SUPREME COURT MANILA RAUL L. LAMBINO and … 174153 oppo in intrvntn... · ·...

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SUPREME COURT

MANILA

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, Petitioners,

- versus - G.R. NO. 174153 THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR., Intervenor-Oppositor. x---------------------------------------------x

OPPOSITION IN INTERVENTION ------------------------

THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, through the undersigned

counsel, respectfully manifests its opposition to the Petition herein, on

the following considerations:

PREFATORY NOTE

The Philippines has a rigid, as opposed to a flexible, Constitution.

This is obvious from the unusual majority vote required for

Congressional proposals to amend the charter, or the representation

requirements if a convention or a people’s initiative were to make the

proposals for amendments. A constitution, especially that of a stable

democracy, has to be rigid because, as Alfred North Whitehead has

observed, “the art of a free society consists first in the maintenance of a

symbolic code”. A society that has no reverence for symbols will soon

decay into fractious disputes and anarchy.

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 2 – x------------------------------------------------------------x Reverence for the constitution means that its “first principles”

should not be trifled with very easily. And the fundamental principle of

popular sovereignty is trivialized if such principle is breached by

manipulated consent. Popular sovereignty, as a substantive expression

of public opinion, must not be manipulated by covert persuaders or by

overt bribers. Nothing but confusion and anarchy can spring from

abandonment of the first principles of the Constitution.

Self-government implies informed public opinion, and ill-advised

initiatives spurred by individual proclivities of political power brokers is

one sure way of destroying the constitution.

ANTECEDENT FACTS AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE

1. In public and publicized statements attributed to Sigaw ng

Bayan, the latter has claimed that more than 6.3 Million signatures have

already been gathered by its field operatives.

2. The Secretary of Interior and Local Government, through the

component subsidiary offices of the Department of Interior and Local

Government throughout the country, has likewise distributed signature

forms, signature verification forms, signature verification reports, draft

petitions for people’s initiative and other paraphernalia to various local

government units, particularly at the municipal and barangay levels,

which documents and paraphernalia are intended to form part of the

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 3 – x------------------------------------------------------------x petition for a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the

Constitution.

3. The paraphernalia being distributed seek to gather

signatures in support of a people’s initiative to propose the wholesale

revision of the 1987 Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII thereof,

to change the form of government of the Republic of the Philippines from

a republican/presidential/bicameral form of government to a

parliamentary/unicameral form of government and to convert the

present Congress of the Philippines into an interim National Assembly,

among others. The assent of the voters to the proposed amendments are

sought in a form designed for the purpose, asking voters to sign their

signatures to the general proposition: “Do you approve of the

Amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the

form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a

unicameral-parliamentary system of government, in order to achieve

greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in government and providing

an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the orderly shift from one

system to another?”

4. From 2005 up to the present, several bills have been filed in

the Senate to amend or supplement R.A. 6735 and are currently under

study by the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments. The

bills seek to address the deficiencies noted in R.A. 6735, with respect to

the implementation of people’s initiative. Copies of said bills are

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 4 – x------------------------------------------------------------x herewith attached as Annex “A” (S.B. No. 2189), Annex “B” (S.B. 2247),

and Annex “C” (S.B. No. 119).

5. Petitioner’s members either as members of the Senate

Committees, in the performance of their duties, are conducting legislative

hearings in connection with the proposed bill. In the course of the

deliberations of the Senate Committees, the reported activities of

respondents were highlighted and comes as a direct assault on the

functions of petitioners as representatives of the people.

6. At about the same time, in the House of Representatives,

bills have been filed also seeking to amend R.A. 6735. Among these are

H.B. 457 filed by Rep. Antonio Eduardo Nachura, the Explanatory Note

of which is attached as Annex “D”.

7. Petitioners in the instant case filed on August 25, 2006

before the COMELEC’s Law Department a petition for initiative on

amendments to Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, particularly

on the shift from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary

form of government, and providing transitory provisions therefor.

