SC junks ‘Con-Ass’ petitions
Critics on guard, suspicious of Lozano’s move
The Supreme Court Tuesday junked two petitions seeking to nullify the controversial House Resolution 1109, which seeks to convene Congress into a Constituent Assembly—or “Con-Assâ€â€”for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
The resolution raised howls of protest, because the Senate was not to be part of the Constituent Assembly, or “Con-Ass.†The measures, lawmakers said, was not meant to shut out the Senate, but to draw the Supreme Court into ruling on the issue.
In an eight-page unanimous resolution penned by Chief Justice Reynato Puno, the Supreme Court en banc ruled that the two petitions were premature and lacked “justiciability.â€
The petitions were separately filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano, his daughter lawyer Evangeline Lozano-Endriano and businessman Louis Biraogo—in their capacities as concerned citizens and taxpayers.
Court ruling
The Court noted that both petitions sought to trigger a justiciable controversy on Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution, which provides for the procedure for amending or revising the Constitution.
“While some may interpret petitioners’ moves as vigilance in preserving the rule of law, a careful perusal of their petitions would reveal that they cannot hurdle the bar of justiciability set by this court before it will assume jurisdiction over cases involving constitutional disputes,†according to the resolution.
The ruling also explained that the court’s power of review was limited to actual cases and controversies dealing with parties having adversely legal claims and limited further to the constitutional question raised.
“The case-or-controversy requirement bans this court from deciding abstract, hypothetical or contingent questions, lest the court give opinions in the nature of advice concerning legislative or executive action,†the justices explained.
The court said that the fitness of the petitioners’ case for the exercise of judicial review was grossly lacking, because they have not sufficiently proved any adverse injury or hardship from the act they were complaining about.
The lack of petitioners’ personal stake in the case, the ruling added, was evident in Lozano’s three-page petition that was devoid of any legal or jurisprudential basis.
“Neither can the lack of locus standi be cured by the claim of petitioners that they are instituting the cases at bar as taxpayers and concerned citizens,†the Supreme Court ruling said.
Locus standi requires a personal stake in the outcome of a controversy for significant reasons.
The Supreme Court also pointed out that Resolution 1109 only resolved that the House of Representatives would convene at a future time for the purpose of proposing amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
“No actual convention has yet transpired and no rules of procedures have yet been adopted. More important, no proposal has yet been made, and hence, no usurpation of power or gross abuse of discretion has yet taken place,†according to the ruling.
“In short, House Resolution 1109 involves a quintessential example of an uncertain contingent future event that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all. The House has not yet performed a positive act that would warrant an intervention from this court,†the ruling added.
In their petitions, the Lozanos and Biraogo argued that Resolution 1109 was unconstitutional for not being a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress.
Sinister plot
Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Teodoro Casiño claimed that “Lozano’s petition was obviously designed to fail so that its dismissal can be used to justify Lakas-Kampi’s next step which is the immediate convening of the House into a Con-Ass.â€
Renato Reyes Jr., Bayan secretary-general said, “The SC [Supreme Court] ruling that the Lozano petition was premature may be a minor setback for [Mrs.] Arroyo and her allies. This means that [President] Arroyo’s allies in the Lower House will not get their wish of having the SC hastily and prematurely deciding on the validity of HR 1109. The ploy to get a quick and favorable SC decision was temporarily foiled.â€
“The danger now is that . . . President Arroyo[’s] allies in the Lower House may be preparing to convene the Con-Ass in July so that a justiciable controversy may arise. If they do this, it will surely fuel massive protest actions in time for Mrs. Arroyo’s State of the Nation Address,†Reyes added.
But the group maintained that the junking of the petition against House Resolution 1109 does not by any means make the House resolution valid.
“The SC did not uphold HR 1109. It merely said that the Lozano petition was premature. The junking of the petition does not mean that the Con-Ass maneuvers being pushed by Mrs. Arroyo’s allies are at all valid,†Reyes added.
Opposition groups have long held the Lozano petition as part of a Palace ploy to get an immediate favorable Supreme Court ruling on the issue, even before the Con-Ass actually convenes.
Lozano explains
Lozano explained that Congress was composed of the Senate and House of Representatives, but there was no provision in Resolution 1109 that requires notification of the Senate for a joint session.
He added that it was the intention of Resolution 1109 to propose constitutional amendments by the House alone.
Lozano, a perennial senatorial candidate and known loyalist of the late President Ferdinand Marcos, was the same lawyer who earlier filed a weak impeachment complaint against the President that was dismissed by lawmakers.
Biraogo, was the same person who earlier accused Chief Justice Puno of sitting down on a decision disqualifying Rep. Jocelyn Limkaichong of Negros Oriental for not being a natural-born Filipino citizen.
Senate statement
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said also on Tuesday that the Senate had expected the Supreme Court to throw out the petition of Lozano.
“That’s the reason why we did not intervene at all in that case,†he said.
Sen. Manuel Roxas 2nd said it was proper for the Supreme Court to dismiss the Lozano petition. “But what we should guard against is the convening of a Constituent Assembly by he House of Representatives. The act of convening makes it justiciable. And even when they announce it, just the mere act of announcing it, that is already justiciable.â€
But Enrile said he was not concerned about the claim that convening a Constituent Assembly by the House would make it a justiciable issue.
“I will not bother myself with that information,†he added. “Only Congress has the power to amend the Constitution, and when we say ‘Congress,’ it is the House of Representatives and the Senate. It cannot be one without the other.â€
--William B. Depasupil And Efren L. Danao With Frank Lloyd Tiongson
Linkback:
https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=19867.0
Topic: Prime Minister Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo? (Read 7219 times)