But instead of becoming united on this crucial point, our nation remains sharply divided. The cha cha proponents are as zealous, as firm, as vigorous and as intent in pushing for the passage of their proposals as their opponents are in stopping them on their tracks. And this is largely due to the means and the mode being employed to achieve the desired changes. Cha cha advocates have already fixed an unchangeable time frame to attain their goal and are hell bent in realizing it as scheduled to the extent of engaging in doubtful legal maneuvers and resorting to legally questionable shortcuts. They have evidently tried to "force through" with their proposals by again flaunting the alleged superiority in the number of their supporters be it through the peoples’ initiative or through the constituent assembly as a mode of changing the charter. We are being bombarded with the pompous and haughty claim that 10 million Filipinos (recently reduced to only 6.3 million according to its chief advocate) allegedly want to change the charter through the system of initiative. Almost simultaneously, it has been proudly announced that there are already 204 legislators supporting the cha cha through a constituent assembly. The proponents in the ruling majority is emphasizing on numbers again regardless of the legally questionable steps adopted in obtaining or using them. Under the present scheme of things, every move and its corresponding outcome, even if obviously against the proponents, is therefore eyed with suspicion by the opponents who never fail to see a sinister and scripted plot in it.
Take the case of the COMELEC decision trashing the peoples’ initiative petition filed by its foremost advocates Sigaw and Ulap. Facially, the decision looks sound and solidly well founded as it is but in conformity with the existing jurisprudence on the matter. Yet because the COMELEC still unnecessarily mentioned in passing that said 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", the opponents are quick to spot another well scripted plot with a well planned ending that includes the justices of the Supreme Court (SC) in its cast of characters.
The scenario entails the revisiting and the reversal of the previous SC decision in Santiago vs. Comelec. Already, so many opinion makers who are not even lawyers are attacking said decision. The line being peddled is that the SC never ruled that there is no valid enabling law only that the enabling law enacted (RA 6735) is inadequate. Then proceeding from this premise and superciliously asserting that it is not the function of the SC to rule on how a law should be crafted, our self-proclaimed legal pundits thus predict or suggest a new SC ruling abandoning the Santiago decision.
Apparently designed to put more pressure on the SC, the dissenting opinions in the Santiago case of the two most senior SC Justices in the present Court are repeatedly cited and extolled in media as the better opinion. Capping that pressure just to insure the desired outcome is the latest warning of no less than the Speaker of the House to the SC, a separate and independent branch of our government, not to ignore the 6.3 million (is it not 10 million?) signatures. Such is the strategy so that when the SC reverses its previous decision the public will be ready to accept it as the right and proper decision. The repeated assault on the previous decision and its alleged erroneousness and infirmities somehow conditioned the public mind that it has to be reversed. And so the way is paved for an immediate plebiscite or referendum on the proposed changes particularly the shift to the parliamentary form of government.
The Comelec’s role in this scenario becomes obvious in the light of its collateral but unnecessary declaration that the Sigaw/Ulap petition has met the required percentage of voters. In fulfilling that role, it has fallen into contradiction. While it dismissed the petition for "lack of an enabling law" it also used the said law to find that the petition has met the required percentage of voters. If there is lack of enabling law governing the gathering and verification of the signatures, how can the Comelec say that the petition complies with the required percentage of voters? This is the big picture as seen by the other side and it looks real. In fact a plebiscite is being predicted by the ruling majority sometime in December so that in May 2007 we will have the first the election already with the parliamentary form of government in place.
This picture of having a parliament come what may and come May 2007 is made clearer by the parallel move in Congress to constitute itself into a constituent assembly and pass the proposed change to the parliamentary system by the vote of 3/4 of all its members voting jointly. Such stand goes against the very nature of the present bicameralism where the Senate and the House vote separately. However our cha-cha advocates led by the speaker insist that as long as they have 204 legislators voting for the changes, the said changes are deemed approved and can be submitted for ratification in a plebiscite.
I hope that the SC Justices’ vision of this picture has not been blurred so that they can act according to their best lights. They have to prove to our countrymen that their decisions always adhere to the rule of law rather than to unsound and self-serving political principles. The people need this kind of assurance from the SC especially during these times.
E-mail us at jcson@pldtdsl.net