MANILA, Philippines — Retired Supreme Court Justice Vicente Mendoza on Monday argued that both chambers of Congress must convene as a constitutional assembly, not a legislative body, in order to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Mendoza floated his argument at the Senate’s hearing on Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 — a measure seeking to push economic Charter change.
“To say that they must vote separately, you are disregarding the fact that Congress is not acting as a legislative body, Congress is acting as a constituent assembly. It should be only one assembly. One assembly only, not Congress — because when we speak of Congress, we speak of the two Houses, we imply the House and the Senate. But when we speak of a constituent assembly, we call on the Congress to wear its other hat, that is as a constituent assembly,” said Mendoza in a mix of English and Filipino.
Mendoza emphasized that amending the Constitution is a non-legislative function.
Hence, there is a need to function as one assembly, but voting will still be made separately.
“If RHB6 is approved, we would be permitting the amendment of the Constitution by ordinary method of legislation,” he pointed out.
In the same hearing, Constitution framer and former justice Adolfo Azcuna explained that RBH 6 is, in fact, under constitutional assembly method.
“There are only three methods [to amend the Constitution]. This is the first method, which is the Congress acting as a constituent assembly,” said Azcuna.
But unlike Mendoza, Azcuna pointed out that lawmakers “don’t have to meet jointly” as there is “no requirement for joint hearing.”
“There is no requirement for a joint voting, either. We left that unintentionally open whether you’ll meet together in a joint session or meet separately — that is up to you,” he emphasized.