Bernas' Column

Sounding Board : Jointly or separately

Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J.
Inquirer News Service

SOMETIME ago I was told by a friend, who was a denizen of the inner sanctum of the House of Representatives, that my column, where I said that the two houses of Congress should vote separately when proposing amendments, did not sit well with some of the overt advocates of constitutional revision. Now, however, I hear an opposite story. A friend, who listened to Speaker Jose de Venecia speak before a recent forum on parliamentary government, said that the honorable Speaker cited a column of mine, where I supposedly said that the two houses should vote jointly when proposing amendments.

Well, at least I should be grateful that my columns are read, even if sometimes misread, deliberately or otherwise. I think it was Chesterton who said, "My sins are scarlet, but my books are read." But for the record, and for the benefit of the Speaker—if indeed he attributed to me something I never said—let me clear things up.

What the Speaker is reported as having said is an indication that, should Congress decide to propose amendments to the Constitution, there will be a battle royal involving the question of whether the two houses of Congress should vote as one body or separately. In earlier debates regarding this issue, it had already been argued that when Congress proposes amendments, it acts as a constituent assembly and, therefore, it is not bound by the normal rules that govern Congress. I cannot accept that argument.

I begin with a fundamental principle: We have opted for a bicameral Congress. When the 1986 Constitutional Commission was drafting the current Constitution, the debate on bicameralism or unicameralism was intense. I took the side of unicameralism. When the moment of reckoning came, the side I favored, the unicameral side, lost. Yes, by one vote. The final vote was for bicameralism, 23-22.

I must confess now that I do not regret having lost that vote. Today, I thank all the 23 who voted against unicameralism. In retrospect, I now believe that if we had voted for unicameralism, the US military bases would probably still be in Subic and Clark. Likewise, if we had voted for unicameralism, extension of term limits or total elimination of term limits would be a done deal by now.

The choice in favor of bicameralism was deliberate. One of the reasons proposed in support of bicameralism was that it allowed for mutual correction. Commissioner "Soc" Rodrigo, speaking from 12 years' experience in the Senate, gave a practical illustration which, I suspect, is also operative today. He said:

"This was our experience in the Senate of which I was a member for 12 years. There were times when members of the House of Representatives would come up and say: 'Soc, mayroon kaming inaprubahang bill doon sa Lower House; masama, hindi ko gusto pero hindi ako makatanggi sa isang lider. Kayo na ang bahala sa Senado, patayin ninyo ang bill na iyon.' This happened several times. And, of course, since the senators were elected at large like the President of the Philippines, they could stand up to the President, and this can be attested to by facts. The senators could refuse the President or even take a stand against that of the President even if the President belongs to their own party."

Bicameralism means two houses acting autonomously and occasionally checking each other. This is a fundamental principle in our Constitution. The two houses work separately. That is the general rule. The larger House may not swallow the smaller house. If fusion is to be allowed at all, the Constitution says so. And whenever the Constitution says that the two houses meet together, the Constitution is careful to dispel any notion that autonomy is thereby being put aside. In such occasions—as when declaring a state of war, or acting as a board of canvassers for presidential and vice-presidential elections—the Constitution is careful to warn that, even in joint session, they should vote separately. Similarly, the 1935 Constitution, which said that when proposing amendments Congress should be "in joint session assembled," was careful to specify that even then the two houses should vote "separately."

The present Constitution now says: "Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members . . ." The power is given to Congress. We should remember that there are two houses in Congress. Moreover, the two houses are not called to come together in joint session. They can stay where they are. They are empowered to propose amendments as they are where they are. Congress, as is, is simply given a constituent function, that is, the power to propose amendments.

Indeed, the two houses may agree to come together for a joint session. Coming together does not nullify the bicameral character of Congress. Only a constitutional revision can transform the two houses into a unicameral body. Voting separately, however, is of the essence in a bicameral Congress. It cannot be voluntarily surrendered either by the Senate or by the House.

The constituent function is given to a bicameral legislature. The two houses, therefore, should act as a bicameral legislature—voting separately, able to check each other, and not reduced to one monstrous body marching to the same drumbeat. Let us hope that the Senate will not surrender its autonomy to the larger house.