Senate Minority Leader Considers Constitutional Amendment
Senate Minority Leader Vicente “Tito” Sotto III shared his cautious stance on the potential amendment of the 1987 Constitution. He emphasized that there is no pressing reason to change the Constitution unless the Supreme Court (SC) decides otherwise. This view highlights the current uncertainty surrounding calls for constitutional reform.
“I’ll still wait for the result of the MR (motion for reconsideration) before I decide to support or not,” Sotto said in a text message. He was referring to the pending motion before the Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of an impeachment complaint against Vice President Sara Duterte.
Supreme Court’s Role in Constitutional Amendment
The motion for reconsideration challenges the SC’s earlier ruling that dismissed the impeachment complaint for violating the one-year rule on filing cases. Sotto explained, “Right now, there is no compelling reason unless the SC amends the Constitution. I know the meaning of forthwith though others do not.” This underscores the significance of the SC’s interpretation in shaping constitutional discourse.
Article 11, Section 3.4 of the 1987 Constitution states, “In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.” The word “forthwith” has become a point of contention in the impeachment process.
Concerns Over Ambiguity Fueling Charter Change Talks
In advocating for Charter change through a constitutional convention, House Deputy Speaker Ronaldo Puno cited the ambiguity of a single word as a potential catalyst for legislative delays and manipulation. “A single ambiguous word can become the justification for legislative inaction, procedural manipulation, or worse, the loss of accountability itself,” he noted.
This concern arises from the impeachment case involving Vice President Sara Duterte. The House of Representatives transmitted the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate on February 5, but the Senate only convened as an impeachment court on June 10. The delay has sparked debates about procedural fairness and constitutional clarity.
Impeachment Case Developments and Senate Response
The Supreme Court declared the complaint against Duterte unconstitutional on July 25, but the House immediately appealed the decision. While the appeal is pending, the Senate opted to archive the impeachment case on August 6, effectively pausing the proceedings.
Senator Francis Pangilinan, the newly appointed chairman of the Senate committee on constitutional amendments, refrained from commenting on the renewed Charter change discussions in the House. “Hihintayin natin kung ano ang mga resoluyon na ihahain ng mga Senador. We will wait for committee referrals on the matter before we comment,” he said, signaling a cautious and procedural approach.
Ongoing Charter Change Measures in the Senate
Several Charter change proposals have already been filed in the Senate at the start of the 20th Congress, reflecting ongoing interest in constitutional reform. However, lawmakers appear to be awaiting clearer guidance and consensus before advancing substantive amendments.
For more news and updates on constitutional amendment, visit Filipinokami.com.
