Institutionalized EDSA

It may have escaped many but the Davide led Supreme Court effectively castigated Congress for its sloppy lawmaking. It claimed that the law is insufficient because it lacked a subheading for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. A grammatical error, that lack of a subheading disabled R.A. 6735 from being used by a people’s initiative in 1997 or any other in the future. Whew. If I were a member of Congress I certainly would be insulted by such an affront from a co-qual branch of government.

But looking closely at the Davide led court decision in the 1997 Santiago vs Comelec case, it was not so grammatical either. Tell me if I am wrong but isn’t a permanent TRO on the Comelec an oxymoron? An oxymoron is defined in the dictionary as an "expression with contradictory words: a phrase in which two words of contradictory meaning are used together for special effect, for example ‘wise fool’ or ‘legal murder.’ I would expect that if the Court was so finicky about a subheading it should also have been careful in the use of an oxymoron.

This may be acceptable in other genres of literary work but I think it is inappropriate in a crucial decision of the highest court, affecting the fate of the country. However it grates, we still accepted the oxymoron of a permanent TRO then. We may have meekly followed it in 1997 but I think the new petitioners should have reservations the second time. After all between the lack of a subheading and the use of an oxymoron in a serious legal document the latter is a more serious error. Moreover, in this case the shoe is in the other foot, if people are stopped from a people’s initiative because of the grammatical lapse in missing a subheading, would it not be fair to say that if there is no such thing as a permanent temporary restraining order (TRO) there was also no disabling decision? But we must respect the law despite grammatical lapses. We take our cue from Justice Panganiban’s dissenting opinion. He said there is a right time for everything and perhaps the public was not ready then for a people’s initiative. Well, the time has come. Let’s get rid of the oxymoron.

* * *

But let us go to more serious things. I am glad that the EDSA People Power Commission has written the Supreme Court ‘that in listening to the arguments of all sides it will pay particular attention to the spirit of the law and the circumstances that brought forth a provision that enables citizens to alter by means of direct action the very constitutional order in which all of us operate."

Indeed the diary of the proceedings of the 1987 Constitutional Commission appointed by former President Cory Aquino will bear this out. People’s Initiative as a method for people’s direct action to amend the constitution was to institutionalize EDSA people power. During discussions, it was said that it would be dangerous if every time citizens feel compelled to assert their sovereignty it should do so by the massing of crowds. This could easily deteriorate into chaotic violence which would not help anyone.

Justice Panganiban in 1997 stressed the connection between EDSA People Power and the provision for a people’s initiative to amend the constitution. "By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate Opinion. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the world-admired EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our people to be used as their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders. While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be resolutely struck down, on the other, their legitimate exercise should be carefully nurtured and zealously protected.

* * *

Among those opposed to the people’s initiative are leftists who shunned EDSA. Curiously, they argue that if we accept a people’s initiative it would mean the end of ‘people power’ or to use their words, "bury people power." Here there is a hint of a hidden agenda because their notion of effecting changes in government can only happen through what they call "people power uprisings". That is ominous. They hold a completely different understanding of people power which they say cannot be institutionalized. It must be made simply to happen as direct action whatever that means.

While EDSA People Power Commission or the 1986 Constitutional Commission envision people’s initiative as a legacy of EDSA, leftists claim it will" end the progressive legacies of EDSA 1. Either they have not followed closely the discussions on Charter change or as usual they just do not care to hear that is not under their direction. Neither do they have anything to fear that the progressive and nationalistic features of the 1987 will be retained such as the Bill of Rights that enhanced Constitutional protection of free expression, and the provision for party list representation.

The key word in their objections against the people’s initiative is that it is designed to replace an ‘uprising’. That is the give away of their ranting. "Although it is not its primary aim, preventing changes in government through "People Power" uprisings is among the reasons for the proposal to shift to a parliamentary system, in which changing governments will supposedly be institutionalized rather than left to direct people’s action" claim this group. In other words, their concept of people’s direct action is limited to an ‘uprising.’

Strange that civil society who would certainly not be part of such reckless anarchy do not see this. I would recommend they read the 1986 diary of the Aquino commission which drafted the 1987 Constitution. It is they, not so-called traditional politicians (whatever they mean by that) who included a people’s initiative as a peaceful alternative to massing crowds that can very easily turn ugly at the cost of lives and so much destruction.

Indeed, there is a different understanding here of what EDSA represents. On one side are those who oppose Charter change because they claim that it will bury People Power forever and the other, who believe that only through these amendments can we guarantee that the reforms envisioned by EDSA 1 for people empowerment can be realized. Make your choice.

* * *

Keep your eyes open as critics appear from the woodwork. Mike Velarde’s position against Charter change is understandable. He can no longer be able to peddle his so-called millions of followers who he claims vote as one when he tells them. Where are the indignant church leaders who are angry that the public is not being informed about Charter change? Are they not concerned about Mike Velarde’s El Shaddai millions who follow him blindly? .

* * *

My email is [email protected]