EN BANC
G.R. No. 174153, Raul L. Lambino and Erico
B. Aumentado, together with 6,327,952 registered
voters v. Commission on Elections et al.
Promulgated
on:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
Without
the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no
liberty.
Beverley
McLachlin [1]
Chief Justice of
After a deep reflection on the issues
raised and a careful evaluation of the parties’ respective arguments -- both
oral and written -- as well as the enlightened and enlightening Opinions
submitted by my esteemed colleagues, I am fully convinced that the present
Petition must be dismissed.
I write, however, to show that my
present disposition is completely consistent with my previous Opinions and
votes on the two extant Supreme Court cases involving an initiative to change
the Constitution.
In my Separate Opinion in Santiago v. Comelec,[2] I
opined “that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the
Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), Republic Act 6735 and Comelec Resolution
2300 provide more
than sufficient
__________________
‘SEC. 2. 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 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.’
“With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and all too extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. What Citizen Delfin wants the Comelec to do we should reject. But we should not thereby preempt any future effort to exercise the right of initiative correctly and judiciously. The fact that the Delfin Petition proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper use. Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time and for the right reason.
Taken Together and Interpreted
Properly,
the
Constitution, R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution
2300 Are Sufficient to Implement
Constitutional Initiatives
“While R.A. 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority openly concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I respectfully submit, it contains enough provisions to effectuate an initiative on the Constitution. I completely agree with the inspired and inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno and Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law on initiative, sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat nor elaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en banc rulings in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on Elections, that "provisions for initiative . . . are (to be) liberally construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not hamper the exercise by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia vs. Comelec, that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives ought to be rejected."
“No
law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. In
recognition of this, R.A. 6735 wisely empowered the Commission on Election
"to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto, the Comelec
issued its Resolution 2300 on
authority to implement, effectuate and realize
our people’s power to amend the Constitution.”
__________________
E. Abueg, Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama and Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we cannot ascribe any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and exemplary effort to give life to a cherished right of our people.
“The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to national laws and local legislations, it is void in reference to constitutional amendments. There is no basis for such differentiation. The source of and authority for the Resolution is the same law, R.A. 6735.
“I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the Constitution.
Petitioner Delfin
and the Pedrosa
Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled
“I
am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary restraining
order issued by this Court on
Epilogue
“By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate Opinion. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the world-admired EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our people to be used as
Six months after, in my Separate
Opinion in People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA)
v. Comelec,[3]
I joined the rest of the members of the Court in ruling “by a unanimous
vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the
Comelec
in dismissing the
petition filed by
__________________
Constitution
x x x.” While concededly, petitioners in this case
were not direct parties in
Second
Issue:
Sufficiency of RA 6735
“I repeat my firm legal position that RA 6735 is adequate to cover initiatives on the Constitution, and that whatever administrative details may have been omitted in said law are satisfactorily provided by Comelec Resolution 2300. The promulgation of Resolution 2300 is sanctioned by Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which vests upon the Comelec the power to “enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.” The Omnibus Election Code likewise empowers the electoral body to “promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this Code or other laws which the Commission is required to enforce and administer x x x.” Finally and most relevantly, Section 20 of Ra 6735 specifically authorizes Comelec “to promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.”
“In
my dissent in
The Right Thing
“A people’s initiative is direct
democracy in action. It is the right
thing that citizens may avail themselves of to articulate their will. It is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional
system. Even the majority implicitly
conceded its value and worth in our legal firmament when it implored Congress
“not to tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to
provide for implementation of the right (of initiative) of the people x x x.” Hence, in the en banc case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Comelec, [G.R. No. 125416,
PIRMA therein,” since the Commission
had “only complied” with the
__________________
sovereignty. And this
Court as a matter of policy and doctrine will exert every effort to nurture,
protect and promote their legitimate exercise.”
The
“From the outset, I have already maintained the view that “taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), RA 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people’s power to amend the Constitution.” Let me now demonstrate the adequacy of RA 6735 by outlining, in concrete terms, the steps to be taken – the right way – to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative.
