Naging mainit ang deliberasyon sa House Bill No. 7352, ang kaakibat na panukala para malaman kung paano ipatutupad ang Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 na nagsusulong ng constitutional convention para sa pag-amyenda ng Saligang Batas. Sinubukang ipatigil ni 1st District Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman ang pagtalakay sa naturang panukala. Kinuwestiyon ng mambabatas kung bakit pinag-uusapan na ang detalye ng con-con gayong wala pang aksyon ang Senado sa resolusyon. Matatandaang constituent assembly o con-ass ang isinusulong ni Sen. Robin Padilla bilang paraang ng Charter Change. Pero pagtatanggol ni House Committee on Constitutional Amendments chairperson Rufus Rodriguez na nag-sponsor sa panukala, hindi ito premature. Accompanying measure aniya ito na puwedeng sabay nang ipasa sa Senado. Nag-mosyon si Lagman na suspendehin ang deliberasyon pero hindi ito kinatigan ng mayorya. #News5 | via Marianne Enriquez Follow News5 and stay updated with the latest stories! Facebook: facebook.com/News5Everywhere Twitter: twitt

Video Transcript / Subtitles:( AI generated. About AI subtitles » )

* AI ("Artificial Intelligence") subtitles on Tagalog.com are generated using "Whisper" by OpenAI (the same company that created ChatGPT and DallE2). Results and accuracy may vary.
* The subtitles do include errors occasionally and should only be used as a tool to help with your listening practice.
* You can request this website to create a transcript for a video if one doesn't already exist by clicking the "Request AI Subtitles" button below a video. Transcribing usually takes 30-40% of the length of a video to complete if there are no other videos in the queue. For example, a 21 minute video will take 7-8 minutes to transcribe.
* Running a super fast cloud GPU server to do these transcriptions does cost money. If you have the desire and financial ability, consider becoming a patron to support these video transcriptions, and the other tools and apps built by Tagalog.com

Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Congressman Lagman has said that we have no power at all to discuss this particular bill.

We have no power, there is prematurity. How can he continue with this interpellation?

Point of order. That there should be no more from Congressman Lagman, no more interpellation.

He does not believe in these proceedings. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Your Honor, I was overruled by the majority and I respect the majority.

So I will continue with my interpellation. How can you continue? You don't believe in

the power of this particular House in hearing this bill. It's suspended.

Despite the approval of resolution of both Houses, number six by the House yesterday,

the same is not yet effective, pending its approval by the Senate. Is this correct?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. The Senate may approve or reject

the resolution of both Houses, number six. Is that also correct?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker. Or the Senate may opt

for the convening of a Constituent Assembly. Is that also correct?

That's also correct, in which case there will be a stalemate because we are having

a proposed Constitutional Convention and if they will insist on a Constituent Assembly,

then there will be a stalemate, but that can be discussed between the leaders

of the two chambers of Congress. How would you, Mr. Speaker, recommend

to break this stalemate? To convince the Senators that ours is the best.

Coming from 301 Congressmen from districts and party lists, 301 of 311.

So I hope the Senate will have an open mind to accept the Constitutional Convention mode,

which is the clamor based on our respondents and reactors that we had, Mr. Speaker.

So the distinguished sponsor is relying on the ascendancy of numbers. Is that correct?

Is that correct? Well, it is not correct that the Senate

is the upper house. They are the smaller house. The House of Representatives is the bigger house.

Because the history, Mr. Speaker, the reason why they were called the upper house,

because when they convened, Mr. Speaker, in New York after the convention,

the Senate, the Senate, the Senate, the members of the Senate of the U.S. Congress

took it upon themselves to go to the second floor, leaving the Congressmen to the ground floor.

That is the history. We can read that in the history of the U.S. Congress.

Well, Mr. Speaker, my question is, how is that stalemate supposed to be resolved or broken?

Definitely, it's not invoking the superiority of numbers, or it is not invoking the lower house

or the upper house or whatever floor its chamber may occupy. So how will that be resolved?

Mr. Speaker, the way to resolve that is for the Senate to think of the country's welfare

and therefore go to the constitutional convention mode. That is what we are going

to convince them. We respect them. They are our equal as far as the functions are concerned,

both houses of Congress. So there has to be, if there's an impasse, there has to be,

probably the committee will have to meet, our committee of the constitutional amendments

will have to meet with the chairman of the committee on constitutional amendments and

revision of laws and their members. Those are possible things to break stalemate.

