What is legal is not moral. Republic Act No. 9006 challenges reflection on the morality side of the ledger.
We can advance the tentative view that in fact, RA 9006, “An Act To Enhance The Holding Of Free, Orderly, Honest, Peaceful and Credible Elections Through Fair Election Practices” is one such law that violated morality as universally understood.
This law, also known as the ‘Fair Election Act’ was approved on February 12, 2001 by GMA with Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. as then Senate President and Rep. Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. as House Speaker and consists of 16 sections all in all, the most controversial of which is its Section 14. In general, the provisions of RA 9006 revolve around election propaganda and Section 14 on something else, in particular.
Let us shoot straight and quote –
“Section 14. Repealing Clause. – Sections 67 and 85 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881) and Sections 10 and 11 of Republic Act No. 6646 are hereby repealed. As a consequence, the first provision of the third paragraph of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 8436 is rendered ineffective. All laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, or any part thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified or amended accordingly.”
Every student of law understands Article VI Sec. 26 (1) of Constitution which states that “every bill passed by Congress shall embrace only one subject and shall be expressed in the title thereof”. Clearly, the pertinent provisions of existing laws or in this case, Batasan Pambansa Blg. 881 and Republic Act 6646 are being repealed.
Legal scholars know that Section 14 is ‘alien’ to the import of the Fair Election Act and thus must be the subject of a ‘separate’ measure. This necessarily ‘takes advantage of public office for private benefit’. Why? RA 9006, in effect, removed the prohibition. Under the law, officials running for other elective positions need not resign. For instance, if a senator runs for another elective position and loses, he can return to Senate to finish his term.
Two examples that could be given here are the cases of Sen. Lacson and Sen. Lapid who lost to the presidency and mayoralty, respectively but were allowed to go back to Senate.
Further, legal scholars cannot fail to look at RA 9006 as the ‘clandestine vehicle’ used to make the controversial Section 14 of said law a ‘rider’. For instance, Section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code has nothing to do with election propaganda or in this case, ‘political advertising’ and yet it was repealed on the strength of RA 9006.
When Section 14 aims to repeal two major sections (Sections 67 and 85) of the Omnibus Election Code as well as two major sections (Sections 10 and 11) of Republic Act 6646 and yet it only comes in a proposed law or in the enacted law as a mere “rider”, then scholars can argue against its morality on the one hand and its unconstitutionality on the other. At the very least, four sections of existing laws are rendered ‘ineffective’ by the sweeping effect of Section 14 of RA 9006. Ideally, there is no ‘short-circuiting’ the entire legislative process.
In short, repeal as that found in the substantive provisions of RA 9006 failed with the requirement that ‘the repealed and the repealing law must somehow be related’ since in the first place, nothing is made clear that Section 14 must have dealt with the same subject matter of RA 9006 which focuses on ‘fair election practices’. This one is clearly a case of ‘unfair election practice’, if we go by the short and the long of it.
Sadly, repealing Sections 10 and 11 of RA 6646 is by itself pregnant with morality issues. Truth is, to render these sections repealed, modified, or amended mean that they are rendered inoperative when in fact, these are the very additional reforms introduced in the electoral system as they concern ‘common poster areas’ and ‘prohibitive forms of election propaganda’.
In the more contemporary setting, we have to revisit RA 9006 for its brazen ‘immorality’ and damning ‘unconstitutionality’. Maybe, no less than Sen. Pimentel or then Rep. Belmonte should be held to explain why such a law has been erected.
Is there stronger muscle in either Senate or House that could insure that RA 9006 be now ‘embargoed’ and rendered ‘inoperative’ since it sets the dangerous legal precedent that in this country, the lawmakers themselves are writing self-serving laws?
If this is not a classic case of ‘class legislation, from where I stand, I sure don’t know what is. I submit that what is immoral is immoral and no amount of legality can circumvent the strict legal, moral, and constitutional requirements of lawmaking.
This is where Congress has failed and failed anomalously and scandalously with a degree of brazenness unimaginable in the more civilized societies.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Limits of morality: case of Antipolo City
Legal scholars, perhaps, can tread back memory lane in search of new interesting research findings or at least to check whether ‘units of historicism’ in so far as Antipolo City (Philippines) is concerned are as hard as they should be, historically speaking.