8. The said Petition proposed the following:

“Proposition

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 5 – x------------------------------------------------------------x

BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

The Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

9. The proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII, providing for a shift from the present bicameral-Presidential government to a unicameral-Parliamentary system, will effect a more efficient, more economical and more responsive government. The shift from the bicameral to unicameral legislature will do away with the time-consuming duplication of legislative functions and strengthen responsibility and accountability in legislative work in government. The Parliamentary system will ensure harmony between the legislative and executive branches of government, promote greater consensus, and provide faster and more decisive governmental action. It is for these reasons, among others, that the Petitioners submit the foregoing amendatory proposal.”1

9. The petition for initiative prayed, thus:

“PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honorable Commission on Elections, after due consideration and verification, issue an Order: 1. Finding the Petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; 2. Directing the publication of the Petition in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days after

1 pp. 4-8, Petition for Initiative in EM (LD)-06-01


the Certification by this Honorable Commission of the sufficiency of this Petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the proposition. Petitioners pray for such other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the premises.”2

10. The assailed Resolution dated August 31, 2006 of the

COMELEC denied due course to the petition for initiative.

ARGUMENTS

I

THE RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN HOLDING THAT IT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF ANY PETITION FOR PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE, INCLUDING THE CONDUCT OF ANY PRE-PETITION ACTIVITIES UNTIL A LAW SHALL HAVE BEEN PASSED BY CONGRESS IMPLEMENTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 32 OF ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION.

II

PETITIONERS’ ATTEMPT TO OVERRULE SANTIAGO PRECEDENT HAS NO LEGAL BASIS.

III

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INVOLVE REVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION RATHER THAN MERE AMENDMENTS, AND REVISION CANNOT BE ACHIEVED THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE.

2 p. 8, Ibid.


DISCUSSION I

The respondent Commission on Elections committed no grave abuse of discretion in ruling that it has no authority to take cognizance of any petition for people’s initiative, including the conduct of any pre-petition activities until a law shall have been passed by Congress implementing the provisions of Section 32 of Article XVII of the Constitution. The provision on people’s initiative of the 1987 Constitution

requires that Congress must first pass an enabling law before

amendments to the Constitution can be proposed through a people’s

initiative. Section 2, Article XVII, provides:

“Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the total number of registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.”

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 8 – x------------------------------------------------------------x Section 1, Article XVII of the Constitution provides: “Any

amendments to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by the

Congress . . . or constitutional convention.” Section 2 of the same

provision provides: “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be

directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition . . .”

The provisions for enacting laws and seeking amendments to the

Constitution through people’s initiative is a new concept under Philippine

laws introduced in the 1987 Constitution. It is a concept not found in

any of the previous constitutions of the Republic of the Philippines,

which limited the modes of amending the Constitution to two: a)

Congress sitting as a constituent assembly; and b) through a

constitutional convention. Section 2 of Article XVII thus added a third

mode, through a system of people’s initiative. The introduction of the

provision was an attempt to institutionalize the significance of people

power demonstrated in the February 1986,3 popularly acclaimed as the

EDSA revolution.

To date, however, the only law that has been passed by Congress

to implement the provisions of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution

is Republic Act No. 6735 entitled: “The Initiative and Referendum Act”.

Said law provides for these three modes of people’s initiative, namely:

initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on local legislation. The

3 Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, p. 1300.

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 9 – x------------------------------------------------------------x said law was, however, held invalid in the case of Santiago vs.

COMELEC,4 made three distinct rulings:

“a) That Republic Act No. 6735, “The Initiative and Referendum Act” is “incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned”; b) The Court in that case also declared void, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 setting rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and c) Enjoined the COMELEC from permanently entertaining or taking cognizance any petition for initiative on any amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the constitutional mandate.”

The position that the present law on initiative is insufficient to

enable a constitutional initiative was thus settled in the Santiago ruling.

The further significance is that the COMELEC was permanently enjoined

from entertaining any petition to propose amendments to the

Constitution through a people’s initiative. The Supreme Court also

invalidated portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 entitled “Rules

and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution,

and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws”, insofar as it

provided for procedures to implement constitutional amendments

through a people’s initiative as contemplated under Section 2, Article

XVII of the Constitution.

