MANILA - The Supreme Court (SC) is the next battleground in the administration’s push for a Constituent assembly (Con-ass) to amend the Constitution. It is expected to finally settle one of the most disputed provisions in the 1987 Constitution: should Congress vote separately or jointly in acting as a constituent assembly?

If the SC nominees’ answers could be counted as their votes, majority of the possible members of the highest court of the land would rather that Congress vote separately on charter change--or that charter change does not happen at all.

During recent public interviews of SC aspirants with the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the question on the contested provision on Con-ass was repeatedly raised. 

The present charter is ambigious on this issue other than requiring a vote of three-fourths of Congress for constitutional amendments.  

Way before the House passed Resolution 1109, civil society watchdogs such as Bantay Korte Suprema, and Supreme Court Appointments Watch, raised the pressure on the JBC to vet independent nominees to the High Tribunal in the light of moves to extend President Arroyo’s term.

There are 27 contenders vying for the posts vacated by newly-retired justices Alicia Austria-Martinez and Dante Tinga. Twenty-one of them previously tried for the seats left by former jurists Ruben Reyes and Adolfo Azcuna. 

Among the six nominated by the current SC for the replacement of Tinga and Austria-Martinez, three said during their public interviews that they support charter change.

Real estate businessman Rodolfo Robles, Sandiganbayan Justice Francisco Villaruz, and UST law dean Roberto Abad espoused charter change for different reasons.

Separately, not jointly

Pro- and anti-charter change nominees agreed on one thing, however: that Congress and the Senate should vote separately in effecting charter change amendments.

“For purposes of academic discussion, the Senate and the House of Representatives should vote separately,” Ateneo law dean Cesar Villanueva said. 

Since the lower House is  dominated by administration allies, Justice Remedios Salazar-Fernando also pushed for separate voting in a constituent assembly. 

“The House of Representatives and the Senate should vote separately because the lower House could outnumber the Senate,” she warned.

Villaruz, meanwhile, emphasized the sticky points in the interpretation of the contested provision. “If we interpret the Constitution on its face, Congress should vote as one.  But if we base it on the intent, voting of Congress is required separately,” he explained.

CA Justice Abdulwahid Bidin, on the other hand, pointed out that in passing ordinary legislation, the two legislative chambers already vote separately; it is then only logical to do the same in voting for charter change 

Only Solicitor General Agnes Devanadera said that the Congress should vote jointly.

Reasons

Villaruz explained that the charter should be amended to restrict the power of the Congress to conduct inquiries because it is prone to abuse. Congress, in the exercise of its power to hold investigations in aid of legislation, has interrogated various personalities in controversies hounding the Arroyo administration such as the ‘Hello, Garci’ scandal, the fertilizer scam, and the aborted NBN-ZTE deal.

“There are a number of provisions that should be reviewed. The matter of the power of Congress to conduct investigation should be circumscribed,” he said.

Abad, on the other hand, said that legislation would be more efficient under the parliamentary system.  

Robles, whose nomination surprised many because he was previously disqualified from the contention for being “overage,” said that a parliamentary form of government, “coupled with federalism,” is best suited for the Philippines.

Economic freedom 

Charter change would also sit well with other nominees if framed within the context of increasing foreign ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources.

Ateneo law dean Cesar Villaneuva said that economic restrictions should be removed from the charter. An expert in corporate law, Villanueva saw the easing of restrictions on foreign capital in the charter as the way to move forward amid the growing call for globalization.

“Some of the nationalization aspects of the Constitution should be amended. Our businessmen could compete with the rest of the world…fear of foreign domination should be taken out of the Constitution,” he said. 

Court of Tax Appeals Justice Ernesto Acosta, meanwhile, suggested that the jurisdiction of the High Court on economic cases should be diminished in a revised charter.

He said that the Court’s intervention on cases regarding businesses discouraged the flow of investments to the country. He cited how the Court’s ruling in Garcia v. the Board of Investments disallowing the transfer of a petrochemical plant from Bataan to Batangas sent investors packing. The investors eventually moved to Thailand.

“We have to observe and respect our commitments to those foreign investments,” he said.

No need

But the newest appointee to the 15-member bench, Justice Lucas Bersamin, saw no need for the Constitution to be revised when prodded by the JBC during his interview.

When asked what kind of government he prefers, he justified the beauty of the presidential system and slammed the calls for charter change as buoyed by “selfishness.” 

“I prefer the present setup. The parliamentary form may be volatile for us. Under a federal system, the allocation of funds may not be equal,” he said then to the JBC.

“The proposal of parliamentary system is derived from a degree of selfishness,” he said.

On the other hand, appellate court Justice Martin Villarama opposed the view that economic growth makes charter change indispensable. 

“The government should always be there [in ownership of public utilities and utilization of natural resources]. The suggested amendment is not urgent at this point,” he stressed. (abs-cbnNEWS.com/Newsbreak)

RELATED STORIES
• Con-ass provokes criticisms, rallies, prayers
• Nograles: 'Everything possible' after Con-ass OK
• Con-ass: The debate on the street
• (Update) House OKs con-ass

---

INTERACT WITH THIS ARTICLE