ALBAY 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman reaffirmed his position on the voting process for amending the 1987 Constitution via Constituent Assembly. Despite accusations of a change in stance, Lagman maintains that both chambers of Congress should vote jointly, rather than separately.
Lagman clarified, “On the question of whether the Constituent Assembly should vote separately by chamber or jointly among the Representatives and Senators, I am not changing my position that there must be a joint voting.” He further supported his stance by citing the case of Gonzales v. Comelec (GR 192856, March 8, 2011), which implies that members of Congress act as individuals with one vote each, rather than as representatives of their respective Houses.
However, Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., former chairman of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, accused Lagman of a sudden change of heart. Garbin claimed that Lagman now opposes joint voting because he believes the House, with its numerical superiority, would overwhelm the Senate. Garbin questioned the reason behind this shift in Lagman’s position.
Garbin, who advocates for amending the Constitution through a people’s initiative, emphasized that Lagman’s previous advocacy for joint voting during the 18th Congress was the central theme of the current movement for constitutional amendments via people’s initiative (PI).
In contrast, Lagman appears to be open to Cha-cha (Charter Change) through a people’s initiative but expressed concerns about certain “aberrations” in the call for constitutional amendments. One of the issues he raised was the alleged practice of “signature buying” to push a people’s initiative.
Responding to Garbin’s denial of funds being used to buy signatures, Lagman cautioned against dragging the names of those who do not share the same views. He warned Garbin about the potential consequences, including criminal charges such as cyberlibel.
Garbin asserted that Republic Act 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) is still a valid and operative law, considered sufficient and adequate by the Justices of the Supreme Court for amending the Constitution.
In light of Garbin’s threat, Lagman confidently stated, “I will just see him in the Supreme Court.”
This exchange between Rep. Edcel Lagman and Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr. highlights the ongoing debate over the voting process for amending the 1987 Constitution. Lagman remains steadfast in his belief in joint voting, emphasizing the importance of a unified decision-making process. Meanwhile, Garbin advocates for a people’s initiative, asserting the sufficiency of existing laws for constitutional amendments.
As the discussion continues, it is crucial to consider the implications of each approach and ensure that the constitutional amendment process remains transparent, fair, and in line with the principles of democracy. The differing perspectives presented by Lagman and Garbin reflect the complexity of constitutional reform and the need for thorough deliberation to ensure the best outcome for the Filipino people.
Ultimately, the decision on how to proceed with constitutional amendments lies in the hands of lawmakers and the judiciary. Both sides have expressed their willingness to defend their positions, indicating that this issue will likely find its way to the Supreme Court for a final resolution.
Source: The Manila Times