“Pursuant to Section 3(f) of the law, the Comelec shall prescribe the form of the petition which shall contain the proposition and the required number of signatories. Under Sec. 5(c) thereof, the petition shall state the following:
‘c.1 contents or text of the [provision or provisions] sought to be x x x amended, x x x;
c.2 the proposition [in full text];
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor [fully and clearly explained];
c.4 that it is not one of exceptions provided herein;
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the petition.’
“Section 8(f) of Comelec Resolution 2300 additionally requires that the petition include a formal designation of the duly authorized representatives of the signatories.
“Being a constitutional requirement, the number of signatures becomes a condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is jurisdictional. Without such requisite signatures, the Commission shall motu proprio reject the petition.
“Where the initiators have substantially complied with the above requirements, they may thence file the petition with the Comelec which is tasked to determine the sufficiency thereof and to verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits and voters’ identification cards. In deciding whether the petition is sufficient, the Comelec shall also determine if the proposition is proper for an initiative, i.e., if it consists of an amendment, not a revision, of the Constitution. Any decision of the electoral body may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice.
I
added “that my position upholding the adequacy of RA 6735 and
the validity of Comelec Resolution
2300 will not ipso
__________________
“Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, and after the determination of its sufficiency, the Comelec shall publish the same in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation, and set the date of the plebiscite. The conduct of the plebiscite should not be earlier than sixty (60) days, but not later than ninety (90) days after certification by the Comelec of the sufficiency of the petition. The proposition, if approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite, becomes effective as of the day of the plebiscite.
“From the foregoing, it should be clear that
my position upholding the adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 will not ipso facto validate
the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a plebiscite to amend the
Constitution. Far from
it. Among others, PIRMA must
still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issues:
1.
Does the
proposed change – the lifting of the term limits of elective officials --
constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution?
2.
Which
registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the petition? This question is relevant considering that
under RA 8189, the old registry of voters used in the 1995 national elections
was voided after the barangay elections on May 12,
1997, while the new list may be used starting only in the elections of May
1998.
3. Does the clamor for the proposed change in the Constitution really emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiative? Or it is the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such move to advance their own political self-interest?
4. Are the six million signatures genuine and verifiable? Do they really belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at least 12% of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein?
“I shall expound on the third question in the next section, The Right Reason. Question Nos. 1 and 2 above, while important, are basically legal in character and can be determined by argumentation and memoranda. However, Question No. 4 involves not only legal issues but gargantuan hurdles of factual determination. This to my mind is the crucible, the litmus test, of a people’s petition for initiative. If herein petitioners, led by PIRMA, succeed in proving -- not just alleging -- that six million voters of this country indeed want to amend the Constitution, what power on earth can stop them? Not this Court, not the Comelec, not even the President or Congress.
facto validate the PIRMA petition and
automatically lead to a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Far from it.” I stressed that PIRMA must show the
following, among others:
__________________
“It took only one million people to stage a peaceful revolution at EDSA, and the very rafters and foundations of the martial law society trembled, quaked and crumbled. On the other hand, PIRMA and its co-petitioners are claiming that they have gathered six million signatures. If, as claimed by many, these six million signatures are fraudulent, then let them be exposed and damned for all history in a signature-verification process conducted under our open system of legal advocacy.
“More than anything else, it is the truth that I, as a member of this Court and as a citizen of this country, would like to seek: Are these six million signatures real? By insisting on an entirely new doctrine of statutory inadequacy, the majority effectively suppressed the quest for that truth.
The Right Reason
“As mentioned, the third question that must be answered, even if the adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 were upheld by the majority is: Does the clamor for the proposed change to the Constitution really emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiative? Or is it the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such move to advance their own political self-interests? In other words, is PIRMA’s exercise of the right to initiative being done in accordance with our Constitution and our laws? Is such attempted exercise legitimate?
