Senators thumbed down Speaker Pantaleon D. Alvarez’s proposal to scrap the May 2019 elections to give lawmakers time to tackle and pass an enabling law to shift to federalism, and other pending major bills including the national budget, which will compete for time with congressmen’s campaign preparations.
“It is not that easy,” Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III told the BusinessMirror. “In order to do that, we have to amend the Constitution,” Sotto said, citing Article VI, Section 8, of the which, he noted “mandates elections on the second Monday of May every three years.”
“A special law or a simple one cannot amend the Constitution,” Sotto added.
Fielding questions at a Senate media forum on Thursday, Sen. Francis G. Escudero pointed out that “Congress cannot pass a law postponing the 2019 elections. If elections are to be postponed,” he added, “you need to amend the Constitution. It cannot be done by a simple law.”
Escudero explained that Congress has no power to amend the Constitution to defer scheduled elections mandated by the 1987 Charter. “That cannot be legislated because the Constitution specified the terms of elected officials. It is not like the provision for the barangay elections which says ‘unless specified’ by law.”
He did not rule out the option Congress leaders may agree to convene the Senate and the House as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, but acknowledged this would trigger speculations the lawmakers will be open to charges passing such legislation to promote their self-interests.
“I think Congress will be divided on this proposal to postpone elections,” Sen. Juan Edgardo M. Angara told the BusinessMirror.
Angara asserted that the Speaker’s scheme will “also require a constitutional amendment which usually cannot be done quickly, so that raises the issue of whether there is enough time to pursue the amendment.”
For his part, Sen. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva recalled that since he became a member of Congress, “we never contemplated canceling the elections because of the budget or the passage of other bills.”
Villanueva added: “Election is the pillar of democracy. Filipinos exercise their right to select their leaders. I cannot think of any good reason why we should prevent the Filipinos from exercising the right to vote.”
Sen. Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, who is eyeing to be reelected for another six-year term in the 2019 polls, also shot down the Speaker’s no-election (no-el) proposal. “Though I stand to benefit from the no-election proposal being a reelectionist, elections are referendum of public officials. People look forward to electing their leaders.”
Ejercito added it would be “very hard to justify postponment.”
This even as Ejercito admitted that running in a national elections is “very tedious and exhausting, not to mention very expensive. But it will be very hard to explain to the people why elections will not be held next year.”
Sen. Gregorio B. Honasan said its proponents should first make clear “what is the ultimate long-term objective” of a no-election scenario in 2019.
Honasan added there are “variables to consider in deciding a no-election option or go ahead with the 2019 midterm election, including financial, economic and political costs, and a productive timeline for the Senate and the House to address the national agenda.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros also questioned the Duterte government’s priorities.
“I hope that we legislators will straighten our priorities,” Hontiveros said, adding: “What needs to be canceled is not the midterm elections but the implementation of the TRAIN law,” the Duterte administration’s tax reform measure imposing higher taxes to raise more revenues.
The senator suggested that “instead of advancing narrow political interests, such as prolonging terms of public office through an unnecessary postponement of elections, what Congress needs to do it protect the people’s economic rights.”
Moreover, Hontiveros asserted that postponing the elections to give way to tackling federalism is “a great disservice” to the proposed new system of governance. “Is this what the President’s federalism was all about all along? Pwede bang mamamayan muna bago ambisyon? [I think the electorate’s intrest should precede political ambisions],” she said.
Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan, in a text message to the BusinessMirror, confirmed he was not supporting Alvarez’s proposal to cancel the May 2019 elections.
“No, I do not. The no-election and term extension proposal benefits politicians rather than the ordinary citizens,” Pangilinan said. “Any change in the Charter should redound to the benefit not of politicians but of the common folk; otherwise it will not have the support of the people.”
“First of all, I don’t know where Congressman Alvarez is getting his facts,” said Sen. Grace Poe when asked to comment on the no election scenario under a proposed new Constitution.
Poe pointed out that”the Constitution specifically states when we are going to have elections, and 2019 is certainly an election year…you can probably amend the Constitution, but even if you do, you need the Senate vote.”
She added this raises the issue on whether the Senate and the House, convening as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, will be “voting separately or jointly” on the Charter amendments.
“There are many issues involved, but it will still have to go through the process of going through the Supreme Court if it needs to be resolved,” Poe said. “But let me also remind the public that first of all, for very simple issues or laws, you have to vote separately.”
