Sigaw ng Bayan and the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to allow them to proceed with their people’s initiative petition pending with the Commission on Elections (Comelec).
In August, the Comelec refused to act on the petition, citing a 1997 SC ruling which declared that the existing law, Republic Act 6735, was insufficient to allow such an exercise.
Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman Raul Lambino is persuading the SC to reverse its 1997 ruling on the argument that ordinary citizens have the right to make amendments to the Constitution.
"We strongly believe the honorable magistrates of the Supreme Court will continue to be the bulwark of democracy by institutionalizing the ‘people empowerment concept’ by upholding the sovereign right of the people to directly participate in amending the Constitution," Lambino said in a statement issued to the media.
Lambino, along with ULAP president and Bohol Gov. Erico Aumentado, expects a favorable court ruling.
"But we are also prepared to accept the worse. It would be a big victory for the people clamoring (for) changes in the Constitution once the High Court ruled that RA 6735 is complete, adequate and sufficient to cover a system of initiative to amend the Constitution," he said.
Sigaw ng Bayan and the ULAP also contended that they have met the requirement prescribed by the Constitution for a minimum 12 percent backing of the electorate for a people’s initiative.
Meanwhile, the League of Municipalities of the Philippines and Sigaw ng Bayan said they are ready to submit their memoranda to the SC sometime next week vouching for the veracity of the over six million signatures in their people’s initiative.
"The petition for a people’s initiative now pending before the Supreme Court represents the true voice of our people clamoring for an overhaul of our dysfunctional bicameral presidential system," said Naval, Biliran Mayor Gerry Espina, also the league’s spokesman.
Espina debunked critics’ claims that they failed to meet the constitutional requirement.
Espina, a member of the Charter change constitutional commission and the 1986 panel that drafted the 1987 Constitution, cited that the signature-gathering process was aboveboard because 195 boxes containing the signatures of 6,327,952 registered voters were verified by Comelec city and municipal registrars.
"When the local officials joined the ‘people power’ in EDSA, were they any different from the local officials who are now joining the movement for constitutional reforms? How do we reconcile these actions, are they not one and the same?" Espina asked.
He added that the participation of local officials in the advocacy campaign follows the constitutional doctrine of a "government of the people, for the people and by the people."
"In fact, it took the petitioners months to countercheck the veracity of the signatures based on the 2004 voters registry precisely to weed out questionable entries that would cast doubt on the integrity of the signature-gathering endeavor. Popular support for Charter change was so overwhelming that the number of signatories reached as high as 40 percent to 70 percent of all registered voters in quite a number of congressional districts," Espina said.
Espina said the 195 boxes of certificates issued by Comelec field officials in all legislative districts prove that the required minimum electoral backing was met.
Espina attributed it to the "overpowering public response" in favor of amending the Constitution in their consultations with the townspeople.
Mabalacat, Pampanga Mayor Marino Morales and Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman Lambino are also hoping for a Supreme Court reversal following statements from Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban that the tribunal may change its position on the issue.
Panganiban, one of six dissenting justices in the 1997 ruling, earlier said that he had ordered his legal staff to do research on whether there was such a thing as an insufficient law, and "they came up with nothing."
"This is a welcome development because it is the position of Charter change advocates that it is within the judicial power of the Supreme Court to review its decision," Lambino said.