The Senate committee on constitutional amendments, revisions of codes and laws, chaired by Richard Gordon, took this position after a caucus yesterday to discuss the forthcoming dialogue between the Senate and the House of Representatives on the issue of amending the Constitution to shift to a parliamentary form of government.
According to Gordon, committee members unanimously decided to treat any amendment or revision of the Constitution as an ordinary piece of legislation based on the provisions of the Constitution and the rules of the House.
Gordon pointed out that there is no specific provision in the 1986 Constitution calling for a constituent assembly as a method of amending the Charter.
Under Article 17, Section 1 of the Constitution, "Any amendment to or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members or a constitutional convention."
Section 2 of the Constitution also provides for amendments through a people’s initiative, in which 12 percent of the electorate may propose amendments to a plebiscite.
Gordon said the language outlining a "constituent assembly" was only present in the 1935 Constitution.
"This is where the congressmen are confusing us. They are saying there is a constituent assembly. There is no such thing anymore. The constituent assembly is nothing more than a term that describes Congress at work, legislating constitutional reform," Gordon said.
Gordon noted that Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile cited 85 instances in the Constitution referring to Congress as the two houses, namely the Senate and the House of Representatives.
In the House rules on amendments to the Constitution, Gordon cited Section 105 referring to the form of proposals and procedure for adoption, which states that "proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any member."
The same section also provides that the adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.
As in any other piece of proposed legislation, the approved bills and joint or concurrent resolutions approved by the House would have to be transmitted to the Senate for its concurrence.
"The consensus is that there is no need for a constituent assembly because the Constitution is very clear — any senator or congressman can amend the Constitution or even revise the Constitution by mere resolution in which case it is treated as any ordinary piece of legislation which can be referred to the standing committees of each house and when it’s approved with a three-fourths vote it becomes a proposed amendment in the Constitution which then is submitted for a plebiscite," Gordon said.
Seven of the committee’s 11 members attended the caucus: Gordon, Enrile, Juan Flavier, Francis Pangilinan, Edgardo Angara, Ralph Recto and Jinggoy Estrada.
Once transmitted to the Senate, the bill would go through the regular process of legislation meaning committee hearings, amendments on the floor and a three-fourths vote by all its members to approve the measure.
If there are conflicts between the House and Senate bills, a bicameral conference committee meeting would be held to thresh out the differences.
Gordon pointed out that the Constitution is very specific in identifying the circumstances during which the Senate and the House would vote jointly and separately.
Under Article 7, section 18, the Constitution states that under martial law and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, Congress would meet jointly and vote jointly.
Gordon said he would try to set a meeting with his counterpart in the House, Rep. Constantino Jaraulla, this Tuesday to start the dialogue on Charter change.
The position of the Senate would then be relayed and, according to Gordon, he would ask the House to start submitting its proposed amendments in the form of a resolution if it wants to start the process immediately.
Gordon said this process would end up saving the government more money as no new body would have to be created.
The Senate and the House disagree on how to amend the Constitution.
Senators contend that a constituent assembly may be seen as self-serving because lawmakers would make up the body. They prefer amendments drafted by a constitutional convention, which would be made up elected delegates.
In a meeting of the Legislative Executive Development Advisory Council last Tuesday at Malacañang, both sides agreed to hold a dialogue in an effort to resolve the impasse.