Senate Deputy Majority Leader Joseph Victor “JV” Ejercito on Wednesday expressed his disappointment over the House of Representatives’ (HoR) “hasty” approval of Resolution of Both Houses No. 7.

In a radio interview, Ejercito said he would support the move to amend the Constitution as long as it focuses only on the economic provisions that the proponents of Charter change deem “restrictive.”

“What I don’t understand is why there should be a RBH 7. We all know that in the Senate, we cannot just pass measures. They will have to be scrutinized,” he said.

“Obviously, the House can approve measures in one or two weeks. They rushed its approval. So, where was the agreement that the Senate would take the lead in resolving the conflict and they would just adopt the bill?” he said.

Ejercito was referring to the agreement reached between Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri and Speaker Martin Romualdez in front of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in January.

Zubiri said Romualdez, upon the president’s instructions, had agreed that the Senate would take the lead in amending the Constitution’s economic provisions.

In the same month, Zubiri filed the Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, which he co-authored with Senate President Pro Tempore Loren Legarda and Senator Juan Edgardo Angara.

RBH 6 proposes amendments to economic provisions of the Charter concerning public services, education, and the advertising industry.

The HoR, however, approved its RBH 7, the counterpart version of the Senate’s RBH 6, last week before the congressional break from 23 March to 28 April.

RBH 7 and RBH 6 contain similar provisions, with one exception: the Senate’s resolution states that the amendments would become effective upon a three-fourths vote of its members, with votes cast separately by each body.

The House’s version, however, does not specify whether the amendments would be voted on in a joint or separate session.

No room for mistakes

For Ejercito, amending the Constitution should be done carefully and thoughtfully.

“So, why do we need to rush it? Especially for me, amending the Constitution is very difficult. We cannot afford to make mistakes here. We have to be sure about it,” he said.

“That is the very reason why we should not rush it. I am open about it. However, it is the timing. And we really have to scrutinize and make sure we do not commit mistakes because it is the Constitution,” he added.

The Senate’s RBH 6 is still pending in Angara’s Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes.

Angara was firm that the upper chamber would conclude its discussion on RBH 6 by October at the latest.

Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva said the chamber would first settle its rules on processing the constitutional amendments.

“We’re definitely on the right track, and we’ll be ready before the culmination of the subcommittee hearing,” said Villanueva, who chairs the Senate Committee on Rules.

“After our hearing, we asked the secretariat to collate and present our draft committee report to the members of the Rules Committee. Then I’ll sponsor it on the floor and approve it,” he said.

Senator Francis “Chiz” Escudero earlier said the Senate Rules do not have a specific section on procedures for constitutional amendments, unlike the House of Representatives, which are categorically stated in Sections 143 and 144 under Rule XXI.

Section 143 of House Rule XXI states that “the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths (3/4) of all its members, may propose amendment(s) to or a revision of the Constitution.”

On the other hand, Section 144 prescribes that “Proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”