MANILA, Philippines – Trying a new tack, one of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s allies said he would initiate a “joint resolution” to force the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of a House of Representatives resolution calling for a constituent assembly to amend the 1987 Constitution.

Nueva Ecija Representative Rodolfo Antonino also dared all sectors, including those opposed to Charter change, to sign the joint resolution, so that the high tribunal would “intervene” in the case.

“I call on all sectors whether pro or anti [constituent assembly], whether business, farmers, religious and all other sectors of our society to join me in signing a joint resolution in enjoining the Supreme Court to clarify this matter with finality,” he said.

The congressman said that Article 17, Section 1 of the Constitution should finally have a clear interpretation from the tribunal, whether voting by Congress should be done jointly or separately.

Antonino, one of the sponsors of House Resolution 1109, which was approved last week, said the resolution generated controversy and division among sectors in the country.

”A final interpretation by the Supreme Court on the issue of voting will resolve the controversy involved in the passage of 1109,preserve the national interest and keep our unity,” Antonino said.

The resolution calls for the convening of a constituent assembly even without the approval of the Senate as a co-equal body.

At an all-party caucus last week, senators said they would not question HR 1109 because their colleagues in the House have not acted on it.

Lawyers Oliver Lozano and her daughter, Evangeline, have filed a petition before the tribunal to dismiss the resolution. But Antonino believes that there is no “justiciable” case yet with just the approval of the resolution.

Thus, he said, the joint resolution, could prod the tribunal to intervene on the case and rule on it.

Antonino said the action of the Supreme Court on the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) could be used as a precedent case.

The court ruled that the MOA-AD was unconstitutional even while there was no “justiciable” controversy because the document was not signed when it was questioned.

During the news conference, Antonino was told that the tribunal issued a ruling on the MOA-AD in response to a motion for intervention by a group of Mindanao local officials.

He said he was pursuing the “joint resolution” as a personal initiative to show the Supreme Court the clamor that it should resolve the issue on the constituent assembly.