Supreme Court Associate Justice Minita Chico-Nazario reportedy chose to keep her hands off the petition filed by lawyer Oliver Lozano asking the High Court to nullify House Resolution 1109 calling for charter change via a Senate-less constituent assembly.

Sources told Abs-cbnnews.com/Newsbreak that Nazario inhibited herself from the Lozano petition. 

Passed by the House of Representatives through viva voce or voice voting on June 2, HR 1109 calls on Congress to convene as a constituent assembly and amend the 1987 Constitution even without the Senate's participation.

Lozano filed his taxpayer’s suit on June 3 against the lone respondent, House Speaker Prospero Nograles.

He criticized lawmakers for “railroading” HR 1109, which would allegedly pave the way for the extension of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s term due to end on June 30, 2010.

The SC raffled Lozano’s petition in Tuesday's (June 9) deliberations. It landed in the sala of Nazario, but she allegedly inhibited herself.

We called her office to get her reasons for keeping off the case, but her staff said the magistrate does not want to be interviewed.

We also tried to reach SC spokesperson Jose Midas Marquez through his mobile phone, but our calls and text messages went unanswered.  When we dropped by the Public Information Office of the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon, Marquez was unavailable.

The SC is reportedly set to reraffle the case next week.

Weak, suspicious petition

Lozano’s petition has been slammed as “weak” and “suspicious.”

In a Senate caucus held last week, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he was “surprised” by the immediate filing of the petition, insinuating that Malacañang had a hand in it.

Senator Mar Roxas, on the other hand, shrugged off Lozano’s petition as premature arguing that there is no "justiciable issue" yet. The constituent assembly has not met and has not even proposed any amendments to the 1987 Constitution.

He urged the Senate, however, to file its own petition in order to correct the  defective arguments in Lozano’s suit.

Roxas added that a dismissal of the case would lead to the view that HR 1109 is “legitimate.”

New peition filed

Meanwhile, another petition questioning HR 1109 has been filed at the High Court.

Louis Biraogo, who figured in the headlines months ago after accusing Chief Justice Reynato Puno of sitting on an election dispute case, asked the SC to issue a temporary restraining order against the enforcement of HR 1109.

He said that the lower House violated Sec. 1, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that amendments to the charter should be made by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of Congress.

Although this provision does not specify if the lower and upper chamber should vote separately or jointly on charter changes, Biraogo said voting should be done separately in keeping with the bicameral nature of Congress.