Ex-CJ Davide: Amending Constitution a 'cha-cha dance to hell'

Retired Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. on Monday stood firm that there are no valid reasons to amend the 1987 Constitution, saying that doing so would be a cha-cha dance to the grave or to hell.

Davide, who was a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission that crafted the Constitution, said that amending some of its economic provisions would bring “more serious and disturbing problems” to the country.

“Our problems are not due to the restrictive economic provisions of the Constitution. They cannot be solved by removing these restrictive economic provisions and completely leaving to Congress the future under the clause ‘unless otherwise provided by law,’” the ex-Chief Justice said during the hearing of the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes.

“On the contrary, they would create more serious and disturbing problems and consequences,” he added.

The Senate is currently conducting a hearing on Resolution of Both Houses No. 6, which proposes amendments to certain economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution, particularly on Articles XII, XIV and XVI.

Constitutional provisions on public services, education, and advertising industry are specifically sought to be amended by adding the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law."

Davide pointed out that what the country and the Filipinos need today are not amendments to or revision of the Constitution, but the full implementation of its principles and state policies.

“I will not hesitate to say again that amendments to or revision of the Constitution at this time would be a lethal experiment, a fatal hit, a plunge to death,” he said.

“It would be a cha-cha dance to the grave or to hell. It would be a cruel punishment for a God-loving, patriotic, and nationalistic people. It would be claiming our people to foreign domination or control. God forbid that we now amend our Constitution.”

Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri said during the same hearing that the Senate “will not be falling into a trap on any deadline” with regards to the deliberations on RBH 6.

“[T]o discuss such an important matter needs time, it needs study. It cannot be rushed like any regular bill that is just approved without thinking,” Zubiri said.

Voting separately

Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Vicente Mendoza, for his part, said framers of the 1987 Constitution wanted the House of Representatives and the Senate to vote separately on proposed Charter amendments once they convene as constituent assembly (Con-Ass).

Mendoza explained his position after several Senators, led by Nancy Binay, asked whether the House could constitute itself as a constituent assembly given that the ongoing signature campaign for Charter change (Cha-cha) by people’s initiative asks voters if they were in favor of amending Article 17, Section 1 of the Constitution to allow all members of Congress to jointly vote on proposed constitutional amendments in a constituent assembly.

The existing Article 17, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution does not explicitly state whether the House should jointly or separately vote on proposed Constitutional amendments.

Mendoza said that while the Constitutional Commission’s (Con-Com’s) Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Transitory Provisions initially agreed that the 1987 Constitution would be drafted on the assumption that there would be a unicameral national assembly, the issue of whether the Philippine Congress would be bicameral or unicameral was eventually resolved when Con-Com Commissioner Decoroso Rosales, who represented the Executive department then, informed the Con-Com that the country would have a bicameral Congress.

“On what assumption are we going to work on? On the assumption that we will adopt a bicameral congress or a unicameral national assembly? This problem was not resolved until the very end. So, with that problem, it was [initially] agreed in the [Con-Com’s] Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Transitory Provision... he (Jose Suarez) was talking with Commissioner [Florenz] Regalado. In the event that we adopt the bicameral congress, we will insert the word joint assembly, [with] the votes of both houses counted separately. So, all the drafts of the Constitution based on a unicameral assembly were put on suspension,” Mendoza said.

“Then finally, Commissioner Rosales of the Executive department said, we have an agreement, it will be a bicameral Congress. So, all provisions of the Constitution were amended so as to reflect this [bicameral Congress],” Mendoza added.

Mendoza said such intent of separate voting is clearly stated in the current 1987 Constitution, with the House and the Senate voting separately in approving the President’s nominee for Vice President in a joint session in a situation when there is a vacancy for Vice President.

This instance happened in 2001 when the House and the Senate voted separately to approve the nomination of then-Senator Teofisto Guingona as Vice President.

At that time, the Vice Presidency was vacated because then Vice President Gloria Arroyo assumed the Presidency following the exit of President Joseph Estrada from Malacañang.

Mendoza then cited two previous Supreme Court decisions, namely Tolentino versus Comelec and Gonzales versus Comelec, which stated that members of Congress in a Constituent Assembly do not act as members of Congress since amending the Constitution is not a legislative function.

“When they act as an Assembly, they do not act as Senators or members of the House. Therefore, I submit that this body (Senate) is not a Constituent Assembly nor part of a Constituent Assembly. To become a Constituent Assembly, the two houses must first sit together, then pass a Resolution to become Constituent Assembly,” Mendoza said.

“It is only then that the Constituent Assembly under Article 17 Section 1 Paragraph 1 [of the Philippine Constitution] can be contemplated. Otherwise, no,” Mendoza added. —KG/DVM, GMA Integrated News