The case arose out of a constitutional question posed the Court regarding a popular initiative led by the group Pirma. The question revolved around whether the existing law on initiative and referendum covers a popular initiative to amend the Constitution.
The Court was divided on the issue. By a vote of 8 to 6, the Court ruled against the constitutional validity of the Pirma-led popular initiative. On the motion to reconsider that ruling, the Court was evenly divided, 7 to 7.
The motion for reconsideration was lost because it failed to gain a majority of the Court. But the complex and substantial issues covered by that split decision should not be immune to a reopening of deliberation.
It is significant that among those who offered dissenting opinions were then associate justices Artemio Panganiban and Reynato Puno. Panganiban is now Chief Justice and Puno is among the most senior justices on the bench.
Both Panganiban and Puno prepared well-researched dissenting opinions arguing that R.A. No. 6735 covered popular initiative to amend the charter. Panganiban, in particular, cited relevant constitutional principles regarding popular sovereignty and pointed out that the majority ruling was arrived at simply because popular initiative to amend the Constitution was not placed under a separate subtitle.
The shortcoming in style or in language ought not be sufficient reason to overturn the fundamental intent of the law nor the command of the Constitution to empower the people.
If the people, using the instruments of recall, initiative and referendum, can remove errant elective officials and enact legislation themselves in the face of an indifferent Congress, the same should apply to amending the basic law of the land. There is no compelling reason, nor clear statement in the existing law, that specifically excludes charter amendments from the concessions to popular sovereignty that is the hallmark of the 1987 Constitution.
There is every reason for the Court to revisit the Pirma ruling with a new eye. Its earlier ruling on the Pirma case diminished the democratic intent of the basic law by restricting the powers of popular initiative where no such explicit restriction exists in the law.
On the ground, today, there is a massive effort to bring forth a change in our constitutional framework. It is an effort that involves tens of thousands of volunteers.
Over the last few days, the popular initiative for charter change has gained the organized support of political parties, trade unions, business groups and religious formations. With the large organized blocs participating in the effort, it will be difficult to smear this campaign as merely a palace maneuver.
My sense is we are nearing the tipping point on the matter of charter change. The initiative has captured the political debate. It is on the verge of capturing the imagination of a people sick and tired of politics as usual.
The signature campaign itself needed to meet a target of 5.2 million votes, with at least 3 percent from every congressional district. As of this writing, the campaign has reported collecting seven million signatures and aims to collect 10 to 12 million total by this week.
A counter-campaign of signature collection has been attempted by leftist groups and Estrada supporters. It is doubtful they will collect a significant number. Since this counter-campaign is by no means intended as a popular initiative, the exercise is pointless.
This counter-campaign reflects the poverty of tactics of those opposing political reform.
By mimicking the signature-collection campaign of the popular initiative, they merely assist in bringing the matter of constitutional change to the focal point of public attention. Inasmuch as the counter-signature campaign can only be of a pathetic scale, they underscore the serious imbalance of forces between those who prefer political reform and those who are inclined to resist it even for the most ridiculous reasons.
The on-going popular initiative puts to test the mechanisms of popular sovereignty that distinguishes the 1987 Constitution as the document born of a democratic uprising.
The most conservative forces have long resisted constitutional reform. The majority of the Senate today maintains a studied indifference to the need for immediate and fundamental political reform, preferring instead to cultivate personal or factional political agendas.
The political Establishment has set itself as an immovable object. The grassroots initiative for Charter change is evolving into an irresistible force. Soon, the two would be joined.
Should the forces of conservatism choose to deploy legal pickets to stem the tide, they will seek the Supreme Court’s intervention, possibly by way of a restraining order. A temporary restraining order is the only way a monkey wrench could be thrown into the works.
Short of a temporary restraining order, the popular initiative now in motion will continue until a plebiscite is held. The operating timetable is to have a plebiscite by June and elections for a new parliament by July.
Should a petition be filed before the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of amending the 1987 Constitution by way of a popular initiative provided for by that very same Charter, the magistrates will have to revisit the vital questions that remain contested in the aftermath of the Santiago vs. Comelec ruling.
The Court will find itself caught between the immovable object and the irresistible force, between the conservatives and those who clamor for political reform. In that situation, it will have to perform a historic duty. More than contemplating the nuances of law, the Court will now be asked to either declare the promise of people power in the existing Charter to be empty or declare it a living legacy that now finds substance in the movement to amend that Charter itself.