There is nothing wrong with talking, Mr. Speaker, and we will be able to talk with them

and ask them that here we have 301 members who has requested you to please approve a

constitutional convention mode. So that is very possible as a way to break the impasse, Mr.

Speaker. So the distinguished sponsor is recommending the legislative mode of having

a bicameral conference committee? Not really, Mr. Speaker, because there should be an informal

talks that nothing is wrong with having informal talks among the two committees, Mr. Chairman.

And so we're not just talking of bicameral, Mr. Chairman, because probably from these talks,

probably the Senate will agree that they will adopt the con-con mode of amending or revising

the Constitution. It is because of the impossibility of an impasse or a deadlock

that the mode of exercising the constituent power of the Congress is through a joint session,

because in a joint session that could be resolved. But you have also to resolve how

the voting will have to be conducted, and that would be a judicial question before the

Supreme Court. I will not pursue that. I just would like to make it a record that in the

event of a stalemate or impasse, it is difficult to resolve. Consequently, the House will have to

wait for the Senate action on resolution of both Houses No. 6, is that correct?

That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

So, it is settled that resolution of both Houses No. 6 is not yet effective.

Not yet, may I hear the last words?

It is clear that resolution of both Houses No. 6 is not yet effective

pending the action of the Senate.

Yes, certainly, because this is a matter of legislation. We are exercising our legislative

power to call a constitutional convention under the Article 17 of the Constitution.

It will not be effective unless acted upon by the Senate. That is correct, Mr. Speaker.

Okay. Thank you for those candid admission.

Now, the title of House Bill No. 7352 is, and I quote,

an act implementing resolution of both Houses No. 6 of the Congress of the Philippines

calling for a constitutional convention to propose amendments to a revision of the 1987

Constitution, appropriating funds, therefore, and for other purposes. Would the distinguished

sponsor confirm this title?

This is the title that we are discussing, and this will be the title of the accompanying

bill to our House Resolution No. 6.

What are we then implementing?

If, according to the distinguished sponsor, resolution of both Houses No. 6 is not yet

effective and implementable.

Because these are companion measures. We are going to send to the Senate,

not piecemeal, we send first the resolution of both Houses. No. Once we have approved

the accompanying bill, this will both be sent to the Senate, and they will act on this.

Therefore, we are not premature, because precisely, we are just exercising our power,

as far as the House is concerned, to call for a convention, and then the bill to provide

for the details of the convention. Then we send it to them, and let them discuss this.

There is no prematurity in that, because this will be our action of the House, and

we are giving this to the Senate.

I beg to disagree. There is nothing yet to implement, because the Senate has not acted

on the resolution of both Houses No. 6. And it is premature for us to assume that this

resolution of both Houses No. 6 will be approved by the Senate and will be implementable.

We might be exercising imputability here, considering that the Senate may reject the

resolution, or even opt to have a different mode of amending the Constitution, and we

will have the field still made.

Considering the premises, Mr. Speaker, and the admissions of the distinguished sponsor

that the joint resolution of both Houses No. 6 is not yet effective and not implementable,

I move to suspend consideration of House Bill No. 7352 for being premature and an exercise

imputability.

I object to the motion of the Honorable Distinguished Gentleman from Albay.

Session suspended.

As many as are in favor of the motion of the Honorable Lagman, say aye.

Aye.

As many as are against, say nay.

Nay.

The nays submit. The motion is defeated.

Mr. Speaker, point of order.

What is the point of order, Mr. Gentleman?

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman Lagman has said that we have no power at all to discuss this particular bill.

We have no power, there is prematurity, how can he continue with this interpellation?

I was overruled.

No more from Congressman Lagman, no more interpellation. He does not believe in these proceedings.

Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Your Honor, I was overruled by the majority and I respect the majority.

So I will continue with my interpellation.

How can you continue? You don't believe in the power of this particular House in hearing this bill.

Session is suspended.

Mr. Speaker, in deference to the birthday of our senior majority floor leader, it is his birthday.

And we cannot refuse the request of our majority leader that this proceeding continue.

I withdraw very much. I withdraw even if it bleeds my heart.

Because there is a question here of power, of authority.

And the interpellator doesn't believe that we have the power.

So how can he interpellate? But then I withdraw.

And I would like to therefore accept the interpellation of the legal luminary, Congressman Edsel Lagman.