Should House, Senate meet jointly for Cha-cha delibs? Consti framers say yes, point to ‘oversight’

Some framers of the 1987 Constitution said both the Senate and House of Representatives should meet in a joint session but vote separately for the proposed Charter amendments.

During the hearing of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Laws, Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon underscored that unlike the 1935 Constitution, the existing one is silent as to whether the House of Representatives and the Senate should gather jointly.

"The phrase 'in joint session assembled' is missing... In the absence of that phrase 'in joint session assembled,' the view is we can meet separately as a Constituent Assembly. There is nothing that would prevent the constitution of a con-ass with two houses," Drilon said.

On the other hand, lawyer and former member of the Constitutional Commission Christian Monsod clarified that the said phrase was missing because the body committed an oversight.

"There was really an oversight of the Constitutional Commission because of that one-vote difference in the unicameral versus bicameral and we forgot to put... I think if we did not make the oversight, the mistake, we would have put in also 'in joint session assembled but voting separately,'" he said.

Former Supreme Court Justice Vicente Mendoza, another framer of the 1987 Constitution, supported Monsod's explanation.

"The Constitutional Commission thought of a unicameral legislation but towards the end of its session when there were only a few days left, the commission decided to [have a] bicameral Congress," Mendoza said, noting that the body forgot to include the missing phrase.

"When Congress is not performing non-legislative functions, it is required to meet in joint session and vote separately," he added.

Mendoza underscored that the other question on whether both houses should vote separately arose because of the fact that Congress is expected to meet in a joint session in the first place.

Drilon, however, stood by the present language of the 1987 Constitution.

"That error, whether or not it's true, the way the Constitution is phrased today... The phrase 'in joint session assembled' is not there and therefore it strengthens the proposition that we need not assemble jointly and meet separately as a Constituent Assembly and have the required three-fourths vote to amend the Constitution," the minority leader said.

Senator Grace Poe, meanwhile, sees the need for the framers of the Constitution to also put into a written document their interpretation that both houses of Congress should vote separately when amending the Constitution.

"There were 48 commissioners and only about 12 or 13 are still alive. As far as the commissioners who are still alive, I believe that they agree—we made a mistake and the intent is that there should be a separate vote," Monsod said in response.

The former members of the Constitutional Commission will discuss Poe's suggestion to clarify the ambiguities in the wording of the 1987 Constitution, he added. — RSJ, GMA News