Sen. Robin Asks Supreme Court to Set Oral Arguments for Cha-Cha Petition

PHILIPPINES, August 7 - Press Release
August 7, 2024

Sen. Robin Asks Supreme Court to Set Oral Arguments for Cha-Cha Petition

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to set soonest oral arguments for his petition to resolve the issue of whether both houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately in tackling amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Padilla filed an urgent motion to set the case for oral arguments, in his capacity as incumbent senator of the Republic, two days after filing a petition for declaratory relief on constitutional matters related to Sec. 1(1) and 3, Art. XVII of the Charter.

"In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court," he said in his motion.

Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, added his motion is "filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case."

Last Aug. 5, Padilla 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."

"Without the Honorable Court's declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist," he said.

---

Sen. Robin, Hiniling sa SC na Itakda ang Oral Arguments para sa Cha-Cha Petition

Humiling si Sen. Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla sa Korte Suprema nitong Miyerkules na itakda na sa lalong madaling panahon ang oral arguments para sa kanyang petisyon na resolbahin kung magkasama o magkahiwalay bang boboto ang miyembro ng Senado at Kamara sa pagtalakay ng pag-amyenda sa 1977 Constitution.

Ihinain ni Padilla ang urgent motion para magkaroon ng oral arguments, bilang nakaupong senador - dalawang araw matapos maghain ng petisyon para sa "declaratory relief on constitutional matters related to Sec. 1(1) and 3, Art. XVII" ng Saligang Batas.

"In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court," aniya sa kanyang mosyon.

Dagdag ni Padilla, na tagapangulo ng Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, na ang kanyang mosyon ay "filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case."

Nitong Lunes, ihinain ni Padilla 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.

"Without the Honorable Court's declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist," dagdag niya.