SC eyed to break Cha-cha impasse
The Supreme Court (SC) can break the impasse between the Senate and the House of Representatives over procedures for approving a constitution for a federal form of government, Sen. Francis Escudero said yesterday.
The two chambers have been at loggerheads over Charter change, with the House planning to convene a constituent assembly (con-ass) to rewrite the Constitution for a shift to federalism even without the participation of the Senate.
Senators, however, warned that changing the Charter the way the House wants it would be futile without the Senate, citing the bicameral nature of the legislature under the Constitution. “I think anybody can make
a case before the SC, making it a question of law,” Escudero said, referring to the question of whether the House can proceed on its own version of con-ass.
He, however, said he agrees with the observation of former SC justices that the high court is unlikely to intervene and just dismiss the issue as purely political in nature.
He said even if the SC will issue a definitive answer to the legal question, the Concurrent Resolution No. 9 passed by the House last week seeking to convene Congress into a con-ass would mean the measure will still have to hurdle the Senate.
“The title in itself, ‘concurrent resolution’, is already an admission that any proposal or move to amend the Constitution necessitates the separate votes of both houses of Congress,” Escudero said.
The resolution was transmitted to the Senate last week. Senators said the measure will go through the usual hearings of the committee on constitutional amendments chaired by Sen. Francis Pangilinan.
“The strategy it appears is for the House to force the issue and have the Supreme Court step in and decide in their favor,” Pangilinan said.
He warned the bullying of the House “is an abuse of those in power” and that the senators “should not let it pass.”
He said the Senate should not allow itself to be bullied or “democracy and respect for the law will be thrown out the window and anyone can be a victim of the abuses of those in power.”
Sen. Panfilo Lacson said House members, “for their own sake, should not allow themselves to look pathetic and worse, ridiculous.”
He said congressmen should read the Constitution in its entirety, or at the very least, Article 17, Section 1 (Amendments or Revisions) in relation to Article 6, Section 1 (Legislative Department) that explicitly refers to “the Congress” as the Senate and the House.
Interpreting “the Congress” under Article 17 to refer to one chamber only is at best, selfserving, he said.
Retired chief justice Reynato Puno also said the SC is the proper forum to resolve the impasse between the Senate and the House.
He told ABS-CBN News Channel that if the two chambers could not agree on the constituent assembly mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution, the issue could be brought to the high court for resolution.