Source: Public Relations and Information Department

OTHER NEWS «

House votes to amend rules, sets stage for debate on Charter reform
05 December 2006 10:25:01 PM
Writer: Noel Albano / Diony Tubianosa, PRID

The House of Representatives, by an overwhelming vote of 161-25 and no abstentions, amended its own rules Tuesday night, setting the stage for the plenary approval of a resolution that would allow Congress to exercise its constituent powers to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

The voting, following more than five hours of open and heated debate, cleared a major hurdle for the Majority Coalition in its efforts to have key amendments to the Constitution approved before Congress takes a Christmas recess.

Speaker Jose de Venecia was on the floor during the entire proceedings and called the vote a “historic and overwhelming voice for reform” in the country’s representative democracy.

The vote amended by deletion Section 105 of the House Rules in the 13th Congress adopted in 2004. The specific Section states that…“Proposals to amend or revise the Constitution shall be by resolution which may be filed at any time by any member. The adoption of resolutions proposing amendments to or revision of the constitution shall follow the procedure for the enactment of bills.”

It was assistant Majority Leader Arthur Defensor who presented the proposed amendment to the House rules in the form of a motion directly in plenary. He was firm, together with his colleagues in the majority coalition, in defending his motion to amend the rule until it was approved by plenary at 9:30 in the evening.

Senior Assistant Majority Leader Edcel Lagman, one of the chamber’s legal giants, called the amended House rule “an errant rule” that had to be corrected.

“No practice or usage can validate an errant rule,” Lagman said. “Therefore, rectification is in order, and an errant rule must be rectified.”

Rep. Constantino Jaraula, chairman of the House committee on Constitutional Amendments, stressed that “there is no more necessity to follow the ordinary procedures in a bicameral system since the Constitution does not state that Congress should assemble in a joint session and call for a three-fourths vote separately to propose amendments to the Constitution.”

Another senior House leader, Rep. Luis Villafuerte, said it was the majority of Congress that approved the incumbent rules and “it is also the majority which may change it to make the rules responsive to the times.”

Rep. Antonino Roman said the specific House rule is “inconsistent with constitutional provisions” on amending the Constitution.

Deputy Speaker Gerry Salapuddin, who presided during most of the plenary proceedings, said the “historic vote is a date with history, which ushers in a new beginning and direction in the country’s political system.”

Salapuddin added: “There is no other time to change our Constitution but now. I’d rather go for reforms where we know our direction, rather than make our selves hostage of tradition.”

De Venecia earlier told a television interview that the House vote on amending the House Rules is “indicative” of how the voting would go should Congress sit as an assembly to propose amendments to the Charter.

De Venecia, backed by the House Majority Coalition, has advocated an amendment shifting the political structure from the bicameral presidential system to a parliamentary system with a unicameral assembly.

“The Filipino people are tired of the present presidential system and its failings,” de Venecia said, pointing to the gridlock in lawmaking, the incredible waste of people’s money incurred by a two-chamber legislature, and the paralysis and destructive politics bred by the bicameral presidential system. He likened the bicameral setup to a company, which has two boards of directors making policy.

At least 195 of all the Members of Congress should approve the propose amendments before the amendments could be sent to the Commission on Elections which would set the date for plebiscite to ratify the amendments.