Comelec trashes ‘initiative’
By Mayen Jaymalin
The Philippine Star 09/01/2006

Voting 6-0, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) dismissed yesterday the people’s initiative petition filed by the Sigaw ng Bayan Movement and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) because of the lack of an enabling law.

Although the Comelec decision was a setback for them, Sigaw and the ULAP may still make an appeal before the Supreme Court (SC), which in 1997 effectively thumbed down a people’s initiative petition for the same reason.

In its resolution, the Comelec en banc said that the SC had already ruled in 1997 that Republic Act No. 6735, which sets a system of making such an initiative, was inadequate for implementation.

"Even if the signatures in the instant petition appear to meet the required minimum percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least three percent of the registered voters, still the petition cannot be given due course," the Comelec ruling said.

"The commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of the right of the people under a system of initiative, however, neither can we turn a blind eye to the pronouncement of the high court in the absence of a valid enabling law," it said.

The ruling said that the landmark court ruling had declared that the Comelec was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative or amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide the implementation of the system."

It pointed out that the while the Constitution enshrines the right of ordinary citizens to petition amendments to the Constitution via a people’s initiative, the lack of an enabling law for the purpose had made it "an empty right" for the moment.

"As far as the Comelec is concerned, a people’s initiative is already dead," Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos told reporters although the people’s initiative proponents may still file an appeal before the SC.

Abalos said the Comelec did not bother to check the authenticity of the 10 million signatures in the petition, but it nevertheless kept the petition on record in case it is needed.

"We will keep them with us as part of our records unless there would be a petition to withdrew them or in case a motion is filed before the Supreme Court," he said.

The Comelec ruling sets back President Arroyo’s initiative to amend the Constitution and replace the country’s US-style presidential form of government with a parliamentary system.

As of yesterday, 14 petitions have been filed before the Comelec seeking to junk the people’s initiative petition.

Alternative Law Group (ALG), one of the petitioners against the initiative, said the Comelec’s decision is just a minor victory and they expect a more intense battle before the Supreme Court.

ALG member Jane Capacio said they and other fellow opponents are determined to go court to block any attempt to revive the Malacañang-backed petition. Pros and cons
Mrs. Arroyo wants to the country to adopt a single-legislature parliamentary system, which she said would speed up the passage of legislation needed for economic recovery.

Her opponents, however, suspect the move is part of a hidden agenda to extend her stay in office the same way dictator Ferdinand Marcos cemented his iron-fisted rule by putting in place a new constitution in 1973 after declaring martial law the previous year.

"Constitutional reforms are best done through a constitutional convention (one of three modes of amending the Constitution), but only after a massive education campaign and meaningful electoral reform, and without incumbent officials benefiting from it," One Voice, a group opposed to amending the Constitution, said in a statement.

"It is stated in our Constitution and reflected clearly in the records of the Constitutional Commission that a people’s initiative can only be used only for specific amendments to, and not revisions of, the Constitution," said Christian Monsod, a former Comelec chairman and one of One Voice’s leaders. He was also a member of the Constitutional Commission, which drafted the nation’s charter in 1986.

Sorsogon Rep. Francis Escudero, the leader of the minority in the House of Representatives, praised the Comelec. He said the commission had no choice but to throw out the petition because of the 1997 Supreme Court ruling.

Charter change opponents are already preparing to argue their case before the SC.

"The decision of the highest tribunal of the land will dictate our immediate future. If it upholds the dismissal of the Sigaw petition, then the nation will have to prepare for the May 2007 elections. If it overturns it, then the country will have to prepare for Cha-cha," said Taguig-Pateros Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano.

Paranaque Rep. Roilo Golez said Sigaw and its lawyers should have respected the SC ruling and desisted from pursuing its people’s initiative campaign.

"I salute Chairman Abalos and commissioners of the Comelec for their respect for the law, the Constitution and the Supreme Court," he said. "The SC injunction is clear, the Comelec cannot entertain such a petition. I cannot understand why Sigaw’s supposedly brilliant lawyers could not see or accept that."

Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Constantino Jaraula, chairman of the House committee on constitutional amendments, said he was confident that the SC would reverse its 1997 ruling.

"All the justices who found RA 6735 inadequate have since retired. On the other hand, the strongest advocates for sufficiency and adequacy of the law are still with the court, namely, Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and senior Justice Reynato Puno. Both necessarily are expected to maintain and uphold their opinions in l997," Jaraula said.

House Majority Leader Prospero Nograles described the Comelec ruling as "most unfortunate."

"Legal precedents are useful jurisprudence but they must change with the times. Nothing is static and stale," Nograles said, adding that the Comelec could not "just brush aside millions of signatures" in the people’s initiative petition.

"The factual basis of this initiative are different from the past. Clearly, the laws are not meant to thwart the supreme will of the people. They ought to reconsider their decision and pave the way to change," he said.

"It is good that the Comelec acted immediately on the petition because I am sure that Sigaw, ULAP, and other people’s initiative supporters will seek legal remedy before the Supreme Court, which is the ultimate adjudicator," said Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas.

Zamboanga del Sur Rep. Isidoro Real said elevating the issue to the SC would settle it once and for all. No enabling law
Article 17 of the Constitution provides three methods for making amendments: through a constituent assembly, a constitutional convention and a people’s initiative.

In a constituent assembly, the legislature would propose amendments. In a constitutional convention, delegates elected by the people to the body would make the amendments. In a people’s initiative, at least 12 percent of the electorate may propose changes through a petition.

All amendments are to be ratified by the people in a plebiscite.

On June 10, 1997, the SC ruled that the people’s initiative law or Republic Act 6735, "was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and (to have) failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation."

The court decision was on a petition filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago seeking to stop the Comelec from entertaining a people’s initiative being pushed by the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action.

The initiative was aimed at lifting the constitutional one-term limit on the president. It would have allowed then President Fidel Ramos to seek a second term had it succeeded.

The one-term limit was put in place when the Constitution was rewritten in 1986 to avoid a repeat of the Marcos dictatorship.

If successful, the people’s initiative could avoid the impasse between the opposition-controlled Senate and the House of Representatives, which is dominated by administration allies.

Most senators disagree with Charter change proponents on how to amend the Constitution.

Senators contend that a constituent assembly may be seen as self-serving because lawmakers would draft the amendments. They prefer amendments drafted by a constitutional convention.

Sen. Joker Arroyo said the Comelec decision left the constituent assembly the only option for Charter change proponents.

But with the Senate and the House disagreeing on that issue as well, Arroyo said making amendments through the constituent assembly mode seems bleak.

The Constitution requires a three-fourths vote in Congress in order for the legislature to sit as a constituent assembly. However, the Senate and the House could not agree if they should vote separately or as one.

"Even if they go full blast, it won’t reach first base in the Senate, so what’s the point? The House and the Senate are like Siamese twins, they can never be separated," Arroyo said.

Santiago pointed out the possibility, however, that the SC might see it differently because the Constitution is not explicit on the issue.

"The statement in the Constitution is equivocal, it is not clear. It just says any revision or amendment may be effected by a three-fourths vote of all the members of Congress without adding three-fourths of Congress voting separately," she argued.

Last year, the House sent to the Senate a joint concurrent resolution urging Congress to convene itself into a constituent assembly to propose amendments.

Impatient over the senators’ decision on the constituent assembly measure, Jaraula introduced a resolution that seeks to bypass the Senate.

The Senate contends that any effort to amend the Constitution without its participation and without the two chambers voting separately on amendments would be unconstitutional. — With Jess Diaz, Delon Porcalla, Christina Mendez, Marvin Sy, Michael Punongbayan