The feisty Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago may descend from the firmament to whack a few heads for pushing the People’s Initiative, or PI, which the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional twice, in 1997 and 2006.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, held that if Congress initiated the PI, it would be declared “dead on arrival” when challenged in the Supreme Court.

“Using the words of an old decision, the PI petition is a patent illegality which, when it rears its ugly head, should be slain on sight,” the Senate’s sui generis Santiago said.

She cited factors that make the PI, as it is currently being undertaken to propose amendments to the Constitution, invalid: It defies judicial precedent; it is not limited to an amendment but constitutes a revision that the Charter prohibits; and it has no budgetary appropriation for a plebiscite.

The SC ruled in the 1997 case of Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec that there should first be a law passed by Congress providing for a PI on charter change.

A PI would pose a “grave risk of precipitating a big bang in politics because both the initiative and the parliamentary system have been tried and rejected,” Santiago pointed out.

“To inflict it on Filipinos is to be selfish, pigheaded and reckless. It might give birth to a new political galaxy,” she warned.

Santiago then cited the legal principle “stare decisis et non quieta movere,” which means to adhere to judicial precedents, or prior decided cases.

The doctrine demands that when the court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it shall adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, regardless of whether the parties are the same.

The facts in the current effort are the same, and there is still no law passed by Congress for a PI on charter change.

Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec is a binding precedent in the Supreme Court because the same issues will be raised when the PI is challenged. Santiago had indicated that the SC does not depart from precedent.

Another point that the late senator raised was that the Constitution explicitly limits a PI to an amendment of the Constitution, which necessarily excludes the power to revise the charter.

The proposal to overhaul the government system constitutes an entire revision and is not a mere amendment. It will replace the presidential with a parliamentary system and create a unicameral parliament.

The evolving proposal is to transfer the executive powers from a nationally elected president to a prime minister elected by members of parliament.

Santiago rightly said then that the PI advocates “are long on enthusiasm but short on the law.”

She scoffed at the PI proponents as “very economical with the legal truth.”

Even if the High Court upholds the PI, there should still be a plebiscite, which has to be supported with a budgetary appropriation.

Santiago then described her agony as boiling over after “reading the gushing, puerile, and unintelligent press releases by the PI advocates.”

“I could no longer hold my peace and started to boil over and would have wanted to argue personally in the Supreme Court against the petition, but I am prevented by illness,” she said in 2006.

Santiago, then 71, passed away on 29 September 2016 after a long battle with lung cancer.

The spiritual presence of Miriam Defensor-Santiago and her wise words will hopefully inspire the PI disciples to wise up and drop their pathetic ambition to mangle the Constitution.