House backs move to ascertain how both Congress vote for Cha-cha

House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez | PHOTO: Official Facebook page of the House of Representatives of the Philippines

MANILA, Philippines — Some lawmakers in the House of Representatives support the resolution of a highly debated issue — whether the two chambers of Congress should vote jointly or separately when discussing constitutional amendments.

Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez gave this answer during an ambush interview on Monday, when asked about Senator Robinhood Padilla’s decision to file a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) regarding the issue.

However, Romualdez said he will reserve comments on the matter until the SC releases its answer on the matter.

“Well, there’s a lot of support I think from many of the House members, but as they say I prefer to reserve first any commentaries because it is already with the courts, right?” Romualdez said.

“So, I know this from previous discussions and conversations there’s some support coming also from the House in terms of sentiments. But as a petition we will respect the processes and we don’t want to preempt the resolution,” he added.

Padilla earlier sought the SC’s wisdom regarding a confusion on how Congress should vote on proposed constitutional reforms.  Under Article XVII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, amending the Constitution can be proposed by Congress upon a three-fourths vote of all its members.

READ: Padilla asks Supreme Court to resolve Cha-cha vote dispute 

However, it is unclear if the Senate and the House would vote separately, or if all lawmakers of Congress would vote together.  Senators of the 19th Congress and past editions have opposed a joint voting, based on feats that it will disenfranchise the Senate as 24 senators would be a minority compared to over 300 members of the House.

House lawmakers — even those from the opposition — however believe that joint voting should be used.  According to Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman, joint voting was placed because Constitution framers initially intended to have a unicameral Congress or a single legislative body.

READ: Lagman: 1987 Constitution intends joint voting of Congress for Cha-cha 

In 2023, former retired associate justice Vicente Mendoza said that the 1987 Constitution should be amended as it is vague on certain procedures that should be followed.

READ: Ex-SC justice wants Constitution amended: Lack of clarity in amendment provisions problematic 

Mendoza was referring to the Constitution’s inability to explicitly state how the amendments would be carried out.