PI dead, buried
“A PI that does not come from a legitimate public movement but was instigated by conflicted interests, such as that initiated by legislators, was already junked in an SC decision.
Text size
Share
Daily Tribune“A PI that does not come from a legitimate public movement but was instigated by conflicted interests, such as that initiated by legislators, was already junked in an SC decision.
Share
Nearly all administrations after the late President Corazon Aquino took steps to amend the Constitution, and among the more unpopular methods is through a People’s Initiative, or PI, which is provided for under the Constitution.
The other modes are the Constituent Assembly or con-ass, composed of all the members of the bicameral Congress, and the Constitutional Convention, which was the only tested process in the past.
Con-ass is not explicitly provided for in the Constitution since it only refers to “Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members” as empowered to change the Charter.
Delegates to previous constitutional conventions were elected at the legislative district level. The Constitution allows citizens to pass laws, although the process is very stringent and tedious.
The challenge in the PI is to gather the signatures of at least 3 percent of registered voters per legislative district and at least 12 percent of the total registered voters.
The PI should be spontaneous, but efforts in the past were always tainted by bribery for the drafting of supposed petitions.
The charter change process, or cha-cha, was largely unpopular and had never taken off due to suspicions of term extensions since, once laid open, legislators can introduce any revision to the Constitution.
A PI campaign surfaced in 2006 and was launched by local government chiefs seeking 5 million signatures to satisfy the extent of total voters and congressional districts needed.
By March 2006, the PI was at full steam to supplant a con-ass move since the Senate was lukewarm to the proposal.
Later, in May 2006, former Sen. Vicente Paterno, a member of the cha-cha advisory body, bared a no-election provision during the transition period for a proposed shift to the parliamentary form of government.
Paterno pointed out a three-year interim period would pave the way for a parliament with a strong president. The Prime Minister would be the dominant political figure after the transition. Of course, the proposal to amend only economic provisions of the fundamental law was used as the cha-cha excuse.
By October of that year, money flowed through civil society groups like the Sigaw ng Bayan to make it appear that the cha-cha call was legit.
A PI that does not come from a legitimate public movement but was instigated by conflicted interests such as that initiated by legislators was already junked in an SC decision.
In a 2006 ruling, the tribunal made a distinction between a signature campaign from a public clamor and that of a Congress initiative. The SC cited the presence of deception in gathering signatures and using financial rewards to those who would affix their signatures to the cha-cha petition.
Similarly, a 1997 SC ruling said that while a PI is provided to amend the Constitution, Congress should first enact a law authorizing such a measure.
SC’s 2006 decision upheld the requirement, saying the changes sought this time would constitute a major revision to the Constitution. It said the “people’s initiative” could only be used for lesser constitutional amendments.
“This court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people’s sovereign will, is the bible of this court. This court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution...,” the SC decision penned by then Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio said.
“To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in uncharted waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of the day,” it added.
Voting with Carpio against the PI in 2006 were Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban, Associate Justices Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Romeo Callejo Sr., Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Adolf Azcuna.
The court also found that the signatures were obtained irregularly because they were not appended to the text of the proposed changes.
Based on the SC ruling, the PI, the way it is now being undertaken, is patently illegal.