“In
Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, we described initiative, along with
referendum, as the ‘ultimate weapon of the people to negate government
malfeasance and misfeasance.’ In
“[Initiative is] a reserve power of the sovereign people, when they are dissatisfied with the National Assembly x x x [and] precisely a fallback position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied.” -- Commissioner Ople
“[Initiative is] a check on a legislative that is not responsive [and resorted to] only if the legislature is not as responsive to the vital and urgent needs of people.” -- Commissioner Gascon
(1)
The proposed change -- the
lifting of term limits of elective officials -- “constitute[s]
a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution.”
_________________
“[Initiative is an] extraordinary power given to the people [and] reserved for the people [which] should not be frivolously resorted to.” -- Commissioner Romulo
”Indeed, if the powers-that-be desire to amend the Constitution, or even to revise it, our Charter itself provides them other ways of doing so, namely, by calling a constitutional convention or constituting Congress into a constituent assembly. These are officialdom’s weapons. But initiative belongs to the people.
“In
the present case, are PIRMA and its co-petitioners legitimate people’s
organizations or are they merely fronts for incumbents who want to extend their
terms? This is a factual question which,
unfortunately, cannot be judicially answered anymore, because the
Supreme Court majority ruled that the law that implements it, RA 6735, is
inadequate or insufficient insofar as initiatives to the Constitutions are
concerned. With such ruling, the
majority effectively abrogated a constitutional right of our people. That is why in my Separate Opinion in
The Right Time
“The Constitution itself sets a time limitation on when changes thereto may be proposed. Section 2 of Article XVII precludes amendments “within five years following [its] ratification x x x nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.” Since its ratification, the 1987 Constitution has never been amended. Hence, the five-year prohibition is now inoperative and amendments may theoretically be proposed at any time.
“Be
that as it may, I believe – given the present circumstances – that there is no
more time to lift term limits to enable incumbents to seek reelection in the
(2) The “six million signatures are genuine and
verifiable”; and they “really
belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at
__________________
elections,
less than eight (8) months remain.
“Thus, even if the Court were to rule now in favor of the adequacy of RA 6735 – as I believe it should – and allow the Comelec to act on the PIRMA petition, such eight-month period will not be enough to tackle the four weighty issues I mentioned earlier, considering that two of them involve tedious factual questions. The Comelec’s decision on any of these issues can still be elevated to this Court for review, and reconsiderations on our decisions on each of those issues may again be sought.
“Comelec’s herculean task alone of verifying each of the six million
signatures is enormously time-consuming, considering that any person may question
the authenticity of each and every signature, initially before the election
registrar, then before the Comelec on appeal and
finally, before this Court in a separate proceeding. Moreover, the plebiscite itself – assuming
such stage can be reached – may be scheduled only after sixty (60) but not more
than ninety (90) days, from the time the Comelec and
this Court, on appeal, finally declare the petition to be sufficient.
“Meanwhile, under Comelec
Resolution 2946, political parties, groups organizations or coalitions may
start selecting their official candidates for President, Vice President and
Senators on November 27, 1997; the period for filing certificates of candidacy
is from January 11 to February 9, 1998; the election period and campaign for national
officials start on February 10, 1998, while the campaign period for other
elective officials, on March 17, 1998.
This means, by the time PIRMA’s proposition is
ready – if ever – for submission directly to the voters at large, it will have
been overcome by the elections. Time
will simply run out on PIRMA, if the intention is to lift term limits in
time for the 1998 elections.
“That
term limits may no longer be lifted prior to the 1998 elections via a people’s
initiative does not detract one whit from (1) my firm conviction that RA 6735
is sufficient and adequate to implement this constitutional right and, more
important, (2) my faith in the power of the people to initiate changes in local
and national laws and the Constitution.
