COMELEC SAYS IT'S INCLINED TO DISMISS 'INITIATIVE' PETITION
MANILA, AUGUST 30, 2006 (STAR) By Sheila Crisostomo - The Commission on Elections (Comelec) is inclined to dismiss the petition lodged by proponents of the people’s initiative for lack of jurisdiction.Ranking Comelec officials admitted this possibility yesterday in pointing out the petition filed by the Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) last Friday might violate the 1997 Supreme Court ruling over the issue.
"We are bound by the Supreme Court. Unless it is reversed, we cannot entertain the petition," one ranking poll said.
This developed as a spate of petitions flooded Comelec yesterday, all seeking to nullify the petition of Sigaw and ULAP for people’s initiative.
Seven opposition senators filed a six-page petition yesterday asking the Comelec to dismiss the people’s initiative call sought by Sigaw and ULAP.
The petitioners were Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr., Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby Madrigal, Luisa Ejercito, Jinggoy Estrada, Panfilo Lacson and Alfredo Lim.
The seven senators claimed there is "no cause for action" for the Comelec to entertain the people’s initiative petition in the light of the 1997 ruling of the Supreme Court.
"As far as the oppositors know, there has been no law enacted to provide for the implementation of the system of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution from March 19, 1997 up to the date hereof," their petition stated.
Opposition congressmen led by Sorsogon Rep. Francis Escudero, also filed a petition before the Comelec, citing the absence of a law governing the people’s initiative.
Escudero said the millions of signatures gathered by Sigaw and ULAP may be valid but they cannot be entertained in view of the Supreme Court decision.
He said Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos himself conceded in a recent Senate hearing that the poll body is enjoined from acting on any initiative petition.
The high tribunal dismissed an earlier move by a group seeking to amend the 1987 Constitution through the people’s initiative mode.
The Supreme Court said the signature gathering mode is unauthorized in the absence of an enabling law from Congress.
Clarify ruling, SC asked
On the other hand, the counsel of ULAP Alberto Agra called on the Supreme Court to clarify its 1997 ruling over the issue.
Agra pointed out the signature gathering campaign was never declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
He said Republic Act 6735, or the Initiative and Referendum Act, which critics had claimed to be inadequate to carry out the people’s initiative mode, is in fact, sufficient since the law provided enabling details for the exercise of the direct mode of amending the Constitution.
"Moreover, the right to initiate proposed amendments to the Constitution is guaranteed and protected by the Constitution itself," Agra said.
Prof. Jose Abueva, the chairman of the 2005 Consultative Commission on Charter Change, also called on the Supreme Court magistrates who dissented in the 1997 ruling to lead in building a consensus over the issue.
Abueva pointed out Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno could influence a new consensus in the high tribunal to reverse the 1997 ruling.
The two magistrates made their dissenting opinions over the ruling, pointing out the inherent power of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution.
No fraud
Sigaw ng Bayan spokesman Raul Lambino said they employed fair means in gathering the million signatures that went along with the petition.
Lambino said the signatures came from the voters whose names were included in the official list submitted to local government units.
"We did this precisely to rid of the fictitious, forged, non-existent or unregistered names or signatures after comparing the same with the certified list of voters and the voters’ affidavits of the Commission on Elections," Lambino said.
He said the verification process will belie the accusations that the names and signatures appended in the people’s initiative are manufactured.
Some local officials like Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay claimed Lambino and his group employed an elaborate scheme to fraudulently gather the signatures.
Some of the signatories were already dead, or were overseas, and forged. He said those who were in jail were even included in the list.
But Lambino countered Binay and San Juan Mayor JV Ejercito have manufactured signature sheets and "surreptitiously mixed" these with their original listings.
He said the method had substantially delayed their timetable in filing the petition.
"We therefore assigned lawyers and watchers to see to it that no fictitious, unregistered, non-existent name or forged signature is included in the list of verified signatures," Lambino said.
Because of this strategy, Lambino said the signature verification in Makati and San Juan went on but at "a snail’s pace."
Sigaw and ULAP jointly filed the petition before the Comelec last Friday seeking to validate the certificate of verification issued by its field officials on around 10 million signatures it has gathered.
Both groups said the people’s initiative mode is the only feasible way for the country to shift to a parliamentary form of government.
Another Comelec official claimed that the poll body has "no choice" but to junk the petition in view of the SC ruling.
According to Comelec Commissioner Rene Sarmiento, he expected the petition to be calendared for a special en banc meeting anytime this week.
Sarmiento, however, refused to comment on how the poll body would deal with the petition.
The Comelec holds its en banc meeting every Tuesday but the petition was not included in yesterday’s deliberations.
The Comelec’s law department has already submitted yesterday the Sigaw and ULAP petition along with the petitions filed by eight oppositions to the en banc for proper disposition.
Comelec spokesman James Jimenez said the commission is not likely tackle the opposition since they will have to deliberate first on the main petition.
Should the en banc decide to throw out the petition, Jimenez added there would be no need to deliberate on the correspondent petitions.
The system is there
Administration lawmakers, on the other hand, said the Comelec has jurisdiction over the people’s initiative petition.
Cagayan de Oro City Rep. Constantino Jaraula, who chairs the House constitutional amendments committee, said there is no need for Congress to pass a new law on the system of initiative and referendum for proposing constitutional amendments and laws.
"Republic Act 6735 (which the Supreme Court declared as insufficient in 1997) is adequate for purposes of proposing amendments to the Constitution as held by one-half of the members of the Supreme Court, two of whom are still with the court today," he said.
Like Jaraula, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman disagrees with the high court’s ruling on the people’s initiative during the Ramos administration that Republic Act 6735 failed to provide enough safeguards for the exercise of initiative and referendum as a mode of amending the Constitution.
"The standards and criteria provided for in the Constitution for the exercise of people’s initiative are clear and complete that an implementing status is a virtual superfluity except for providing minor details," he said.
He said the standards enumerated in the Charter include the requirement that an initiative petition must be filed by at least three percent of the registered voters in every congressional district and by 12 percent nationwide, the Comelec must certify the sufficiency of the petition, a plebiscite must be conducted not earlier than 60 days but not later than 90 days after such certification, and proposed amendments will be valid when ratified by a majority vote cast in that plebiscite.
"These standards are copied in RA 6735, which provided for a system of initiative and referendum and appropriated funds therefore," he said.
Lagman added that based on their petition that is now pending with the Comelec, Sigaw appears to have satisfied the three percent-12 percent voter support requirement.
However, Lagman suggested that interested parties should ask the Supreme Court to revisit its 1997 ruling.
That decision was written by then Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.
A majority of eight justices voted for, while six justices voted against declaring RA 6735 insufficient. Among those who dissented are Panganiban and Puno.
The court voted 6-6 on a subsequent motion for reconsideration, with only 12 of the 15 justices participating. — With Christina Mendez, Jess Diaz, Cecille Suerte Felipe, Marvin Sy
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2006
by PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved