This comments were posted by the author on Facebook. Fr. Eliseo "Jun" Mercado, OMI is senior policy adviser at IAG. Follow him on Twitter @junmeromi.

Hearings in both Houses of Congress continue. The House of Representatives appears to be very thorough in the public hearings - listening not only to principals, stakeholders, and advocates but also to legal and constitutional experts. The Senate is also thoroughly doing its job.

There are ambiguities in dates and schedules for the passage of BBL... It began with the slogan... "before the year end'. Then followed by yet another slogan: "before the end of February 2015". Now, the new expression is "in March". And this refers only to the passage of the Law in the House of Representatives.

How about in the Senate...?

Then, there are divergence voices and expert opinions on the content of the proposed BBL. Some are off the cup opinions; others are legal opinions; still others are well studied constitutional and legal briefs.

While admire all the expert opinions of legal luminaries, I cannot help but be awed by constitutional experts when they present a well researched and studied brief directly addressing the ambiguities of the proposed BBL.

I cannot help but be baffled by government's (referring to OPAPP) continued LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL AMATEURISM in defending the proposed BBL. Government is NOT bereft of resources to engage legal and constitutional expertise to prepare a well researched and thorough studied brief to defend the proposed BBL.

So far the ONLY cogent, rational and really well studied and well researched legal Brief on the proposed BBL is the one prepared and read by former SC Justice Mendoza during one of the Hose Public Hearings.

The 5 points presented by the Mendoza Brief remains unanswered...

While the House has set March as their target date for passage of the proposed BBL, the Senate has NOT given an inkling on when it would conclude its publisc hearings and debates...

Then there is still the Bi-Cameral Session to reconcile the two Laws (House and the Senate)... Then the reconciled Law goes to each House for the Final Reading...

When both Houses give assent to the Law, it is only then that that the BBL goes to the President for his signature...

After the BBL has been signed... it is submitted for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose in areas identified... or specified in the Law.

This is the normal journey of the BBL...

However, if the BBL would be questioned before the Supreme Court on the issue of constitutionality..., then it is yet another hurdle, that is, the BBL would NOW be subjected to 'judicial scrutiny'... If the SC issues a TRO before deciding on the merit of the case... the whole process is stalled momentarily until the issue of constitutionality is resolved...