“Voting separately when Congress is acting as a Constituent Assembly is more sensible and more in consonance with the principle of Constitutional democracy”
Section 1, Article XVII of the Philippine Constitution provides two ways to amend the Constitution: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A Constitutional Convention.
The above provision is silent as to the manner of voting by Congress.
It must be mentioned however that in all except one of the provisions specifying the voting procedure, Congress is required to cast votes separately.
Hence, it would seem the prevailing procedure is separate voting.
However, the issue is still being debated.
For the question remains: when amending the Constitution, is it separate or joint voting?
This is the million-dollar question that has hounded any attempt to change the Constitution.
As things now stand. in the House the prevailing mode is for joint voting while senators predictably are inclined to vote separately.
This has emerged as a “unifying issue” cutting across members of both the majority and minority blocs in the Senate.
As things now stand. There are two camps.
On one hand, there are those who argue that when Congress votes as a Constituent Assembly, it must do so separately.
Based on this assertion, Congress being a bicameral body must decide by voting separately unless joint voting is explicitly required by the Constitution.
Circumventing the “voting separately” requirement even through a Constitutional amendment by initiative, sidelines the Senate and is a perversion.
Moreover, by adopting a bicameral legislature, the citizens chose a legislature in which the Senate and the Household equal status, each endowed with powers intended to both complement and scrutinize the other.
To allow, therefore, the lower house, with its superior number, to overwhelm the numerically inferior upper chamber is to render farcical the very essence of bicameralism.
On the other hand, members of the House of Representatives are of the opinion that the power to propose amendments or to revise the Constitution is known as the constituent power of Congress.
In a bicameral legislature, it belongs to both of its houses. It cannot be exercised unilaterally by one house alone.
The constituent power is granted to both houses as institutions.
Its exercise, however, is done thru the individual members of Congress acting as a constituent assembly.
The nature of constituent power by Congress to amend the Constitution is that it is a plenary power.
This means the power is absolute and unqualified except for the limitations found in the Constitution itself.
Moreover, section 1 article XVII is unambiguous.
It clearly states “Any amendment to or revision of the Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all the members.”
Congress here refers to both houses.
Finally, the mere fact that the phrase “voting separately” was omitted by the framers of the Constitution was not an oversight. It indicated the intent for joint voting.
As far as I’m concerned, voting separately when Congress is acting as a Constituent Assembly is more sensible and more in consonance with the principle of Constitutional democracy.
One cannot imagine a situation where the lower house, because of its superior number, always outvotes the smaller senate.
This scenario will result in a Charter dictated by the body with the super majority, one that is unchecked, unbalanced and skewed in favor of whosoever the lower house may fancy.