There are prescribed constitutional routes in the conversion of municipalities into cities. History is replete with cases of conversion into provinces that resulted in the creation of legislative districts or the conversion of cities that resulted in the creation of new legislative districts, as the case may be. One classic instance is Antipolo City.
The Municipality of Antipolo used to be part of the Province of Rizal’s first district. But after it attained its cityhood, something rather more strange has been attained at the same time. It would be worth the scholar’s time to sift through the corpus of historical data available.
I submit of two steps to take by way of direction of study. First historical document to look into would be Republic Act No. 8508 or “An Act Converting the Municipality of Antipolo into a Component City to be known as the City of Antipolo”. This was signed into law by then President Fidel V. Ramos on February 13, 1998, one day before Valentine’s Day.
And secondly is to look into yet another document called Republic Act No. 9232 or “An Act Amending Section 2, 11 (A) and 55 of Republic Act No. 8508, entitled, ‘An Act Converting the Municipality of Antipolo into a Component City to be known as the City of Antipolo’ and Appropriating Funds Therefor”. This was approved December 22, 2003, or three days before Christmas Day.
In so far as RA 8508 is concerned, the provisions of Sections 2 and 55 are worth reflecting on. Section 2 in particular carries the following second paragraph and let me quote:
“Henceforth, the City of Antipolo shall be deemed as divided into two (2) districts: East Antipolo and West Antipolo for better supervision and a more efficient delivery of services”.
Very well said, I guess. This is a “rider” of a law possibly violative of the constitutional principle that a bill shall embrace one subject matter and normally, substantive provisions such as a creation of new, for that matter, two legislative districts should be carried in the very title of the proposed law itself which the law is supposed to seek to create. Besides, what token motherhood statement was that – “more efficient delivery of services”?
And what does Section 55 of RA 8508, a rather tail-end part of the law itself, tell us? Or, let me quote:
“Section 55. Legislative District – Upon its conversion into a component city, the City of Antipolo shall have its own legislative district with the first representative to be elected in the next national elections after the passage of this Act”.
Surely, what follows Section 55 are the usual clauses – applicability of laws clause, separability clause, repealing clause, and effectivity clause. At the very least, Section 2 and Section 55, each and separately, are purposively carried in RA 8508.
Perhaps in some unwitting effort to avoid adding insult to injury, RA 9232 has to be likewise legislated as some kind of an ‘afterthought’. So what does RA 9232 prescribe anew, if any? It, in effect, amends Sections 2, 11 (a) and 55 of RA 8508 in one master stroke. This means that at least three such sections of a supposedly newly-born law have to ‘cured’ for obvious ‘congenital defects’ or for constitutional infirmities, or how else should it be read?
In effect, RA 9232 improves upon RA 8508 at least as it aims to define more clearly and more officially the existence of a First District of Antipolo and a Second District of Antipolo.
Further, whereas in the first law, RA 8508, there is only the city’s own legislative district so provided, the first representative of which shall be elected in the first national elections after the effectivity of this law, in the second law, RA 9232, it now stipulates of two (2) legislative districts to commence at the next national elections following the effectivity of this law. With the latter law having been approved in December 22, 2003, it follows that in 2004, there were two legislative districts created and therefore two representatives should be elected accordingly.
In review, when the first law, RA 8508 was enacted in 1998, beginning in 2001, there is created the city’s own legislative district with the first represented elected accordingly. Thus, in the next election cycle under RA 9232, the one representative to a one legislative district increase to two to two legislative districts accordingly.
Now, it is worth contemplation to study these laws and their future impact in legislative proceedings and lawmaking.
There are prescribed constitutional routes in the conversion of municipalities into cities. History is replete with cases of conversion into provinces that resulted in the creation of legislative districts or the conversion of cities that resulted in the creation of new legislative districts, as the case may be. One classic instance is Antipolo City.
The Municipality of Antipolo used to be part of the Province of Rizal’s first district. But after it attained its cityhood, something rather more strange has been attained at the same time. It would be worth the scholar’s time to sift through the corpus of historical data available.
I submit of two steps to take by way of direction of study. First historical document to look into would be Republic Act No. 8508 or “An Act Converting the Municipality of Antipolo into a Component City to be known as the City of Antipolo”. This was signed into law by then President Fidel V. Ramos on February 13, 1998, one day before Valentine’s Day.
