Arroyo allies plan Con-ass next month

[adhesive]

---

i think you can register at the embassy..
or it would be better if you ask from people in there..
there is this absentee voting law wherein filipinos abroad can vote..

[giddyboy]

sa mga tawo dre, kabalo ba mo "really' unsay inyong gihisgutan dre? do u "really" know what u r talking about?

before ta mo speak against (or in support) sa HR 1109, worse getting unreasonably paranoid, mas mau inyoha sa basahon ang entire provisions ani. (to the thread starter, ur job was supposed to post a link or article of the thread u started)...

as for me, getting paranoid, jumping the bandwagon, and going out in the streets, shouting our heart out to protest this HR is a waste of time and effort. go figure why...

and Sen. Enrile could always agree w/ me. what's his suggestion? just a shrug of the shoulder...why?

clearly, there is really no more time for actual changes in the Constitution to take place before the elections. So nobody is disputing the certainty of the elections in 2010. the HR is just a simple resolution and does not propose any specific amendment to the Constitution. what i think, they are just after a trigger mechanism for a case to be filed before the SC so there could be a final interpretation on the manner of voting by Congress in a constituent assembly.

---000---

House Resolution No. 1109

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1109

A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CONVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION, UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes expressly provided by Article XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

WHEREAS, adopting a mode of amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a pre-requisite, before specific proposals to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution;

WHEREAS, Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution that “any amendment to, or revision of the Constitution may be proposed, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members;

WHEREAS, while the prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935, 1973, and 197 Constitutions are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation, there is a very distinct and notable difference between the 1935 and the 1987 Constitution, which respectively provides as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:

“The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately
may propose amendments to this Constitution or a call a convention for that
purpose."

WHEREAS, it is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution, such that the “amendments by deletion"are as follows:


1. The phrase “in joint session assembled" in the 1935 Constitution was deleted;

2. The phrase that the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately" was also deleted;

3. The percentage of voting three-fourths of the respective membership of each House (the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of the “members of Congress" without distinction as to which institution of Congress they belong to).

WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored preceding WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the meaning and application of the corresponding provisions of the 1987 Constitution on Amendments and Revision have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that, notwithstanding that the express, clear, and unambiguous provision of Article XVII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution shall be upon a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., not three-fourths of each House voting separately as the oppositors contend), a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved.

WHEREAS, while no specific proposals to amend or revise the present Constitution could formally be given due course unless and until this call to convene Members of Congress, as provided therein is effected. It is hereby pledged and covenanted by the proponents of this Resolution, that by their signatures hereto that whatever constitutional changes may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues of construction and interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court of the justiciable controversy that may arise shall have been resolved with finality that:

1. The term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-Presidentshall not be
extended;

2. The term of office of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended;

3. The term of office of twelve (12) Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six (6) year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish their term;

4. That there shall be elections in 2010.

WHEREAS, there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers that the economic provisions of the Constitution is proposed to be amended in an appropriate manner, but such specific proposal to amend the present Constitution cannot be formally presented and resolved until the mode for amending or revising the Constitution is convened and made operational through the application of Article XVII of the present Constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION F THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT TS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS.

[misha lang]

i dont think this
will approve to
the senate

[revolt!]

Changing the constitution will not resolve any issues in our country, this is another desperate move from the administration to keep their seats in Malacañang...poor gloria and company

let me rephrase your last line

poor the hardworking people of the philippines

[unsay_ngalan_nimo]

sa mga tawo dre, kabalo ba mo "really' unsay inyong gihisgutan dre? do u "really" know what u r talking about?

before ta mo speak against (or in support) sa HR 1109, worse getting unreasonably paranoid, mas mau inyoha sa basahon ang entire provisions ani. (to the thread starter, ur job was supposed to post a link or article of the thread u started)...

as for me, getting paranoid, jumping the bandwagon, and going out in the streets, shouting our heart out to protest this HR is a waste of time and effort. go figure why...

and Sen. Enrile could always agree w/ me. what's his suggestion? just a shrug of the shoulder...why?

clearly, there is really no more time for actual changes in the Constitution to take place before the elections. So nobody is disputing the certainty of the elections in 2010. the HR is just a simple resolution and does not propose any specific amendment to the Constitution. what i think, they are just after a trigger mechanism for a case to be filed before the SC so there could be a final interpretation on the manner of voting by Congress in a constituent assembly.

