Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Three Fourths of All Its Members

Congressmen Roilo Golez  this afternoon raised the alarm over a 19-6 House Committee vote to send to the Plenary the ill-fated H.R. 1109 (convening Congress into a Con-Ass, which was already abandoned by its own sponsor, Rep. Luis Villafuerte).  In his Facebook post on the matter, Rep. Erin Tanada expressed doubts that the Majority could muster the number required. 

The 1987 Constitution provides that,

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; 

But how many Members of the Congress are there and how many would constitutes "three fourths of all its Members?" The answer to this question used to be uncontroversial at 195 or so, but a recent SCoRP Decision (Banat v. Comelec) seems to have JUDICIALLY LEGISLATED an increase in the membership of the House to 275 (220 District and 55 Party List representatives).  Given that there are 23 incumbent Senators, the total membership of the Congress is 298.  Rounded up, three fourths of 298 is 224.

I don't think there's ever even been that many Members of the Lower House together in one place, anywhere, any time.

3 comments:

ricelander said...

Just curious. Do you prefer the serenity here? Haha, your mind needs no whetstone now; it needs only to cut and slice...

Your temper is the problem.

DJB Rizalist said...

Ricelander,
Kindly use the email address rizalist@gmail.com for non sequitur comments, which are considered SPAM and can be optionally deleted as such by article authors at Philippine Commentary. I have not personally deleted such comments before since I don't normally get, nor want the chatty banter one finds in other blogs, but I cannot guarantee it of others who may publish on this website in the future. Plurk, and other microblogging sites are better places for the kind of bal masque encounter psychotherapy blogging you may be looking for.

ricelander said...

Delete this comment and the first if you must. I don't mind. I email only people I know on personal basis. I have known you only through this channel and nowhere else so I stick here.

I have come to know you more as a physicist trying his hand on political commentary, which I find strange, yet I thought it would be a good idea to hear from one in that field commenting on a field concerned on appearances, and maybe better understand why anyting should matter at all. Where's Einstein's relativity theory on the concept of social justice, for example, I want to know. Instead you mix up in a rumble leaving us wondering where's the physicist who should have a better understanding of the philosophy of nature and the ways of the world. But there you are,just as absorbed and mesmerised.

Go back to physics and help us understand the universe, idiot.