And secondly is to look into yet another document called Republic Act No. 9232 or “An Act Amending Section 2, 11 (A) and 55 of Republic Act No. 8508, entitled, ‘An Act Converting the Municipality of Antipolo into a Component City to be known as the City of Antipolo’ and Appropriating Funds Therefor”. This was approved December 22, 2003, or three days before Christmas Day.
In so far as RA 8508 is concerned, the provisions of Sections 2 and 55 are worth reflecting on. Section 2 in particular carries the following second paragraph and let me quote:
“Henceforth, the City of Antipolo shall be deemed as divided into two (2) districts: East Antipolo and West Antipolo for better supervision and a more efficient delivery of services”.
Very well said, I guess. This is a “rider” of a law possibly violative of the constitutional principle that a bill shall embrace one subject matter and normally, substantive provisions such as a creation of new, for that matter, two legislative districts should be carried in the very title of the proposed law itself which the law is supposed to seek to create. Besides, what token motherhood statement was that – “more efficient delivery of services”?
And what does Section 55 of RA 8508, a rather tail-end part of the law itself, tell us? Or, let me quote:
“Section 55. Legislative District – Upon its conversion into a component city, the City of Antipolo shall have its own legislative district with the first representative to be elected in the next national elections after the passage of this Act”.
Surely, what follows Section 55 are the usual clauses – applicability of laws clause, separability clause, repealing clause, and effectivity clause. At the very least, Section 2 and Section 55, each and separately, are purposively carried in RA 8508.
Perhaps in some unwitting effort to avoid adding insult to injury, RA 9232 has to be likewise legislated as some kind of an ‘afterthought’. So what does RA 9232 prescribe anew, if any? It, in effect, amends Sections 2, 11 (a) and 55 of RA 8508 in one master stroke. This means that at least three such sections of a supposedly newly-born law have to ‘cured’ for obvious ‘congenital defects’ or for constitutional infirmities, or how else should it be read?
In effect, RA 9232 improves upon RA 8508 at least as it aims to define more clearly and more officially the existence of a First District of Antipolo and a Second District of Antipolo.
Further, whereas in the first law, RA 8508, there is only the city’s own legislative district so provided, the first representative of which shall be elected in the first national elections after the effectivity of this law, in the second law, RA 9232, it now stipulates of two (2) legislative districts to commence at the next national elections following the effectivity of this law. With the latter law having been approved in December 22, 2003, it follows that in 2004, there were two legislative districts created and therefore two representatives should be elected accordingly.
In review, when the first law, RA 8508 was enacted in 1998, beginning in 2001, there is created the city’s own legislative district with the first represented elected accordingly. Thus, in the next election cycle under RA 9232, the one representative to a one legislative district increase to two to two legislative districts accordingly.
Now, it is worth contemplation to study these laws and their future impact in legislative proceedings and lawmaking.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
'Sign of desperation' - Bernas
This column, “Con-ass in July”, of Fr. Joaquin Bernas challenges reflection. In effect, it would appear illusory any involvement from the Supreme Court sans ‘actual controversy involving conflict of rights’. Thus, even if Congress convenes next month, according to Bernas, ‘it will not be easy to get the Supreme Court involved’.
Apparently, the Supreme Court can step into the picture if the constitutionality of the ‘fourth mode’ is challenged. This means that Congress, if it must convene as a Constituent Assembly, must do so, only in a joint session. And this Bernas calls the ‘1109 purists’ upon whom he cannot entrust constitutional revision or his specific reference to this ‘majority of the present crop of House members’.
What can be a little bit disturbing is Bernas’ claim that unless anybody’s right ‘will have been violated’, the Supreme Court will find no cause for it to act. He does not think that there is ‘already a justificiable controversy’ even if the House succeeds ‘in approving a proposed amendment by a vote of three-fourths of all the members’ and even if ‘thereafter pass their approved proposal to the Senate’.
For Bernas, it is only when ‘Senate acts on the proposal by accepting it and joining the House in scheduling it for a plebiscite’ that it becomes ‘ripe for Court action’. In fact, it would be less complicated if Senate simply rejects the House proposal as this would mean 1109’s final demise. In case Senate archives the same, again, Bernas thinks ‘there is no (‘fourth mode’) to bring to the Court’ to as much as ‘compel Senate to act’.