---000---

House Resolution No. 1109

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
Second Regular Session

HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1109

A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CONVENE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION, UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes expressly provided by Article XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

WHEREAS, adopting a mode of amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a pre-requisite, before specific proposals to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution;

WHEREAS, Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution that “any amendment to, or revision of the Constitution may be proposed, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members;

WHEREAS, while the prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935, 1973, and 197 Constitutions are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation, there is a very distinct and notable difference between the 1935 and the 1987 Constitution, which respectively provides as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:

“The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately
may propose amendments to this Constitution or a call a convention for that
purpose."

WHEREAS, it is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution, such that the “amendments by deletion"are as follows:


1. The phrase “in joint session assembled" in the 1935 Constitution was deleted;

2. The phrase that the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately" was also deleted;

3. The percentage of voting three-fourths of the respective membership of each House (the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of the “members of Congress" without distinction as to which institution of Congress they belong to).

WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored preceding WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the meaning and application of the corresponding provisions of the 1987 Constitution on Amendments and Revision have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that, notwithstanding that the express, clear, and unambiguous provision of Article XVII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution shall be upon a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., not three-fourths of each House voting separately as the oppositors contend), a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved.

WHEREAS, while no specific proposals to amend or revise the present Constitution could formally be given due course unless and until this call to convene Members of Congress, as provided therein is effected. It is hereby pledged and covenanted by the proponents of this Resolution, that by their signatures hereto that whatever constitutional changes may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues of construction and interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court of the justiciable controversy that may arise shall have been resolved with finality that:

1. The term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-Presidentshall not be
extended;

2. The term of office of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended;

3. The term of office of twelve (12) Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six (6) year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish their term;

4. That there shall be elections in 2010.

WHEREAS, there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers that the economic provisions of the Constitution is proposed to be amended in an appropriate manner, but such specific proposal to amend the present Constitution cannot be formally presented and resolved until the mode for amending or revising the Constitution is convened and made operational through the application of Article XVII of the present Constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION F THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT TS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS.

the real problem is the bill is proposing joint session of the lower house and the senate and get the 3/4 from the joint session approving the consti change... but knowing that there are plenty of admin. in the lower house there is big chance that malubong gyud ang tingog sa senate...

i think voting should be done separately by the two houses... even if they change the consti after GMA's term does not mean it will not benefit other admin people especially her son... or she might run for a re-election...

[revolt!]

of course malubong jud ang mga tingog sa left kaysa sa administration... bisan unsa.on og pag pangusog sa minority tabala raman sila walay boses kay e lubong man diretso dayon sa admin..

black prop dayon sa admin sus... wala najud tay pag asa

[toinker]

PSST.. kita ray gi buang ni PGMA.. magmention lng ka ug cha-cha maski asa daghan jud dili mo sugot...
strategy ra na ni gloria..
kung mulosot man ugaling ang cha-cha unsa man mahitabo...... di ba magkagubot....
tapos declared dayon ug Martial Law... tadaa....
balik napud ta pareho sa panahon ni marcos...

boink...

[therealmacoy]

GMA is really cunning... together with her cohorts, they have devised this plan to push the Constituent Assembly knowing for two reasons:
1.) To divert the oppositions attention from the 2010 Elections because they will be spending time and effort stopping GMA in amending the constitution in favorof the majority in the congress right now.
2.) Should the opposition and the Filipino people fail to stop the ConAss, they will be able to insert changes in the constitution that will faver her or her Interests.

as they say, there is opportunity in CHAOS... and this is where GMA is very good at!!!

