As in 1973, the ball is with the Supreme Court

(Conclusion)

Those who are already cynical about the Supreme Court (SC), however, are keeping a careful eye on just how close the Arroyo administration comes in copying steps taken by the Marcos government in 1973.

Initially, Marcos had scheduled a plebiscite to meet the requirements of the constitution for a valid ratification. But he suddenly postponed the plebiscite a week before it was to take place. Instead he directed his citizens’ assemblies to conduct a referendum "on important national issues."

Ten suits were filed before the SC to stop or void this highly doubtful manner of ratifying a charter — where in some cases, people were asked to raise their hands if they were hungry and these were counted as the votes.

But the SC dismissed all the cases in a ruling dated March 31, 1973, after Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion received a copy of Marcos’s Proclamation No 1102. According to the proclamation, the citizens’ assemblies had met and they had allegedly asked Marcos to consider their approval as the ratification; not to convene the interim national assembly; postpone elections, and lastly, to continue martial law.

Javellana vs the Executive Secretary nailed the coffin shut on democracy. The SC said that even if the constitution had not been ratified by a body or agency "not duly authorized" by the constitution, the court could no longer inquire into the validity of the ratification because people had already accepted and obeyed its laws and the government was already operating under it.

Asked about the Javellana ruling, presidential consultative commission (con-com) member Raul Lambino said it is not relevant to the current people’s initiative. This is because, he said, a plebiscite was sure to follow the initiative, complete with an official ballot, printed and administered by the Comelec.

What’s a plebiscite?

But former con-com member Vicente Paterno, who resigned from the body last December, in effect disowning the draft charter he helped craft, remains jittery. He says one loophole that charter-change advocates can take advantage of is the fact that the present constitution does not define what a plebiscite is.

"It will have to be a Supreme Court interpretation of what a plebiscite is," says Paterno, who chose to leave the con-com after last-minute provisions giving President Arroyo vast powers made their way into the draft constitution. "Is it a written vote or a referendum like what Marcos did in the citizens’ assemblies with a show of hands?"

Jesuit priest Fr. Joaquin Bernas, for his part, reminded the audience at a forum last week that a 1997 SC decision says there must first be an "enabling law" before a "people’s initiative" could be used to amend the Constitution. He also stressed that any "initiative" or referendum may be used to introduce only amendments to the charter, and not revisions.

"For the simple reason of practicality," said Bernas. "When you want to make major changes, there are a lot of things you have to debate upon. You can’t expect a mass of people, unorganized, to debate on these."

Paterno, however, believes that the government is hell-bent on pushing through with charter change any way it can. He even says that the appointment of former Marcos and Estrada official Ronaldo Puno to the strategic post of local governments chief was proof that "GMA will leave no stone unturned for Cha-cha (Charter change)."

Indeed, it now appears that certain members of the 55-member con-com were chosen primarily because they headed organizations that could be used to harness support for charter change.

Generating ‘support’

Recently, a print advertisement boasted that "influential business organizations, major labor and civil-society groups, and all the leagues of local officials nationwide have joined in this chorus for change!" It then listed as "joiners" the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry headed by Donald Dee; the Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry led by Francis Chua; Trade Union Congress of the Philippines led by Democrito Mendoza: the Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches headed by Bishops Efraim Tendero and Federico Magbanua.

What the ad failed to mention was that except for Magbanua, all the named individuals were con-com members.

The ad also made it appear that the various leagues of governors, city and town mayors, and councilors joined the charter-change movement only recently. These organizations, however, were represented in the ConCom by Dagupan City Vice Mayor Alipio Fernandez, Calbayog City Mayor Mel Senen Sarmiento and Biliran Mayor Gerardo Espina Sr.

Lambino says that these local officials "were invited to become members of con-com so that they can give the input coming from their constituents."

Official transcripts of con-com sessions, however, reveal that some commissioners were not really that interested in getting input from the public. During the contentious debates on Dec. 13 and 14, the con-com was divided over a proposal to cancel next year’s elections should the draft charter be approved. Some commissioners had objected, arguing that this was not what the people wanted.

"In our regional consultations, the voice of the people was very clear," said Commissioner Rita Jimeno, former president of the Philippine Bar Association. "They want change and they want it now. In fact, they were saying that they want the present politicians not to run anymore and to ban them from office."

Debating ‘no-el’

Apparently, though, the "no election" clause was a needed enticement for local officials to support charter change, since it would give them an extra three years in office. Commissioner Romela Bengzon made that clear in her response to her upset colleagues, saying that she was more concerned about getting support from the politicians than from the people.

She said that "the people that we are (talking about) here we can’t even count. Okay? I’m sure." By contrast, she said, "the people that the local authorities who have promised to market this is measurable — it’s tested. They have the machinery."

Two rounds of votes took place over the "no election" clause; the first had those for holding the polls winning 18 to 16, while the second gave the victory to the no-election supporters at 22 to 19. The ConCom eventually transmitted both results to President Arroyo, but the draft constitution carries the "no election" clause.

As Commissioner Pedro Romualdo, who was also a delegate to the 1971 ConCon, said during the debates, "If you want our work, which you believe would be for the benefit of our country, never mind the people, country." — With additional reporting by Vinia Datinguinoo