Below is a complete copy of the controversial HR 1109 in words. I have read this in the pdf form and I found it difficult to understand because the copy is not legible.

Reyna gave me a copy and I had to translate it into texts for more than half a day.

What is wrong with the HR 1109?

If people would like change the constitution, how come they are against the Con-ass?

Was there a hidden agenda in the adoption of the Resolution?

Let us dissect each and every whereas-es in the Resolution.

If the HR 1109 provided that there will be no extension of terms for both the incumbent president and vice-president and the other elective positions that will expire in 2010, how come some politicians and protestors did not discuss these to the people. Instead they insisted that there will be perpetuation of powers.

If it is so, how is it going to be made possible by the Con-ass?

PART 1

The first part shows you the names of the trai- erm erm congressmen who passed the resolution.

PART 2

The second part says:

WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes expressly provided by Articlle XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

Translation: Ang amendments o revision ng Constitution ay hindi puwedeng pagdebatehan, pag-awayan, sang-ayunan o di-sangayunan kung hindi gagamitin ang paraan ng pagbabago ng Constitution na nakasaad sa Article XVII ay susundin .

Ito ang article na yan. Tandaan ninyo kasi babalikan natin yan.

ARTICLE XVII AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.

Ang sinunod nila ay ang number one kung saan ininterpret nila ang Congress ay ang house of Representatives lamang. Dahil ang tawag sa kanila ay Tong err m Congressmen.

Kung ibabato mo sa kanila ang article VI ng Constitution, ito ang sinasabing Congress of the Philippines:

ARTICLE VI
THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

Section 1. The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.

More of these in the following whereases kung saan talagang inietsapuwera nila ang Senate.

Part 3

WHEREAS, adopting a mode for amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a prerequisite, before specific proposal to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered, by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution:

Translation: Makulit talaga. Condition daw ng Saligang batas ang pagpili ng pamamaraan para makapagsuhestiyon ng pagbabago ng Constitution. Sige na nga. NEXT.

Part 4

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution.

Translation : Ano ang kaibahan ng legislative powers sa constituent power ? ABER?

Ang legislative power ay authority o kapangyarihang ibinigay sa mga taong inihalal para gumawa ng batas samantalang ang constituent power ay kapangyarihan ibinigay sa mga tao upang gumawa o mag-amend ng constitution.

Usually yon ang tinatawagan na Constutional Convention kung saan hinahalal ang miyembro para lamang sa ganoong purpose. Kagaya nang nasasaad sa Article SectionXVII section 1.2 ng ating constitution.

O kaya ang constituent power ng mga tao sa pag-aaprove ng Constitutional Amendments or Revisions sa pamamagitan ng People Power Initiative na nasasaad namn sa Article XVII Section 2.

Ito ang article na iyon.

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

Part 5

Basahin ninyo itong mabuti dahil dito sila nang-uutak.

Ito ang sinasabi nila:

WHEREAS, Congress in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, that any amendrnent to or revision of its Constitution may be porposed upon a vote of three fourths of all its members.

Translation: Iba raw ang legislative power at constituent power ng Congress of the Philippines.
Sabihin nating o sige na nga. Pero ang Congress ay dalawa pa rin ang bahay, ito ang Senate at ang House of Representatives.

Part 6

Ito na kung paano nila sinisipa ang Senate at sinasabi nilang House of Representatives lang ay puwede ng maggawa ng amendments.

WHEREAS. The prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935 and 1987 are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation. There is a distinct
and notable difference between the 1935 Constitution and 1987 which are presented as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:

The congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three fourths of all members of the Senate and House of representatives voting separately may propose amendments or call for a convention.

Translation: sa 1935 Constitution lang daw kailangan magkasama ang Senate at House of Representatives na bumuboto ng hiwalay para magdaos ng Constitutional Convention.

Translation: Inspell out na hiwalay ang Senate at House of Representatives.

The 1987 Constitution :

“Any amendment to or revision to this Constitution may be proposed
a) Congress upon the vote of three fourths of all its members;
b) A constitutional convention

Translation: Dito hindi inispell out ang Senate at House of representatives. Pero kung ikaw naman ay alam mong BICAMERAL ang legislative body natin, kailangan pa bang isampal ang fact nay an. TSEH!

WHEREAS, It is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were already deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution such that the amendments by deletion are as follows:

1) the phrase “in joint session assembled” in the 1935 Constituion was deleted.

2) The phrase that the Senate and the house of Representatives voting separately was also deleted.

