Don’t we have a rigid Constitution anymore? | Inquirer Opinion

Don’t we have a rigid Constitution anymore? | Inquirer Opinion

(click link)

"x x x.

At the outset, let me say that it was only through oversight that those who drafted Article XVII of the Constitution failed to provide the procedure for amending the Constitution by Congress. However, there are enough reasons to believe that they intended the same procedure as that provided in the 1935 Constitution. Firstly, there was more or less an understanding in the Constitutional Commission that in the event a bicameral legislature won the day (in view of the intense debate on bicameralism vs. unicameralism), amendments or revisions proposed by Congress must be adopted in joint session with the two Houses voting separately. Secondly, throughout the deliberations of the ConCom, the assumption was that a National Assembly would be adopted. Hence, proposals were tailored for a unicameral legislature. Toward the close of its sessions, however, the ConCom voted for a bicameral Congress. There followed a rush to revise the draft constitution to provide that the two Houses of Congress should meet in joint session, with the vote of each House to be determined separately, whenever Congress is to perform non-legislative functions. This procedure is now found in the following provisions: (1) Art. VI, Sec. 23 (1) (to declare the existence of a state of war), (2) Art. VII, Sec. 9 (to confirm the President’s nomination of a Vice President in event of vacancy in that office during the term), (3) Art. VII, Sec. 11 (to determine whether the President, who has declared himself unable to discharge the functions of his office and later gives notice of his readiness to resume his functions but his Cabinet believes otherwise, is now fit to return to office), (4) Art. VII, Sec. 4, par. 4 (to canvass the votes for President and Vice President), and (5) Art. VII, Sec. 18 (to decide whether to revoke the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus).

In all these cases, except when considering the proclamation of martial law or suspension of the privilege of the writ—in which case the two Houses vote jointly—the two Houses are required to meet in joint session with the two Houses voting separately. Through oversight, however, the drafters failed to revise Article XVII to reflect the decision to shift to a bicameral legislature. Nevertheless, that Congress must hold a joint session and vote with the two Houses voting separately when considering amendments to the Constitution may be inferred from Article XVII, Sec. 1 which states that “Congress (not each House) upon the vote of three-fourths of all its Members” may propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution. This means Congress as one constituent assembly.

x x x."


RETIRED SUPREME COURT ASSOCIATE JUSTICE VICENTE MENDOZA