A puzzlement for our Supreme Court
Sen. Robinhood C. Padilla, the topnotcher of the 2022 senatorial elections, personally signed a petition under oath and filed it on Aug. 5, asking the Supreme Court to render a binding opinion on how Congress should vote in revising or amending the Constitution. He did this by his lonesome—without being represented or assisted by lawyers.
HE BEGAN HIS PETITION by quoting pertinent provisions of Article XVII of the Charter: “Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members” [and] “Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”
From this constitutional text, he raises this seemingly innocuous question: What is the meaning of the words “vote of three-fourths of all its Members?” As chair of the Senate committee on constitutional amendment and revision of codes, the 54-year-old (55 on Nov. 23) champion of federalism has called several public hearings to tackle numerous proposals to alter the basic law. However, the legal experts he invited could not agree on the meaning and interpretation of these simple words.
Some say that the two Houses of Congress should vote JOINTLY by adding the total number of senators to the total number of congressmen and extracting the “three-fourths votes” from the sum thereof. Others argue that the two Houses should vote SEPARATELY from each other, as they do in passing ordinary legislation. Most senators insist on separate voting; otherwise, they would drown in the sea of the much more numerous representatives who, understandably, want joint voting.
These irreconcilable differences among the legal experts, according to Padilla, have created an “actual controversy,” or worse, a “gloomy atmosphere” between the two Houses resulting in the polarization of the congressional power to propose constitutional amendments or revisions. And unfortunately, the two Houses, “on their own,” could not resolve these differences. In the national interest, Padilla begs the Court to settle the matter so Congress could perform its sovereign duty and power to modernize our almost 40-year-old Charter.
In all honesty, the multitalented senator concedes that he is asking for a “declaratory relief” which under Section 1, Rule 63 of the Rules of Court (that is accurately quoted in his petition) should be filed in the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs). But he is asking for an exception due to the “transcendental importance” of the perplexing question he raised.
I DEEPLY ADMIRE THE PATRIOTIC INTENTIONS of Padilla. However, IMHO, his petition is befuddled by at least three difficult remedial law problems. The FIRST, which the good senator himself had pointed out, is that the power to hear petitions for declaratory relief is initially vested in the RTCs. The Supreme Court may tackle them only on appeal. If only for this error, the Court could dismiss the petition on short shrift, as it had done so many times in the past, though, to be fair, it had also granted exceptions in rare cases of “transcendental importance.”
The SECOND is that the petition did not include an opposing party or parties who may be adversely affected or may have a legitimate interest in the controversy. Our judicial system is essentially adversarial in nature. Justices and judges are passive participants in conducting trials in the lower courts and in reviewing the records when they pass upon appeals.
The THIRD problem flows from the second. The neophyte senator is merely asking the Supreme Court’s advice to guide the lawmakers in performing their powers and functions. In more legalistic language, he is pleading for an “advisory opinion” which our Constitution does not allow the judiciary to promulgate. While some foreign and international tribunals (like the International Court of Justice) issue advisory opinions, our courts do not.
FOR THESE REASONS, the Court normally and simply dismisses cases of this nature. However, given the transcendental issue raised by Padilla, the Court should not, again IMHO, simply dismiss the petition especially because he already furnished copies thereof to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Senate President, and the Office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives so they could thereby intervene in the case voluntarily, or be directed by the Court to file their comments thereto to comply with the constitutional edicts of due process. Thereafter, the Court could promulgate a full decision and thereby avoid issuing an advisory opinion.
At bottom, I think Padilla has confronted the Supreme Court with a puzzlement that may set precedents in both substantive and procedural law. Should Padilla win this case on its merits despite its seemingly insurmountable procedural mountain peaks, he could be admitted to the Philippine Bar and become a full-fledged lawyer as an exception to the Rules of Court’s requirement to pass a four-year basic law degree and the stringent bar exam.
chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
