The House of Representatives is willing to consider having the Senate vote separately on constitutional amendments, Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo said Wednesday, breaking from her predecessor’s insistence that both chambers of Congress vote jointly.
“I agree to separate voting. We want to move forward. We have to be realistic. It is better to move forward and achieve something than to be stubborn and achieve nothing,” Arroyo said, referring to the contentious issue that has held back the convening of Congress as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution.
Previously, House leaders had been insisting on a “one man, one vote” approach in which the House and the Senate would vote jointly on constitutional amendments. Senators, however, say this would render their votes insignificant because there are only 24 of them against 292 House members.
Arroyo said agreeing to separate voting, as the senators want, would be the way to move forward, noting that the same issue blocked the move to amend the Constitution when she was President.
She said there was no deadline for coming up with a federal constitution, however.
“The committee on constitutional amendments will be reconstituted,” Arroyo said, as the chairman, Southern Leyte Rep. Roger Mercado, will likely be replaced.
Negros Occidental Rep. Alfredo Benitez, the leader of the Visayan bloc in the House, said the House is optimistic that the senators would agree to form a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, given the concession on the mode of voting.
Benitez said the House has already communicated to the Senate, through Majority Leader Juan Miguel Zubiri.
“The House will wait for the Senate action with regard to our proposal. Senator Zubiri said he will take it up during their majority caucus,” Benitez said.
“We will respect their decision if they insist on voting separately if that is the only way for us to proceed with the mode of a constituent assembly,” Benitez said.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s proposal to shift to a federal system of government will require amendments to the Constitution. The consultative committee he established has already furnished both chambers of Congress with a draft federal charter that may be the starting point for discussions.
But Senator Panfilo Lacson said the election of Arroyo as Speaker could unify opposition in the Senate against Charter change over fears that she would become the prime minister in a federal system of government.
Arroyo has dismissed these fears as “black propaganda,” since the draft federal charter proposes a presidential system that does not mention a prime minister.
“Call it wariness, call it distrust, call it anything you want to call it, but that was the sentiment. And then when we had our all-senators’ caucus, it was further reinforced when those from the LP [Liberal Party] joined us,” said Lacson.
Lacson said it was “funny” that Senate President Vicente Sotto III had told the President that the change in House leadership would make it difficult for him to convince his colleagues to support Charter change.
He said Sotto also told the President that he counted at least 10 senators who were opposed to Charter change.
“Look in my group alone, we are three, and then my two colleagues whom she sent to jail, I’m sure I cannot convince them,” Sotto said, referring to Lacson and Senator Gregorio Honasan.
Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who Arroyo jailed for a failed coup, would also oppose Charter change, as well as the five Liberal Party senators, Sotto said.
Senator JV Ejercito, too, would likely oppose Charter change because his father, Manila Mayor Joseph Estrada, was ousted and sent to jail by Arroyo.
Senator Grace Poe, on the other hand, also felt that her father, Fernando Poe Jr., had been cheated by Arroyo in the presidential election of 2004.
“So, there are already 10 who won't back any Charter change,” Lacson said. “And then there are others… When we held that caucus, the sentiment was to stay put, let’s just fold our arms and do nothing because we may be trapped if we even adopt a joint resolution with the House.”
Lacson said he himself questioned the motive for the change in leadership in the House.
“Why the need for need for a change in leadership? What’s the end state desired?” he said.