Marichu,I saw Ricky Carandang’s Big Picture last night. He and Sen. Drilon were reading copies of the proposed amendments. You may want to ask him for a copy.schumey
from DJBDecember 7th, 2006
Good evening Marichu. I don’t think there is a complete draft Constitution. But here is the Newsbreak Link to a Word Doc that reads a lot like what you may be looking for.http://www.newsbreak.com.ph/documents/chacha/Chacha_SIMPLIFIED_PROPOSALS.docDJB
December 8th, 2006
By the way, I heard dong puno reading your text. did he read it right?DJB
December 8th, 2006
Does the House have to un-amend Section 105 of its Rules in order to go for a Joint and Concurrent Resolution approving a Constitutional Convention?
*********************************
Thanks thanks thanks (was indisposed yesterday).
I guess everything has been rendered moot. Today, JDV announced that they’re shifting gears to con-con. As if that would fly before the May elections.
(To DJB: Congressman Locsin kept saying that the Lower House could go con-ass alone, so the question was… so if that’s your logic, could the Senate, too? And he said, yes but the Consti said 3/4 of all members and Senate members are only 24; and Dean Pangalangan later said, you don’t aggregate the numbers etc. Anyway. )
Malacanang, JDV, and the trapos, backed off their illegal con-ass today. Congrats to all those who expressed concern, disgust, alarm over the illegal con-ass.
(is this round 5? Counting all their losses this year?) Merry Christmas!
Wait. Con-con: The Senate will say: it will have to conduct hearings on any resolution on con-con. So that wouldn’t be done within 72 hours. ]
The House on the other hand has to approve its own resolution on con-con. Are they required to refer it to committees and conduct hearings in accordance with the rules on ordinary resolutions, and as practised?
If I followed previous interpellations correctly, they had rules on ordinary resolutions. Then they had a 105 which was not on resolutions but on proposals to amend consti. The House changed Rule 105, Teddy Boy said that 105 also governed not just proposals but steps that led to the proposals like a resolution on proposal to amend, so the required vote even for a resolution to call to convene to propose is 192 or 195. But majority said, no, required vote is only ordinary: majority of quorum. Then, opposition said, therefore, it should fall under rule 65 on ordinary resolutions which you didn’t amend. Lagman said anything inconsistent with 105 is deemed changed.
To call for a con-con, you need 2/3 vote, separate. (assemble the 2/3, or more, in plenary and ask them to vote for it.) if you have the 2/3 in plenary and they vote for con-con, you don’t need a resolution to summon them. If you want a resolution to summon or call them, it’s an ordinary resolution. As ordinary resolutions go, they are referred to committees. They should just put together the 2/3. Lemme see, 236 divided by 3 is 73.5, so two of that… they need to put together 146 congressmen….which they already had last Monday and Tuesday! (the fastest way to do it is convene the 2/3 on Thursday; but it will remain useless until Senate convenes its 2/3 and calls for a con-con.)
Finally, what was the last straw? Was it the CBCP call to all faithful to resist con-ass and mass up on Friday? Was it the charismatic Mike Velarde and his loyal followers? The local government officials who are raring to run in the May elections and threatened to pull out support from Gloria? The influential Makati Business Club?……Lemme see…….it was Bong Revilla.
Just kidding.
]
Merry Christmas!
Discover more from marichulambino.com
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Marichu,
You didn’t answer my question. I think the House has to amend its Rules back to before they deleted the last sentence of Section 105, in order to reaffirm the normal procedure for the passage of bills into Law, as that same to be used in ANY exercise of constituent power under Art. XVII. Otherwise, it is not in order with its Rules filing a Joint or Concurrent Resolution with the Senate to convene a ConCon Under Art XVII Section 3.
LikeLike
Besides, I am really against a ConCon with its simple majority rule and single plenary. It would be just a more expensive version of the Lower House but with a far lower voting hurdle to propose amendment or revision.
Why do you think the Constitution requires Congress to use a three fourths majority rule but a Concon can get away with any Rule it passes (theoretically) even say a one third minority rule??
The Charter is absolutely silent about its requirements on the ConCon which means once elected it can pass its own Rules.
LikeLike
You know, I’ve got a big beef with the Constitution on the fact that it bans religious parties from participating in party list elections. I think it’s, uhmmm, unconstitutional relative to the Bill of Rights.
LikeLike
The CBCP was the second straw following Mike Velarde of the El Shaddai, who was getting ROW-dee! The last straw was probably Iglesia ni Kristo.
But you see why I don’t like the prohibition. It’s only allowed them to hide their clay feet and still the Churches are the biggest actual political parties around.
LikeLike
Dot you think that 27 times the Americans have successfully used bicameral Con-Ass to amend their constitution should tell us something about the right way to go?
That, and people’s initiatives that are synched with regular elections but using the same idea of a threshold popular signature campaign to get the propositions on the ballot.
AND only one Constitutional Convention. The very first and only one!
LikeLike
Questions for ya…
(1) Is the Constituent Power “separate and distinct” from the Legislative Power?
(2) Is the Constituent Power mentioned in Art XVII Section 1 granted to the Congress or to all its Members?
(3) Is the Constituent Power a “revolutionary” political power since it can “revise” the Constitution, not just amend it?
(4) Why do we insist on a three fourths majority rule of both Houses separately in Section 1(1) yet allow simple majority of the single convention in Section 1(2)?
LikeLike
The Con-Con proposal is to put the blame on the senate. This is the reason for the 72-hour deadline. If the senate rejects the proposal, expect the house and the administration to put a negative spin on it and say that the senate is selfish and does not want change. They dropped the Ass and added the Con, they want to “con” us again.
LikeLike