Tll Statement On Con-ass

A STATEMENT ON THE HOUSE RESOLUTION CONVENING ITSELF AS A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY THROWING A PARTY FOR NO REASON AND INVITING ONLY THE HOST By Makati Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr. BECAUSE this is just a resolution, the House will vote by mere yells of yeas and nays. In the tumult, the public and the press may mistake who voted for and against it. Make no mistake RONNIE ZAMORA AND I are voting NO because we have kept our wits about us unlike the others who have lost all of theirs. For this resolution convenes only the Lower House of Congress as a constituent assembly to “consider,” as the Constitution puts it, constitutional amendments that no one has proposed, do not exist, and therefore cannot be considered. This strictly House only resolution is like sending out an invitation to a party to which the host has invited only himself. This is also like sending out an invitation to a party on no definite date for no stated occasion other than the host throwing a party for himself by himself. On top of which, the host—Rep. Luis Villafuerte—has cancelled the party and withdrawn the invitation though some—how shall we call them?—housebreakers, I suppose—have decided to go on with the party. This is a resolution calling for the convening of the Lower House of Congress as a constituent assembly the day before it adjourns. This is like sending out an invitation to a party on no date, for no stated occasion, while announcing that the host is leaving for a long vacation abroad. It is said that this invitation to a party inviting only the host is intended to provoke a reaction from those not invited. Whoever came up with this idea of a party has no idea about throwing a party except what he might have learned from the videos of the parties that Hayden Koh threw where he was both host and sole party animal except for his unwitting partner. But Hayden Kho had an excuse. He was drugged. The question is under what kind of influence is this kind of party being thrown? In other words, nag-e-Ecstacy ba ang mga proponents of this House resolution and why are not they not sharing the joy?

It is said that we must do this because, unless we throw a party for no reason inviting only ourselves, we will never know for sure if such a party can be thrown? But how will we know? We are sure to be ignored by those we did not invite even as we will be ignored by the social arbiter to which we are appealing on this score. I submit that the Supreme Court and the country as a whole will ignore us—and then laugh at us all the way to the ignominious end of the 14th Congress. We shall be ignored as surely as we shall be laughed at. For this is a resolution calling upon the members of Congress but naming only the members of the House to convene constituently for no stated purpose. And yet the Constitution specifies that Congress may convene as a constituent assembly only for the purpose of considering— considering—not introducing let alone just awaiting—proposals to amend or revise the Constitution upon a vote of 3/4th of all the members of Congress. This resolution puts the cart before the horse because, there being no amendments to consider, there is no purpose to convene Congress as a constituent assembly. It is a blatant lie that this resolution reflected upon its introduction to the floor of the House a consensus of the House of a need to amend the Constitution because, aside from the Speaker of the House who filed his amendment to the economic provisions as a regular bill, no one has expressed any desire to change the Constitution or expressly specified in what particular respect. As for the lawyers among us who say they want to litigate this question, they will be provoking the Supreme Court to render what it cannot and will not—to wit, an opinion in no concrete case and controversy. These lawyer-legislator should tread carefully for the Court is liable to strip them of their license for trifling with the Court and the processes of justice. This resolution mocks the House and holds it up to ridicule. If anything, it is a fit subject not of a vote but an ethics investigation of the proponents of this measure for inviting the contempt of the nation upon our House.

This is a venture which can be described by only one word that politeness forbids me to say.