To resolve the issue of mode of amending the 1987 Constitution, Senator Robin Padilla on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court on this issue.
As chairperson of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments and revision of codes, Padilla wants to know if Congress should vote jointly or separately to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
The senator, who personally went to the SC together with Atty. Philip Jurado, filed ‘Petition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.’
The Petition presents an actual controversy involving a purely question of law that requires a declaration from the Supreme Court on how Congress should carry out its duties under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution.
Padilla said the SC should also issue a ruling on the following matters:
- Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene, as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution;
- When voting jointly, should the requirement of 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 3/4 vote by the House; or 3/4 by the 24 senators with all members of the House of Representatives;
- Whether the Senate and House should jointly convene and assemble when voting for calling a Constitutional Convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;
- When voting jointly, if the requirements of 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII, be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House; or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House;
- When voting jointly, should the requirement of “majority vote” under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.
Padilla said he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes “due to the ambiguities of these provisions,” and invoked the High Court’s constitutional power to “settle an existing actual controversy” which are purely questions of law “as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions.”
Also, he cited news reports quoting President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as saying both houses of Congress settled the “storm” surrounding the debate on how to amend the Charter, through his intervention.
“As we have witnessed, the leadership of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have come together to address these issues. These two branches, however, on their own, cannot resolve these constitutional issues by themselves,” he said.
“Without the Honorable Court’s declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist,” he added.
He likewise noted many resolutions proposing to amend provisions in the Charter had been filed, but remain pending in their respective committees.
“Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives wants to give in to the other’s interpretation… In other words, the same misinterpretations caused by the ambiguities, which Congress seeks to resolve, are preventing all of its efforts to resolve the controversy,” Padilla clarified.
The Office of the Solicitor General; Senate President Francis Joseph Escudero; and House Speaker Martin Romualdez, among others, were given copies of the petition.