In fact, I think the Court can deliberate on these two items even more
serenely and wisely now that the debates will be free from the din and
distraction of the 1998 elections. After
all, jurisprudence is not merely for the here and now but, more so, for the
hereafter and the morrow. Let me
therefore stress, by way of epilogue, my unbending credo in favor of our
people’s right to initiative.
least 12% of the registered voters
nationwide, of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3%
of the registered voters therein.”
__________________
Epilogue
“I
believe in democracy – in our people’s natural right to determine our own
destiny.
“I
believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of enabling our
people to express their will and chart their history. Initiative is an alternative to bloody
revolution, internal chaos and civil strife.
It is an inherent right of the people – as basic as the right to elect,
the right to self-determination and the right to individual liberties. I believe that Filipinos have the ability and
the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely
and maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity.
“Such
beliefs, however, should not be equated with a desire to perpetuate a
particular official or group of officials in power. Far from it. Such perpetuation is anathema to
democracy. My firm conviction that there
is an adequate law implementing the constitutional right of initiative does not
ipso facto result in the victory of the PIRMA petition or of any
proposed constitutional change. There
are, after all, sufficient safeguards to guarantee the proper use of
such constitutional right and to forestall its misuse and abuse. First, initiative cannot be used to
revise the Constitution, only to amend it.
Second, the petitioners’ signatures must be validated against an
existing list of voters and/or voters’ identification cards. Third, initiative is a reverse power
of and by the people, not of incumbent officials and their machinators. Fourth and most important of all, the
signatures must be verified as real and genuine; not concocted, fictitious or
fabricated. The only legal way to do
this is to enable the Commission on Elections to conduct a nationwide
verification process as mandated by the Constitution and the law. Such verification, it bears stressing, is
subject to review by this Court.
“There
were, by the most generous estimate, only a million people who gathered at EDSA
in 1986, and yet they changed the history of our country. PIRMA claims six times that number, not just
from the National Capital Region but from all over the country. Is this claim through the invention of its
novel theory of statutory insufficiency, the Court’s majority has stifled the
only legal method of determining whether PIRMA is real or not, whether there is
indeed a popular clamor to lift term limits of elected officials, and whether
six million voters want to initiate amendments to their most basic law. In suppressing a judicial answer to such
questions, the Court may have unwittingly yielded to PIRMA the benefit of the
legal presumption of legality and regularity.
In its misplaced zeal to exterminate the rats, it burned down the whole
house. It unceremoniously divested the
people of a basic constitutional right.
In both Opinions, I concluded that we
must implement “the right thing [initiative]
in the right way at the right time and for the right reason.”
In the present case, I steadfastly
stand by my foregoing Opinions in
No Grave Abuse
of Discretion by Comelec
As
in PIRMA, I find no grave abuse of discretion in Comelec’s
dismissal of the Lambino Petition. After all, the Commission merely followed the
holding in
____________________
“In the ultimate, the mission of the judiciary is to discover truth and to make it prevail. This mission is undertaken not only to resolve the vagaries of present events but also to build the pathways of tomorrow. The sum total of the entire process of adversarial litigation is the verity of facts and the application of law thereto. By the majority cop-out in this mission of discovery, our country and our people have been deprived not only of a basic constitutional right, as earlier noted, but also of the judicial opportunity to verify the truth.”
enjoining the poll body “from entertaining or
taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the
Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide
for the implementation of the system.”
Indeed, the Comelec
did not violate the Constitution, the laws or any jurisprudence.[4] Neither can whim, caprice, arbitrariness or
personal bias be attributed to the Commission.[5] Quite the contrary, it prudently followed
this Court’s jurisprudence in
The present Lambino
Petition is in exactly the same situation as that of PIRMA in 1997. The differences pointed out by Justice Reynato S. Puno are, with due
respect, superficial. It is argued that, unlike the present Lambino
Petition, PIRMA did not contain verified signatures. These are
distinctions that do not make a difference.
Precisely,
Justice Puno is urging a remand,
because the verification issue is “contentious” and remains unproven by
petitioners. Clearly, both the PIRMA and
the Lambino Petitions contain unverified
signatures. Therefore, they both deserve
the same treatment: DISMISSAL.
