
Writing at Filipino Voices (FV) is a time-consuming endeavor and I do not have the time. But glancing at FV does not require so much time and looking at it lately, I was shocked to find the collective “Voice” shrilled and frayed over HR 1109, a resolution that some say is a precursor to the extension of the reign of the queen in Malacanang.
The conundrum of voices at FV over the resolution that convenes the lower house as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of Tralala sent tremors to my self-absorbed activity and self-imposed furlough, and brought me back to punch my keyboard at the expense of my personal endeavor that requires my undivided attention.
I can only look with envy at some prolific contributors here that can mass-produce literary pieces on coffee-breaks, or others that can churn out articles after articles with classic theme of “beating around the bush” and mindless of the footprint their masterpieces leave on the minds of the readers. I look at the readers with circumspect and with studied caution hence I have to think a while before I smoke my keyboard.
The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Some say it is like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched and must be viewed with sanctimonious reverence. {Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826)} Some say it was made by the people and the people alone can unmake it. It is a creature of their own will and lives only by their will. {John Marshall (1755-1835)}.
So if you were a Jeffersonian in thought, your protest against HR 1109 is justified. The Constitution which is too sacred a covenant will be soiled if the scoundrels in Congress will be allowed to touch it, but if you were of Marshall’s insight, the constitution can be rewritten by the people, or by the people’s representatives in Congress.
But which Congress constitutes ¾ that can propose amendments to the Constitution? HR 1109 was quite certain that ¾ of congress is the total number of congressmen and senators minus 25%. Or if there are 289 congressmen and 24 senators, ¾ of that number is 217. The Resolution which the House has portrayed to have been unanimously passed on June 2, 2009 with the “ayes” drowning the “nays” brought back old memories of the 1973 Marcos constitution which was ratified by viva voce in the barangay halls of the Republic.
The House claimed that the recent vote of the House on HR 1109 constituted ¾ of Congress voting to act as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the constitution. Its leadership calls everyone to visit Art. XVII of the Constitution and be enlightened by the reality that the said article did not say that ¾ of Congress means ¾ of the House and ¾ of the Senate convening in a joint session or separately which unlike the previous article it has replaced, was clear enough to state that ¾ of Congress refers to both houses voting jointly or separately.
The House reads Article XVII of the Constitution to mean that ¾ of Congress is 217 all congressmen without Senators, or 217 regardless of whether the number have congressmen and senators component in them.
But take note that the FV writer that started this brouhaha in an Open Letter said that there were 170 Congressmen who approved the resolution and therefore the number is short of 47 votes of Congress that is authorized to make amendments to the Constitution. He has not intimidated that he has inside information of the insidious plot in the house to present this Resolution as having been voted by at least 217 congressmen and therefore would force through the throat of the nation that it is now authorized to tinker with the Constitution and prolong the reign of the queen.
Except for a couple of Senators who twitted the claim of the House about what constitutes ¾ of Congress, the general sentiment of the Senate was totally dispassionate. It is quite ensconced in its belief that the Senate is part of Congress which must also convene to propose amendments to the Constitution as against the position of the House that if it has ¾ of the total membership of both chambers, it is immaterial if all of these ¾ were all congressmen. This is a very interesting legal question which must be resolved by the Court, but the general response of those who claimed they represent the public is to haul everyone on the street or punch their keyboards to expound their legal genius and express their displeasure at the treason the lower house tries to perpetrate against the Republic.
We must be able to examine this quaint position of House in the judicial trenches and predict how the outcome will be decided without passion and without unleashing the most vituperative epithets that only becloud the issue and weaken the foundation of our institutions already much weakened by decades of manipulation and abused by the very people who were, paradoxically were sworn to uphold the principles for which these institutions stand for.
Unfortunately, the members of the Supreme Court of the Republic, unlike the members of SCOTUS, were appointed to the bench with unknown legal and moral philosophies in life and have clinched their seats less on their academic credentials but more on patronage. Unlike a U.S. Supreme Court jurist whose confirmation hearing probes on her background as a legal scholar, the Senate of the Republic does not inquire into the legal mindset of each jurist appointed to the bench, and so we care less if a magistrate is judicial policy maker, or a simple interpreter of the law, or simply one without passion with the law and therefore a scoundrel that can only be trusted upon to deliver the desired output of his patron. It is behind this backdrop that makes the Supreme Court unpredictable. But we can somehow be guided by “precedents”. The predilection of the SCORP towards placating the Executive for which it is now accused of being behind the Con-Ass was proven during the Marcos era and one more time in its peroration of a “constructive resignation” doctrine that made GMA temporarily a queen. We have not noticed any stark difference between the Marcos Supreme Court and the Supreme Court now we conveniently labeled as the GMA Supreme Court. And one can hazard a guess that it will vote pretty well along the same partisan lines.
A legal scholar said of the U.S. constitution:
“For more than two centuries justices, scholars, and people on the street have debated the proper method of interpreting the Constitution. Advocates have sparred over several contrasting approaches: strict, or narrow, versus broad construction (interpretation); conservative versus liberal; interpretivist versus noninterpretivist; and activist versus nonactivist. In general this is a debate between those who believe that the wording of Constitution should be read narrowly and those who argue that in many instances the words themselves provide no guide to the outcome of a case.”
In going to the streets to manifest our displeasure over HR 1109, while arguably part of our prerogative as a free people, is also laced with our contempt not only with the legislative and judicial branches but also of ourselves as a people. Are we not supposed to have faith in the wisdom of our elected congressmen to amend the constitution for after all we elected them to the office to perform precisely what they had been mandated to perform, to “sit as constituent assembly to rewrite the constitution?”
If these bozos are the representation of ourselves as a people and therefore are as half-wits and dimwits as ourselves, then we cannot trust them to tweak the fundamental law of the land no more than we can trust ourselves. We indict them as we indict ourselves.
Similarly, are we not entitled to consider our present recriminations misplaced because we have yet to see how the House will brew the constitution but we were already bellyaching on the treasonous sell-out by which our distinguished congressmen offered us HR 1109?
If the recipe is abhorrent to our taste, are we not supposed to spew it out and reject it in a plebiscite that is called to ratify the amendments? Why do we have to protest so much on an issue the resolution of which lies within our sovereign capacity to resolve? Or are we just like our leaders, fickle at the sight of wads of bills and boneless at an offer of convenience? If we ourselves cannot maintain our dignity, the least we should expect it from others. Our redemption begins with ourselves before we can expect if from from others.
Share this Post[?]





Posted by jcc34 
Posted by jcc34
Katrina and Hayden were in bed sharing their tryst with no matrimonial bond but despite this, Katrina’s employer GMA-7, was behind its “shining star” and so was the entire movie industry which tried to ram through the throat of the public a misleading one liner that: “Katrina was the victim”.
Posted by jcc34
Ms. Katrina H. represents our today’s confused or embattled generation. In a telenovela, Gagambino with Dennis Trillo, she was one of the heroines who battled the forces of evil (Ms. Jean Garcia and one Harold) so she and others can save mankind from extinction, but in another dimension, you saw her modeling see-through lingerie and skimpy bikinis on the ramp or posed in still lurid and alluring photos of flesh.
The young generation is lost on Katrina H. She is a heroine who fights evil but she could very well be the same forces that she was battling against.![katrinahalili-1[1] katrinahalili-1[1]](http://jcc34.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/katrinahalili-11.jpg?w=240&h=269)