The only reassuring point raised by Bernas is when ‘Congress itself will have solved its own problem’, which means, that it fails to get 220 votes to approve its convening as a Con-Ass or move to amend or revise the Constitution. In any case, he thinks that the ‘Supreme Court will be asked to perform a legitimizing miracle’ once a plebiscite is called.
Relating Con-Ass and the resulting protest movements or rallies against it, Bernas still believes that ‘there is enough honor in the House that can overcome reckless adventurism even at the cost of their share in the pork barrel’. And with the prevailing suspicion that the House just might convene as Con-Ass on the scheduled State of the Nation Address, Bernas calls this ‘the height of insolence, a slap on the face of the Senate and of the people’ – ‘a clear sign of desperation’.
Contemporary scenes somewhat coincide with the case of post-election unrest in Iran with this 1109 post-adoption blues. The street rallies or protest movements now being organized against Con-Ass share stark resemblances with those clashes between demonstrators and black-clad police in truncheons and water cannons in the streets of Tehran. In both cases, there are voting irregularities being challenged.
In like manner, we militate against the manner 1109 was approved and adopted at the House of Representatives that would pave the way for its convening as a Con-Ass come July if not on the occasion of the State of the Nation Address when both memberships of House and Senate would have been present.
It is hoped, there is no misreading Bernas’ column as allowing any room for the diehard adherents and frontliners of 1109 to sort of ‘ram through our throats’ a rather despicable proposal arrived at by sheer tyranny of numbers and a luminous motive that is not meant to redound to the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’. It is also hoped that Con-Ass is not motivated with the overarching pressure from some 27 states of the European Union for the Philippines to open its doors for foreign acquisition of our lands when not remotely, lobby monies might be changing hands in the unseen process.
Apparently, the Supreme Court can step into the picture if the constitutionality of the ‘fourth mode’ is challenged. This means that Congress, if it must convene as a Constituent Assembly, must do so, only in a joint session. And this Bernas calls the ‘1109 purists’ upon whom he cannot entrust constitutional revision or his specific reference to this ‘majority of the present crop of House members’.
What can be a little bit disturbing is Bernas’ claim that unless anybody’s right ‘will have been violated’, the Supreme Court will find no cause for it to act. He does not think that there is ‘already a justificiable controversy’ even if the House succeeds ‘in approving a proposed amendment by a vote of three-fourths of all the members’ and even if ‘thereafter pass their approved proposal to the Senate’.
For Bernas, it is only when ‘Senate acts on the proposal by accepting it and joining the House in scheduling it for a plebiscite’ that it becomes ‘ripe for Court action’. In fact, it would be less complicated if Senate simply rejects the House proposal as this would mean 1109’s final demise. In case Senate archives the same, again, Bernas thinks ‘there is no (‘fourth mode’) to bring to the Court’ to as much as ‘compel Senate to act’.
The only reassuring point raised by Bernas is when ‘Congress itself will have solved its own problem’, which means, that it fails to get 220 votes to approve its convening as a Con-Ass or move to amend or revise the Constitution. In any case, he thinks that the ‘Supreme Court will be asked to perform a legitimizing miracle’ once a plebiscite is called.
Relating Con-Ass and the resulting protest movements or rallies against it, Bernas still believes that ‘there is enough honor in the House that can overcome reckless adventurism even at the cost of their share in the pork barrel’. And with the prevailing suspicion that the House just might convene as Con-Ass on the scheduled State of the Nation Address, Bernas calls this ‘the height of insolence, a slap on the face of the Senate and of the people’ – ‘a clear sign of desperation’.
Contemporary scenes somewhat coincide with the case of post-election unrest in Iran with this 1109 post-adoption blues. The street rallies or protest movements now being organized against Con-Ass share stark resemblances with those clashes between demonstrators and black-clad police in truncheons and water cannons in the streets of Tehran. In both cases, there are voting irregularities being challenged.
In like manner, we militate against the manner 1109 was approved and adopted at the House of Representatives that would pave the way for its convening as a Con-Ass come July if not on the occasion of the State of the Nation Address when both memberships of House and Senate would have been present.
It is hoped, there is no misreading Bernas’ column as allowing any room for the diehard adherents and frontliners of 1109 to sort of ‘ram through our throats’ a rather despicable proposal arrived at by sheer tyranny of numbers and a luminous motive that is not meant to redound to the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’. It is also hoped that Con-Ass is not motivated with the overarching pressure from some 27 states of the European Union for the Philippines to open its doors for foreign acquisition of our lands when not remotely, lobby monies might be changing hands in the unseen process.
