Senator Robinhood “Robin” C. Padilla asked the Supreme Court (SC) to rule on whether Congress should vote jointly or separately to propose revisions or amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Padilla’s plea was contained in a petition for declaratory relief he personally filed on Monday, August 5. He is the chairperson of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes.

A declaratory relief is a special civil action brought by a person “interested under a deed, will, contract or other written instrument, whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulation, ordinance, or any other governmental regulation for the purpose of determining any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of his rights and duties thereunder, before any breach or violation thereof occurs.”

Padilla’s petition zeroed in on Sections 1 and 3 of Article XVII of the Constitution.

Section 1 of Article XVII provides that “any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members or a constitutional convention.”

Section 3, on the other hand, provides that “the Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.”

After the filing of his petition, Padilla told journalists: "Kailangan maliwanag na sabihin ng SC na voting separately. Kasi pinipilit, nag-file ang HOR (House of Representaives) ang gusto nila voting jointly. Hindi naman pupwede yan. Paano naman ang Senado? (The SC needs to clearly state that it should be voting separately. The HOR wanted that both Houses should vote jointly. That should not be the case. What about the Senate?)”

"Without the Honorable Court's declarative pronouncements, these questions, as well as the unstable relations between the two Houses of Congress, shall persist," he said.

He also sought a ruling from the SC on the issue that when voting jointly, the requirements of 2/3 votes under Section 3, Article XVII, be treated as 2/3 votes in the Senate plus 2/3 votes in the House; or 2/3 votes of all 24 senators and all members of the House and whether when voting jointly, should the requirement of a "majority vote" under Section 3, Article XVII be treated as a majority vote in the Senate plus majority vote in the House; or a majority vote of all 24 senators voting with all members of the House.

He told the SC that that misinterpretations hinder Congress' efforts to resolve the controversy.

"Hindi tayo humihingi ng advice. Humihingi tayo ng resolba. Nakikiusap po tayo sa SC na iresolba nila ang away na ito (We are not seeking an advice. We are asking for a resolution. We are begging the SC to resolve this conflict)," he stressed.

Padilla lamented that he could not carry out his functions “dut to the “due to the ambiguities of these provisions.”

He, thus, pleaded for the SC’s exercise of its constitutional power to “settle an existing actual controversy” which are purely questions of law “as it ruminates on the proper application and interpretation of Constitutional provisions.”