“Such proposal might run counter to this provision and will further complicate the move to amend the 1987 Constitution.”

“If you don’t want it then don’t,” Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III told critics and opposition lawmakers alike who criticized his proposal for a “hybrid” constitutional body that will amend the 1987 Charter:

Sotto in a series of social media posts last Friday hours after several opposition lawmakers rejected his suggestion added: “Ang daming marurunong! (Too many geniuses!).”

This comes after several opposition lawmakers blasted Sotto’s proposal, saying that it has no constitutional basis, to which, Sotto argued, his proposal was just a suggestion.

“Anyone can suggest anything. This is a free country. The [consultative committee] was tasked to submit a [Charter change] proposals. They submitted. Sino ngayon mag didiscuss? Kaming lahat? Sa 2023 na matatapos yan! (Who will discuss the proposals? All of us? It will take us until 2023!),” Sotto said in a tweet.

Representatives Edgar Erice, Gary Alejano, Tom Vilarin, Teddy Baguilat, Antonio Tinio, Sarah Elago, Emmi de Jesus and Raul Daza were one in saying that Sotto’s proposal bordered on absurdity and, more importantly, was unconstitutional.

“This proposal has no constitutional basis, I don’t know where he’s getting this idea of changing the charter through a mode that is alien even to ‘wambol (sic) university,’” Erice said.

Erice was referencing the situational comedy “Iskul Bukol” in which Sotto starred in.

Sotto earlier suggested creating a hybrid body composed of “12 senators, 12 congressmen, 12 nominees by the President, 12 nominees from the civil society or the different sectors like the academe.”

But the idea was met with fierce criticism from legislators who say that the idea is unconstitutional.

“Amendments to the 1987 Constitution are either through con-ass (constituent assembly) or Con-con (Constitutional convention)…Such proposal might run counter to this provision and will further complicate the move to amend the 1987 Constitution,” Alejano said.

Baguilat, on the other hand, said the best option is through Con-con if there’s a need to amend the Constitution.

“The Sotto proposal is the most elitist of cha-cha [charter change] bodies because it will limit the discussions to a selected few, which will surely push measures deemed advantageous to a few minds of the ruling coalition,” he said.

But Sotto argued his suggested hybrid body would only serve to facilitate discussions on the output of the consultative committee tasked by President Rodrigo Duterte to draft a proposed new Constitution.

The setup would be like a “reverse” bicameral conference committee, Sotto added

“Can you imagine if 24 senators and 300 congressmen will discuss the Con-com report? Gaano katagal kaya kami matatapos? (when can we end?),” Sotto said in an online interview. “Dapat pag con-ass, puro motions na lang ang debate, (If it’s con-ass, the debates should all be through motions) because we would have already agreed on important issues and principles.”

The Constitution only provides for three modes of amending or revising it: through a con-ass, where members of Congress propose and vote on amendments, through a Con-con, which would require the election of new representatives whose sole function is to propose and vote on constitutional amendments, or through people’s initiative (PI).

Last January, former Chief Justice Reynato Puno, chair of the Consultative Commission to Review the 1987 Constitution, suggested a hybrid Con-con at a Senate inquiry, which would be composed of elected and appointed delegates, who would propose and vote on amendments to the Constitution, which would be presented to the people for ratification.

Previous article‘Coddling the bad eggs’Next articleJoma a ‘spoiled brat’— DND chief Elmer Navarro Manuel