Into BF's policy mindset
“If you tell me that the country is much larger than Marikina City or Metro Manila, I will respond that the principle of governance is the same, whether you run a city, a metropolis, or an entire country.”
- Bayani Fernando
The May 31, 2009 excerpt of a speech by BF perhaps more comprehensively outlines the type of mindset the man subscribes to. Perhaps, it is interesting to take them up, point-by-point in the light of his plan to gun for the presidency.
One. Marikina moved from 2nd class municipality to a city of choice by foreign investors. This speaks well of a quality of leadership.
Two. Annual tax collection increased from P77 million in 1992 to over P1 billion after 3 full terms years in office. It sets Marikina a model to other cities.
Three. BF widened streets, installed streetlights, constructed U-turn slots in right places, and modernized public markets. To go along with these physical improvements, is the type of discipline he expects of every citizen of Marikina and the Metropolis as well.
Four. The zero-tolerance for littering is prescribed with penalties. This effectively addressed irresponsible garbage disposal as well as getting people to see things the right way and avoid anti-social behavior.
Five. Drunks are promptly thrown in jail until they sobered up and minors are detained in violation of curfew until turned over to their parents. BF calls this the ‘broken window policy’.
Six. Squatter shanties were demolished to give way to government projects to benefit millions of citizens of 16 cities and 1 municipality. And they relocated to communities where there they can get a job or start a life.
Seven. Streets and sidewalks are freed of any obstruction largely of illegal vendors. The law is simply applied and all must conform to the rules so as not to compromise the common good.
Eight. The U-turn slot on C-5 Road on Kalayaan Avenue in Makati City eases traffic for hundreds of thousands of motorists daily. BF broached this idea costing only P300 million against that of DPWH proposal of a P600 million underpass.
Nine. His is a leadership approach that takes into account the longings of a people for a better life. BF will govern on a platform of transparency and accountability.
Ten. Not a talker but a builder, he would solve a problem by not talking about it. BF believes in an engineer’s role to run RP’s corporate affairs such as in addressing corruption in government, degradation in the environment, lack of access to education, health care, or economic opportunity.
Eleven. Problems as they come must be addressed decisively as they occur in the countryside or urban centers. BF, the engineer that he is, draws up quick plans based on pragmatic assessments.
Twelve. To govern by example that would inspire people to make sacrifice to attain prosperity. BF simply sets the direction for a productive future for people, their families, and their children.
Thirteen. Enemies of State or political opposition must subscribe for lasting peace to reign. BF is willing to extend his hand of reconciliation to promote public service and to serve what is right.
Fourteen. Whatever fate has in store, BF wants to be remembered as a builder of the landscape as well as builder of character. This cuts on two ontological domains – changing the physical if material configuration of the industrial landscape through projects or infrastructures that promote the modern life and changing the attitude and social behaviour of people in order to adopt and promote a common idea of modernity and productivity.
The dream of a Marikina City is attained. The dream of a Metropolis is about done. Then the dream of a new Philippines in a fast changing industrial landscape is only a little bit slowed-down by a newly evolving character transformation that invest on how people adopt to new attitudes and patterns of behaviour.
In the end, the works of BF are steps in the direction of a clean, peaceful, orderly, and productive life for all.
- Bayani Fernando
The May 31, 2009 excerpt of a speech by BF perhaps more comprehensively outlines the type of mindset the man subscribes to. Perhaps, it is interesting to take them up, point-by-point in the light of his plan to gun for the presidency.
One. Marikina moved from 2nd class municipality to a city of choice by foreign investors. This speaks well of a quality of leadership.
Two. Annual tax collection increased from P77 million in 1992 to over P1 billion after 3 full terms years in office. It sets Marikina a model to other cities.
Three. BF widened streets, installed streetlights, constructed U-turn slots in right places, and modernized public markets. To go along with these physical improvements, is the type of discipline he expects of every citizen of Marikina and the Metropolis as well.
Four. The zero-tolerance for littering is prescribed with penalties. This effectively addressed irresponsible garbage disposal as well as getting people to see things the right way and avoid anti-social behavior.
Five. Drunks are promptly thrown in jail until they sobered up and minors are detained in violation of curfew until turned over to their parents. BF calls this the ‘broken window policy’.