The senator cited, for instance, that Congress when renaming streets or schools vote separately.
“Something as crucial as this [Charter change], you’re voting jointly? I don’t think that was the intention of the framers, and time and again,” she said, recalling that the controversial provision was originally intended for a unicameral system.
Poe ruled out a no-election scenario, saying “the public should not accept it.”
“As Senate President Sotto said, the no-election option cannot be carried out because the Constitution mandates it. So, even if the House agrees and resets the election date, it would still need to be approved by the Senate….but as I see it, we do not want to railroad these issues. It gives a bad impression also about our country. What are we trying to do?”
At the same time, Poe played down reported claims by Alvarez that the House can make amendments by itself. “The Speaker says a lot of things, [they are] not necessarily true. Remember he is not the voice of the entire Congress. There’s the Senate that he has to deal with and our Senate President already said that is not possible.”
Misplaced
The assertion of Alvarez to cancel the 2019 elections to give time to lawmakers on the draft federal constitution and for an easier transition to a federal government is “off tangent and misplaced,” Akbayan Rep. Tom S. Villarin said, citing survey results showing the majority of Filipinos are unaware of federalism, and that the administration should instead focus on the issues affecting the country and the needs of the people.
“Speaker Alvarez blunt proposal that ‘no elections’ should be a condition for the draft federal constitution to prosper is off tangent and misplaced,” said Villarin.
“This assertion by Speaker Alvarez shows how detached is the Duterte administration to the real needs of our people. Right now, people’s priorities for the government to do is to control inflation, increase wages, generate jobs, reduce poverty, fight graft and corruption, and stand up to China,” he added.
First president
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman of Albay, for his part, denounced the creation of a Federal Transition Commission in the draft federal constitution as it allows President Duterte to be the first federal president.
“The creation of a Federal Transition Commission is a devious innovation by Duterte’s Consultative Committee to assure the transition of President Duterte as the first federal president since he is not prohibited from running in the first elections set on the 2nd Monday of May 2022,” the lawmaker said.
According to Lagman, this is a “veritable red flag” because unlike in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, where the transitory provisions were self-implementing and the mode of transition categorically spelled out, the proposed federal constitution empowers Duterte to chair a transition commission whose members are appointed by him.
With Kezhia Maglasang
“It is not that easy,” Senate President Vicente C. Sotto III told the BusinessMirror. “In order to do that, we have to amend the Constitution,” Sotto said, citing Article VI, Section 8, of the which, he noted “mandates elections on the second Monday of May every three years.”
“A special law or a simple one cannot amend the Constitution,” Sotto added.
Fielding questions at a Senate media forum on Thursday, Sen. Francis G. Escudero pointed out that “Congress cannot pass a law postponing the 2019 elections. If elections are to be postponed,” he added, “you need to amend the Constitution. It cannot be done by a simple law.”
Escudero explained that Congress has no power to amend the Constitution to defer scheduled elections mandated by the 1987 Charter. “That cannot be legislated because the Constitution specified the terms of elected officials. It is not like the provision for the barangay elections which says ‘unless specified’ by law.”
He did not rule out the option Congress leaders may agree to convene the Senate and the House as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, but acknowledged this would trigger speculations the lawmakers will be open to charges passing such legislation to promote their self-interests.
“I think Congress will be divided on this proposal to postpone elections,” Sen. Juan Edgardo M. Angara told the BusinessMirror.
Angara asserted that the Speaker’s scheme will “also require a constitutional amendment which usually cannot be done quickly, so that raises the issue of whether there is enough time to pursue the amendment.”
For his part, Sen. Emmanuel Joel J. Villanueva recalled that since he became a member of Congress, “we never contemplated canceling the elections because of the budget or the passage of other bills.”
Villanueva added: “Election is the pillar of democracy. Filipinos exercise their right to select their leaders. I cannot think of any good reason why we should prevent the Filipinos from exercising the right to vote.”
Sen. Joseph Victor G. Ejercito, who is eyeing to be reelected for another six-year term in the 2019 polls, also shot down the Speaker’s no-election (no-el) proposal. “Though I stand to benefit from the no-election proposal being a reelectionist, elections are referendum of public officials. People look forward to electing their leaders.”
Ejercito added it would be “very hard to justify postponment.”
This even as Ejercito admitted that running in a national elections is “very tedious and exhausting, not to mention very expensive. But it will be very hard to explain to the people why elections will not be held next year.”
