This month law students who graduated in March, 2009 started reviewing for the Bar exams in September.

Not all of them are hopeful that the examiners this year would be a lot kinder than their colleagues “who swore” to let not more than 20 percentum to 25 percentum of the candidates pass. This record has been upheld consistently for years.

Answers with rulings/doctrines

Bar candidates who can quote rulings of the US or RP Supreme Court are treated kindly by examiners – especially by a sitting member of the Court.

There’s one question that could add anxiety and anguish to the suffering examinees: “Can the House alone amend the Constitution if three-fourths of them, added to a few senators if any, could get the right number without voting separately?”

Just collecting names

In the last few months, before and after the Holy Week, the House leadership and members who aspired, needed/wanted to study law (four years plus the Bar exams) have been talking about collecting signatures to meet the number provided in the 1987 Charter.

In fairness to most senators, especially Senate President Ponce Enrile, they knew the House methodology was never proposed by the 39 brilliant, honest and responsible delegates who signed the US Constitution in Philadelphia on Sept. 17, 1787. Filipinos copied this political document in 1935 which Con-con President Claro M. Recto said, “ours is a carbon copy.”

Constitution writer at 25

James Madison, 25, helped write the state constitution of Virginia. At 36 he was called Father of the US Constitution after writing a complete plan for the new government. Madison’s “Virginia Plan,” as it was called, became the main basis of the US Constitution that also created our Commonwealth in 1935 and RP in 1946.

Proposed by two chambers

In 1947, our Congress – with 24 senators and 98 House members – had obtained the right number of votes to approve the Parity Amendment asserted as the “best means possible to rebuild the economy.” The nationwide plebiscite on March 11, 1947 approved the parity amendment.

There was no nasty or petty quarrel over the method of proposing the amendment. The Senate and the House voted separately.

Just asking for advice

There are loose talks that the House leadership has a purpose: They have collected “enough votes” to propose amendments, and if questioned, they would ask the Supreme Court to render an opinion that not all of Congress, but the more representative body (the House) can also amend the Charter, with or without the concurrence of 18 senators, before the national elections in May 2010.

If the Court cannot write the “proper” opinion before September, 2009, hundreds of Bar candidates may be forced to adopt a neutral ground that non-sensical interpretation of the Constitution could be asserted by the House, some senators, or anyone with serious personal preferences/biases.

The long wait

But Bar test results may not be known in February, March or April 2010. If there are no judicial doctrines to characterize the House proposal the examinees may choose to write NA – for not applicable. And this may further deteriorate and reduce the passing percentage to between 15 to 20 percentum, all for the benefit of House members whose main assist in the last many years come from unlucky examinees. In the classic pun of Senator Recto: “My detractors cannot tell insurance policy from foreign policy.”

‘Collecting agency’

Asking the Court to help is akin to telling lower court judges to help creditors collect pautang from bad debtors. But not all judges would readily consent to converting their offices into a collecting agency.

Years from now people, young minds especially, will recall that the Congress of more than 250 minds, in 2009, relied on the expertise of courts to amend/revise the Constitution.

(Comments are welcome at roming@pefianco.com)