Six. Squatter shanties were demolished to give way to government projects to benefit millions of citizens of 16 cities and 1 municipality. And they relocated to communities where there they can get a job or start a life.
Seven. Streets and sidewalks are freed of any obstruction largely of illegal vendors. The law is simply applied and all must conform to the rules so as not to compromise the common good.
Eight. The U-turn slot on C-5 Road on Kalayaan Avenue in Makati City eases traffic for hundreds of thousands of motorists daily. BF broached this idea costing only P300 million against that of DPWH proposal of a P600 million underpass.
Nine. His is a leadership approach that takes into account the longings of a people for a better life. BF will govern on a platform of transparency and accountability.
Ten. Not a talker but a builder, he would solve a problem by not talking about it. BF believes in an engineer’s role to run RP’s corporate affairs such as in addressing corruption in government, degradation in the environment, lack of access to education, health care, or economic opportunity.
Eleven. Problems as they come must be addressed decisively as they occur in the countryside or urban centers. BF, the engineer that he is, draws up quick plans based on pragmatic assessments.
Twelve. To govern by example that would inspire people to make sacrifice to attain prosperity. BF simply sets the direction for a productive future for people, their families, and their children.
Thirteen. Enemies of State or political opposition must subscribe for lasting peace to reign. BF is willing to extend his hand of reconciliation to promote public service and to serve what is right.
Fourteen. Whatever fate has in store, BF wants to be remembered as a builder of the landscape as well as builder of character. This cuts on two ontological domains – changing the physical if material configuration of the industrial landscape through projects or infrastructures that promote the modern life and changing the attitude and social behaviour of people in order to adopt and promote a common idea of modernity and productivity.
The dream of a Marikina City is attained. The dream of a Metropolis is about done. Then the dream of a new Philippines in a fast changing industrial landscape is only a little bit slowed-down by a newly evolving character transformation that invest on how people adopt to new attitudes and patterns of behaviour.
In the end, the works of BF are steps in the direction of a clean, peaceful, orderly, and productive life for all.
Senate votes separately
Last time’s column of Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, titled “Jointly or separately” makes interesting read although at least one earlier column has been written on the same theme. This time, Bernas runs down possible ‘approaches in dealing with the text of the Constitution’.
Bernas made crystal clear distinctions. The historical analyzes the intention of the framers and circumstances of its ratification. The structural draws inferences from the architecture of the power relationships in the constitutional arrangement. The doctrinal simply follows earlier judicial decisions (doctrine of stare decisis). The ethical seeks to interpret the Filipino ‘ideals and aspirations’ embedded in the document. The prudential weighs or compares the costs and benefits found in conflicting rules.
To his advice, Bernas deems combined historical and structural approaches helpful.
Citing pertinent historical dates, such as the debates on July 7 & 8, 1986 over provision on amendment and revision, Bernas alluded to a preference for a unicameral legislature. Apparently however, this was not so when the Constitutional Commission on July 28, 1986 voted to go bicameral with a vote of 23-22. So Bernas is saying that something designed for a unicameral is now used for a bicameral.
Still however, Bernas can readily supply the arguments at the reasons the framers of the Constitution went bicameral, to wit: 1). an upper house looks at problems from national perspective; 2). bicameralism allows more careful study; 3). bicameralism is less vulnerable to attempts of the executive to control legislature. So, he simply added to explain that ‘two heads can be better than one’. That any change done through a bicameral body must be accomplished through the most thorough decision-making, it being a two-step process.
With the prevailing suspicion of GMA pushing her own agenda, true or not, Bernas believes that bicameralism provides the ‘purification’. Bernas made admission that he voted for unicameral during those debates but glad that his side lost especially looking at the current House of Representatives now. Thus, since Congress is bicameral, it must act as bicameral.
This conclusion in fact bolsters his preliminary supposition at the start of his essay on the role of Senate in Charter change. Indeed, there seems no question that Senate is part of the process.
However, Bernas finds the constitutional text as not very helpful or this which says, “Any amendment or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members…” Thus, he went to discuss on this textual ambiguity. This means that provisions on the one hand require Congress to vote jointly as other provisions on the other require Congress to vote jointly. In both cases, they are so indicated in the Constitution rather unequivocally.
Thus, those various approaches as aids to constitutional interpretation when faced with textual ambiguity were authoritatively suggested by Bernas. However, if there is at least one statement made that is left unclear is when Bernas said – “One might also add that voting jointly is so unique for a bicameral body that it is allowed only in one specific instance”.
