September 27, 2006 · Posted in: Charter Change, In the News
‘People’s initiative’: Of fraud allegations and dangerous provisions
FIFTEEN days.
This is the time that the Supreme Court has given the anti Cha-Cha group led by Counsel for Defense of Liberties (CODAL) spokesperson lawyer Neri Colmenares to gather and present evidence of fraud in the people’s initiative petition sponsored by pro Cha-Cha groups.
Colmenares said today in a forum on charter change that he would draft a letter to the Commission on Elections in order to gain access to the petition. The Comelec had previously denied requests to see the petition and the affixed signatures.
One Supreme Court justice cast doubt on the validity of the process used to gather signatures during yesterday’s oral arguments on the bid of Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) to reverse a Comelec decision rejecting their petition.
Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez said six of her relatives had been asked to sign the initiative petition without being told what its purpose was.
The people’s initiative has come under fire from many critics. The Alternative Law Group had earlier dubbed the campaign a “politician’s initiative”.
“All the terms of the revised constitution will benefit everyone except the people,” Colmenares said.
He pointed out a “dangerous provision” among the transitory provisions of the revised charter proposed the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments chaired by Lakas Rep. Constantino Jaraula.
Part of section 1 states that “The interim parliament shall set the first elections under the new system and synchronize therewith the elections for all local officials except those of the barangay”. Contrary to the claims of pro-cha-cha groups, Colmenares believes that this provision paves the way for the cancellation of elections in 2007, as the new elections are subject to the whim of the interim parliament.
Because of this, Associate Justice Antonio Carpio called attention to this section yesterday, according to Colmenares. Carpio also questioned section 4 of the transitory provisions, which states that “provisions of existing rules of court, judiciary acts, and procedural laws not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless amended or repealed by the Supreme Court or the Parliament. This compromises the independence of the Supreme Court.
Key provisions and sections were also deleted in the Jaraula revisions, which provide for:
- the creation of the Metro Manila Development Authority
- the prohibition of private armies and paramilitary groups
- the prohibition of military bases absent a mutually recognized treaty
Economists have also scored the Jaraula revision for trampling on national patrimony. Section 12 of Article XII allows foreign ownership and exploitation of alienable lands of the public domain, education, mass media, advertising, insurance, and public utilities. Under the proposed revision, the State may also pursue the exploration, utilization and development of natural resources with any foreign or domestic corporation.
6 Responses to ‘People’s initiative’: Of fraud allegations and dangerous provisions
monk_x
September 27th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
Virtually every broadsheet carried the same story on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court yesterday. Someone has to explain that to me one of these days.
In any case, I wondered why the Justices were very preoccupied with the manner in which the signatures for the petition were gathered. It is the sufficiency of the Initiative and Referendum Act that and the binding effect of Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC which will determine whether the COMELEC’s decision should be reversed.
I hope I am wrong about this but I have a cynical interpretation of recent events: The Supreme Court will adopt the win-win approach it has been using in the last couple of years. It strikes down unconstitutional acts but gives the State some dignity by upholding some of its actions. In this case, the Majority of the Justices including Chief Justice Panagniban will reverse the Santiago ruling and say that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and can be used to amend the Constitution. These Justices will cite a stream of cases that say that Supreme Court does not blindly adhere to precedent and does not subordinate legal reason to case law to perpetuate an error. They will add that the division in the vote on the original Santiago case and the new membership in the Court justify a review, even a reversal of the 1997 decision.
However, a majority of the Justices will rule that despite the sufficiency of the Initiative Act, the manner in which the signatures were gathered in this instance is of dubious validity. Because of the evident flaws in the collection of signatures, the Supreme Court will throw out the petition. This compromise ruling will give both sides a bone to chew on. The administration’s drive to revise the Constitution will be sustained although it will suffer a setback because they have to collect signatures again.
Having made this determination, a majority will say that there is no need to decide on the other issues raised by the case.
This will give the Arroyo administration an avenue to change the Constitution. Arroyo’s “Plan B” – where Congress will sit as a constituent assembly cannot be defended in Court. The Senate’s vote is required before Congress can proceed with amending the Constitution.
