Senators slam Alvarez for Cha-cha threats

SENATORS slammed Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez for calling on the electorate to vote in the 2019 midterm polls against candidates who did not support federalism.

“The issue at this point is the brazen move of the House to impose and railroad Charter change [ Cha- cha] without public debate and participation. But having said that, the senators are willing to face the people on their stand on federalism,” Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said on Friday.

Sen. Sherwin Gatchalian said it was “unfortunate” for the speaker to resort to “threats and even name-calling to pressure the Senate to relinquish its our Constitution.”

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto 3rd, however, shrugged off Alvarez’s call.

“It’s okay. Negative campaigning is

not disallowed. I’m not worried of issues like that,” said Sotto.

“I will surely campaign for my Senate lineup. I’ve been involved in 10 senatorial elections since 1987 and in my experience, negative campaigning on issues barely make a dent,” he said.

“On the other hand, if politicians with high trust ratings campaign against a politician directly or personally, that’s a different story,” said Sotto, who belongs to the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC).

Senate President Aquilino Pimentel Alvarez’s partymate in the ruling PDPLaban, said: “The party will have to field candidateswhobelieveinandareadvocates of federalism—all candidates from [the] Senate to councilors because that is actually a basic requirement for party membership. That is in our oath of membership to the PDP-Laban.”

The senators seeking reelection in May 2019 are Juan Edgardo Angara, Paolo Benigno Aquino 4th, Nancy Binay, Joseph Victor Ejercito, Grace Poe, and Cynthia Villar.

A showdown between the Senate and the House over Charter change became evident after Alvarez said the House would proceed with a Constituent Assembly to revise the Constitution even without the participation of the Senate.

Drilon said the “House Cha-cha ‘train’ would get derailed even before it leaves the station.”

He said that the Filipinos would see the real plan of federalism, which was to “suspend elections, extend the terms of members of Congress, and do away with the check and balance system by abolishing the Senate.”

Pimentel said the House “can do constitutional assembly work on its own just as what the Senate intends to do.”

“What is important is what the HoR [House of Representatives] will do with its output,” he said.

“Will the HoR submit it to the Senate for our three-fourths vote concurrence? Let us wait for that stage because it is in that stage that we will now have a divergence and a possible legal/constitutional issue,” he said.

“I have yet to see the connection between federalism and developing the countryside. They haven’t even adequately discussed what type of federalism they want to pursue that will ensure this,” Sen. Francis “Chiz” Escudero said.

Gatchalian said economic experts have yet to come up with a study people could derive from federalism. “The only clear benefactors of this endeavor are the politicians who will perpetuate themselves to power.”

‘No railroad’

House Majority Leader Rodolfo Farinas of Ilocos Norte insisted, however, that “no railroading” took place when the House adopted Concurrent Resolution 9.

In a statement, Farinas said that what transpired in the plenary on Tuesday night was done according to the House rules.

“[The adoption] is a product of democratic and exhaustive debates, not just in the plenary hall of the House of Representatives, in the several committee meetings conducted by the Committee on Constitutional Amendments but also in nationwide public consultations in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao,” Farinas said.

Farinas added that the claim of the House opposition bloc that the adoption was railroaded by the “supermajority” was “false, unfounded and unfair”.

Farinas said that since November of 2016, the committee has been conducting public hearings and consultations.

Southern Leyte Rep. Roger Mercado, chairman of the Constitutional Amendments Committee, said his group has drawn lessons from the failed Charter change efforts since the 8th Congress.

Mercado said the suggestion of a Constituent Assembly surfaced during public hearings and consultations around the country.

Mercado added that the committee was targeting May 2018 as the immediate working target for a plebiscite since it was the next nearest electoral exercise.

Not all members of the House, however, agree.

In a message to TheManilaTimes, Anakpawis Party-list Rep. Ariel Casilao of the Makabayan bloc said that the railroading was very evident.

“[The adoption] was clearly railroaded. If the House leadership is really sincere and [respectful of] the deliberative character of Congress, [they] should have allowed all those who wish or listed to [present their interpellation],” Casilao said.

Casilao added that if the House leadership would continue with the Constituent Assembly, the Makabayan bloc would consider all options, including bringing the matter to the Supreme Court and rallying to “expose and oppose the clear self-serving and anti-people proposals of the Charter change”.

ACT Teachers Party-list Rep. France Castro said that it was not true that co-equal branches of the government were still independent since the legislative branch was already a “rubber stamp” of the executive.

In a separate message, Ifugao Rep. Teodoro Baguilat, Jr. said that one day of interpellation on such a critical proposal was simply unheard of.

“How can it not be railroaded when they cut the interpellations even as there were others who signi on the resolution? [ With charter change] being a very important measure, adequate time should be allotted to the debate on the concurrent resolution.” Baguilat said.

Magdalo Party- list Rep. Gary Alejano said that the House was to rush the Charter change, which was a “recipe for disaster”.

Alejano said members of the opposition bloc would look into what its next step would be.

Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice added that the machination of the Speaker would not prosper and in the end, “they will look that they are making a fool of themselves”.

Labor group to SC

While the House opposition was weighing its options, the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), said it may raise the matter to the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Jose Sonny Matula, president of FFW, said his group would question the “constitutionality of the Constituent Assembly without the Senate.”

Matula said that Alvarez and his supporters should not ignore the Senate because “it was indispensable and a grave abuse of discretion to ignore any of the two chambers of Congress in Charter change.”

Matula emphasized that “if the House will push through with convening a constituent assembly (Con-Ass), the workers will bring the matter to the Supreme Court through a petition for certiorari for grave abuse of discretion under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.”

The move of pro- Duterte law Constitution was in accordance with the decision of President Rodrigo Duterte to replace the presidential form of government to federal as the current system appeared to be a big hindrance in the unfair growth and development of the cities and provinces in the country.

Duterte argued a number of times that the federal form of government was the answer to equal growth and development of all places in the country.

The federal government is not entirely new in the Philippines as the country had a semi-federal-cumparliamentary form during the martial law era of President Ferdinand

FFW is in favor of Charter change through a Constitutional Convention.

“Charter change is too risky to be left alone to traditional politicians.”