RBH 7 unconstitutional? Solon says House followed provision on amendments
MANILA, Philippines — Senior Deputy Speaker Aurelio Gonzales Jr. has allayed fears that the Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 7 goes against the 1987 Constitution, claiming that provisions in Article XVII stated that amendments can be made with a three-fourths vote of all members of Congress.
In a video message on Thursday, Gonzales said that the House only followed Article XVII when it crafted RBH No. 7 — a proposal to amend the 1987 Constitution’s economic provisions, which was patterned after the Senate’s RBH No. 6.
Section 1 of Article XVII states that “any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution” may be proposed through the “Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or a constitutional convention.”
“Ang ating Pangulo po dineklara niya na sa ating mga senador at mga congressmen na we will focus on the amending of our 1987 Constitution, kaya ito po ang ginawa po namin sa House, ‘yong Resolution of Both Houses No. 7, na sinunod lang po namin ‘yong Article XVII, Section 1, Paragraph 1,” Gonzales said.
(Our President declared to our senators and congressmen that we will focus on amending our 1987 Constitution, that’s why this is what we did in the House, the Resolution of Both Houses No. 7, which we created following Article XVII, Section 1, Paragraph 1.)
“So ‘yon po ang sinunod namin, hindi po kami lumabas sa Constitution,” he added.
(That’s what we followed, we did not go out of the Constitution.)
READ: House leaders file RBH 7, mirrors Senate version of economic amendments
With these cleared out, Gonzales hopes both the House and the Senate can work towards finalizing constitutional amendment proposals.
“So ‘wag po kayong mag-alala, basta ito po magkaka-roon naman po tayo ng bicameral conference at we are in good faith, both Houses. Sana po maipasa na natin ito basta may tiwala tayo sa isa’t isa, walang hadlang kung bakit hindi natin maipasa ang amendments ng 1987 Constitution po,” Gonzales noted.
(So do not worry. This will have a bicameral conference as we are in good faith, both Houses. So I hope we can pass this because if we trust each other, there would be no roadblock regarding amending the 1987 Constitution.)
Last Monday, Gonzales, Deputy Speaker David Suarez, and Majority Leader Manuel Jose Dalipe filed RBH No. 7, which they say already mimics the Senate’s RBH No. 6, in a bid to end the dispute between the two chambers of Congress.
Provisions in the House’ RBH No. 7 and Senate’s RBH No. 6 are identical except for one portion — the Senate’s resolution said the amendments would take effect with a three-fourths vote of its members, with each chamber voting separately.
The House, on the other hand, called for a vote of three-fourths of all its members — without specifying joint or separate voting.
On Wednesday, Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri said that he prefers the House to adopt the upper chamber’s RBH No. 6 to end all confusion and dispute.
RBH No. 6 hearings at the Senate started last February 5, while Dalipe said the House would convene as a committee of the whole starting Monday, February 26, to deliberate RBH No. 7.
The House would hold hearings at the plenary, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. or before the plenary session starts.
READ: House to convene as committee of the whole to deliberate RBH 7
Dalipe assured the public that discussions will be exhaustive as they expect to hold hearings for weeks, with the goal of adopting the resolution before Congress goes on a break for the Lenten Season.
Other lawmakers said that they are not fast-tracking the bill, noting that some of the arguments have already been discussed when the House deliberated its own RBH No. 6, which was adopted in March 2023.