Besides,
the only reason given in the
unanimous Resolution on PIRMA v. Comelec was
that the Commission had “only complied” with this Court’s Decision in
To stress, I adhere to my Opinion in PIRMA that, “[b]eing
a constitutional requirement, the number of signatures becomes a condition
precedent to the filing of the petition, and is jurisdictional.[7] Without those signatures, the Comelec shall motu proprio reject the petition.”
So, until and unless Santiago is revisited and changed by
this Court or the legal moorings of the exercise of the right are substantially
changed, the Comelec
cannot be faulted for acting in accord with this Court’s pronouncements. Respondent Commission has no discretion, under any guise, to refuse enforcement of any final
decision of this Court.[8] The refusal of the poll body to act on the Lambino Petition was its only recourse. Any other mode of action would appear not
only presumptuous, but also contemptuous.
It would have constituted defiance of the Court and would have surely
been struck down as grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of the
supremacy of this Court as the final arbiter of justiciable
controversies.
Even
assuming further that this Court rules, as I believe it should (for the reasons
given in my Opinions in Santiago and PIRMA), that Republic Act 6735 is indeed
sufficient to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution, still, no
grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Comelec
for merely following prevailing jurisprudence extant at the time it rendered
its ruling in question.
Only Amendments,
Not Revisions
I
reiterate that only amendments, not
revisions, may be the proper subject of an initiative to change the
Constitution. This principle is crystal
clear from even a layperson’s reading of the basic law.[9]
I submit that changing the system of
government from presidential to parliamentary and the form of the legislature
from bicameral to unicameral contemplates an overhaul of the structure of government. The ponencia has
amply demonstrated that the merger of the legislative and the executive branches under a
unicameral-parliamentary system, “[b]y any legal test and under any
jurisdiction,” will “radically alter the framework of government as set forth
in the Constitution.” Indeed, the proposed
changes have an overall implication on the entire Constitution; they
effectively rewrite its most important and basic provisions. The prolixity and complexity of the changes
cannot be categorized, even by semantic generosity, as “amendments.”
In
addition, may I say that of the three modes of changing the Constitution,
revisions (or amendments) may be proposed only through the first two: by
Congress or by a constitutional convention.
Under the third mode -- people’s initiative -- only amendments are
allowed. Many of the justices’ Opinions
have cited the historical, philosophical and jurisprudential bases of their
respective positions. I will not add to
the woes of the reader by reiterating them here.
Suffice it to say that, to me, the
practical test to differentiate an amendment from a revision is found in the
Constitution itself: a revision may be done only when the
proposed change can be drafted, defined, articulated, discussed and agreed upon
after a mature and democratic debate in a deliberative body like Congress or a
Convention. The changes proposed
must necessarily be scrutinized, as their adoption or non-adoption must result
from an informed judgment.
Indeed, the constitutional bodies
that drafted the 1935, the 1972 and the 1987 Constitutions had to spend many
months of purposeful discussions, democratic debates and rounds of voting
before they could agree on the wordings covering the philosophy, the underlying
principles, and the structure of government of our Republic.
Verily,
even bills creating or changing the administrative structure of local
governments take several weeks or even months of drafting, reading, and
debating before Congress can approve them.
How much more when it comes to constitutional changes?
A
change in the form of government of our country from presidential-bicameral to
parliamentary-unicameral is monumental.
Even the initiative proponents admit this fact. So, why should a revision be
rammed down our people’s throats without the benefit of intelligent discussion
in a deliberative assembly?
Added to the constitutional mandate
barring revisions is the provision of RA 6735 expressly prohibiting petitions
for initiative from “embracing more than one subject matter.”[10] The present initiative covers at least two
subjects: (1) the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of
government; and (2) the change from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.[11] Thus, even under Republic Act 6735 -- the law
that Justice Puno and I hold to be sufficient and
valid -- the Lambino Petition deserves dismissal.
