SC asked: Overturn Comelec on ‘initiative’

After suffering a setback, proponents of the people’s initiative petitioned the Supreme Court (SC) yesterday to reverse the Commission on Elections (Comelec)’s ruling junking their bid to amend the Constitution.

Sigaw ng Bayan Movement and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippine (ULAP) argued that the Comelec erred in using a 1997 SC ruling as a basis for its 6-0 decision junking their petition for a people’s initiative.

They said the Comelec should have instead scheduled a plebiscite on their proposed amendments to the Constitution within 60 days after they submitted their petition because they have complied with the legal requirements for a people’s initiative.

"Our petition is anchored on the belief that the Comelec erred in applying the Supreme Court 1997 decision," Sigaw ng Bayan president Raul Lambino said in a statement.

Citing a constitutional provision, Lambino contended that amendments to the Constitution may be proposed through a people’s initiative petition if its proponents are able to gather backing from at least 12 percent of the electorate.

He said the Constitution provides that "any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision."

"Undoubtedly therefore, it is the ministerial duty on the part of the Comelec to have set the date of the plebiscite after it made a determination that the minimum per centum requirements of the signatures of the registered voters have already been met, as this is the clear, unequivocal and categorical directive of the Constitution," Lambino argued in their SC petition.

The petitioners added that the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion in using a DC ruling which struck down a people’s initiative bid in 1997.

The 1997 decision was "inadequate, incomplete and insufficient in standard" because there was no clear majority ruling and therefore "cannot be considered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court en banc," they pointed out.

On June 10, 1997, the SC ruled that there was no law enabling a people’s initiative and that the existing law, Republic Act 6735, "was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and (to have) failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation."

The court decision stemmed from a petition filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago seeking to stop the Comelec from entertaining a people’s initiative being pushed by the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (Pirma).

Six justices voted in favor, six dissented, one abstained and two recused themselves.

Pirma’s initiative was aimed at lifting the constitutional one-term limit on the president. It would have allowed then President Fidel Ramos to seek a second term if it had succeeded.

Lito Monico Lorenzana, chairman of the Charter Change Advocacy Commission, maintained that RA 6735 was sufficient for the purpose because that was Congress’ intention when it passed the landmark 1989 law.

"Ten million Filipinos (those who signed the people’s initiative petition) who clamor for changes in our society ought not to be disregarded because of a technicality. After all, there is still the campaign period and the people’s expression of their will in the plebiscite. Well, that’s if we really believe that true sovereignty resides in the people and that all government power emanates from it," Lorenzana said in a statement.

Legislators also joined the call for the SC justices to act favorably on the pro-Cha-cha groups’ petition.

"We urge the Supreme Court to consider the voice of the people," said Baguio City Rep. Mauricio Domogan, who is in favor of the petition.

Davao del Sur Rep. Douglas Cagas said Congress "cannot be ignorant to pass a law which should embody the people’s will for democratic change."

"Republic Act 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act of 1989 was passed to provide means by which the present Constitution can be amended," he said. — With Mike Frialde