Senator Robinhood Padilla has filed an urgent motion to the Supreme Court (SC) to set the case for oral arguments concerning his petition to resolve the issue of whether both houses of Congress should vote jointly or separately in tackling amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

Padilla asked the SC on Wednesday, August 7, in his capacity as incumbent senator of the Republic, two days after filing a petition for declaratory relief on constitutional matters related to Sec. 1(1) and 3, Art. XVII of the Charter.

"In order to clarify matters in the petition and emphasize certain legal points, petitioner respectfully asks this Honorable Court to set the case for oral arguments at a time and date most convenient to the Honorable Court," he said in his motion.

Padilla, who chairs the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, added his motion is "filed in good faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings of this case."

Last August 5, Padilla filed an instant petition seeking declaratory relief regarding Sections 1 and 3 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.

The instant petition sought the High Court's "authoritative declaration" on the following constitutional issues:

• Whether or not the Senate and House of Representatives should jointly convene, as a constituent assembly when proposing amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution under Sec. 1(1), Art. XVII of the Constitution;
• When voting jointly, should the requirement of 3/4 vote under Sec. 1(1) be treated as 3/4 vote by the Senate plus 3/4 vote by the House; or 3/4 by the 24 senators with all members of the House of Representatives;
• Whether the Senate and House should jointly convene and assemble when voting for calling a Constitutional Convention and/or submitting to the electorate the question of calling such a convention;
• When voting jointly, if the requirements of 2/3 vote under Sec. 3, Art. XVII, be treated as 2/3 vote in the Senate plus 2/3 vote in the House; or 2/3 vote of all 24 senators and all members of the House;
• When voting jointly, should the requirement of "majority vote" under Sec. 3, Art. 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.

Padilla said he could not carry out his functions as chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes "due to the ambiguities of these provisions," and invoked the High Court's 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."

"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.

Meanwhile, Senate President Francis "Chiz" Escudero said that filing of the petition is Padilla's personal decision and was not consulted with him or any other member of the Senate.

"Personally, sa aking pananaw, at hindi ko sinasabing nangunguhulugang tama na ito, sa aking pananaw wala pang jurisdiction ang Korte Suprema dahil premature ang pagkakahain ng kaso dahil wala naman justiciable issue o controversy na nirerequire ng korte bago ito mag-assume ng jurisdiction sa anumang peitition na inihahain sa kanila (Personally, in my opinion, and I'm not saying this is correct, the SC has no jurisdiction over this since the filing of the petition is premature since there is no justiciable issue or controversy, which the SC requires before it assumes jurisdiction on any petition filed with them)," he said in a press conference.

He added that he does not want to preempt the SC on how they will proceed on the matter.

"Bilang abogado rin (As a lawyer), I’m a trained officer of the court and I have been trained to respect whatever decisions that courts will hand down or issue whether or not I agree with it. It’s not for me to pre-empt the court. I simply think that it is premature. That is my own legal opinion on the matter," he said.