4 270 SCRA 106, March 19, 1997.

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 10 – x------------------------------------------------------------x Petitioners misread the import of the obiter made by the Court in

Santiago as express mandate for the respondent COMELEC to proceed to

verify signatures in support of a campaign to propose a wholesale

revision of the Constitution through a people’s initiative. The following

caution given by the Court in Santiago was lost to petitioners:

“Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.”5

The actions of petitioners likewise ignore the basic premise for the

invalidation of R.A. 6735 that: a) The provisions of Section 2, Article XVII

of the Constitution are not self-executory and require a valid act of

Congress to be implemented; and b) R.A. 6735 failed to provide adequate

standards6 that could be validly used by the COMELEC to formulate

regulations to implement people’s initiative for the amendment of the

Constitution.

It is worthy to note that Senate Bill No. 2189 was recently filed by

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago on January 16, 2006. The proposed bill

seeks to address the deficiencies noted in R.A. 6735 in the procedure for

the initiative and proposes the following:

5 Santiago, supra. 6 In Santiago, the Court applied the “completeness” and “sufficient standard” test.


1. Requires proof of conduct of public hearings and

consultations to ensure the people have been adequately

informed of the amendments proposed;

2. Establishes a signature verification process after

the filing of the petition, including a provision for

accreditation of watchers;

3. Posting of signatures in each barangay hall to

enable filing of protest or challenge;

4. Institutes an appeal procedure from a decision

of the COMELEC on the petition;

5. Establishes a procedure for holding of a

plebiscite.

The perceived inadequacies of R.A. 6735 are too glaring to be

ignored and raise more contentious issues rather than resolve the

serious political issues it is proclaimed to be intended to alleviate.

The fact remains that both the House and the intervenor Senate

recognize the soundness of the Santiago precedent by filing several bills

to close the big gap in R.A. 6735. Some of the bills filed are annexed to

this Opposition-in-Intervention as Annexes “A”, “B”, “C”, and “D”.


II

Petitioners’ attempt to overrule the Santiago precedent has no legal basis. The arguments of Petitioners’ in their attempt to overrule the

Santiago v. Comelec ruling range from the sublime to the ridiculous.

First, they invoke the voice of the people and the voice of God.7 It

is argued that their way in interpreting R.A. 6735 is to give due respect

and recognition to the voice of the people, the voice of God.8 This is

taking the name of God in vain. There are legal issues which cannot be

decided by counting of heads, if we are to abide by the rule of law.

Among these are issues textually committed by the Constitution to the

judiciary as, for instance, the Bill of Rights. Such issues are laid down in

black and white in the Constitution and placed beyond the reach of

majorities in order to preserve our democratic form of government.

These are principles which form part of the covenant of the people and

enshrined in the Constitution so as to withstand, in the words of Justice

Cardozo, the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing

hour, and the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with

7 It is interesting to note, from news reports about the war in the Middle East, that both the ‘terrorists’ and the freedom fighters invoke the name of God in their suicide bombings. 8 Comment, Office of the Solicitor General, p. 1.

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 13 – x------------------------------------------------------------x general principles.9 Indeed, constitutionalism is nothing else than the

separation of law from politics.

As the Supreme Court stated unanimously in Estrada v. Desierto:

“Nor are rights necessarily resolved by the power of number for in a democracy, the dogmatism of the majority is not and should never be the definition of the rule of law. If democracy has proved to be the best form of government, it is because it has respected the right of the minority to convince the majority that it is wrong. Tolerance of multiformity of thoughts, however offensive they may be, is the key to man’s progress from the cave to civilization. Let us not throw away that key just to pander to some people’s prejudice.”10

Second, Petitioners declare that the rule of stare decisis is not an

inflexible rule and that this Honorable Court should disregard it in this

case. There is no quarrel with the proposition in general. However, the

Honorable Court cannot just ignore its own precedent laid down not

more than ten years ago because six million voters, or even the present

administration, strongly urge it to do so. Otherwise, the Court will

undermine its own legitimacy. In the words of Justice T. Marshall of the

US Supreme Court, stare decisis “contributes to the integrity of our

constitutional system of government, both in appearance and in fact, by

preserving the presumption that bedrock principles are founded in the

law rather than in the proclivities of individuals.”11 The doctrine

9 Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 21 (Pocketbook ed.). 10 353 SCRA at 530. 11 Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265 (1986).

