Senator Robin Padilla asked the Supreme Court to set soonest oral arguments for his petition to resolve the issue of whether both houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately in tackling amendments to the 1987 Constitution.
Padilla filed an urgent motion to set the case for oral arguments, in his capacity as incumbent senator of the Republic, two days after filing a petition for declaratory relief on constitutional matters related to Sec. 1(1) and 3, Art. XVII of the Charter.
“My motion is filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case.”
“In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court,” the legislator said in his motion.
The chair of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes added his motion is “filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case”.
Last August 5, the lawmaker filed an instant petition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.
The instant 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 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 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 for calling a Constitutional Convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;
* When voting jointly, if the requirements of 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII, be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House; or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House;
* When voting jointly, should the requirement of “majority vote” under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.
“I invoke the High Court’s constitutional power to settle an existing actual controversy which are purely questions of law.”
Padilla 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 are purely questions of law “as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions”.
“Without the Honorable Court’s declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist,” he concluded.
