if those remains are really those of the ex-president.
Good grief! Lagman may dislike the ex-strongman, but Lagman’s proposal to dig up a body already interred in a cemetery smacks of gross disrespect for the deceased, akin to scoffing at the dead. That isn’t done in the Philippines, especially if it is politically motivated. There are, after all, other ways to protest against the Marcos burial at the Libingan—indignation rallies, or even a boycott of the cemetery. Digging up the dead to convey a political message is uncalled for.
It is preposterous for Lagman to even think that the body buried in the Marcos tomb at the Libingan isn’t that of ex-President Marcos. That illogical thought suggests that the Marcos family went through a lot of trouble and controversy just to get someone other than the former president buried there.
Since the Libingan ng mga Bayani is a state-owned cemetery, there is a presumption that burials there are what they are alleged to be. Being so, Lagman, not the Marcoses, has the burden of proving that the body buried at the Libingan is not that of Marcos. Unless Lagman has evidence other than the exhumed remains of Marcos to prove his story, Lagman should exit from his surreal world, and move on.
