Padilla seeks SC oral argument on joint vs separate Cha-cha votes

MANILA, Philippines — Senator Robin Padilla filed a motion at the Supreme Court (SC) on Wednesday asking for an urgent oral argument for his petition to resolve the issue of whether both houses of Congress should vote on modifications to the 1987 Constitution jointly or separately.

Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, filed the petition at the High Court last Monday.

READ: Padilla asks Supreme Court to resolve Cha-cha voting issues

“In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court,” he said in his motion, as quoted in a statement.

The senator added that his motion was “filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case.”

Last August 5, Padilla submitted a petition to the SC seeking declaratory relief on Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution.

The petition seeks an “authoritative declaration” on the following constitutional issues:

• Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives (HOR) should jointly convene as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Section 1 (1), Article XVII of the Constitution;
• When voting jointly, should the requirement of a three-fourth vote under Section 1 (1) be treated as a three-fourth vote by the Senate, plus a three-fourth vote by the HOR; or three-fourth by the 24 senators with all members of the HOR;
• Whether the Senate and HOR should jointly convene and assemble when voting for calling a Constitutional Convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;
• When voting jointly, if the requirements of a two-third vote under Section 3, Article XVII, be treated as a two-third vote in the Senate, plus a two-thirds vote in the HOR; or a two-thirds vote of all 24 senators and all members of the HOR;
• When voting jointly, should the requirement of a “majority vote” under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus a majority vote in the HOR; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the HOR.

Padilla also said in his statement that he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the committee “due to the ambiguities of these provisions.”

READ: Trillanes files new plunder complaint vs Duterte, Go over frigate deal

“Without the Honorable Court’s declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist,” he said.