Comments on: House Resolution 1109 (re: Constitutional Amendment or Revision) https://jlp-law.com/blog/house-resolution-1109-re-constitutional-amendment-or-revision/ Philippine laws and legal system (JLP-Law blog) Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:15:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: agta https://jlp-law.com/blog/house-resolution-1109-re-constitutional-amendment-or-revision/comment-page-1/#comment-12683 agta Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:11:18 +0000 https://jlp-law.com/blog/?p=819#comment-12683 Quote: "a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved." Comments: Their resolution was approved by themselves. Now, therefore, they can ram into the throats of the Honorable Justices and say, "Hey, Misters Justices, the House of Representatives has declared that there is now a justiciable controversy. You must now act on this controversy that we the beautiful members of the House of Representative have determined to be so." Oh, when did the House of Representatives become the Master of the Justices? By what authority do they have the right to determine for the action of the Judiciary what matters are justiciable or not? The 1987 constitution was a reaction to the constant tinkering that the Marcos regime did to the 1935 constitution. It is clear therefore that the people, in approving the 1987 constitution, they intended that the said constitution be not easily tinkered with. The present House of Representatives proposes that the Congress (House of the Senate and House of Representatives) shall vote jointly in proposing amendments to, or revision of, the 1987 constitution. Surely, considering the unprincipled and shameless adherence of the members of the House of Representatives to the mob of numbers, it would be easier for them to achieve tinkering of the constitution when voting is done jointly than for the two houses voting separately. Which approach then is violative of the original intention of the people when they approved of the 1987 Constitution? Clearly, the method which would again provide a quick way to tinker with our constitution is the one which is violative of that intention. The present House of Representatives wants to keep playing with our constitution, wasting people's money for their own selfish interests. What a waste of official time and of public funds, paying salaries to representatives who seeks nothing but to find a way to tinker with the constitution. Quote:
“a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved.”

Comments:

Their resolution was approved by themselves. Now, therefore, they can ram into the throats of the Honorable Justices and say, “Hey, Misters Justices, the House of Representatives has declared that there is now a justiciable controversy. You must now act on this controversy that we the beautiful members of the House of Representative have determined to be so.”

Oh, when did the House of Representatives become the Master of the Justices? By what authority do they have the right to determine for the action of the Judiciary what matters are justiciable or not?

The 1987 constitution was a reaction to the constant tinkering that the Marcos regime did to the 1935 constitution. It is clear therefore that the people, in approving the 1987 constitution, they intended that the said constitution be not easily tinkered with.

The present House of Representatives proposes that the Congress (House of the Senate and House of Representatives) shall vote jointly in proposing amendments to, or revision of, the 1987 constitution.

Surely, considering the unprincipled and shameless adherence of the members of the House of Representatives to the mob of numbers, it would be easier for them to achieve tinkering of the constitution when voting is done jointly than for the two houses voting separately.

Which approach then is violative of the original intention
of the people when they approved of the 1987 Constitution? Clearly, the method which would again provide a quick way to tinker with our constitution is the one which is violative of that intention.

The present House of Representatives wants to keep playing with our constitution, wasting people’s money for their own selfish interests.
What a waste of official time and of public funds, paying salaries to representatives who seeks nothing but to find a way to tinker with the constitution.

]]>