Not in the mood

The House of Representatives is not in the mood of passing the Right of Reply Bill. One headline goes: Right of Reply bill goes to freezer.

Leaders of the House of Representatives have thrown the Right of Reply bill (RORB) into the freezer to allow lawmakers to deliberate on more urgent bills.

Speaking to reporters during the weekly Balitaan sa Rembrandt Hotel in Quezon City yesterday, Cebu Rep. Pablo Garcia said he doubted that the bill, which media members believe aims to stifle press freedom, would be calendared for plenary debates again.

What seems to be holding them back? Why are they hesitant to act on it the way the Senate did? I'll hazard one answer: Congressmen are hesitant to pass it because the bill has so low public support that passing it would earn them a bad rap, which might spoil the chances of winning of those who are mulling for reelection.

The Consti's primordial intent: A bicameral Congress

Several attempts to amend or revise the Constitution (popularly known in this country as Charter change [Cha-cha]) in the recent past did not fail to raise a howl of protest. From the administration of Ramos to Estrada to Arroyo, Cha-cha as an agenda of every administration never ceased to have a nemesis coming from different sectors—religious, civil society, political opponents, etc. The ones that are underway in the House of Representatives are no exemption.

But aside from Cha-cha itself, the mode of carrying it out is equally problematic. There are three ways to do it as provided by the Constitution: (1) through Constitutional convention (Con-con); (2) through people’s initiative; and (3) through Constituent assembly. The third one is the option the proponents of Cha-cha in the House want to pursue. However, it is also the trickiest because up to today it is still unclear (and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet) whether the two chambers of Congress---Senate and House of Representative---vote separately or jointly should they convene as Con-ass to change the Constitution?

To the proponents of Cha-cha in the House, who are staunch allies of GMA, the two chambers should vote jointly. Seen that way, the Senate, which is independent of the House, would be nothing but a mere cog with virtually no influence whatsoever. That is, of course, not what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they deliberately made the Congress bicameral.

The Constitution may be silent on the question at hand—whether the House and the Senate vote jointly or separately—but a “structural interpretation” could shed light on the debate.

In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. said “that the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and three-fourths of all the members of the House taken separately.” The reason being that “Congress is bicameral and a bicameral body votes separately.” Fr. Bernas added:

When the Constitution wants the two houses to vote jointly, the Constitution says so. This it does when Congress is authorized to override a declaration of martial law. And even when Congress can act only in joint session, as it is the case when called to declare the existence of a state of war, the Constitution still commands that they vote separately. Similarly, under the 1935 Constitution, when Congress could propose amendments only if assembled in joint session, the Constitution commanded that they vote separately.

The reason for separate voting is simple: voting jointly, unless authorized as an exception by the Constitution, destroys the bicameral character of Congress. Thus, the silence of the constitutional text on the manner of voting must be interpreted in the light of the bicameral structure of Congress. Structural interpretation is one of the modes of constitutional construction.

One of the attempts to effect constitutional change comes from Rep. Mikey Arroyo, the President’s eldest son. His is an attempt to amend the Constitution through Constituent Assembly with the Senate and the House voting jointly, not separately.

What the Constitution put asunder let no fools join together.

Like father, like son?

[caption id="attachment_109" align="alignleft" width="350" caption="L-R: Arvin Antonio V. Ortiz, JDV III, Jed I. Bete, and Christine Camus"][/caption]

In the midst of the NBN-ZTE scandal and despite death threats, Jose de Venecia III, son of then House Speaker Jose de Venecia, Jr., had been making campus tours as though he is a telemarketer trying hard to sell his product. Not surprisingly, his product sold like hotcake.

 

On March 9, 2008 when he came in Davao City, student leaders were invited to have a dinner with him. Christine Camus, then SSG President-elect of HCDC, asked me and my friend Jed to accompany her since her VP was attending a forum which was underway that time. Held at Assumption College of Davao, the dinner started at around 8:00 pm. Student leaders from ADDU and UP Min were invited as well. Among the visitors were Joel Virador and Jeppie Ramada---both are from Bayan Muna.  

 

Together with the Assumption sisters, the younger de Venecia entertained some questions. One thing that lodged in my mind was when Jed, with no-holds-barred, asked de Venecia why he let the cat out of the bag.

[caption id="attachment_110" align="alignright" width="331" caption="Dinner with JDV III which was attended, among others, by Joel Virador and Jeppie Ramada---both are from Bayan Muna"][/caption]

JDV III groped for words. Then he managed to give a few intelligible words; the most memorable were: “Because I am a Filipino.” Or words to that effect.

 

The older de Venecia might find himself in a similar situation. Recently, Jose de Venecia, Jr. released his book, “Global Filipino: The Authorized Biography of Jose de Venecia, Jr.” written by Brett Decker. There, he talked, among others, about the corruption in the government he himself propped up. Excerpts of the book were published in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

 

• 
  
  Ex-Speaker relives day when he saved GMA


• 
  
  Amity talks: Reaching out to angry FVR foes


• 
  
  JDV recalls ‘the night of hundred knives’

The question still lingers. Why only now? Someone should ask the older de Venecia why he is exposing the misdeeds of the people he once avidly defended. Like his son, is it because he is a Filipino; and as a Filipino he is duty-bound to do so? Or is he only piqued? Whatever, there seems to be no reconciliation in sight between GMA and JDV.

 

But who knows? In this country where the impossible becomes possible and today’s enemies become tomorrow’s friends, nobody really knows.