SC to confront 5 issues on PI

When the Supreme Court gathers en banc next week on the People’s Initiative for parliamentary form, the 15 justices will study five issues. The first four are raised by opponents of Constitutional reform; the last, by proponents.

Opponents say there is no legal basis for the initiative of the Sigaw ng Bayan. The High Court, tackling a similar initiative in 1997, had ruled that the Initiative and Referendum Act, passed years ahead, was inadequate for a petition to amend the Constitution. It was good only for propositions on national or local laws. Voting was a tight 8-6; then tied 6-6 on a motion for reconsideration; hence, the original decision stayed.

Of the justices in 1997, only two remain: now Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and the most senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno. Both had dissented then, insisting that R.A. 6735 cannot be valid for people-initiated legislation but invalid for more important people-initiated amendment. Besides, while the Constitution directs Congress to enable the execution of any People’s Initiative, it also requires the Comelec to set a plebiscite within 60 to 90 days of a sufficient petition. For the dissenters this meant that the Constitutional provision prevails over the supposedly faulty legislation.

Still, the Court of 1997 permanently barred the Comelec from hearing any more initiative. Only now does a group, Sigaw, strive to meet the least Constitutional requirement of 12 percent of the electorate, with each district represented by at least 3 percent. So after gathering nine million signatures (20 percent of the 43-million electorate), Sigaw went to the High Court for reversal of its old ruling. That the Court accepted the matter raises Sigaw’s hopes. The Court has reversed itself in the past.

The second point of opponents is that the signature gathering was fraudulent. Many signatories allegedly were bangkay, bayaran, bobo (dead, bought, uninformed).

Why the Sigaw would taint its plea with carcasses is unexplained by the accusing local officials – who know best who the dead are in any locale. But validations by Comelec field officers purged the signature lists, even in areas controlled by anti-Charter Change mayors in Makati and San Juan, Metro Manila, and in General Santos City. All 213 Comelec district officers certified that the minimum three percent was reached. Of its nine million signatures, Sigaw submitted to the Comelec, and then to the High Court, 6.3 million, or 14.6 percent, more than the required 12 percent.

On the alleged signature buying, the Sigaw had requested any bought voter to take back his autograph; nobody did. As for uninformed signatories, some did say they signed up because they knew their governor or mayor was all for Charter Change. But that’s part of electoral politics; some voters leave political decisions to their leaders, so long as those will be for the longed-for better life.

Related to the second beef is that Sigaw’s signature taking allegedly is void because aided by the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines. Opponents say that by its name, a People’s Initiative must be undertaken only by "people", never by any of the 1.7 million or so governors, vice governors, provincial board members, mayors, vice mayors, councilors, barangay chairmen and councilmen.

Eastern Samar Gov. Ben Evardone, the ULAP spokesman, can only shrug at the accusation of interloping. Local officials get involved in social, economic and environmental events, he says, so it’s but natural for them to get involved in an event as important as amending the Constitution. "What would be abnormal, perhaps even negligent, is for us to not act as leaders," Evardone adds, "for then we can be charged with dereliction of duty." He also recalls how some of today’s opponents of Charter Change were the same national and local officials who campaigned in 1987 for ratification of the Constitution. "How come they can directly ask for votes, while we may not help merely gather signatures for the possible holding of a plebiscite," he wonders.

Opponents’ last point, as reported in earlier columns, is semantics. A People’s Initiative, they say, may only "amend" but not "revise" the Charter, which a change in government form would do. It does not matter to them that Webster’s English Dictionary, the most popular among laymen, and Black’s Law Dictionary, the most popular among lawyers, interchange the two terms. Or, that the Supreme Court has twice ruled – in Del Rosario v. Carbonell and in Occena v. Comelec – that "amendment" includes "revision". Opponents insist that the framers of the Constitution, some of them self-confessedly inexpert in English, wrote "Amendments or Revisions" as the title of Article XVII, so there must be a difference in meanings.

For advocates of Charter Change, the opponents are beginning to argue mere technicalities and not substance. For them, the issue is the highest expression of People Power from which the 1987 Constitution sprang. And this is through a People’s Initiative not just to directly propose a new law but a change in the fundamental law.

The advocates are also careful to point out that a People’s Initiative is not the amendment or revision itself. It is a mere plea by a good number of voters, in Sigaw’s case officially 14.6 percent of the electorate, to please table the question in a plebiscite, that’s all. Then, the people will decide whether to ratify or rip up the proposition for parliamentary.

In short, advocates wish to determine the people’s sovereign will.

* * *

E-mail: [email protected]