SENATOR Robin Padilla is seeking an “authoritative declaration” from the Supreme Court to resolve the issue of amending the Constitution.
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Code, Padilla filed a petition to determine whether the Senate and House of Representatives should vote jointly or separately.
Padilla wants clarity on several points:
Whether the Senate and House should “Jointly Convene” as a constituent assembly to discuss constitutional amendments.
Regarding voting jointly, whether the requirement of 3/4 vote under Section 1 of the Constitution should be interpreted as 3/4 vote of the Senate and 3/4 vote of the House, or 3/4 vote of the 24 senators and all members of the House.
Whether the Senate and House should “jointly convene and assemble” in case of a Constitutional Convention.
Regarding voting jointly in this scenario, whether the requirement of 2/3 vote under Section 3, Article XVII (17) should be interpreted as 2/3 vote of the Senate plus 2/3 vote of the House, or 2/3 vote of the 24 senators and House members.
As for the majority vote under Section 3, Article XVII (17), whether it should be interpreted as a majority vote of the Senate plus a majority vote of the House, or a majority vote of the 24 senators together with House members.
Padilla advocates for separate voting by the Senate and House, while the House prefers joint voting by both chambers of Congress. According to the framers of the 1987 Constitution, separate voting is required for amending the Constitution. This setup disadvantages the Senate if joint voting were to occur.
“The House of Representatives filed for joint voting, but that cannot be allowed. How about us senators? During the SONA, you see senators, congressmen, and congresswomen there. Do they want us to vote as one? What about the 24 senators against more than 300? That’s not fair. The Supreme Court should mandate, decide, and order voting separately.”
“The framers of the 1987 Constitution admit they overlooked the necessity of voting separately in such matters. We hope the wisdom of our judges will clarify this. We’re not seeking advice. We’re seeking a resolution,” according to Senator Robin Padilla.
Padilla also admitted that the conflict between the two chambers of Congress is no joke, which is why he emphasized the Supreme Court’s crucial role in resolving this matter.
“This is no joke. This is a conflict, a dispute between the Upper House and the Lower House. Don’t believe it when they say there’s no conflict. There is. I’m telling you, there is. And only the Supreme Court can resolve it.”
“Our leaders have already clashed. Our esteemed former SP Migz Zubiri and also our Speaker Martin Romualdez. They have had intense clashes. Not just between them but both chambers were involved. There were exchanges about how we would amend or revise the Constitution,” Padilla added.
