HOUSE Deputy Majority Leader and Tingog Partylist Rep. Jude Acidre on Thursday clarified that the 1987 Constitution does not mandate separate voting for proposed amendments by the Senate and the House of Representatives, saying this interpretation is solely from the Senate.

“Ang voting separately, dinagdag po ‘yun ng Senado kung anong nakasulat sa Saligang Batas. Tayo po [sa House of Representatives] we stand with what’s written in the Constitution,” Acidre said in a response to a reporter’s question during a press conference.

Acidre addressed Sen. Jinggoy Estrada’s concerns regarding the House’s Resolution of Both Houses No. 7 (RBH 7), specifically its provision requiring all members of Congress to vote jointly on proposed amendments to the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

Estrada expressed support for economic constitutional amendments but disagreed with RBH 7’s requirement for joint voting instead of separate voting.

But Acidre said that RBH 7 simply adhered to the current constitutional provisions. “I-remind ko lang na ang [RBH 7] ng House of Representatives eh very faithful po sa wording ng Constitution,” Acidre said.

He cited Section 1, Article XVII (Amendments and Revisions) of the Constitution, which states that “Any amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution may be proposed by: 1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members…”

“Kinopya lang po natin doon, pagpapakita po na ang House ay sumusunod po sa pangkasalukuyang Saligang Batas ng bansa,” Acidre pointed out.

RBH 7 closely mirrors the Senate’s RBH 6, focusing on amending three specific economic provisions in the Constitution related to public services, education and advertising.

However, a key distinction lies in the voting method. While the House resolution proposes amendments to be approved by “three-fourths of all its members,” indicating joint voting, the Senate resolution specifies separate voting procedures.

AUTHOR PROFILE

Ryan Ponce Pacpaco