Sigaw’s laughable stance apparently stems from the SC pronouncement about the adequacy of R.A. 6735 as the enabling law that implements the people’s right to initiate constitutional amendments. Ten SC justices apparently abandoned the ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec (G.R. 127235, March 19, 1997) that said law is "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions in so far as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned". According to the ten Justices, the intent of R.A. 6735 is to implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. So such intent should be effectuated even if it is badly written. The use of inapt or inaccurate language or words will not vitiate the statute if the legislative intent can be ascertained.
But this is only a portion of the Santiago ruling. The SC in said case also ruled that even if R.A. 6735 is complete and adequate as an enabling law on the system of initiative to amend the Charter, the initiative petition must be signed by the required number of registered voters. This is the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5 (b) of R.A. 6735. The petition for initiative on the Constitution must therefore be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by 3% of the registered voters therein. Only such kind of petition vests jurisdiction in the Comelec. Without it the Comelec cannot take cognizance of the case. This is the more important portion of the Santiago ruling that has not been reversed but in fact reinforced in the Sigaw case. And this is one of the very reasons why the Sigaw petition was denied with finality by the SC. Its petition was not signed by the required number of registered voters. The signature sheets submitted do not amply and indubitably show that the signatories knew what they are signing thus prompting the SC to conclude deception in the manner of obtaining them. This is the fatal defect and costly omission that spelled doom for the Sigaw petition.
Another portion of the Santiago ruling upheld by the SC in the Sigaw case is the complete rebuff of the Sigaw contention that the change in the form of government from Presidential with a Bicameral Congress to Parliamentary with a Unicameral Assembly can be done through the system of initiative. The SC categorically and conclusively declared that people’s initiative can only propose amendments not revision of the Constitution and Sigaw’s proposal constitutes a revision, not a mere amendment. By such ruling the SC repudiated with finality Sigaw’s repeated insistence that no distinction exists between the words "amendment" and "revision" as used in the Constitution so it does not matter whether its aforesaid proposal is categorized as an amendment or revision.
On two counts constituting the very grounds or the reasons for a decision (ratio decidendi) Sigaw lost. Indeed the opinion of the ten justices on the adequacy of the law R.A. 6735 is not that necessary for the decision of the case. It is at most an obiter dictum. The Santiago and Sigaw decisions in fact hypothetically admit the validity of said law. Yet even if said law is applied, the SC said people’s initiative petition can not prosper if it is not duly signed by the required number of registered voters and if it proposes revision rather than mere amendments. Sigaw’s claim of "sweet victory" is therefore but an empty boast of a loser who cannot admit defeat–a defeat mainly due to its insolent and vain attempt to overturn the previous Santiago SC ruling instead of learning lessons from it.