To be sure, the 1987 Constitution really provides that "amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 percentum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percentum of the registered voters therein" (Article XVII Section 2). Apparently, this system of initiative is a new mode of charter change not found in the previous constitutions. It has been introduced by the framers to give flesh and blood to the basic precept in every democracy that "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them". It is obviously one of the after effects of the 1986 people power euphoria.
But ten years later or on March 19, 1997, our Supreme Court (SC) had already laid down the fundamental parameters on the right of the people to use the system of initiative embodied in this provision. In the case of Santiago vs. Commission on Elections (COMELEC) (G.R. 127325), the SC first of all said that this provision on the system of initiative is not self executory. It cannot be invoked by the people as an exercise of their right therein provided without any implementing law. And so far there is no implementing law.
While some of the parties in said case pointed to an existing law (RA 6735) as the implementing law on the matter, the SC ruled that said law is "incomplete inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned". Furthermore the SC ruled that this lack was not cured by empowering the Comelec to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. According to the SC such empowerment constitutes an invalid delegation of legislative power because the law in itself is not complete and the standards to which the Comelec must conform in the performance of its functions are insufficient. So the delegation of power to the Comelec is unconstitutional and invalid as it fails to comply with the "completeness and sufficient standards tests". This ruling was subsequently reiterated in the case of PIRMA vs. Comelec (G.R. 129954) where the SC by a vote of 13-0 threw out the petition of PIRMA which was allegedly able to garner by then a total of 5,790,924 signatures. By virtue of these rulings there is no existing law implementing this Constitutional provision on the system of initiative. Hence "the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution would remain entombed in the niche of Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation," the SC bluntly stated.
Even if an implementing law is enacted, the people’s initiative being pushed by the local executives will not prosper. As the SC likewise pointed out in Santiago vs. Comelec (supra), initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to amend. The people are not accorded the power to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution through a system of initiative. The act of amending a constitution envisages a change of only a few specific provisions. The intention here is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire charter but to improve specific parts of the existing Constitution or to add to it, provisions deemed essential on account of changing conditions, or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, dangerous or misleading in their effect (Sinco, Constitutional Law). On the other hand the proposals of the local executives are obviously but a rehash of the Con Com’s proposals that involve alterations of the different portions of the entire document. Apparently the Con Com reviewed and considered all the provisions of the Constitution and determined which one should be altered or suppressed. The most important provisions on the system of government from the Presidential with a bicameral legislature are proposed to be changed to Parliamentary with a unicameral body. The existing unitary form is proposed to be changed to federal. Even the bill of rights provisions are essentially modified. Clearly these proposed changes by the Con Com that are being advocated by the local executives through a people’s initiative involve a revision not an amendment of the Constitution. Providing for a transition by postponing the 2007 election is in itself an unmistakable proof that the proposals entail a major revamp of the charter. The people have no right to undertake a revamp or revision of the charter through the system of initiative. Revision of the charter can only be done by Congress as a constituent assembly or a constitutional convention called for the purpose (Article XVII Section 1).
It may be correct that if the proposed charter change is limited to no-el in 2007, such change involves only an amendment and may therefore be done through the system of initiative. But no-el is only a transitory provision precisely because the charter will undergo revision. If there is no revision but only amendment of the charter, there is no reason at all to cancel the elections in 2007.
It is best therefore for our local executives to rethink their positions and review the past happenings on the people’s initiative. It may really be hard to think straight and to deliberate diligently before making any move, when selfish interest is at stake. But vigorously pushing for a useless people’s initiative only betrays their selfish motives of prolonging their stay in power beyond 2007. They cannot fool the people this time.