Senator Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a key issue in the 1987 Constitution — whether both houses should vote jointly or separately when discussing amendments to the Charter.
Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, filed an instant petition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution.
The petition sought the High Court's "authoritative declaration" on the following constitutional issues:
Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution;
When voting jointly, should the requirement of a 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as a 3/4 vote by the Senate plus a 3/4 vote by the House; or 3/4 by the 24 senators with all members of the House of Representatives;
Whether the Senate and House should jointly convene and assemble when voting to call a Constitutional Convention and/or submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;
When voting jointly, should the requirements of a 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a 2/3 vote in the Senate plus a 2/3 vote in the House; or a 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House;
When voting jointly, should the requirement of a "majority vote" under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus a majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.
The senator, who filed and signed the petition, said he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes "due to the ambiguities of these provisions," and invoked the High Court's constitutional power to "settle an existing actual controversy," which involves purely legal questions "as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions."
He cited news reports quoting President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as saying that both houses of Congress settled the "storm" surrounding the debate on how to amend the Charter through his intervention.
"As we have witnessed, the leadership of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch have come together to address these issues. These two branches, however, on their own, cannot resolve these constitutional issues by themselves," he said.
"Without the Honorable Court's declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist," he added.
He also noted that many resolutions proposing amendments to provisions in the Charter had been filed but remain pending in their respective committees.
"Neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives wants to give in to the other's interpretation... In other words, the same misinterpretations caused by the ambiguities, which Congress seeks to resolve, are preventing all of its efforts to resolve the controversy," he added.
Padilla said copies of his petition were furnished to the Office of the Solicitor General, Senate President Francis Joseph Escudero, House Speaker Martin Romualdez, and others.