There is seemingly no question that our Constitution needs some improvement. The fact alone that so many controversies have arisen regarding the meaning of some of its provisions is enough reason for reviewing the document and for revising or amending it. The current dispute about the convening of Congress as a Constituent Assembly and how the members of Congress shall vote on the proposed amendment or revision already show that our Charter needs some changes. But that need should not be used as a ground to audaciously use questionable methods to achieve the most laudable of goals. Let our politicians be reminded that the Charter is the most important document that enables the Government to exercise its powers precisely because the governed have freely given their consent to it. Even the manners of changing the charter reflect the peoples’ will as expressed in the document itself. So any attempt to change it must be in conformity with the provisions set forth therein. And if there are ambiguities in said provisions, the intention of the people as expressed through the framers, rather than the interpretation of our politicians must be determined and must prevail to resolve the ambiguities.
Congress is indeed given the power to propose amendments or revision of the Constitution by convening itself into a Constituent Assembly and adopting proposals for the peoples’ ratification by 3/4 votes of its members. When it does so, it is performing a constituent rather than a legislative function. In the discharge of such constituent function, the provisions of the Charter are admittedly quite ambiguous particularly on the following: (1) whether it shall convene in joint session and (2) whether the 3/4 votes of its members consist of 3/4 of the members of the Senate and 3/4 of the members of the Lower House or 3/4 of the entire membership regardless of whether they come from the Senate or the Lower House.
As worded, the interpretation can go either way. But if the entire document is considered and in keeping with the spirit of bicameralism that has been institutionalized by the present Charter, the meaning of this provision more in consonance with the intention of the framers and reflective of the people’s will is that Congress may convene as a Constituent Assembly either jointly or separately but when it comes to voting on the proposed amendments or revisions, 3/4 members of the Lower House and 3/4 of the members of the Senate must concur. To adopt any other interpretation would result in absurdity. A situation may arise when only the Lower House can propose amendments or revision since by itself it can already muster 3/4 votes. Apparently these 3/4 votes cannot be considered as the 3/4 votes of the "members of Congress" as contemplated by the Constitution but only that of the Lower House. Such interpretation resulting in absurdity is abhorred by law (Lex non-patitur absurdum).
The Lower House itself recognizes this interpretation in the very rules that they found a need to amend (as they have indeed amended) to suit their purpose of coming out with a revised charter by December 15, 2006 and in ramming through a parliamentary form of government. From the very start of the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution, the rules of the Lower House have already been geared towards bicameralism. It is only now that when they are pressed to go on with their desired revision shifting to parliamentary form and giving themselves an extension of term have they decided to change their own rules. What they have just done only proves that there is no use in amending or revising our charter if we will have the same kind of people at the helm. No wonder the people are already fed up and are up in arms over their latest move.
My e-mail is jcson@pldtdsl.net or jose@sisonph.com