62 percent ‘unsure’ if SC decision on initiative petition will be fair — SWS

WEEKS before Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban admitted that there was pressure from parties interested in the people’s initiative petition, six out of 10 Filipinos already said they were “unsure” that the Supreme Court will decide fairly on the petition, the Social Weather Stations reported today.

Conducted from September 24 to October 2, 2006, the latest SWS survey showed that in all areas, majority said they weren’t sure if the justices will be fair in their decision: 69 percent in Metro Manila, 61 percent in the rest of Luzon, 58 percent in the Visayas, and 64 percent in Mindanao. Also, across socio-economic classes, SWS said most were likewise doubtful (see table below).

SWS specifically asked:

“Recently the Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP raised their petition to the Supreme Court. Do you have much trust, are unsure, or have little trust that the Supreme Court would make a fair decision as to whether or not to grant the petition of Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP regarding people’s initiative?”

“Kamakailan ay inakyat ng Sigaw ng Bayan at ng ULAP ang kanilang petisyon sa Korte Suprema. Kayo po ba ay malaki ang tiwala, hindi sigurado, o maliit ang tiwala na ang Korte Suprema ay makapagbibigay ng makatarungang desisyon kung dapat o hindi dapat na pahintulutan ang petisyon ng Sigaw ng Bayan at ng ULAP ukol sa people’s initiative?”

The results revealed that only one-fourth or 24 percent said they have “little trust” while 13 percent said they have “much trust” that the Supreme Court will arrive at a fair decision.

Last week, after admitting that there was pressure from pro-amendment parties, Panganiban assured that this will not “impede the court in deciding the case.” Administration allies and even President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo herself have been openly calling on the justices support the move to amend the 19-year-old Constitution.

The High Court is set to issue this week its decision on the petition filed by pro-Charter change groups Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines. The people’s initiative petition, which both groups claimed has the support of nearly nine million Filipinos, was elevated to High Court after the Commission on Elections denied the petition because of a 1997 Supreme Court ruling preventing the poll body from entertaining such an initiative.

Malacanang officials have admitted that it would be “too difficult and too painful” for the administration should the justices reject the move to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative.

There have been reports that Malacañang is focusing its lobbying on two justices who can swing votes in favor of the people’s initiative petition. One of the justices is reportedly being promised the post of chief justice as Panganiban is set to retire on December 7.

Senator Joker Arroyo earlier said that the Court’s decision on the matter will be a close call: 8-7 or 9-6. Another senator reportedly said that the scale is currently tipped in favor of the people’s initiative.

Arroyo said the petition is a “very crucial” issue as “it will decide the fate of the country, not only now but 10-30 years down the road.”

“This will be a conscience vote, and I’m sure the justices are weighing their decision,” he added.

Here’s a list of the Supreme Court justices, 11 of which were appointed by Arroyo:

• Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
• Reynato S. Puno
• Leonardo A. Quisumbing
• Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
• Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez
• Antonio T. Carpio
• Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez
• Renato C. Corona
• Conchita Carpio-Morales
• Romeo J. Callejo Sr.
• Adolfo S. Azcuna
• Dante O. Tinga
• Minita Chico-Nazario
• Cancio C. Garcia
• Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.

Senate Majority Floor Leader Francis Pangilinan has also called on the nominees to the top Supreme Court post to consider inhibiting themselves from deciding on the petition.

Being the most senior among the justices, Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Antonio Carpio have been automatically considered by the Judicial and Bar Council as nominees for appointment as the country’s 22nd Chief Justice.

“By considering inhibiting themselves from the case, the (SC) would be spared from the awkward situation wherein the appointment of the new Chief Justice would be perceived as a reward for taking a stand in favor of Malacañang, whether or not the petition is granted,” he said.

Pro-charter change groups may also be counting on the two justices — Panganiban and Puno — who were among those who decided on the Defensor-Santiago v Comelec case in 1997. Voting 7-5, the majority at that time struck down the first attempt to amend the Constitution by a people’s initiative as it found the Republic Act 6735 or the law on initiative and referendum to be “inadequate” and that it needed an enabling law to implement such a system of initiative.

Panganiban and Puno dissented from the majority and issued separate dissenting opinions (Read here and here).

Panganiban, however, issued another opinion on the PIRMA v Comelec case when the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action sought a reconsideration of the Court’s ruling dismissing the PIRMA petition which was supported by nearly six million signatures.

His opinion, which the PCIJ has already written about in “The Chief Justice on Cha-cha Battles,” is worth quoting:

“I believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of enabling our people to express their will and chart their history.

Initiative is an alternative to bloody revolution, internal chaos and civil strife. It is an inherent right of the people — as basic as the right to elect, the right to self-determination and the right to individual liberties.

I believe that Filipinos have the ability and the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity. Such beliefs, however, should not be equated with a desire to perpetuate a particular official or group of officials in power. Far from it. Such perpetuation is anathema to democracy.

My firm conviction that there is an adequate law implementing the constitutional right of initiative does not ipso facto result in the victory of the PIRMA petition or of any proposed constitutional change. There are, after all, sufficient safeguards to guarantee the proper use of such constitutional right and to forestall its misuse and abuse.

First, initiative cannot be used to revise the Constitution, only to amend it.

Second, the petitioners’ signatures must be validated against an existing list of voters and/or voters’ identification cards.

Third, initiative is a reserve power of and by the people, not of incumbent officials and their machinators.

Fourth and most important of all, the signatures must be verified as real and genuine; not concocted, fictitious or fabricated. The only legal way to do this is to enable the Commission on Elections to conduct a nationwide verification process as mandated by the Constitution and the law. Such verification, it bears stressing, is subject to review by this Court.”