The current People’s Initiative campaign should be brought to the Supreme Court to finally close the book on the mode for revising the Constitution that some political groups want to use as a shortcut for Charter change, or cha-cha.

The Commission on Elections, under a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, is mandated to reject People’s Initiative petitions that seek to revise the Constitution, according to a retired associate justice.

Adolfo Azcuna said the SC ruled in the Santiago v. Comelec case that petitions out of the PI can only be accepted for amendments to certain provisions of the Charter.

A law should be passed to allow a PI for an overhaul of the Charter, Azcuna said.

In Santiago v. Comelec, the SC ruled that the poll body “should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition” for a people’s initiative for constitutional amendments until a “sufficient” law is passed for it.

The argument that pro-PI groups raised claiming that the SC in a resolution by 10 justices had negated the 1997 ruling is not accurate, according to Azcuna.

The court resolution cannot be the basis for overturning the Santiago v. Comelec ruling.

The opinions of the 10 justices in a 2006 resolution that RA 6735 was sufficient to initiate a PI for a Charter revision were mere “obiter dictum,” or made in passing, and were not intended to reverse a decision of the tribunal.

“In my opinion, that resolution was not issued to void the Santiago decision,” says Azcuna.

The PI issue becomes justiciable when it is brought before the court after the Commission on Elections, or Comelec, accepts and processes it or rejects the petition.

When the case is elevated to the SC, the question will be asked if there is a need to change the Santiago v. Comelec ruling, according to the former magistrate.

Without such a judicial process, the Comelec is barred from accepting petitions to revise the Charter.

Whether Comelec accepts or rejects it, the issue should be brought to the SC to allow it the chance to review the Santiago v. Comelec ruling.

Azcuna also indicated that the debate on whether Congress should vote as one chamber or separately under a Constituent Assembly, which is another mode for cha-cha, resulted from the framers of the Constitution applying the provision on con-ass to a unicameral legislature.

The proposed amendments in the signature campaign include a provision that will specify that Congress will vote jointly on the constitutional amendments or revisions under a con-ass.

Azcuna was a member of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution.

He said that the delegates failed to consider a bicameral system in drafting the provision.

He said the SC did not review the Santiago v. Comelec ruling in the 2006 La mbino v. Comelec case.

The requirement of a new law indicated that the SC wanted Congress to be circumspect in seeking to tinker with the Constitution. “The issue is different when the Constitution is involved,” he said.

Going through the process of bringing the issue to the SC would lead to a final resolution to clear the air and nip in the bud attempts in the future by a vested interest group to mangle the Basic Law.