Translation: Yon ang nasilip nila. Utak din naman anoh. Minsan ang mga kaso ay naipapanalo sa korte dahil sa mga gray area, na either ginagawang puti o itim. ibig sabihin, maghanap ng butas.

3) the percentage of voting of three fourths of the respective membership of each House,( the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three fourths of all the members of Congress (i.e ¾ of congressmen and senators taken together without distinction which institution of Congress they belong to.

Translation: Dahil hindi inilagay ang phrase na ” voting separately” –yon bang ¾ ang botohan ng Senate sa kanila lang halimbawa 18 dapat ang bumoto out of 24 at ang House of Representatives naman ay kailangan at least ay 187 out of 250 ngayon ay ang interpretation ay wala ng distinction kung saan galling basta ¾ ito ng total ng members of Congress.

Part 7

Ito ang sinasabi nila.

WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored in the in the preceding WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the rneaning and application of the corresponding provisions of 1987 Constitution on amendments and Revisions have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that notwithstanding that the express and unambigouos provision of Article XVII Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to or revisions to the 1987 Constitution shall be upon the ¾ votes of all members of Congress ( not the ¾ votes that the oppositors contend) a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights of the oppositors on one side and the denial thereof of the proponents of this Reolution on the other side; shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling for members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent powers is filed, heard and approved.

Translation: Dahil daw malabo ang provision ng article XVII ng constitution, ang ibig daw sabihin ay ¾ ths mg members of Congress kahit kasama ang Senado pero hindi hiwalay ang kanilang boto.

Kaya kung isasama ang Senate na may miyembrong 24 sa 250 na Congressmen, ito ay magkakaroon ng total na 274.

Ay Maryones naman, marunong ba sila ng Arithmetic, kahit pa bumoto ang Senador at isama pa ang kanilang asawa, anak at katulong, hindi sila aabot sa ¼ na kailangang para mag-ooppose. Sapat na ang mga congressmen na makaadministrasyon para umabot sa kailangang ¾ o 204. Laban ka pa diyan?Pero dadalhin daw nila ito sa Supreme court kung may aangal. Husme, eh sino ba ang nag-aappoint ng mga justices. TSEH!

Part 8

Ito hindi rin naman pinapaalam ng mga Oposisyon na mayroong provision na ganito.

1) the term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-president shall not be extended:

2) the term of office of Senators, congressmen, governors, mayors and other elected officials whose terms shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended.

3) The term of office of the Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six-year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish the term.

4) That there shall be election in 2010.

Translation: Hindi na siguro kailangang eexplain.

Maraming mga tao na naniniwala na kailangang may mga constitutional changes , kasama rin ako doon. Kaya lang nga ang kuestiyon ay bakit nagmamadali. Ano ang gusto nilang gawin at i-amend sa Constitution na maaring maging maganda para sa mga nasa Administrasyon. Kahina-hinala tuloy. We feel we’ve been had.

Ito ang kabuuang kopya.

Republic of the Philippines
FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
Second RegularSession
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 1109
- – - – - – - – - – - – - -,- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -

