“The Philippines needs robust Constitutional literacy and competent legal advocacy”
IN A move as baffling as it is audacious, Senator Robinhood Padilla has thrust himself into the Constitutional spotlight with a petition that reveals a startling ignorance of the law or a perilous reliance on incompetent legal counsel.
Last Monday, Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, filed a petition with the Supreme Court, seeking an “authoritative declaration” on whether Congress should vote jointly or separately in proposing amendments to the Constitution.
This legal quagmire stems from the ambiguous wording of the Constitution itself.
While Article VI clearly delineates when the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote separately or jointly, Article XVII, which addresses amendments to the Constitution, remains frustratingly silent on the matter.
This silence has birthed a contentious rift: the Senate maintains the chambers should vote separately, while the House of Representatives argues for a joint vote.
Padilla believes the Supreme Court’s intervention is necessary to resolve this impasse.
However, he is on a collision course with judicial reality.
His petition is destined for dismissal, as it fundamentally misinterprets the scope and authority of the Supreme Court.
Label it what he may, Padilla’s petition is essentially one for declaratory relief – a category over which the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction.
The court’s remit does not extend to issuing advisory opinions or settling hypothetical disputes; it demands a genuine justiciable controversy brought by adverse parties.
The crux of Padilla’s petition lacks this essential controversy.
The differing views between the Senate and the House do not constitute the kind of justiciable issue required for the Supreme Court’s intervention.
Thus, the petition is not just flawed—it is dead on arrival.
This ill-fated petition underscores a more troubling reality: the profound defects embedded in the 1987 Constitution.
Crafted in haste by the unelected 1986 Constitutional Commission under the aegis of President Corazon Aquino, who sought legitimacy following her extra-Constitutional ascension to power during the 1986 People Power Revolution, the document is riddled with inconsistencies and oversights.
It outlaws political dynasties but leaves the definition to the dynastic lawmakers it seeks to constrain.
It introduces a party-list system intended to amplify marginalized voices, yet it has become a vehicle for political dynasties to entrench their power.
It endorses a multi-party system without providing for runoff elections, resulting in presidents like Fidel Ramos being elected with mere pluralities.
Padilla’s petition exposes a dire situation: the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments is helmed by an individual who either misunderstands the Constitution or is led astray by woefully inadequate legal advisors.
This predicament is not just a personal failing; it is emblematic of a nation teetering on the brink of Constitutional dysfunction.
As the nation watches this legal drama unfold, one can only hope it serves as a wake-up call.
The Philippines needs robust Constitutional literacy and competent legal advocacy.
Anything less threatens to plunge the nation into a Constitutional abyss, with profound implications for its democratic governance and the rule of law.