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 14 – x------------------------------------------------------------x preserves the perception of the judiciary “as a source of impersonal and

reasoned judgments.”12 In the words of one constitutionalist –

“The Court’s continued ability to function effectively in this structure as the ultimate arbiter of constitutional law depends on the willingness of the public to accept the Court in this role; this acceptance, in turn, depends upon the public perception that in each case, the majority of the Court is speaking for the Constitution rather than simply for five or more lawyers in black robes.”13

Petitioners, in their enthusiasm to push the people’s initiative here,

seem to have lost sight of the generally accepted standards followed by

the Court in reversing its own precedents. They do not seem to realize

that an open-ended exception to the rule of precedents that almost

always invites a re-examination of the reasoning or justice of precedents

would swallow the rule and lead to the re-examination of every issue

presented in each case. So, it has been stated that the basis for

overruling a precedent must go beyond the identification of an error.14 In

the U.S., the Rehnquist Court has held the view that it may correct its

errors where the earlier decision has been undermined by subsequent

authority.15 It was also opined that the Court’s power to correct

erroneous precedent depends and to what extent a reversal of course in

jurisprudence would upset reliance interests.16 Under this view, even

clear errors in precedent should be preserved where substantial interests

12 Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 403 (1970). 13 Maltz, “Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law,” 1980 Wisconsin L. Rev. 467, 484. 14 See e.g., Scalia, J., concurring in Hubbard v. U.S., 514 U.S. 695, 716 (1995). 15 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203, 235-238 (1997).

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 15 – x------------------------------------------------------------x are at stake. Then, the U.S. Court has indicated that the power to

correct erroneous precedents depends on whether the issue involved is of

a statutory or constitutional nature: said Court places great weight to

stare decisis in the area of statutory construction, and the doctrine is at

its weakest when it interprets the Constitution.17 This is because

“Congress, not the Court, has the responsibility for revising its statutes,

and silence constitutes tacit approval of the precedent in question,18 the

U.S. Court has expressed reluctance to overturn statutory precedent.

Here, it must be observed that the Santiago precedent involves

statutory, not constitutional construction. And tacit approval is shown

not only by silence but, consonant with the suggestion of the Court,

by a number of bills seeking to amend R.A. 6735.

Petitioners have gone to great lengths to evade the scope and effect

of the Santiago ruling by pointing out that it is not controlling because,

in the subsequent Resolution on reconsideration, the High Tribunal

denied the motion of the petitioner by a tie vote of 6-6. This cannot save

the day for herein Petitioners. The fact remains that the original decision

of March 19, 1997 was concurred in by a clear majority. The motion for

reconsideration was denied and, as the Honorable Court puts it –

“The denial of a motion for reconsideration signifies that the grounds relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to

16 The Genesee Chief, 53 U.S. (12 How.) 443, 458 (1852) 17 Agostini, supra, at 235. 18 Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 488 (1940)


warrant a modification of the judgment or final order. It means not only that the grounds relied upon are lacking in merit but also that any other, not so raised, is deemed waived and may no longer be set up in a subsequent motion or application to overturn the judgment; and this is true, whatever may be the title given to such motion or application, whether it be ‘second motion for reconsideration’ or ‘motion for clarification’ or ‘plea for due process’ or ‘prayer for a second look,’ or ‘motion to defer, or set aside, entry of judgment,’ or ‘motion to refer case to Court En Banc,’ etc.”19

Indeed, even just a division of five in the High Court is as binding

and authoritative as decisions of the banc. Further, in the subsequent

case of PIRMA v. COMELEC,20 the Court affirmed the Santiago ruling by

unanimously holding that –

“The court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only complied with the dispositions of this Court in GR No. 127325 promulgated on March 19, 1997 and its resolution on June 10, 1997.” (emphasis supplied)

