Press Release - Sen. Robin Files Petition with Supreme Court on Key Constitutional Issue

Sen. Robinhood "Robin" C. Padilla on Monday petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve a key issue in the 1987 Constitution - whether both houses should vote jointly or separately in discussing amendments to the Charter.

Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, 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, who filed and signed the petition, 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."

Also, he cited news reports quoting President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as saying both houses of Congress settled the "storm" surrounding the debate