A STATEMENT ON THE HOUSE RESOLUTION CONVENING

ITSELF AS A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY

THROWING A PARTY FOR NO REASON AND INVITING ONLY

THE HOST
By Makati Rep. Teodoro L. Locsin Jr.

BECAUSE this is just a resolution, the House will vote by mere yells of
yeas and nays. In the tumult, the public and the press may mistake who
voted for and against it. Make no mistake RONNIE ZAMORA AND I are
voting NO because we have kept our wits about us unlike the others who
have lost all of theirs. For this resolution convenes only the Lower House of
Congress as a constituent assembly to “consider,” as the Constitution puts it,
constitutional amendments that no one has proposed, do not exist, and
therefore cannot be considered.

This strictly House only resolution is like sending out an invitation to

a party to which the host has invited only himself.

This is also like sending out an invitation to a party on no definite date

for no stated occasion other than the host throwing a party for himself by
himself. On top of which, the host—Rep. Luis Villafuerte—has cancelled
the party and withdrawn the invitation though some—how shall we call
them?—housebreakers, I suppose—have decided to go on with the party.

This is a resolution calling for the convening of the Lower House of

Congress as a constituent assembly the day before it adjourns. This is like
sending out an invitation to a party on no date, for no stated occasion, while
announcing that the host is leaving for a long vacation abroad.

It is said that this invitation to a party inviting only the host is

intended to provoke a reaction from those not invited.

Whoever came up with this idea of a party has no idea about throwing
a party except what he might have learned from the videos of the parties that
Hayden Koh threw where he was both host and sole party animal except for
his unwitting partner. But Hayden Kho had an excuse. He was drugged. The
question is under what kind of influence is this kind of party being thrown?
In other words, nag-e-Ecstacy ba ang mga proponents of this House
resolution and why are not they not sharing the joy?
 It is said that we must do this because, unless we throw a party for no
reason inviting only ourselves, we will never know for sure if such a party
can be thrown?

But how will we know? We are sure to be ignored by those we did not
invite even as we will be ignored by the social arbiter to which we are
appealing on this score.

I submit that the Supreme Court and the country as a whole will
ignore us—and then laugh at us all the way to the ignominious end of the
14th Congress. We shall be ignored as surely as we shall be laughed at.

For this is a resolution calling upon the members of Congress but

naming only the members of the House to convene constituently for no
stated purpose. And yet the Constitution specifies that Congress may
convene as a constituent assembly only for the purpose of considering—
considering—not introducing let alone just awaiting—proposals to amend or
revise the Constitution upon a vote of 3/4th of all the members of Congress.
This resolution puts the cart before the horse because, there being no
amendments to consider, there is no purpose to convene Congress as a
constituent assembly.

It is a blatant lie that this resolution reflected upon its introduction to

the floor of the House a consensus of the House of a need to amend the
Constitution because, aside from the Speaker of the House who filed his
amendment to the economic provisions as a regular bill, no one has
expressed any desire to change the Constitution or expressly specified in
what particular respect.

As for the lawyers among us who say they want to litigate this
question, they will be provoking the Supreme Court to render what it cannot
and will not—to wit, an opinion in no concrete case and controversy. These
lawyer-legislator should tread carefully for the Court is liable to strip them
of their license for trifling with the Court and the processes of justice.

This resolution mocks the House and holds it up to ridicule. If

anything, it is a fit subject not of a vote but an ethics investigation of the
proponents of this measure for inviting the contempt of the nation upon our
House.
 This is a venture which can be described by only one word that
politeness forbids me to say.