Inadequate law

The losers in the peoples’ initiative petition (PI) have all the right to ask for a reconsideration of the Supreme Court (SC) ruling. But again they are doing it the wrong way. They are presenting their arguments in the press before presenting it in the SC. Instead of convincing the public or some of the opinion writers and columnists, they should convince the SC Justices about the soundness of their arguments. Somebody should tell them that their style is sure to have a negative backlash. It will only alienate some of the dissenting Justices who voted against the majority decision. Instead of a single swing vote they may need more swing votes this time around. They should first confine their action within the judicial halls than engage in public propaganda obviously meant to pressure the Justices. This case is not a popularity contest or a political battle that is most of the time won through manipulation of the peoples’ gullibility.

First of all they should not keep on harping and carping through their known supporters in media that the SC concentrated more on the peripheral issues of contentious facts than on the question of whether the alleged existing law (R.A. 6735) is adequate or not. This is erroneous. The SC squarely ruled on this question of law – that R.A. 6735 is inadequate – when it declared that the Comelec did not gravely abuse its discretion in denying due course to the Sigaw petition because of the 1997 Santiago vs. Comelec ruling which found the said law inadequate. This is crystal clear enough. It does not call for further interpretation especially from non-lawyers.

It is also error to insist that the SC decided questions of fact. The facts are already all in and the SC merely applied the law on those sets of facts particularly the admissions made by Sigaw and Ulap that only 100,000 copies of the petition was printed for the alleged 6.3 million voters and that the proposals are part of the agenda of Malacanang. The law, or Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution itself to which these sets of facts were applied, on the other hand clearly states that "amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon petition of at least twelve percentum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein". Applying this provision of the Constitution to the sets of facts and the very admissions of Sigaw and Ulap, the SC concluded, and rightly so, that the petition is constitutionally infirm. Its pronouncement that the signatures were "deceptively gathered" is also backed up by the facts already on record – the signature sheets – which fail to indicate that the 6.3 million signatories have been shown or have known the contents of the petition before affixing their signatures. This is not a minor detail. It is not making a big to do about a minor matter. This is the very wording of the basic law of the land clearly and categorically requiring that amendments to it may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon petition of 12% of the registered voters, not of their representatives elected or unelected. Such provision needs no interpretation. Much worse should it be interpreted to mean that the proposals should be merely indicated in general terms. In fact the SC also said that the petition did not even comply with R.A 6735, the very law invoked by the petitioners as adequate, requiring that the petition must be signed by at least 12% of the registered voters nationwide (Section 5 [b]).

Obviously this error stems from confusing and failing to distinguish between plebiscite and peoples’ initiative. Peoples’ initiative is a means of amending the Constitution. It is logically necessary therefore that the full text of the proposed amendments be disseminated and disclosed to the people supposedly proposing it. Plebiscite on the other hand is a means of ratifying the proposed amendments or revisions done through PI, Con-Con or Con Ass. It is participated in by the entire electorate, at least majority of which must ratify the amendment or revision. While the electorate in a plebiscite must likewise be fully informed of the proposals, it does not mean that the full text thereof be disseminated to them. Thus it does not mean that when 16, 622, 111 votes ratified the 1987 Constitution 16 million plus copies of the said Constitution were disseminated. It is only necessary that they are fully informed of said proposals in general terms to enable them to vote intelligently on whether to approve or disapprove the "new" 1987 Constitution.

Finally, it must be pointed out that amendment of the Constitution directly by the people through the PI is a new, extraordinary and cumbersome process introduced in Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution. Thus the Constitution itself mandates that Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Without an adequate implementing legislation that fully supplies the details and provides solutions to the problems arising from the exercise of this extraordinary and cumbersome process, Section 2 cannot operate. The proponents insist that R.A. 6735 is an adequate implementing law. Yet the debates and arguments rage on this issue. Even the SC Justices can’t seem to agree on this point. Such controversy and debate swirling around this law is enough argument to prove that it is indeed inadequate. A law that generates lots of controversies and debates rather than provide answers to details and solutions to problems like RA 6735 cannot certainly be considered adequate and complete.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected] or [email protected]