As a former member of the Court observes, in Santiago there was

unanimity of the members of the Court insofar as the lack of an enabling

law as a condition for initiative is concerned. According to him,

“Hence, in Santiago v. Comelec21 the Supreme Court held that without an enabling law to implement the provisions on popular

19 Ortigas & Co. v. Velasco, 243 SCRA 455; emphasis supplied 20 G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. 21 270 SCRA 106 (1997).


initiative, the Commission on Elections cannot entertain any petition for initiative and that, if it does, it would be acting in excess of its jurisdiction. There was unanimity on this point. The Court split 8-6 on the question whether R.A. 6735, which prescribed a system of initiative and referendum, applied to initiatives on constitutional amendments in view of the vagueness of some of its provisions regarding the conduct of initiatives and other details. While the Constitution is referred to in its statement of policy and requirements for petitions for initiative, its subtitles mention only “National Initiative and Referendum” and “Local Initiative and Referendum.” On the other hand, the dissenters, while acknowledging the poor draftsmanship of the law, thought that it was sufficiently clear that its provisions applied to constitutional amendments. Indeed, some provisions of the statute under the subtitle “National Initiative and Referendum” clearly refer to constitutional amendments. As matters now stand, pending the amendment of R.A. 6735 to make it applicable to constitutional amendments or pending the enactment of a new statute, popular initiative, as a mode of amending the Constitution, cannot be availed of.”22

The fallback posture of Petitioners that the Santiago ruling is not

applicable here and that the permanent injunction applies only to the

Delfin petition is likewise untenable. The Petitioners here are oblivious of

the fact that the Santiago ruling does not merely resolve a dispute

between the parties therein; it announces a general principle applicable

in future cases. In that case, the High Court ruled that R.A. 6735 does

not cover constitutional amendments through a people’s initiative. That

is why the Court permanently enjoined the COMELEC from entertaining

future petitions dealing with proposals for constitutional amendments

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 18 – x------------------------------------------------------------x through the people’s initiative until and unless an enabling law is passed

by Congress. Yet despite several bills to amend R.A. 6735, Congress has

not passed any one of these.

The general rule thus laid down in that case is that there is no

enabling law to implement the constitutional provision on people’s

initiative. That covers Petitioners as well as others who would want to

amend the Constitution through initiative. That is the rule that binds

Comelec as well. Every court decision contains a concreteness norm as

well as an abstraction norm. The concreteness norm binds the parties

as the law of the case. The abstraction norms are the general principles

that apply to future cases as well.23

III The proposed amendments through people’s initiative involves a revision of the Constitution and not a mere amendment. The intention of the framers of the Constitution was clearly to limit

the mechanism of the people’s initiative to amendments and not to a

revision of the Constitution. A revision of the entire Constitution was

seen as an impossible task for the entire electorate. During the

deliberations of the Constitutional Commission on the proposal, then

22 V.V. Mendoza, ‘On Amending the Constitution’, Lecture delivered on July 7, 2006 at the Court of Appeals Auditorium. 23 Comment, “On Analogical Reasoning”, 106 Harvard L. Rev. 741 (1993).

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 19 – x------------------------------------------------------------x Commissioner Davide, in reply to a question as to whether revision was

covered by the proposal stated that insofar as initiative is concerned, it

can only relate to ‘amendments’ not ‘revision’:

“MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide’s proposed amendment on line 1 refers to ‘amendments,’ Does it not cover the word ‘revision’ as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction between the words ‘amendment’ and ‘revision’? MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because ‘amendments’ and ‘revision’ should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only refer to ‘amendments’ and not ‘revision’.”

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, noted constitutionalist and himself a member

of the Constitutional Commission, observed that the intent of the

Consitutional Commission was to leave the problem of carrying out

amendments by initiative to Congress. He further stressed that the

higher percentage of votes required was higher for an initiative to propose

amendments to the Constitution as a recognition of the fact that the

process involved a constituent and not an ordinary legislative act.