I take it as Bernas’ own predisposition that at least in the light of the 1109, the same ought to be voted upon separately. In saying so, I sure distinctly can recall to mind that in fact, Bernas raised this point of view during the second committee hearing at the House when him and Associate Justice Mendoza were present as resource persons. Thus, we better hope the hardline 1109 adherents do not take the Senate for granted and give it all the space it needs – the right to vote upon Charter change – separately, but never jointly.
Bernas made crystal clear distinctions. The historical analyzes the intention of the framers and circumstances of its ratification. The structural draws inferences from the architecture of the power relationships in the constitutional arrangement. The doctrinal simply follows earlier judicial decisions (doctrine of stare decisis). The ethical seeks to interpret the Filipino ‘ideals and aspirations’ embedded in the document. The prudential weighs or compares the costs and benefits found in conflicting rules.
To his advice, Bernas deems combined historical and structural approaches helpful.
Citing pertinent historical dates, such as the debates on July 7 & 8, 1986 over provision on amendment and revision, Bernas alluded to a preference for a unicameral legislature. Apparently however, this was not so when the Constitutional Commission on July 28, 1986 voted to go bicameral with a vote of 23-22. So Bernas is saying that something designed for a unicameral is now used for a bicameral.
Still however, Bernas can readily supply the arguments at the reasons the framers of the Constitution went bicameral, to wit: 1). an upper house looks at problems from national perspective; 2). bicameralism allows more careful study; 3). bicameralism is less vulnerable to attempts of the executive to control legislature. So, he simply added to explain that ‘two heads can be better than one’. That any change done through a bicameral body must be accomplished through the most thorough decision-making, it being a two-step process.
With the prevailing suspicion of GMA pushing her own agenda, true or not, Bernas believes that bicameralism provides the ‘purification’. Bernas made admission that he voted for unicameral during those debates but glad that his side lost especially looking at the current House of Representatives now. Thus, since Congress is bicameral, it must act as bicameral.
This conclusion in fact bolsters his preliminary supposition at the start of his essay on the role of Senate in Charter change. Indeed, there seems no question that Senate is part of the process.
However, Bernas finds the constitutional text as not very helpful or this which says, “Any amendment or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members…” Thus, he went to discuss on this textual ambiguity. This means that provisions on the one hand require Congress to vote jointly as other provisions on the other require Congress to vote jointly. In both cases, they are so indicated in the Constitution rather unequivocally.
Thus, those various approaches as aids to constitutional interpretation when faced with textual ambiguity were authoritatively suggested by Bernas. However, if there is at least one statement made that is left unclear is when Bernas said – “One might also add that voting jointly is so unique for a bicameral body that it is allowed only in one specific instance”.
I take it as Bernas’ own predisposition that at least in the light of the 1109, the same ought to be voted upon separately. In saying so, I sure distinctly can recall to mind that in fact, Bernas raised this point of view during the second committee hearing at the House when him and Associate Justice Mendoza were present as resource persons. Thus, we better hope the hardline 1109 adherents do not take the Senate for granted and give it all the space it needs – the right to vote upon Charter change – separately, but never jointly.
Lighter side of things?
Amidst reports of the fall-out of the TIM-Smartmatic consortium, bomb attacks, coup rumors on the local scene and the celebrity deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett and the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya via a coup in the international scene, there ought to be what escapes many – the lighter side of things.
GMA runs for Congress. Isn’t that good news? It serves early notice that there will be elections come 2010.
At least, there is only a Prof. Randy David worrying how indeed he can surmount the problem of a patronizing constituency in Pampanga who might still vote for GMA as their next district representative. It also opens wide the door for the more rabid presidential wannabes to focus on their political campaigns with – GMA out of the field. That should in fact automatically remove Erap from the mad race as well.
If GMA runs for yet another elective position lower than the presidency, normally she is expected to resign or deemed resigned upon filing of her candidacy but then again, her term of office is constitutionally prescribed. It is only natural that for every act of the president, legal issues are always raised. It is not as if there is really a resulting power vacuum.
Going manual thereby freezes P11.3 billion in ready budget. The frozen amount may well be appropriated for – more classrooms, more hospital beds, more small boats for the Navy or Coast Guard. Never mind those noodles, those health insurance cards, those packs of rice. Perhaps, poll automation will be realized in the next election cycle and possibly at a much cheaper cost.
