Speaker Romualdez: House to adopt Senate's RBH6 in toto

Speaker Martin Romualdez on Monday said the House of Representatives would adopt the Senate's proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution under the upper chamber's Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 (RBH6) "in toto" to dispel doubts that the lower chamber's efforts to amend the Charter were "politically-motivated."

The House's top leader announced this during his opening remarks at the House Committee of the Whole's first hearing on Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 (RBH7) which mirrored the constitutional amendments proposed by the Senate.

"To dispel doubts that the efforts of the House of Representatives in pushing for the amendment of the economic provisions of the Constitution are politically motivated, we are adopting all the three proposed amendments of the Senate version of Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, in toto," Romualdez said.

"This should assure the public that Congress is only touching on the economic provisions that need to adapt to the changing times. There is absolutely nothing in RBH 7 that hovers on any political provision of the Constitution," he added.

Romualdez decried the accusations against the chamber which claimed that they were against the "much-needed upgrade and facelift" of the economic provisions in the 1987 Constitution.

"Categorically, we are denying this unfounded and baseless accusation... Ito lamang ang pakay natin. Ekonomiya, hindi pulitika," he said.

RBH 6 was filed by Senate President Migz Zubiri, Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda, and Senator Sonny Angara after the Senate and the House leadership agreed in January that the Senate would lead the deliberations on the amendments to the 1987 Constitution as long as the people's initiative, which is believed to be supported by congressmen including Speaker Martin Romualdez, would be halted.

RBH No. 6 seeks to amend certain economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Articles XII, XIV, and XVI.

The constitutional provisions on public services, education, and the advertising industry would be amended by adding the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law."

However, the alleged continuous signature gathering for the people's initiative riled senators and triggered a back-and-forth between members of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The signature campaign led by PIRMA, a group that admitted that they sought the help of Romualdez in gathering signatures, specifically asked voters if they were in favor of amending Article 17 Section 1 of the Constitution by allowing all members of Congress to jointly vote on proposed constitutional amendments.

This amendment was a departure from the existing provision which does not explicitly state whether the House of Representatives and the Senate would vote jointly or separately on proposed amendments to the Charter via a constituent assembly.

The Senate had unanimously released a manifesto against the present people’s initiative efforts, saying the House was out to abolish the Senate given that the document for signature asked voters if they were in favor of amending the Charter to allow members of Congress to jointly vote on Constitutional amendments, a setup which would consider the vote of 24 Senators and more than 300 House members.

The Commission on Elections had meanwhile ordered the suspension of all proceedings related to the people’s initiative.

Committee hearing or constituent assembly?

Meanwhile, at the start of the House Committee of the Whole hearing, House Deputy Minority Leader France Castro asked if the undertaking was considered a convening of a constituent assembly (con-ass).

"Naguguluhan ako, Mr. Chair, kung ano bang ginagawa natin. Parang constituent assembly ba ito or just a simple committee hearing with the Committee of the Whole?" Castro asked.

She pointed out that the committee hearing seemed like convening of a con-ass because RBH 7, unlike any ordinary bills or measures, covered more than one provision, which was contrary to Article VI, Section 26, Paragraph 1 of the 1987 Constitution stating that every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.

"So ano po ba ‘yong naggagabay sa atin I think ano na tayo dito eh, para na tayong nagko-constituent assembly kung gano’n ang mangyayari kasi meron tayong tatlong topic," she said.

"We might as well sabihin na natin talaga kung ito ba ay constituent assembly or just a simple committee. Kasi ‘pag committee, mag-aapply ‘yong rule natin na one bill, one topic ‘di ba? So meron tayong, ang daming topic dito sa RBH No. 7. So ‘yon ‘yong kine-question ko doon Mr. Chair, sa procedural. So we should be frank with us, kung ito ba ay kino-convert na natin talaga as a constituent assembly or just a committee hearing," she added.

Deputy Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales II explained that the hearing can "either be characterized as a constituent assembly or a legislative body."

"In both cases, we exercise our constituent power — meaning the authority and the right of this Congress to amend or propose revisions to the Constitution as provided for and as guaranteed by the Constitution," he said.

Gonzales said RBH7 is like an ordinary bill for which a committee report would be submitted to the plenary, debated upon, and voted upon before they send it to the Senate.

Opposition lawmaker Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, for his part, asked if both houses of Congress would meet as a con-ass once RBH7 was passed by the House of Representatives and concurred with by the Senate.

Gonzales explained that once the Senate and House voted on the measure separately and gathered at least three-fourths votes to pass it, the proposed amendments to the constitution would be sent to the Commission on Elections.

"There is no more need to meet as a joint assembly," Gonzales said.

But Lagman pointed out that the 1987 Constitution only provided three modes of amending the charter - through a con-ass, constitutional convention, and people's initiative.

"Only a constituent assembly of representatives and senators can propose amendments to the Constitution for ratification by the people in a proper plebiscite. I would emphasize that for the consideration of our members," Lagman pointed out.

Responding to this position, Gonzales explained that there was no explicit provision that Congress must assemble in a joint session to vote on an amendment to the Constitution and it only required three-fourths votes of all lawmakers.

"And this time around, the mere fact that under the Constitution sinasabi lang naman ho d’yan Congress may, by a vote of three-fourths of all its members, may amend or propose amendments or revision to the Constitution. Hindi naman sinasabing that you have to sit jointly... provided that we pass it separately, we vote on it separately na three-fourths vote allowed by the Constitution because the Constitution allowed both houses of Congress to create our own rules," Gonzales said.

"Under our rules, we are authorized to propose amendments. So the mere fact that we have already accepted the House resolution filed by our distinguished members, and calendared, and referred it to the Committee of the Whole and we’re now taking it up, we have now taken that position that we are not sitting as jointly assembled, but we are now taking this in the matter of approving a bill," he added. — DVM, GMA Integrated News