It is thus clear that the Constitution limits the power of a people’s

initiative only to the proposal of amendments. The basic distinction

between an “amendment” and a “revision” has been recognized as

follows:

“An amendment envisages an alteration of one few specific provision. The guiding original intention of an amendment/ is to improve


specific parts or to add new provision deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan must contemplate a re-examination of the entire document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. Whether the ends result of the originally intended revision is in fact a total revision or merely an alteration of key provision by the document would not alter the fact that the end product is a revision.” 24

The records of the Constitutional Commission further show that

the Committee Chairman, drew the following distinction:

“Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of provision deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or the unresponsive to the needs of the times.” (Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, 372-373). (Emphasis supplied)

Father Bernas further observes that changing the form of our

government, from presidential to a parliamentary form of government

would constitute a revision, as would a change from a bicameral

legislature to a unicameral system and would be outside the powers of

the people’s initiative because under the Constitution, Article XVII,

Section 2, the jurisdiction of a people’s initiative. People’s initiative was

intended to be distinguished from the traditional modes of amending the

24 V. Sinco, PHILIPPINE POLITICAL LAW 46 (1962).

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 21 – x------------------------------------------------------------x Constitution, either through Congress acting as a constituent assembly

or through a constitutional convention which expressly includes the

power to propose both “any amendment to or revision of” the

Constitution.25

In the present case, the proposed amendments read as follows:

“Proposed Amendments

6. In the exercise of the power adverted to above, the Petitioners hereby propose the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, as follows: A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read as follows:

‘Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces, representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have at least one member. (2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be elected by the qualified

25 Bernas, The Intent of the 1987 Constitution, at p. 1294.


voters of his district for a term of five years without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming from the parliamentary district.’

B. Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are hereby amended to read, as follows:

‘Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister with the assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of the Parliament for the program of government.

C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled ‘Transitory Provisions’, which shall read, as follows:

Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 and shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim parliament. (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and Vice President, the interim Prime


Minister shall assume all the powers and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended. Section 2. ‘Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government, provided, however, that any and all references therein to ‘Congress’, ‘Senate’, ‘House of Representatives’ and ‘Houses of Congress’ shall be changed to read ‘Parliament’, that any and all references therein to ‘Member[s] of Congress’, ‘Senator[s]’ or ‘Member[s] of the House of Representatives’ shall be changed to read as ‘Member[s] of Parliament’ and any and all references to the ‘President’ and or ‘Acting President’ shall be changed to read ‘Prime Minister’. Section 3. ‘Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be deemed amended so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of


government; provided however that any and all references therein to ‘Congress’, ‘Senate’, ‘House of Representatives’ and ‘Houses of Congress’ shall be changed to read ‘Parliament’, that any and all reference therein to ‘Member[s]’ of Congress, ‘Senator[s]’ or ‘Member[s] of the House of Representatives’ shall be changed to read as ‘Member[s] of Parliament’ and any and all references to the ‘President’ and or ‘Acting President’ shall be changed to read ‘Prime Minister’. Section 4 (1). There shall exist, upon the ratification of these amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments. (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among themselves. (3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.


Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to him by the incumbent President.’ (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. Thereafter, the Vice President, as Member of Parliament, shall immediately convene the Parliament and shall initially preside over its session for the purpose of electing the Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of all its members, from among themselves. The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President.

7. These proposed amendments do not infringe on the constitutional limitations set forth in Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution; neither are they covered by the exceptions set forth in Republic Act No. 6735. 8. The foregoing proposed amendments have been earlier endorsed and proposed by the House of Representatives Committee on Constitutional Amendments, and substantially recommended by the Constitutional Consultative Commission. Thus, the Petitioners submit for approval by the Filipino people in a plebiscite to be called for the said purpose, the following ---


Proposition

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

The Rationale for the Proposed Amendments

9. The proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII, providing for a shift from the present bicameral-Presidential government to a unicameral-Parliamentary system, will effect a more efficient, more economical and more responsive government. The shift from the bicameral to unicameral legislature will do away with the time-consuming duplication of legislative functions and strengthen responsibility and accountability in legislative work in government. The Parliamentary system will ensure harmony between the legislative and executive branches of government, promote greater consensus, and provide faster and more decisive governmental action. It is for these reasons, among others, that the Petitioners submit the foregoing amendatory proposal.”26

In the prolixity and complexity of the above-proposed amendments,

it is clear that such cannot be categorized, even by semantical

generosity, as ‘amendments’. Rather, they are, by any measure, revision

as defined by the framers of the Constitution. Further, any change in

the structure of government, even if it is effected only by a single

statement, would be a revision instead of amendment.

