De Venecia and his cohorts claim that the 1987 Constitution allows a constituent assembly without the Senate voting separately. In other words, the congressmen, all by themselves can do it if they can harness at least three-fourths of the combined number of senators and congressmen, the magic number being 194 congressmen.

Never mind that such an interpretation goes against the principle of checks and balances in the Constitution not only among the three departments of government but within the legislature itself. Or that simple logic calls for at least the same procedure in amending or revising the fundamental law -- the Constitution -- as in amending/revising/enacting ordinary laws, like naming streets. Or that the structure of a bicameral legislature -- one elected at large and the other by district with different responsibilities and prerogatives (the Senate decides on treaties) -- calls for separate sessions and separate voting.

De Venecia insists that since the Constitution is silent on the manner of voting in a constituent assembly (it only refers to a vote of "all the members"; it doesn't even talk about a joint session), it can be construed to mean a joint vote. Which is nonsense, because the same language is used in two other processes -- a grant of tax exemption and a grant of amnesty -- and in both cases, the two chambers meet and vote separately.

It is very clear that the Constitution provides, number one, for a Congress that is bicameral; number two, you have to have both houses voting separately. Even on the declaration of war we vote separately. So it means that there is no basis for any attempt by the House to claim that they can do it on their own