There is a good less than a year left for Congress to convene as Con-Ass and amend or revise the Constitution. It must be foolhardy for the House of Representatives to do so now when the political currents are against it. If the House does insist, again, it can only be in conformity with the requirement that the Senate participates and that it votes upon any amendment or revision – separately.
A simple scenario can be drawn. The House of Representatives can vote upon an amendment or revision with the requisite ¾ votes of its own chamber Members. Signs indicate it can muster the number required. On the other hand, Senate is traditionally not predisposed to vote upon any amendment or revision of the Constitution at any point in time. Therefore, Senate will defeat any move for a Charter-Change. Thus, under the ‘mode of voting separately’, the move for cha-cha is deemed defeated.
There is a whole May 2010 to look forward to. Using the power of technology, even a supposed-to-be manual voting may be fast-tracked. Emerging new features of social networking media and the internet can significantly play a role so votes can be counted and reported in real time. In the end, a lot of safety mechanisms can demonstrate how our votes have been safeguarded because there is a – universal viewing screen. The internet will play central role with all the help of other electronic gadgets such as high-end cellphones, podcasts, et cetera.
The whole vote count configuration shall come handy. There will evolve a system of check and balance never before tried. If people ought to mobilize, there will be ‘digital armies’ to serve as ‘gatekeepers’ to insure that election is clean, honest, and fair. There will be even more zealous young or mature voters alike who can safeguard the votes as they are being counted.
But let not history repeat itself in 2010.
Let not those entrusted to canvass the votes behave as though indicatively bound by instruction than by conscience. In short, let us ‘kill’ the puppeteers who pull the strings.
GMA runs for Congress. Isn’t that good news? It serves early notice that there will be elections come 2010.
At least, there is only a Prof. Randy David worrying how indeed he can surmount the problem of a patronizing constituency in Pampanga who might still vote for GMA as their next district representative. It also opens wide the door for the more rabid presidential wannabes to focus on their political campaigns with – GMA out of the field. That should in fact automatically remove Erap from the mad race as well.
If GMA runs for yet another elective position lower than the presidency, normally she is expected to resign or deemed resigned upon filing of her candidacy but then again, her term of office is constitutionally prescribed. It is only natural that for every act of the president, legal issues are always raised. It is not as if there is really a resulting power vacuum.
Going manual thereby freezes P11.3 billion in ready budget. The frozen amount may well be appropriated for – more classrooms, more hospital beds, more small boats for the Navy or Coast Guard. Never mind those noodles, those health insurance cards, those packs of rice. Perhaps, poll automation will be realized in the next election cycle and possibly at a much cheaper cost.
There is a good less than a year left for Congress to convene as Con-Ass and amend or revise the Constitution. It must be foolhardy for the House of Representatives to do so now when the political currents are against it. If the House does insist, again, it can only be in conformity with the requirement that the Senate participates and that it votes upon any amendment or revision – separately.
A simple scenario can be drawn. The House of Representatives can vote upon an amendment or revision with the requisite ¾ votes of its own chamber Members. Signs indicate it can muster the number required. On the other hand, Senate is traditionally not predisposed to vote upon any amendment or revision of the Constitution at any point in time. Therefore, Senate will defeat any move for a Charter-Change. Thus, under the ‘mode of voting separately’, the move for cha-cha is deemed defeated.
There is a whole May 2010 to look forward to. Using the power of technology, even a supposed-to-be manual voting may be fast-tracked. Emerging new features of social networking media and the internet can significantly play a role so votes can be counted and reported in real time. In the end, a lot of safety mechanisms can demonstrate how our votes have been safeguarded because there is a – universal viewing screen. The internet will play central role with all the help of other electronic gadgets such as high-end cellphones, podcasts, et cetera.
The whole vote count configuration shall come handy. There will evolve a system of check and balance never before tried. If people ought to mobilize, there will be ‘digital armies’ to serve as ‘gatekeepers’ to insure that election is clean, honest, and fair. There will be even more zealous young or mature voters alike who can safeguard the votes as they are being counted.
But let not history repeat itself in 2010.
Let not those entrusted to canvass the votes behave as though indicatively bound by instruction than by conscience. In short, let us ‘kill’ the puppeteers who pull the strings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)