Introduced by Representatives PROSPERO C. NOGRALES, ARTHUR D. DEFENSOR, SR., MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA, VICTOR F ORTEGA, SIMEON A. DATUMANONG, BENHUR: L. SALIMBANGON,RAUL V. DEL MAR, EDUARDO R. GULLAS, PAUL R. DAZA, ERNESTO C. PABLO, MATIAS V. DEFENSO ,JR., ANDRES D. SALVACION,JR., FRANCISCO T. MATUGAS. JUDY J. SYJUCO, ADAM RELSON L. JALA, REYLINA G. NICOLAS, PEDRO. ROMUALDO, HERMINIA M. RAMIRO, MARIA MILAGROS H. MAGSAYSAY,YEVGENY VINCENTE B. EMANO,ALBERT S. GARCIA, JESUS CRISPIN C. REMULLA,VICTOR AGUEDO E. AGBAYANI, DEL R. DE GUZMAN’ JUNIE E. CUA. TRINIDAD G. APOSTOL, LUIS R. VILLAFUERTE,FERDINAND MARTIN G. ROMUALDEZ. FELIX R. ALFELOR. JR.. ANTONIO M. DIA Z, PEDRO M. PANCHO, ANTONIO H. CERllLES, MARYANN L. SUSAN, NELSON L. DAYANGHIRANG,MARIA ZENAIDA B. ANGPING. ALVIN S. SANDOVAL.CANDIDO P. PANCRUDO,JR., EDGARDO M. CHATTO, ANGELITO C. GATLABAYAN, ROBERT RAYMUND M. ESTRELLA, NARCISO R. BRAVO. JR., ELPIDIO F. BARZAGA, JR.. RODOLFO G. VALENCIA, CARLO OLIVER D. DIASNES, M.D., JECI A. LAPUS. CECILIA M. SEARES-LUNA, ANNA YORK P. BONDOC, JOSE ANTONIO F. ROXAS, ANTONIO F. LAGDAMEO, JR., MA. VICTORIA R. SY. ALVARADO, ANN K. HOFER, MA. THERESA B. BONOAN-DAVID. HENRY M. DUENAS, JR., ALFREDO D. MARANON III. ARNULFO F. GO. GLENN A. CHONG, EDWIN C. UY, MARIA EVITA R. ARAGO, ROBERTO V. PUNO, TEODULO M. COQUILLA, JUAN MIGUEL MACAPAGAL-ARROYO,ARTURO B. ROBES. DIOSDADO M. ARROYO. RENO G. LlM. NANETTE C. DAZA. AMADO S BAGATS1NG, JOSEPH A. SANTIAGO, ADELINA RODIGUEZ-ZALDARRIAGA, AURELIO D. GONZALES, JR., MAGTANGGOL T. GUNIGUNDO I, ANTONIO T. KHO. WILFRIDO MARK M. ENVERGA, CARMEL F. LAZATIN EMIL L. ONG, RODOLFO W. ANTONINO. MANUEL E. ZAMORA. JANETTE L. GARIN, OSCAR G. MALAPITAN, NICANOR M. BRIONES, MARY MITZI . CAJAYON. RONALD V. SINGSON, ROMAN T. ROMULO. JOSE G. SOLIS, VICTORIA H REYES, EDGAR S. SAN LUIS, JEFFREY P. FERRER, IGNACIO T. ARROYO. RODOLFO T. ALBANO III. JOSE S. AQUINO II, NUR G. JAAFAR. MARC DOUGLAS C. CAGAS IV, EDELMIRO A. AMANTE, MARK LLANDRO L. MENDOZA. GUILLERMO A. ROMARATE, JR.. VICENE F. BELMONTE, JR.. GLENDA B. ECLEO, PHILIP A. PICHAY. PANGALIAN M. BALINDONG, ROLANDO A. UY. ROGER G. MERCADO, ROSENDO S. LABADLABAD, EUFROCINO M. CODlLLA SR., FLORENCIO T. MIRAFLORES, FRANKLIN P. BAUTISTA, JOSE V. YAP, FLORENCIO C. GARAY, THOMAS L. DUMPIT.JR., FLORENCIOL. VARGAS, ANTONIO C. ALVAREZ, GENARO M. ALVAREZ, JR., DANILO E. SUAREZ, CARMEN L. CARI, LORNA C. SILVERIO, RAUL T. GONZALES. ,IR. HERMINIA B. ROMAN, ROBERTO C. CAJES, NIEL C. TUPAS. JR.. REX GATCHALlAN, CARMELITA O. REYES, MICHAEL JOHN R. DUAVIT. ABDULLAH D. DIMAPORO,,MANUEL S. AGYAO, REYNALDO S. UY. ELIAS C. BULUT, JR., ISIDRO T. UNGAB, ARTHUR F. CELESTE, JOAQUIN CARLOS RAHMAN A. NAVA , ROQUE R. ABLAN,JR., FERJENELG. BIRON, MAURICIO G. DOMOGA , VICTOR J. YU, SAMUEL M. DANGWA, PRYDE HENRY A. TEVES, MANUEL N. MAMBA, VINCENT P. CRISOLOGO. SOLOMON R. CHUNGALAO, THELMA Z. ALMARIO. EILEEN ERMITA~ BUHAIN,. MARINA P. CLARETE, CECILIA G. JALOSJOS-CARREON, NARCISO D. SANTIAGO III. VINCENT J. GARCIA, JOSEPH GILBERT F. VIOLAGO, YUSOP H. JIK IRI. MARCELINO R. TEODORO, DATU PAX S. MANGUDADATU, JOSE CARLOS V. LACSON, PABLO P. GARCIA, EMMYLOU J. TALlNO~MENDOZA,FAYSAH RPM.DUMARPA,PABLO JOHN . GARCIA, ROMMEL C. AMATONG. ERIC D. SINGSON,BIENVENIDO M. ABANTE, RIZALINA L. SEACHON-LANETE, FREDENIL H. CASTRO, EDUARDO C. ZIALCITA, MUNIR M. ARBISON, SHAREE ANN T. TAN, CESAR G. JALOSJOS, ARREL R. OLANO, AL FRANCISCO . BICHARA, MA. RACHEL J. ARENAS,ANTONI V. CUENCO,JAIME C. LOPEZ,ELEANORAJESUS F..MADRONA,MONICA PRIETO-TEODORO.BERNARDO F. PINOL, JR.. EDGAR L. VALDEZ. RAMON H. DURANO VI , CONRADOM. ESTRELLA III, NERISSA CORAZON SOON-RUIZ,MARK O. COJUANGCO.

