This blogger believes that the members of the House of Representatives who voted for Resolution No. 1109 committed an opprobrious, dangerous, and unforgivable act by deliberately misreading the provisions on amendments to or revision of the Philippine Constitution.

As legislators they are thoroughly familiar with the “patterns” that are expressive of the true intent of a lawmaking body when drafting a particular law; but they chose to ignore these “patterns” with respect to the aforementioned provisions in order to create doubt that will serve as justification for elevating the issue to the Supreme Court whose members, almost to a man, are appointees of GMA.

These Honorable Representatives of the Filipino people are playing with fire!

A careful reading of the relevant provisions will clearly show the intent of the framers of the Constitution as to how the Congress should conduct its business.

These provisions are:

Article VI, Section 1.

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

Article VI, Section 16.

(1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as it may deem necessary.

(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.

(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.

(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal. Each House shall also keep a Record of its proceedings.

(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Article VI, Section 23.

(1) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses in joint session assembled, voting separately, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.

Article VI, Section 24.

All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills, shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.

Article VI, Section 27.

(1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof, otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

It is obvious from the above provisions that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is for the Senate and the House of Representatives to conduct business separately or to vote separately on matters that needed to be resolved.

Now, here come three interesting provisions:

Article VI, Sec. 27, No. (4):

No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.

Article XVII, Section 1, No. (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; or ...........

Article XVII, Sec. 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.

How do we now interpret the above provisions which use similar language?

Do we now resort to the interpretation or construction that both Houses should vote as one body?

Doing so would be the height of illogicality and irrationality! The “pattern” expressive of the intent of the framers of our fundamental law has been laid down beforehand and to suddenly discard it would be preposterous, to say the least.