Moot in the eye of the "Aye" vote

Not just a few were riled by the railroaded House Resolution 1109 of the petty-fogging Lower House for the controversial Constituent Assembly, or Con-Ass. A typical vexed reaction of one reader was electrifying: “Shove it into each ‘Aye’-voting con-gressman’s ass.”

But the wily solons were “wa-is” – not as in wise – because the voting was “viva voce”, with no way of tracing who voted “Aye” or “Nay”. Then presiding officer Rep. Raul del Mar – “ettu Bru…”, Raul? – appeared banging the gavel with alacrity: “The ‘Ayes’ have it”.

The minority got overwhelmed by the louder volume of “Aye”. Either they overlooked such clever majority plot in resorting to “viva voce”, or the minority saw through the futility of a roll call vote which could have also been voted down by sheer numbers.

All the Cebu solons could have been candidly honest as in favor of HR 1109. None so far has expressed en contra and, perhaps adopting the stand of their senior solon, Rep. Pablo Garcia, who justified his “Aye” that HR 1109 is just a “call for Congress and an invitation to the Senate to convene into a constituent assembly” for possible charter amendments. Anyhow, none must have expected the angry storm that HR 1109 whipped up nationwide; nonetheless, there’s still a way out by recusing themselves from saying neither “Aye” nor “Nay” in the din prevailing.

But given the double entendres of the House majority leaders, the real intendment has been to call for the Con-Ass even without the participation of the Senate whose most members frown on their House counterparts. The latter have been quite vocal that even if the Senate would boycott the call for a joint session – or even if they attend and would vote against – it would suffice if only the House vote meets the ¾ requirement. In short, they hold that the ¾ vote may be reckoned from the joint chambers in session as one body, and not ¾ of each chamber voting separately, or by the House alone.

Such argument rests on the flimsy excuse that the 1987 Constitution is silent that the Con-Ass resolution for amendments, should be voted upon by both chambers separately. The House theory is that even assuming the present 23 Senators do attend and all vote against, it would not matter as long as the House vote alone meets the ¾ requirement.

It doesn’t need any so-called constitutional law experts, or any lawyer or law student, for that matter, to know that under any bicameral legislative system anywhere in the world, even to pass any ordinary law or statute, or any legislative act or fiat, both chambers of the legislature must act independently. It is a sine qua non procedure for each chamber to deliberate on separately, and likewise to vote thereon separately. In case of joint session, as in both chambers voting as Con-Ass for constitutional amendments, with more logic that separate vote be taken.

The oddly novel stance of Congressman Luis Villafuerte that Sepaker Prospero Nograles’ pet house bill was specially crafted to set a justiciable cause of action cognizable by the Supreme Court should oppositors question HR 1109 is too pat and dandy, just to establish the SC doctrinal ruling. So is Nograles’ insistence that the Con-Ass be only for amendments of the economic Constitutional provisions to facilitate foreign stakeholders ownership of natural resources and boost their capital investments.

The magic rabbit in the hat, the critics of HR 1109 claim, is to ram and smuggle in, again, the much maligned political cabal for GMA to perpetuate herself in power by charter change (Cha-Cha) before the 2010 elections. Whichever be the true intent need not be spelled out anymore, and the people’s consensus is an admonition to the national leadership to refrain from further insulting them as if they were fools and dullards or dummies.

* * *

Email: [email protected]