Sen. Robin Heartened by Former Chief Justice's Remarks on Cha-Cha Petition

PHILIPPINES, August 13 - Press Release
August 13, 2024

Sen. Robin Heartened by Former Chief Justice's Remarks on Cha-Cha Petition

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla is heartened by the remarks of former Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban on the petition he filed before the Supreme Court last week, asking the High Court to resolve whether both houses should vote jointly or separately in discussing amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Panganiban, in his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, cited Padilla for his "patriotic intentions" and for confronting the Supreme Court with "a puzzlement that may set precedents in both substantive and procedural law."

The former Chief Justice noted that while Padilla's petition is "befuddled by at least three difficult remedial law problems," he "deeply admire(s) the patriotic intentions" of the senator.

Also, he said it is his humble opinion that the High Court should not simply dismiss Padilla's petition considering the "transcendental issue raised by Padilla."

Padilla thanked Panganiban for his "kind words," which he said will inspire him to argue his case before the Supreme Court.

"Tanging inspirasyon ko ang mga sinabi ng ating mahal na dating Chief Justice (The words of our beloved former Chief Justice will be my inspiration)," he said.

Last Aug. 5, Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, filed an instant petition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.

The instant petition sought the High Court's "authoritative declaration" on the following constitutional issues:

* Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene, as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution;

* When voting jointly, should the requirement of 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 3/4 vote by the House; or 3/4 by the 24 senators with all members of the House of Representatives;

* Whether the Senate and House 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 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII, be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House; or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House;

* When voting jointly, should the requirement of "majority vote" under Sec. 3, Art. XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.

Padilla said he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes "due to the ambiguities of these provisions," and invoked the High Court's constitutional power to "settle an existing actual controversy" which are purely questions of law "as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions."

---

Sen. Robin, Nabuhayan ng Loob sa Sinabi ng Dating Chief Justice sa Kanyang Cha-Cha Petition

Nabuhayan ng loob si Sen. Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla sa sinabi ni dating Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban tungkol sa petisyon na ihinain niya sa Korte Suprema noong nakaraang linggo, para resolbahin ang isang mahalagang isyu sa pag-amyenda sa 1987 Constitution: kung dapat magkasama o magkahiwalay bang boboto ang miyembro ng Senado at Kamara.

Sa kanyang kolum sa Philippine Daily Inquirer, pinuri ni Panganiban ang "patriotic intentions" ni Padilla at ang kanyang pagharap sa Korte Suprema ng "puzzlement that may set precedents in both substantive and procedural law."

Ayon kay Panganiban, bagama't may tatlong mahirap na isyu ang kaharap ng petisyon ni Padilla, hinahangaan niya ang "patriotic intentions" ng mambabatas.

Dagdag niya na hindi dapat ibasura nang basta-basta ng Korte ang petisyon ni Padilla dahil sa "transcendental issue" nito.

Nagpasalamat si Padilla kay Panganiban sa kanyang sinabi. Aniya, ito ang magiging inspirasyon niya kung kakailanganin niyang ilatag ang argumento niya sa Korte.

"Tanging inspirasyon ko ang mga sinabi ng ating mahal na dating Chief Justice," aniya.

Noong Agosto 5, ihinain ni Padilla, na tagapangulo ng Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, ang instant petition na humihingi ng declaratory relief tungkol sa Sec. 1 at 3 ng Art. XVII ng Konstitusyon.

Hiningi ng petisyon ang "authoritative declaration" ng Supreme Court sa mga sumusunod na isyu:

* Kung ang Senado at Kamara ay dapat mag "jointly convene" bilang constituent assembly kung tatalakay ng pag-amyenda o pag-rebisa sa Saligang Batas sa ilalim ng Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII nito;

* Kung voting jointly, ang 3/4 sa ilalim ng Sec. 1(1) ba ay 3/4 vote ng Senado at 3/4 vote ng Kamara; o 3/4 vote ng 24 senador at lahat ng myembro ng Kamara;

* Kung ang Senado at Kamara ay dapat mag "jointly convene and assemble" kung nagtatawag ng Constitutional Convention at/o pag-submit sa electorate ang pagtawag ng ganitong convention;

* Kung voting jointly, ang requirement na 2/3 vote sa ilalim ng Sec. 3, Art. XVII, ay 2/3 vote sa Senado plus 2/3 vote sa Kamara; or 2/3 vote ng 24 senador at miyembro ng Kamara;

* Kung voting jointly, ang "majority vote" sa Sec. 3, Art. XVII ba ay majority vote sa Senado plus majority vote sa Kamara; o majority vote ng 24 senador kasama ang miyembro ng Kamara.

Ani Padilla, hindi niya magampanan ang tungkulin niya bilang tagapangulo ng Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes dahil sa kulang ng kalinawan sa mga nabanggit na probisyon.