Railroading such changes through an "express train" is definitely incompatible with the worth and importance of this document to a steady Ship of State. While the body politic is the major player in Charter change (Cha-Cha) such an important process should not be left in the hands of politicians and must be free from partisan politics. In studying and introducing changes the country should harness its best and the brightest talents whose patriotism, integrity and independence are beyond question. Cha-cha is not a question of who can shout louder like what is being pictured by a movement called the "sigaw ng bayan" which is spearheading a people’s initiative supposedly introducing "amendments" to our Constitution. The manner and method used by this movement is as alarming and mysterious as the sources of its fund and the people behind it. So far it seems that this organization is composed of only one man who serves as its spokesman and the collector of the allegedly more than 8 million signatures gathered from barangays all over the country. The DILG which reportedly has a hand in the signature campaign even disclaimed that it is behind this system of changing the Charter.
More intriguing about this ongoing people’s initiative of "Sigaw" is the proliferation of various legal opinions even from non-lawyers about the previous Supreme Court (SC) ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec. In said case, the SC declared that there is no enabling law for people’s initiative and that such mode of changing the Charter refers only to proposing amendments rather than changing or revising the Charter itself. These legal opinions are preparing the minds of the public that the SC will abandon the Santiago ruling and declare that people’s initiative proposing the change of government from Presidential to Parliamentary can be done because there is an existing law (RA 6735) enabling such initiative and because such proposed change is merely an amendment rather than a revision. The legal experts (including the solicitor general who is the government lawyer) are banking on the sharply divided Supreme Court which laid down the ruling as well as the dissenting opinions of two SC justices who are now the Chief Justice and the most Senior Associate Justice. With the present alignment in the SC, the experts are predicting that the Santiago ruling will be reversed.
But even if the SC reverses itself, the people’s initiative of "Sigaw" will not succeed. The people’s initiative to amend the charter is not as simple as gathering the required 12 percent and 3 percent of the registered voters. Petitions as important as amending the basic law of the land through people’s initiative must first of all indicate that it is filed by the required number of petitioners. In other words the alleged 8 to 10 million registered voters must declare under oath: (1) that they have prepared or caused the preparation of the petition; (2) that they have read its contents; and (3) that all the allegations therein are true and correct to the best of their knowledge and information and based on authentic documents.
In this case, it is undeniable that the Comelec registrars are verifying signatures of voters on sheets of papers purportedly affixed for purposes of the people’s initiative of "Sigaw". They are in effect the officials administering the oath to the 8 to 10 million petitioners attesting to the three items above enumerated. But as admitted by the Comelec, the Sigaw spokesman, and most of those who signed the sheets, no petition containing the supposed proposed amendments was attached or shown to them when the signatures were affixed. In some cases only questionnaires were attached, not the petition itself. There is no way therefore for the Comelec to determine how many of the 8 to 10 million registered voters have read the petition and could attest that the allegations therein are true and correct. At the end of the day, the petition should be denied due course for being insufficient in form and substance. As the SC precisely said in Santiago, there is no enabling law because the supposed enabling law is inadequate for lack of proper guidelines in the verification of the petition. Such inadequacy can not be supplied even if the ruling is reversed.
Changing the Constitution through an "express train" running at full speed is therefore sure to plunge us into another futile exercise and debilitating legal controversy. This is the worst thing that can happen to our country at this stage. We appeal to our politicians to stop the locomotive before it is too late.