Charter Change (Cha-Cha) is a political epidemic or conflagration that has preoccupied the House of Representatives (House). It has distracted and diverted the attention of the House from more pressing problems.

Initially, it was palatably presented as a measure to amend only the economic provisions of the Constitution. No sooner, however, when talks begin to circulate that it will also be used to revise the form of government from presidential to parliamentary.

The spate of publicity, public attention and controversy, if not confusion, have created the illusion that Cha-Cha is the alternative "cure all" measure to the nation’s humungous and varied problems. As a consequence, Congress has momentarily sidelined attention to other monumental concerns.

The eerie atmosphere has sired the question, is the Cha-Cha initiated by the House, despite the negative and adverse reactions of the Senate, a mere political charade and/or a whirligig adventurism in a wasteland of nothing?

"Actus legetimi non recipient modum: Where the manner of doing of anything prescribed, then the act must be done in that manner. And the action must be in the proper forum. Actionum genera maxime sunt gervenda."

Section 1, Art. XVII of the Constitution provides: "Any amendment to or revision of this Constitution may be proposed by:

(1) Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or

(2) A constitutional convention.

Sec. 2. Amendments to the Constitution, may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative, etc."

The 1987 Constitution prescribes three modes of proposing amendments to the Constitution, viz. through (1) a constituent assembly (Con-Ass); (2) a constitutional convention (Con-Con) and (3) people’s initiative (PI). These three modes involve the broad participation of as many persons consistent with the democratic character of the amendatory process.

Under the first mode, Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, may propose amendments to, or revision of the Constitution. The operative terms are "Congress", "vote" and "all its members." Congress consists of the Senate and House of Representatives (House). The "members" of both Houses, i.e. Senators and Congressmen constitute the "Congress." In voting, the members of both should actively participate. When Congress proposes amendments to or revision of the Constitution, the Members of the Senate and the House "do not act as members of Congress" to legislate laws. They act as members of a constituent assembly partaking of a particle of the sovereign power of the people, by authority of the Constitution. Whenever Congress acts either as Legislature or as Constituent Assembly (Con-Ass), the active participation of both Members of the House and the Senate is an indispensable element. Neither the Members of the House nor of the Senate, independently of each other, constitute the Congress. Hence, members of the House, alone, may not legally constitute itself a constituent assembly to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution.

The first mode of proposing amendments to or revision of the Constitution is through "Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members." Unfortunately, unlike in other parts of the Constitution, the text does not say whether Congress should vote jointly or separately. According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a noted authority on Constitutional Law and one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, has this to say:

"The provision says nothing about a joint session. The provision thus raises two questions: First, must Congress assemble in joint session before it can propose amendments or call a constitutional convention? Or, alternatively, may the two Houses as they are and where they are propose amendments or call a constitutional convention by a vote of three-fourths of their respective membership?

Since nothing is said about a joint session, it is submitted that each House may separately formulate amendments by a vote of three-fourths of all its members, and then pass it on to the other house for a similar process. Disagreements can be settled through a conference committee.

Alternatively, however, it is also submitted that Congress may decide to come together in joint session and vote separately on proposed amendments and revisions. x x x

It is also submitted, however, that what is essential, is that both Houses vote separately. This s because the power to propose amendments is given not to a unicameral body but to a bicameral body. X x x.

One might ask why the present provision is worded the way it is. The answer may be found in the fact that the 1986 Constitutional Commission discussed the provision at the time when the expectation was that Congress would be a unicameral body. Hence, the model adopted was a copy of the amendatory provision for the Batasang Pambansa, a unicameral body, under the 1973 Constitution. Although the deliberations show that there was an intention to adjust the provision in case a bicameral Congress should be approved, in fact this adjustment never happened. (Bernas, the 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2003 ed., pp. 1298-1299)

The two other modes are via a constitutional convention and the people’s initiative. The Constitution does not allow any other mode, hybrid or adulteration of any of the 3 modes. However, the weasel-worded language of Sec. 1, par. 1, Art. XVII, is pliable and capable of dimensional modes. It effuses/generates varied constructions of availing the "Con-Ass" mode. This inspired the House leaders to formulate a hybrid mode to hasten the process and achieve suspect objectives.

Foisting an interpretation/designed to circumnavigate or skirt the intent and the spirit of Sec. 1, Art. XVII of the Constitution that ignores the history or genesis of the language employed, and buried the documented deliberations of the constitutional commission, the Speaker of the House introduced House Resolution No. 737 (HR 737) on August 20, 2008 proposing to amend two economic provisions of the Constitution to allow foreigners 100 percent ownership of private and alienable lands for specific purposes. Whirligig politics implemented by transactional leaders/politicians assisted by smart operators "worm in" or "wedge in" that what is needed to propose amendments or revision is the vote of ¾ of the total Members of the House and Senate, sans participation of the Senate.

The Senate took frenzied and fervid exceptions to what it considered farcical and heretical interpretations of the House. The chilly and passive reaction of the Senate prompted the House to shift and refurbish its posture. It announced HR 737 shall be treated as an ordinary bill and observed the processes in the enactment of laws to ensure participation of the Senate. The unorthodox construction/interpretation advanced accidentally molded a hybrid amorphous fourth mode to amend/revise the Constitution.

HR 737 was considered, deliberated and acted upon. The House Committee on Constitutional Amendment/Revision endorsed HR 737 to the Committee on Rules for action. Meanwhile, more Congressmen indorsed HR 737. This time HR 737 was recaptioned House Bill No. 737 in cadence/tune with the odd stance that HR/HB 737 will be treated/considered like an ordinary bill of Congress.

The House as a legislative body acted without or in excess of jurisdiction/authority when it considered and acted on HR 737 proposing amendments to or revisions of the Constitution, in the absence of a prior approved House Resolution to convene/constitute the House as constituent body. HR 737 proposing to amend or revise the Constitution is a matter that may be validly considered and acted upon, only by a constituent assembly and not a legislative body. Until and unless the House is first convened/constituted into a constituent assembly, proposals to amend or revise the Constitution is premature.

Accordingly, the House has not acquired jurisdiction/authority to act and consider HR 737, without the House first convening itself as a constituent assembly. Thus, the proceedings on HR 737 are patently null and void.