More than any other time, minority leaders in the Lower Chamber vowed to thwart any attempt by Charter change proponents to push through with their own concept of the amendment process.

As far as the minority bloc is concerned, there is no way administration allies in the House could prevail over the legal obstacles already put in place by the opposition.

Rep. Francis Escudero of Sorsogon, leader of the opposition in the House, said the remaining hope for Speaker Jose de Venecia and his followers, to be able to force their constituent assembly master plan, is to produce 195 signatures representing three-fourths of all members of Congress.

Under the Constitution, a vote of three-fourths of all members of Congress is needed to propose amendments to the Constitution.

But Escudero said this option is no longer possible because in no way can De Venecia and his group collect such number considering that members of the minority in the House are definitely not joining them.

Some 50 House members have reportedly signed a manifesto rejecting Charter change through a constituent assembly, thus effectively foiling De Venecia’s contentious proposition.

In a related move, administration allies in the House have sought Senate agreement on a proposal to file a joint petition with the Supreme Court for a ruling on the interpretation of the constitutional provision on Charter amendment.

The contentious issue is the provision in the 1987 Constitution which says, "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…"

Simply put, the joint petition will seek to clarity whether "a vote of threefourths of all its Members" meant three-fourths of all the members of both the Senate and the House, voting jointly, as asserted by the House leaders; or three-fourths of the House members and three-fourths of the members of the Senate, voting separately, as interpreted by the senators.

The joint petition is supposed to be filed today.

The High Court’s guidance is important in view of the continuing contradictions that seriously imperil what remains of the credibility of politicians.

Obviously, they cannot be both correct but the way they assert the integrity of their claim puts either side in jeopardy, when the High Court issues its clarification.

But, of course, more important in resolving the issue is the people’s guidance in understanding the amendment process.

The trouble with the Charter change drive is that it is being pursued relentlessly, involving millions of people in the case of the people’s initiative, and leaders of Congress in the case of a constituent assembly, without certainty under law.

Regarding the people’s initiative, it was launched nationwide amid questions of its legality in the absence of an enabling law supporting it.

The constituent assembly mode, on the other hand, was initiated by the House saddled by doubts about its leaders’ interpretation of the constitutional provision on Charter change.

Still, House minority leaders are the least concerned on the court’s decision since either way they are prepared to oppose Charter change, Escudero pointed out.

As some people foresee the immediate future of Charter change, the twist and turn of the Cha-cha quandary will persist until it is overrun by the frenzy of next year’s political campaign.