26 pp. 4-8, Petition for Initiative in EM (LD)-06-01

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 27 – x------------------------------------------------------------x The length and complexity of the above-quoted proposals for

revision requires opportunity for debate and discussion.

A glaring defect of the proposal for a people’s initiative in the

absence of an enabling law to govern the process is fraught with many

dangers that tend to subvert, rather than find a distinct avenue for the

expression of the true will of the people. Here, the alleged initiative has

been manipulated by the administration. And among the deficiencies of

pushing for a people’s initiative absent a sufficient law to supply an

orderly procedure for its implementation is the lack of a convenient

forum where the proposed amendments may be freely discussed and

debated.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the Petition be

dismissed for lack of merit.

Oppositors pray for such further relief as may be just and

equitable in the premises.

Makati City for Manila, 21 September 2006.

PACIFICO A. AGABIN Roll No. 16609/06.07.61

PTR No. 4186063/01.05.06/Makati IBP Life Roll No. 251

AGABIN VERZOLA HERMOSO & LAYAOEN LAW OFFICES

Counsel for Intervenor-Oppositor Senate of the Philippines

26th Floor, Pacific Star Building Gil Puyat Ave. cor. Makati Avenue

Makati City


- and -

DAVID JONATHAN V. YAP Senate Legal Counsel

Roll No. 34363 IBP No. 687505/08.09.06/CALMANA

PTR No. 0345729/01.30.06/Pasay City Rm. 410, 4th Flr., Senate Bldg. Financial Center, Pasay City

CONSTANCIO S. MANGOBA, JR. Roll No. 34361

IBP No. 687392/08.07.06/CALMANA PTR No. 3329121/07.05.06/Pasig City

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES) ) S.S.

VERIFICATION

I, MANNY VILLAR, Filipino, of legal age, under oath, declare: 1. I am duly elected Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. 2. I am presently the President of the Senate of the Philippines. 3. In my capacity as Senate President, I am impleaded as intervenor-oppositor in the above-captioned case. 4. I caused the preparation of this Opposition in Intervention for the Petition of petitioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of September 2006 at ______________. MANNY VILLAR President, Senate of the Philippines

“Opposition in Intervention” Lambino, et al. vs. Comelec/Senate of the Phils. G.R. No. 174153 Page - 29 – x------------------------------------------------------------x SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ____ day of September 2006, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 14825934 issued on January 18, 2006 at Las Piñas City. Notary Public Doc. No. _____; Page No. _____; Book No. _____; Series of 2006. Copy furnished by registered mail: Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato Counsel for Petitioner Raul L. Lambino Autoland Building, 1616 Quezon Ave. South Triangle, Quezon City Atty. Alberto C. Agra Counsel for Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado No. 12 Fourth Street, Saint Ignatius Village Quezon City Office of the Solicitor General Amorsolo Street, Makati City Commission on Elections Intramuros, Manila Ateneo Human Rights Center Counsel for Intervenors-Oppositors OneVoice, Inc., et al. Rm. 101, Ground Floor, APS Building 20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center Makati City

COMPLIANCE (Pursuant to Sec. 11, Rule 13 of the

1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

The foregoing Opposition in Intervention was served upon the above parties by registered mail since personal service upon them is impractical due to lack of personnel to serve the same. PACIFICO A. AGABIN senate #174153 oppo in intrvntn 092106 g/paa

Date post:	11-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungduong
View:	216 times
Download:	2 times

SUPREME COURT MANILA RAUL L. LAMBINO and … 174153 oppo in intrvntn... · ·...

Documents