[revolt!]

there is opportunity in CHAOS... and this is where GMA is very good at!!!

very well said sir

[cdburgh]

Arroyo allies plan Con-ass next month
By Inquirer Staff
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 01:46:00 06/08/2009

MANILA, Philippines—President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s allies in the House of Representatives are calling a constituent assembly (Con-ass) next month to amend the Constitution without the Senate despite outrage by religious and civil society groups.
Rep. Mauricio Domogan, one of the authors of House Resolution No. 1109 calling for a Con-ass, said Sunday that administration lawmakers were aware that they were taking a calculated risk in approving the measure before adjourning the 14th session of Congress last week.
The Baguio City representative said lawmakers were hoping that public outrage would provoke a challenge in the Supreme Court on the House position that amendments to the Constitution could be approved by three-fourths of the entire membership of the two chambers voting jointly.
The 23-member Senate has opposed the move, but Arroyo allies expect to overcome the upper chamber’s resistance with their sheer number in the lower house.
Domogan said convening a constituent assembly would stop only when senators or members of civil society question the proposed joint voting by the two chambers in any Charter change (Cha-cha).
He said that while the case remained unresolved, lawmakers must withstand public pressure generated by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations and street protests.
A pastoral statement issued over the weekend by Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, president of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, urged peaceful protests against HR 1109, but Domogan said the Church action was “premature.”
“The final judge would be the Filipino people in a plebiscite that [would] ratify whatever proposals that would be approved [by a constituent assembly],” Domogan told reporters in Baguio.
Referring to criticism that Cha-cha was meant to prolong the term of the President, which is expiring next year, Domogan pointed out that HR 1109 did not seek the extension of term limits of elective officials.
Everyone invited
Domogan said the House would start the Cha-cha process when Congress resumes in July by “inviting everyone” to form the constituent assembly, including senators.
According to him, the assembly would proceed even if senators refused to cooperate, unless the high court is allowed to deliberate on HR 1109’s constitutionality.
“We want the court to settle once and for all how to interpret the provisions guiding Charter amendments so that the next Congress won’t have to argue should they move to invoke this mode of amending the Constitution,” Domogan said.
In Isabela province, Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III said Malacañang was respecting the principle of separation of powers and would not meddle in Congress’ moves to change the Constitution.
But Bello said lawmakers should explain to the public their decision in passing HR 1109.
“The people have the right to know the reason behind their action,” he said. “The public must have an open mind regarding this resolution.”
The House leadership appeared divided on the issue.
“I don’t believe the House will convene without the Senate or at least majority of them must signify their intention to attend,” said House Majority Leader Arthur Defensor Sr. in a phone interview.
Otherwise, the Iloilo lawmaker said, this would put the House in bad light.
Invitation to each senator
Nueva Ecija Rep. Rodolfo Antonino said that the House leadership was considering sending HR 1109 to individual senators, and not the Senate as a body, for endorsement.
Antonino said that this would serve as an invitation to attend the Con-ass.
He said the Con-ass would be convened a few weeks before the President’s State of the Nation Address on July 27 in order to create a “justiceable” cause for the Supreme Court to lay down a final ruling on how should a Con-ass be formed.
Defensor said the call to convene a Con-ass would be made by Speaker Prospero Nograles, “but he will have to first get a consensus of all leaders before making a declaration.”
Lawyer Oliver Lozano and his daughter on Wednesday went to the Supreme Court to challenge HR 1109.
On Thursday, businessman Louis Biraogo followed suit, calling in a 20-page petition the resolution unconstitutional.
“If both houses of the Congress must vote separately even on a mundane matter like naming a public street after a deceased politician, it is absurd to assume that the House of Representatives and the Senate should vote jointly, or may vote independently of each other, when the power to propose changes in the most important law of the land—the Constitution—is exercised by the Congress,” Biraogo said.
“Unfortunately, House Resolution No. 1109 is founded on that absurdity,” he said. With reports from Vincent Cabreza and Villamor Visaya Jr., Inquirer Northern Luzon; Gil C. Cabacungan Jr. and Norman Bordadora in Manila