Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez has categorically denied any involvement in the alleged signature campaign for the people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. Responding to Sen. Maria Josefa Imelda “Imee” Marcos, who accused him of bankrolling the campaign, Romualdez challenged Marcos to provide evidence to substantiate her claims.
Marcos asserted that Romualdez funded P20 million per district to gather signatures for the people’s initiative, aiming to enable both houses of Congress to “vote jointly” as a constituent assembly, rather than “voting separately.” The proposed move faced strong opposition from the Senate, which issued a manifesto against the campaign.
Romualdez dismissed Marcos’ accusations as “baseless” and dismissed them as mere “gossip.” In a statement, he challenged the senator, saying, “I don’t know where all of this is coming from her. Prove it.”
Despite the escalating tension between them, Romualdez emphasized that he still holds respect for Marcos both as a senator and as a relative. He expressed openness to communication, stating that he is willing to receive calls or texts from her to discuss the matter further.
The controversy surrounding the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution has further deepened the divide between the House of Representatives and the Senate. The disagreement revolves around the method of voting in a constituent assembly, with the Senate opposing the proposed joint voting by both houses.
The Senate’s manifesto against the campaign reflects the skepticism and concerns of several senators about the potential implications of such constitutional amendments. The allegations against Romualdez have added a layer of complexity to the already contentious issue, sparking a war of words between key political figures.
As the public watches this political drama unfold, the call for transparency and accountability becomes more pronounced. Both Romualdez and Marcos are now under scrutiny, with the public eagerly awaiting any evidence or clarification regarding the alleged signature campaign. The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications not only for the ongoing debate on constitutional amendments but also for the credibility of the individuals involved. In the spirit of a healthy democracy, all parties must engage in open dialogue, address concerns, and, most importantly, substantiate their claims to uphold the public’s trust in the democratic process.