- – ~’- – . – - – - – - – - – - ~ ~

A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS TO CONVENE FOR THE P URPOSE OF CONSIDERING PROPOSALS TO AMEND OR REVISE TH E CONSTITUTION,UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS 0F ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes modes expressly providedby Articlle XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

WHEREAS, adopting a mode for amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a prerequisite, before specific proposal to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered, by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution:

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution.;

WHEREAS, Congress. in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, that any arnendrnent to or revision of its Constitution may be porposed upon a vote of three fourths of all its members.

WHEREAS. The prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935 and 1987 are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation. There is a distinct And notable difference between the 1935 Constitution and 1987 which are presented as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:

The congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three fourths of all members of the Senate and House of representatives voting separately may propose amendments or call for a convention.

The 1987 Constitution :

“Any amendment to or revision to this Constitution may be proposed

c) Congress upon the vote of three fourths of all its members;
d) A constitutional convention

WHEREAS, It is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were already deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution such that the amendments by deletion are as follows:

4) the phrase “in joint session assembled” in the 1935 Constituion was deleted.

5) The phrase that the Senate and the house of Representatives

Voting separately was also deleted.

6) the percentage of voting of three fourths of the respective membership of each House,( the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three fourths of all the members of Congress (i.e ¾ of congressmen and senators taken together without distinction which institution of Congress they belong to.

WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored in the in the preceding

WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the rneaning and application of the corresponding Provisions of 1987 Constitution on amendments and Revisions have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that notwithstanding that the express and unambigouos provision of Article XVII Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to or revisions to the 1987 Constitution shall be upon the ¾ votes of all members of Congress ( not the ¾ votes that the oppositors contend) a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights of the oppositors on one side and the denial thereof of the proponents of this Reolution on the other side; shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling for members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent powers is filed, heard and approved.

WHEREAS: While no specific proposals to amend or revise the present Constitution could be given due course unless and until this call to convene members of Congress as provided herein, it is hereby pledged and covenanted by the proponents of this Resolution that by signatures hereto that whatever Constitutional changes may be proposed at the appropriate time, Preferably after the Constitutional issues of construction and interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court of the judicial Controversy that may arise that may have been resolved with finality that

5) the term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-president shall not be extended:

6) the term of office of Senators, congressmen, governors, mayors and other elected officials whose terms shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended.

7) The term of office of the Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six-year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish the term.

That there shall be election in 2010.

Whereas there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers, that the economic provisions of the Constitution be amended in an appropriate manner but such specific proposal to amend the Constitution can not be formally presented and resolved until the proper mode of amending or revising the Constitution is convened and made operational

Through the application of Article XVII sec. 1 of the present constitution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,THAT THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS BE CONVENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO, OR REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION UPON A VOTE OF THREE-FOURTHS OF ALL ITS MEMBERS AND THAT UPON ITS BEING CONVENED SHALL ADOPT ITS RULES OF PROCEDURES THAT SHALL GOVERN ITS PROCEEDINGS.

Adopted.

PROSPERO NOGRALES BENJAMIN DEFENSOR

Viewed 10288 times by 1484 viewers

Uy! Ka barrio, kung first timer ka dito sa Barrio Siete o kaya naman ay napasaya ka ng aming mga writers, inaanyayahan ka naming mag subscribe sa RSS Feed namin! Pwede mong gamitin ang Google Reader para dito.

Powered by WP Greet Box WordPress Plugin

The Cat is a part-time educator who was also a former Dean. She is a CPA with a PhD in Economic Development and Doctorate in Business Admin., enjoying her early retirement because of her disability; of being brain challenged, hehehe! that's according to her.