Interpretatio talis in ambiguis semper frienda est, ut evitatur inconveniens et absurdum. “Where there is ambiguity, such interpretation as will avoid inconvenience and absurdity is to be adopted.” So said the Supreme Court en banc in Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. TMX Sales, Inc. (G.R. No. 83736, Jan. 15, 1992) and a catena of cases in that regard.
The current debate on whether or not the Constitution should be interpreted to mean joint or separate voting by both the House of Representatives and the Senate, acting as a constituent assembly to amend the fundamental law, is really a no-brainer. It’s just common sense.
The Senate has only 24 members, while the House has more than 300. If the Constitution were to be interpreted to mean joint voting, the Senate becomes totally irrelevant. Joint voting is an absurdity, just plain stupidity.
ARNULFO M. EDRALIN
armed_2d_teeth@yahoo.com