Sen. Gregorio B. Honasan said its proponents should first make clear “what is the ultimate long-term objective” of a no-election scenario in 2019.
Honasan added there are “variables to consider in deciding a no-election option or go ahead with the 2019 midterm election, including financial, economic and political costs, and a productive timeline for the Senate and the House to address the national agenda.
Sen. Risa Hontiveros also questioned the Duterte government’s priorities.
“I hope that we legislators will straighten our priorities,” Hontiveros said, adding: “What needs to be canceled is not the midterm elections but the implementation of the TRAIN law,” the Duterte administration’s tax reform measure imposing higher taxes to raise more revenues.
The senator suggested that “instead of advancing narrow political interests, such as prolonging terms of public office through an unnecessary postponement of elections, what Congress needs to do it protect the people’s economic rights.”
Moreover, Hontiveros asserted that postponing the elections to give way to tackling federalism is “a great disservice” to the proposed new system of governance. “Is this what the President’s federalism was all about all along? Pwede bang mamamayan muna bago ambisyon? [I think the electorate’s intrest should precede political ambisions],” she said.
Sen. Francis N. Pangilinan, in a text message to the BusinessMirror, confirmed he was not supporting Alvarez’s proposal to cancel the May 2019 elections.
“No, I do not. The no-election and term extension proposal benefits politicians rather than the ordinary citizens,” Pangilinan said. “Any change in the Charter should redound to the benefit not of politicians but of the common folk; otherwise it will not have the support of the people.”
“First of all, I don’t know where Congressman Alvarez is getting his facts,” said Sen. Grace Poe when asked to comment on the no election scenario under a proposed new Constitution.
Poe pointed out that”the Constitution specifically states when we are going to have elections, and 2019 is certainly an election year…you can probably amend the Constitution, but even if you do, you need the Senate vote.”
She added this raises the issue on whether the Senate and the House, convening as a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution, will be “voting separately or jointly” on the Charter amendments.
“There are many issues involved, but it will still have to go through the process of going through the Supreme Court if it needs to be resolved,” Poe said. “But let me also remind the public that first of all, for very simple issues or laws, you have to vote separately.”
The senator cited, for instance, that Congress when renaming streets or schools vote separately.
“Something as crucial as this [Charter change], you’re voting jointly? I don’t think that was the intention of the framers, and time and again,” she said, recalling that the controversial provision was originally intended for a unicameral system.
Poe ruled out a no-election scenario, saying “the public should not accept it.”
“As Senate President Sotto said, the no-election option cannot be carried out because the Constitution mandates it. So, even if the House agrees and resets the election date, it would still need to be approved by the Senate….but as I see it, we do not want to railroad these issues. It gives a bad impression also about our country. What are we trying to do?”
At the same time, Poe played down reported claims by Alvarez that the House can make amendments by itself. “The Speaker says a lot of things, [they are] not necessarily true. Remember he is not the voice of the entire Congress. There’s the Senate that he has to deal with and our Senate President already said that is not possible.”
Misplaced
The assertion of Alvarez to cancel the 2019 elections to give time to lawmakers on the draft federal constitution and for an easier transition to a federal government is “off tangent and misplaced,” Akbayan Rep. Tom S. Villarin said, citing survey results showing the majority of Filipinos are unaware of federalism, and that the administration should instead focus on the issues affecting the country and the needs of the people.
“Speaker Alvarez blunt proposal that ‘no elections’ should be a condition for the draft federal constitution to prosper is off tangent and misplaced,” said Villarin.
“This assertion by Speaker Alvarez shows how detached is the Duterte administration to the real needs of our people. Right now, people’s priorities for the government to do is to control inflation, increase wages, generate jobs, reduce poverty, fight graft and corruption, and stand up to China,” he added.
First president
Rep. Edcel C. Lagman of Albay, for his part, denounced the creation of a Federal Transition Commission in the draft federal constitution as it allows President Duterte to be the first federal president.
“The creation of a Federal Transition Commission is a devious innovation by Duterte’s Consultative Committee to assure the transition of President Duterte as the first federal president since he is not prohibited from running in the first elections set on the 2nd Monday of May 2022,” the lawmaker said.
According to Lagman, this is a “veritable red flag” because unlike in the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, where the transitory provisions were self-implementing and the mode of transition categorically spelled out, the proposed federal constitution empowers Duterte to chair a transition commission whose members are appointed by him.
With Kezhia Maglasang
No comments:
Post a Comment