A BOGUS INITIATIVE

The Arroyo administration, in a bid to stay in power at all costs, is now forcing down our throats this poisonous pill called Charter Change. Having failed to gain support from the Senate to transform Congress into a constituent assembly, it is now trying its luck on the so-called people’s initiative, the third mode provided by the 1987 Constitution wherein the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution. But what really does the Constitution say about the latter mode? Section 2, Article 17 provides:

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

The last sentence of the above article suggests that the constitutional provision is not self-executory. Congress is precisely mandated to enact a law for the implementation of this right.

Q: Did Congress enact a law for a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution?

A: Yes, it did enact a law — Republic Act No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) “providing”, among others, for a system of initiative and referendum on the Constitution.

Q: But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?

A: No, the law was subsequently declared by the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec, as inadequate to provide for a system of initiative and referendum on the Constitution. In that case, the Supreme Court said:

Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national and local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735, in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, the word “Constitution” in Section 2; (b) defines “initiative on the Constitution” and includes it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of “plebiscite” as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the people; (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should sign the petition; and (e) provides for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition.

There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the paramount system of initiative. R.A. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service.

The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

The Supreme Court further declared:

The COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.

Q: So what has been embolding the Abalos COMELEC to proceed with the verification of signatures (even before a petition is filed) despite the permanent injunction from the Supreme Court?

A: In the same case, the Supreme Court made this following pronouncement:

The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’ identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.

On its face, it is true that the wording above seems to allow the COMELEC to verify signatures even before a petition to propose amendments to the Constitution is filed. But what Abalos deliberately missed out was that the Supreme Court allows such verification of signatures only under the assumption that there is already an enabling law to provide for the implementation of the system. Stated otherwise, it will only be a waste of time, effort and resources verifying signatures prior to the filing of the petition because the same will only be dismissed the moment it is filed due to the absence, as I said, of an enabling law. It is therefore an exercise in futility. Chairman Abalos plucked out only the favorable portion of the decision and disregarded the others to suit his theory that it is perfectly legal to verify signatures even without an enabling law. The decision must be construed in its entirety, or else two judicial pronouncements in the same case will be rendered contradictory.

Q: But why is the COMELEC so confident that it can hurdle perceived legal obstacles to its entertaining that scrap of paper called Gloria’s initiative?

A: Choose the best answer:

1. It honestly thinks it is correct in its interpretation of the aforecited Supreme Court decision; or

2. It sincerely believes that the ruling in Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec was a mistake and therefore wants the Supreme Court to revisit its decision; or

3. It is hopeful that chances are better to obtain a favorable decision now than before, owing to the fact that most of the Justices who deliberated on the matter have retired while the ones who are still active today — Chief Justice Panganiban and Senior Associate Justice Puno — believed that RA 6735 met the standards of an enabling law; or maybe…

4. The Commissioners are devotees of St. Jude Thaddeus, the patron saint of desperate, impossible or lost causes or situations!

Q: Why are we so sure that this people’s initiative is a bogus one, a government-sponsored initiative?

A: 1. As early as August of last year, the government has announced and has in fact created a Consultative Commission so obssessed at removing the Senate from the face of the earth, lifting the term limits of members of the new Parliament and local elective officials, and recommending the cancellation of the local and national elections in 2007. Here are some of its disturbing proposals:

Article 7. Parliament–

Section 1. The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a unicameral Parliament except to the extent as otherwise provided in this Constitution.

Note: Here, the provision speaks of a unicameral parliament which, in essence, abolishes the Senate.

Section 4. The Members of Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.

Note: The provision on term limits has been deleted which means that the Congressmen we have today, God forbid, will be the same Congressmen we will have till kingdom come. They can run for re-election for as many times their conscience allows them.

Article 12. Local Governments and Autonomous Territories–

Section 8. The term of office of elective local officials shall be five years except barangay officials, which shall be determined by law.

Note: Again, the provision on term limits for local elective officials has been deleted, which explains why your Honorable Mayor can’t wait any longer for your precious signature to be obtained.

Article 20. Transitory Provisions–

Section 7. The elections scheduled in 2007 shall be cancelled and the terms of office of all elective officials shall be extended to June 30, 2010, coinciding with those of the incumbent President and Vice-President and the twelve Senators elected in 2004. The first elections of Members of the Parliament and the first local elections under this Constitution shall be held on the second Monday of May 2010.

Section 8. Upon ratification of this Constitution, the Senate and the House of Representatives are replaced by an interim Parliament that shall exist immediately and shall continue until the Members of the Regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have assumed office following an election as provided in the preceding section.

Note: Did I hear Sec. Bunye say that there is no truth to the allegation of no-el? Who is he kidding?

2. The government created the ChaCha Advocacy Commission with Atty. Raul Lambino at the helm, who also happens to be one of the members of the Consultative Commission;

3. The Barangay Assemblies facilitated by the DILG were precisely convened to procure the needed signatures for the so-called people’s initiative;

4. The materials, forms and paraphernalia used in the procurement of signatures were not only identical but were of such quantity and quality that no ordinary group of people or people’s organization would have the financial capacity to produce and distribute the same nationwide;

5. The “peoples organizations” supposedly under the umbrella of Sigaw ng Bayan (to which Atty. Lambino is likewise the Spokesperson) that were previously unheard of suddenly came out of the blue and proudly claimed to all and sundry that they were the “people” behind the moves to directly propose amendments to the Constitution;

6. The local government officials under GMA’s spell, elated with the prospect of no-el, eagerly spearheaded the campaign for signatures without sufficiently explaining to the mostly ignorant masa the pros and cons of the proposed amendments.

But what is appalling are the claims of some that the shift to a parliamentary system of government will SOLVE ALL our political and economic problems. Where in the world did they get that idea? Worse, they peddle their ludicrous belief through cash, freebies and dole outs designed to entice the unsuspecting masa into signing a document they do not fully understand. This is not only against public policy. This is downright immoral.

The Constitution is not the problem. It is Gloria’s stubborn defiance to heed the people’s call.