SC junks with finality people’s initiative bid

The Supreme Court (SC) delivered the final blow yesterday to the people’s initiative to change the Constitution, upholding an earlier decision junking the move, which seeks to shift the current presidential system of government to parliamentary form.

The SC sustained its 8-7 vote as it threw out the government’s appeal to have an earlier decision reversed, saying "no substantial argument" was presented to warrant a reconsideration.

The ruling by the 15-member court effectively puts an end to the move by President Arroyo and her supporters to shift to a parliamentary system through a people’s initiative.

While the SC ruled that the enabling law for a people’s initiative was sufficient to amend the Constitution, it was not enough to change the system of government, which entails a revision of the Charter.

Groups allied with Mrs. Arroyo led by Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) pushed the initiative to create a single parliamentary chamber.

They gathered millions of signatures in favor of changing the Constitution in order to remove provisions that Mrs. Arroyo said were outdated and a hindrance to economic growth.

But the court ruled last month that the move was unconstitutional. The justices also cast doubt on the legitimacy of the six million signatures the petitioners claimed to have gathered supporting the move.

Voting 8-7, the Supreme Court junked last Oct. 25 the petition of Sigaw and ULAP seeking to nullify the ruling last Aug. 31 of the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that also junked the petition for people’s initiative. The Comelec said there was still no enabling law for the people’s initiative to change the Charter.

Arroyo critics, including the Roman Catholic Church, have opposed the plan, fearing it could be used by her or other elected officials to prolong their stay in power.

Revision, not amendment

Under the Constitution, Charter change can take place either by a constitutional convention, a constituent assembly of both houses of Congress, or through a people’s initiative, which requires the support of 12 percent of the country’s registered voters.

President Arroyo previously stressed she would continue to press for changes to the Constitution and overhaul "a degenerated system that is holding the nation back and keeping it too poor and too divided."

In a four-page en banc resolution, the SC maintained its 8-7 vote and junked with finality the motions for reconsideration filed by the petitioners led by Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman Lawyer Raul Lambino and ULAP president and Bohol Gov. Erico Aumentado seeking to nullify the court’s decision last Oct. 25, dismissing Sigaw and ULAP’s petition for people’s initiative as unconstitutional.

In the same en banc resolution, 10 justices of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban reiterated their opinions that Republic Act 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act is "sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative."

Aside from Panganiban, those who said that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative included Associate Justices Reynato S. Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Consueelo Ynares-Santiago, Renato Corona, Adolfo Azcuna, Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Cancio Garcia and

Presbitero Velasco, Jr, which in effect abandoned the court’s 1997 ruling in the Santiago vs Comelec.

"Acting on the following motions for reconsideration of the decision of Oct. 25, 2006, the court resolved, by the same vote of 8-7, to deny with finality the said motions for reconsideration, as the basic issues raised therein have been duly passed upon by this court and no substantial arguments were presented to warrant the reversal of the questioned decision" the High Court said.

The SC also junked the motions for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General, which took the position of Sigaw and ULAP, Ronald Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera and Ruelo Baya, officers of the Tribal Communities Association of the Philippines.

The court also junked the petition filed by the Sulongbayan Movement Foundation, Inc., seeking to inhibit Panganiban and Associate Justice Antonio Carpio from the deliberation on people’s initiative.

"There is no merit to the petition, the Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For following the court’s ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Comelec," the court said.

The SC said Sigaw and ULAP’s proposed people’s initiative is "a revision and not an amendment," and as such it violated Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a people’s initiative to "amendment to this Constitution."

"This court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people’s sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution.

Deception, desecration

To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court’s raison d’ etre," the court said.

Aside from Carpio, those who voted upholding the Aug. 31 ruling of the Comelec included Panganiban, Associate Justices Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, Romeo J. Callejo Sr. and Adolfo Azcuna.

Those who dissented included Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno, Associate Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Cancio Garcia and Presbitero Velasco, Jr.

"The Lambino group’s initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition," the court said.

The SC noted that the Lambino group’s proposed changes in the Constitution were not attached to the signature sheet when Sigaw and ULAP gathered the 6.3 million signatures nationwide.

"The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the bicameral presidential system to the unicameral or parliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the petition that the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of the constitution" the SC said.

The court said a change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two.

"This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the present bicameral-presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of government" the SC said.

The justices said the abolition alone of the Office of the President as the center of executive power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution.

The abolition of one chamber of Congress alters the system of checks and balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution.

There is no need for the court to revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring that RA 6735 or the Initiative, Referendum Act is "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution."

"An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiago, which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.

This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other grounds" the court said. – With AFP