Padilla seeks SC guidance on Cha-cha voting
Sen. Robinhood Padilla asked the high tribunal on Monday for an “authoritative declaration” on whether the two houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately when introducing changes to the 1987 Constitution.
The chair of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments filed a petition seeking clarity from the Supreme Court on whether the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote as one in the event lawmakers exercised the option of Charter change (Cha-cha) through a vote of Congress.
In a 17-page petition, Padilla asked the country’s highest court to decide if the Senate and the House, under Section 1(1), Article XVII of the Constitution, should convene as one constituent assembly or as two separate bodies in such a scenario.
The 1987 Constitution identifies three ways by which it may be changed or revised: via Congress, “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members”; a constitutional convention, which involves the election of delegates; or a people’s initiative through a petition by 12 percent of the electorate.
Vastly outnumbered
But in the first option, the Charter is silent on whether the two legislative chambers should vote jointly or separately in amending the 37-year-old document.
Senators have long argued in favor of separate voting as the Senate’s 24 members are vastly outnumbered by the House’s more than 300 members.
Padilla’s petition said the confusion required an “extraordinary remedy” given Congress’ “continuous inability” to pursue Cha-cha initiatives as a result of “ambiguities” in the language.
“The Congress will always be confronted with these issues until the Honorable Court takes cognizance thereto and exercises its mandate to clarify constitutional ambiguities for the guidance and proper implementation thereof,” he said.
He noted that earlier this year, the ambiguities had created a “gloomy atmosphere” between the two chambers where “heated exchanges of speeches and words” took place during debates on conflicting interpretations of the nation’s fundamental law.
In a statement, Padilla said he could not carry out his functions as chair of the Senate committee “due to the ambiguities of these provisions.”
‘It’s not fair’
In his petition, the actor-turned-lawmaker invoked the high court’s constitutional power to “settle an existing actual controversy,” which consists purely of questions of law “as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of constitutional provisions.”
Speaking to reporters after filing his petition, Padilla said the high court needed to “clearly explain” that voting should be done separately as the House was “insisting” on voting jointly.
“What about the 24 senators out of the 300-plus [representatives]? It’s not fair. The Supreme Court should declare, order and decide that voting [should be done] separately,” he said.
Padilla added that his position on the issue aligned with that of the framers of the Constitution, particularly Christian Monsod, who has repeatedly asserted that the original intention was for the two chambers to vote separately.
Padilla noted that nine resolutions to amend the Constitution were pending before the Senate.
Political amendments
Since early this year, the Senate and the House have tussled over their respective Cha-cha measures.
The Senate has accused House members of using proposed changes to the Charter’s economic provisions as a prelude to political amendments, such as term extensions for themselves, or even the Senate’s abolition by switching to a unicameral system. The House, on the other hand, accuses senators of blocking more than 300 Cha-cha proposals since 1987 to perpetuate themselves in power.
President Marcos has refused to intervene in the congressional stalemate, although he said in February the Senate should take the lead in amending the Constitution.
He also said he wanted the plebiscite for Cha-cha measures held alongside the 2025 midterm elections to save on cost, but constitutional experts said this would be unconstitutional. —WITH A REPORT FROM INQUIRER RESEARCH INQ
Expensive climate policy is dead