It was also about extending terms of office, etc

One of those perennial business group leaders who likes to ingratiate himself with whoever is in Malacañang was asked what he thought of the Supreme Court decision on People’s Initiative. He reportedly replied that it is a pity we have lost the chance to amend the Constitution to improve the business climate.

Obviously, the guy has not read the case. Nor is he even familiar with what is precisely covered in the proposed amendment that some six million people supposedly affixed their signatures to. For his information, the proposed amendments that touch on the economy are not part of it. On the other hand, he may be surprised to know that hidden in the proposal to shift from bicameral presidential to unicameral parliament is term extension of elected officials, particularly congressmen and local officials. Now you know why they are all for it.

This is the exact wording I picked up in the SC decision of what was supposedly presented when they were pushing the so-called PI. "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER?"

The devil is in the details of the proposed transitory provisions which are not even mentioned. For sure, the SC decision noted, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. Even if they did, they could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes embodied in the transitory provisions, among which are:

First, the term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;

Second, the interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office;

Third, within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.

These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino Group’s signature sheets, the SC decision noted. "These three proposed changes are highly controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these proposed changes merely from a reading or rereading of the contents of the signature sheets."  

It is thus easy to see why the SC decision condemned the attempt to foist the so-called people’s initiative as a grand deception. Those who signed could not have known that their signatures would also be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the interim Parliament’s choice of Prime Minister only to the shameless pork loving members of the existing House of Representatives. "Atty. Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation," the SC decision lamented.

The SC decision further pointed out that the section on Transitory Provisions discriminates against the senators, a fact that the 6.3 million voters could not have known. The SC noted what it calls "another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group’s amended petition of 30 August 2006. The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory Provisions states:

"Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.

"After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as member of Parliament if the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no counterpart provision for the present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of office will all end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Senators. Thus, all the present members of the House will remain members of the interim Parliament after 30 June 2010." 

If you folks reading the business section of this paper didn’t know all those things were included in that supposed "people’s initiative" what more of the supposed six million plus others who supposedly signed the petition. This is why it is important, as the High Court pointed out, that the people should know what they are signing … why the full text of the proposal is needed on every signature sheet.

The Court ruled that the failure of an initiative signer to be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of what is being proposed is "deceptive and misleading" which renders the initiative void. It is not enough, the SC ruled, for a proponent to just orally describe the contents of an initiative petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the petition, because that "could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition that might not be to the signer’s liking."

In this regard, the Court noted that "there is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September 2006."

The Court noted "the signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-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." Yet, as we have seen through the transitory provisions, people were approving more than just a change of system of government. Those who signed the Lambino petition signed a blank check.

And this is the interesting part. The Court observed "the Lambino Group are less than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or amended petition… During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later with the COMELEC.  

"Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have received with certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100 percent distribution with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy of the petition to each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with the petition. Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition, the maximum number of people who saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000.  

"With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets."

Ay naku!!! No wonder the language of the SC decision sounded harsh to the cha cha group. They deserve it by trying to pull a fast one on the Filipino people. Lucky for us, the High Court caught them in time. There are many more interesting points in the decision that every citizen must read and understand. This is just a part of it that I think should get maximum public airing just so people view the decision with the proper big picture perspective it deserves.

Only in America

Dr. Ernie E, who had been in America for 30 years, sent me this one.

Only in America.do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of the store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front!

Only in America...do we leave cars worth thousands of dollars in the driveway and put our useless junk in the garage!

Only in America...do we use the word ‘politics’ to describe the process so well: ‘Poli’ in Latin meaning ‘many’ and ‘tics’ meaning ‘bloodsucking creatures’!

I have news for Dr. Ernie E. On his last point, it isn’t only in America. We are apparently more Americanized than is good for us.

Boo Chanco ‘s e-mail address is [email protected]