The two pending Charter change resolutions in the House of Representatives are “without basis in law” and “ill-advised,” according to faculty members of the University of the Philippines College Law.

“We, the members of the law faculty of the University of the Philippines, as teachers and citizens, are of the opinion that H.R. 737 and 1109 are both without basis in law and ill-advise,” they said in a collective statement signed by four deans and 16 professors.

Instead of pushing for Charter change, they called on the congressmen to instead focus on other pressing bills like those involving agrarain reform, reproductive health rights, and electoral reforms.

“We call on the people to persuade their elected representatives that the way to promote progress in this country is through responsible legislation, not an inopportune and hasty overhaul of the Constitution,” the added.

The four deans include the current, Marivic Leonen, and the three former deans—Froilan Bacungan, Salvador Carlota, and Raul Pangalangan.

Nograles resolution

Filed by Speaker Prospero Nograles, House Resolution 737 seeks to scrap the economic protectionist provisions in the 1987 Charter, including lifting the ban on foreign ownership of land, using what is now referred to as the “fourth mode.”

This mode involves amending the charter through the normal legislative process instead of through Constituent Assembly, Constitutional Convention, and people's initiative.

The resolution will be sent to the Senate if the amendment obtains a three-fourths vote in the House of Representatives. If passed by the Senate, the amendment will be voted upon in a plesbiscite.

Nograles' resolution has reached House plenary deliberations.

But there is no legal basis for Nograles’s mode, the U.P. legal professors said.

“While Congress has the power to legislate, its powers do not include the ability to provide novel procedures for amending the Constitution. There is no legal basis for crafting a new way to amend the Constitution because the procedures for proposing amendments to it are exclusive,” the UP law faculty said.

“The Congress, when deliberating on proposals to amend the charter, exercises its constituent power as a unitary body, even as the members of the two Houses vote separately. In such a case, both Houses of Congress are transformed, to the extent required to perform their constituent powers, into a Constitutional Convention all of whose members deliberate as a single group. In separating the chambers of Congress into two constituent units, HR No.737 undermines the collaborative and deliberative philosophy implicit in Art. XVII §1(1),” they said.

The legal experts joined anti-Charter change advocates in saying that they are not convinced by the declarations of Nograles that the amendments will be limited only to the economic provisions.

“Explicit assurances that the amendments process will only be focused on the economic provisions of the Constitution do not insure against the contingencies inherent in the legislative process, especially when the stakes are high and the political environment is all but poisoned,” they said.

There are fears that the Charter change moves are aimed at extending the term of President Arroyo beyond 2010.

Villafuerte resolution

The other Charter change resolution, House Resolution 1109 was also filed by Nograles, although it was actually drafted by Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Villafuerte, president of President Arroyo’s political party Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino.

It seeks to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly through joint voting. As opposed to separate voting, joint voting will allow the numerically-dominant House of Representatives to effectively bypass the Senate, which earlier passed a resolution opposing the House move.

At present, the lower House has 238 members. Once the 32 new party-list representatives take their seats in accordance with a new Supreme Court ruling, the chamber will increase its members to 274. The Senate, on the other hand, has 23 members.

If the Villafuerte resolution gets the nod of Supreme Court, it means that the necessary three-fourths vote—196 at current numbers or 223 once the new party-list representatives take their seats—can be obtained without the help of any senator.

Joint voting is not the proper way to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly, the legal experts said in the statement.

“HR No.1109, in seeking to convene the Congress into a constituent assembly even without the participation of the Senate, violates the principle of bicameralism essential to the legitimate operation of the Congress. The House has no authority to go solo on a matter that is even more important than the task of ordinary legislation,” the UP College of Law faculty said. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

---

INTERACT WITH THIS ARTICLE