The specific controversial provision says that "Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by: the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members". At first glance several questions immediately arise: Since all members of Congress consist of 24 Senators and 234 Representatives will the 3/4 votes be their combined total of 258? If that is the case, can the revision be valid if the 3/4 votes come entirely from the members of the House of Representatives since they can muster that number of votes solely from their own membership? Or more graphically stated, if the 24 Senators vote against the proposed amendments or revisions can these revisions still be adopted validly for as long as there are 3/4 votes of all the members of Congress coming from the lower house? Will such proposed amendment or revision be considered an action of the existing bicameral "Congress" even if no member of the Senate votes for them? These valid questions invariably crop up every time Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution is discussed. And when questions regarding a provision of law arise, it must be vague and requires interpretation. The leaders and the honorable members of the majority in the House of Representatives can not just declare that it needs no other interpretation by simply answering affirmatively the questions arising from it. It is not for them to authoritatively assert that their answers are correct. They can vehemently contend that the changes they are advocating particularly the shift from Presidential with a bicameral legislative body to Parliamentary Government with a unicameral body can be validly adopted by 195 Congressmen. But whether their answer and contention are correct or not requires Constitutional interpretation. This is not their function.
Interpreting the Constitution is within the sole authority of the Supreme Court (SC) in the exercise of its power of judicial review. In exercising this power, the SC is not asserting its superiority over another separate and co-equal branch of government but merely upholding the supremacy of the fundamental law of the land.
As held in the case of United etc. vs, Laguesma (G.R. 122226, March 25, 1998) penned by Justice Reynato Puno, "the proper interpretation of constitutional provisions depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting them than in the framers’ understanding thereof". In constitutions, it is the intent of the people that is being ascertained through discussions and deliberations of their representatives or members of the constitutional conventions or commissions. A framer’s opinion expressed on the floor of a constitutional convention is valuable but it is not necessarily expressive of the people’s intent (IBP vs. Zamora, G.R. 141284, August 15, 2000). This principle is more vividly and clearly explained by Judge Cooley, a noted US Constitutionalist and author who said that: "Every member of such a convention acts upon such motives and reasons as influence him personally, and the motions or debates do not necessarily indicate the purpose of the majority of a convention in adopting a particular clause. It is quite possible for a particular clause to appear so clear and unambiguous to the members of the convention as to require neither discussion nor illustration; and the few remarks made concerning it in the convention might have a plain tendency to lead away from the meaning in the minds of the majority. It is equally possible for a part of the members to accept a clause in one sense and a part in another. And even if we were certain we had attained to the meaning of the convention, it is by no means to be allowed a controlling force, especially if that meaning appears not to be the one which the words would most naturally and obviously convey. For as the constitution does not derive its force from the convention which framed it, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any dark and abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that was the sense designed to be conveyed".
Thus it is to be supposed that Section 1, Article XVII was understood by the people who ratified it, in its plain common sense and not in some profound, mysterious, perplexing and incomprehensible sense. Plain common sense tells us that in a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives, three fourths vote of all its members means the votes of 176 Congressmen and 18 Senators.
E-mail: jcson@pldtdsl.net