People’s initiative advocates regroup, mull running in next year’s elections

A multisectoral group that gathered 6.5 million signatures for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution and shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government is regrouping in the provinces following its debacle in the Supreme Court.

Lawyer Raul Lambino, Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman, said the group that advocated the people’s initiative might convert itself into a political party and take part in local and national elections next year.

"Sigaw has no final plans yet. The spirit is high but we are taking our time," he said.

Lambino said Sigaw ng Bayan is planning its next political move while awaiting the Court’s final decision on its petition to have its signature-gathering campaign declared as constitutional.

"(The) Sigaw ng Bayan spirit will rise above (the people’s initiative)," he told The STAR in an interview at his law office in Quezon City.

"We had left the fate of the people’s initiative (in) the hands of the great Supreme Court justices. If they will outright reject our appeal then that’s the end of the people’s initiative, but the Sigaw ng Bayan spirit remains alive in the hearts and minds of the people in the countryside who are crying for change."

Calling himself a "promdi" or a lawyer "from the province," Lambino came to national prominence after leading a nationwide campaign for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.

Also advocating a people’s initiative is the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) comprised of governors, city and municipal mayors.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court branded Sigaw ng Bayan’s petition a "grand deception and gigantic fraud" because the full text of the petition was not circulated together with the sheets where voters were asked to sign.

In its motion for reconsideration, Sigaw ng Bayan said not a single witness was presented to testify on the matter of deception or fraud and not a single filer has filed any opposition to the petition on the ground of deception and fraud.

"With due respect, petitioners submit that while the decision ostensibly tries to protect the interest of the people and uphold the Constitution, in reality it constitutes a wholesome violation of the right of due process of the 6,327,952 signers, and ultimately their sovereign political rights as Filipino citizens and registered voters," he said.

Lambino said Sigaw ng Bayan’s motion for reconsideration was mailed in Quezon City and has already reached the Supreme Court. However, ULAP and two other petitioners had also filed their separate motions for reconsideration, which were also sent through registered mail, he added.

‘Half-hearted’ effort?

Meanwhile, Sen. Joker Arroyo criticized yesterday the move of pro-Charter change groups to "half-heartedly" pursue their motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court.

"Are Sigaw and ULAP serious with their move for the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision dismissing their petition relative to the people’s initiative?" said Arroyo, who defended the Senate position on the issue before the Supreme Court.

Arroyo said the deadline for filing the motion for reconsideration lapsed last Nov. 9 when the Solicitor General filed on the same day with the high court directly its motion.

"With the impending retirement of C.J. Panganiban, a vacancy will occur in the high court. Are Sigaw and ULAP waiting for a change in the composition of the Supreme Court?"he asked.

Arroyo challenged anew his counterparts at the House of Representatives to push through with their plans to constitute the lower house into a constituent assembly.

"And nothing is moving in the House of Representatives either. Whether it is the Jurassic (Rep. Constantino) Jaraula or the foetus (Rep. Prospero) Pichay resolutions, both are frozen. Why don’t they defreeze both, let it come to a head so that this nagging matter can be settled once and for all?" he said.

Arroyo questioned the way Sigaw and ULAP sent their different motions via registered mail from Pangasinan and Bohol.

"The question arises — we thought Sigaw and ULAP are in a hurry to have the adverse decision reconsidered because time is not on their side?" he asked.

"But by their actions, Sigaw and ULAP indicate that they have an undisclosed and devious objective. They who should be in a hurry are deliberately slowing the process down. What is their unseen purpose?"

Although both ways are allowed, the generally accepted mode in public interest cases is to file it directly with the court, he added. — Perseus Echeminada, Christina Mendez