The Supreme Court in effect will give Arroyo an opportunity to revise the Constitution properly.
tongue in, anew
September 28th, 2006 at 4:53 am
Good analysis, monk_x. Pero huwag naman sana. For me, there is only one right decision, dismiss the petition both on insufficiency of the Law and fraud in signature gathering.
I’ve said it before, this is the only SC decision that matters most to me. Not PP1017, not CPR, not EO 464. This will be the final test of the Court’s integrity, fairness, and independence. No more compromises, no more win-win solutions.
God bless the justices, God bless our country.
monk_x
September 28th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
I also think that Lambino v. COMELEC is the one case that will matter in the end. But look at the pattern in the Supreme Court decisions:
Proclamation No. 1017 was upheld but the warrantless arrests were not. BP 880 was upheld but the Calibrated Preemptive Response was not. Most of the provisions of Executive Order No. 464 were upheld, but section 2 (?) was not. There are a few more examples of this approach in recent memory, which ironically, I can’t remember! This is why every time a decision comes out everyone claims a victory.
Let me emphasize the other point I was trying to raise. In the House of Representatives, the President’s allies are pushing for a resolution seeking the convening of Congress into a constituent assembly. They claim that if they can collect 195 signatures for the resolution (three-fourths of the membership of both Houses of Congress), even without the vote of a single Senator, the Constituent Assembly may convene and thereafter amend the Constitution.
The problem with this position is that Article XVII, section 1 of the Constitution provides that any amendment to or revision of the Constitution may be proposed by “[t]he Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.” The Senate clearly has to vote, although it is not clear from the text of the Constitution alone if it should vote separately or with the House of Representatives. The point is that it should vote. It would be very difficult to argue otherwise before the Supreme Court and it would be impossible for the Court that a Senate vote is necessary. This is the reason why Santiago v. COMELEC will be reversed.
Manuel L. Quezon III: The Daily Dose » Blog Archive » Unleashing billboard vigilantes
September 29th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
[…] In the blogosphere, there’s an interesting discussion between two comment-writers in the PCIJ blog. […]
Rizalist
September 30th, 2006 at 9:39 am
monkx,
I don’t see what is unclear about the provision that says, “Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members;”
Perhaps the framers “made a mistake” and that they really meant “three fourths of each House of Congress” but it will certainly be a stretch for the Supreme Court to say NOW that “three fourths of all its Members” actually means “three fourths of each House of Congress”.
There is simply nothing ambiguous about the formulation in Section 1(1) of Art. XVII. The Senators and Congressmen vote as Members of Congress is what the plain English meaning of the words say to me.
It’s true that for all ordinary laws, the House and Senate vote separately, but that is not what the Constitution plainly and directly says in the case of Amendments or Revisions to the Constitution, which are not actually APPROVED by a three fourths vote of all the Members of Congress. They are just approving proposals that still have to be ratified at Plebiscite.
So the argument by analogy has arguable merit only.
monk_x
September 30th, 2006 at 11:28 am
Rizalist,
With all due respect, I disagree with the position you have taken. I think the provision is a little ambiguous, but it can be interpreted correctly when the provision is read in the context of the entire Constitution. From my point of view, the provision we are discussing does not say that two houses will vote together. It only says “upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members.” But “all its members” can still vote separately. Thus, the issue of whether the chambers will vote separately is a legitimate issue.
The fact is that the two house of Congress always vote separately. There is no instance in the Constitution where they vote together. In the Philippine Constitution, the phrase “voting separately” is inserted whenever Congress sits in joint session to emphasize that even in those cases (e.g. declaring the existence of a state of war) – even then, the chambers vote separately. Fr. Bernas has reiterated this point many times so I will not dwell on it.
The contrary position leads to an absurd situation where it becomes easier to amend the Constitution than it is to change the name of a street – which requires separate votes from both chambers.
I think it is a weak argument – to say that it is the three-fourth vote will be derived from the entire membership of Congress. And this is the reason why I think Santiago will be reversed so that those who seriously want to pursue changes in the constitution will have a remedy when either chamber of Congress is disinclined to have the constitution amended.