SC asked to decide on constitutionality of House rule on Cha-cha

MANILA, Philippines – A neophyte lawmaker has formally asked the Supreme Court to validate joint congressional voting as the proper procedure to be followed in amending the Constitution. In a press conference Thursday, Bohol Rep. Adam Relson Jala said his 34-page petition for certiorari, prohibition, and/or mandamus, filed last Sept. 26, 2008, seeks to validate joint voting by the House and the Senate as the proper procedure in adopting resolutions revising the Constitution. The petition also seeks to declare Rule 20, Section 140 of the House rules unconstitutional. Rule 20, Section 140 says that proposals to revise the Constitution may be filed through a resolution by any lawmaker. It also says the adoption of resolutions shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills, meaning three-fourths of the House should vote favorably on a bill before transmitting it to the Senate, which in turn should have another three-fourths vote. "This rule leads to the inescapable interpretation that adoption of such proposals must be by separate voting…in my humble legal opinion, the separate voting interpretation is an unconstitutional procedure. The Constitution simply requires joint voting," Jala said. He cited Article 17, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution which states that any constitutional amendments may be proposed by "the Congress, upon vote of three-fourths of all its members" or through a constitutional convention. Jala named as respondent the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Prospero Nograles Jr. Jala's petition, however, does not include a temporary restraining order against the House constitutional amendment committee's deliberations on pending Charter Change bills. Jala is the author of House Resolution 730, filed last August 30 and currently pending in the said House panel, which proposes to constitute the Senate and the House into a constitutional assembly. The lawmaker cleared, however, that he did not lodge the petition before the court to railroad Charter Change, saying that he is working "independently." Jala, a 29-year-old Ateneo law graduate, said the issue regarding the correct procedure in amending the Constitution has plagued him for years. "I think this is a great opportunity for me to settle this issue which has been bothering my legal mind for the past four of five years," he said. "I filed the petition to finally resolve the crucial issue on the procedure to amend or revise the constitution," he further said, adding that he filed the case before the SC because it is the final arbiter on issues of constitutionality. But in a press conference earlier during the day, House Majority Leader Rep. and House rules committee chair Arthur Defensor said it would be premature to ask the high courto decide how Congress should vote on charter change unless there is a "trigger mechanism," that is, the bills proposing amendments to the Constitution has been deliberated on in plenary and the House has taken a solid stand on it. "We create a justifiable controversy that will compel the high court to decide on this controversial issue," said Defensor. Defensor's personal stance on Charter Change is to have both Houses of Congress deliberate on the proposed amendments but vote separately in the end. As of the moment several bills proposing amendments to the 1987 Constitution are still with the constitutional amendments committee under Rep. Victor Ortega. An earlier decision to conduct nationwide public consultations was rescinded last September due to lack of funds, and lawmakers have instead been directed to conduct consultations within their own districts. - GMANews.TV