12
Percent and 3 Percent Thresholds
Not
Proven by Petitioners
The litmus test of a people’s petition for initiative is its ability to
muster the constitutional requirement that it be supported by at least 12
percent of the registered voters nationwide, of which at least 3 percent of the
registered voters in every legislative district must be represented. As pointed out by Intervenors
One Voice, Inc., et al., however, records show that there was a failure to meet
the minimum percentages required.[12]
Even Justice Puno
concedes that the 12 percent and 3 percent constitutional requirements involve
“contentious facts,” which have not been proven by the Lambino
Petition. Thus, he is urging a remand to
the Comelec.
But a remand is both imprudent and futile. It is imprudent
because the Constitution itself mandates the said requisites of an initiative
petition. In other words, a petition
that does not show the required percentages is fatally defective and must be
dismissed, as the Delfin Petition was, in
Furthermore, as
the ponencia had discussed extensively, the present
Petition is void and unconstitutional. It points out that the Petition dismally
fails to comply with the constitutional requirement that an initiative must be
directly proposed by the people.
Specifically, the
ponencia has amply established that petitioners were
unable to show that the Lambino Petition contained,
or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed changes.
So, too, a remand is futile. Even if the required percentages are proven
before the Commission, the Petition must still be dismissed for proposing a
revision, not an amendment, in gross violation of the Constitution. At the
very least, it proposes more than one subject, in violation of Republic Act
6735.
Summation
Petitioners
plead with this Court to hear the voice of the people because, in the words of
Justice Puno who supports them, the “people’s voice
is sovereign in a democracy.”
I, too, believe in heeding the people’s
voice. I reiterate my Separate
Opinion in PIRMA that “initiative is a democratic method of enabling our people
to express their will and chart their history. x x x. I believe that Filipinos have the ability and
the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely
and maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity.”
This
belief will not, however, automatically and blindly result in an initiative to
change the Constitution, because the present Petition violates the following:
· The Constitution (specifically Article XVII, which allows only
amendments, not revisions, and requires definite percentages of verified
signatures)
· The law (specifically, Republic Act 6735, which prohibits petitions
containing more than one subject)
· Jurisprudence
(specifically, PIRMA v. Comelec, which
dismissed the Petition then under consideration on the ground that, by
following the Santiago ruling, the Comelec had not gravely abused its discretion).
I
submit further that a remand of the Lambino Petition
is both imprudent and futile. More
tellingly, it is a cop-out, a hand-washing already discredited 2000 years
ago. Instead of finger-pointing, I believe we must confront the issues head
on, because the people expect no less from this august and venerable
institution of supreme justice.
Epilogue
At
bottom, the issue in this case is simply
the Rule of Law.[13] Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a
treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. It was born out of our
world-admired and often-imitated People Power, but its misuse and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Democracy must be cherished, but mob rule
vanquished.
The Constitution is a sacred
social compact, forged between the government and the people, between each
individual and the rest of the citizenry.
Through it, the people have solemnly expressed their will that all of
them shall be governed by laws, and their rights limited by agreed-upon
covenants to promote the common good. If we are to uphold the Rule of Law and
reject the rule of the mob, we must
faithfully abide by the processes the Constitution has ordained in order to
bring about a peaceful, just and humane
society. Assuming arguendo that six
million people allegedly gave their
assent to the proposed changes in the Constitution, they are nevertheless still bound by the social covenant --
the present Constitution -- which was ratified by a far greater majority almost
twenty years ago.[14] I do not denigrate the majesty of the
sovereign will; rather, I elevate our society to the loftiest perch, because our government must remain as one of laws
and not of men.
Upon
assuming office, each of the justices of the Supreme Court took a solemn oath
to uphold the Constitution. Being the protectors of the fundamental law as the
highest expression of the sovereign will, they must subject to the strictest
scrutiny any attempt to change it, lest
it be trivialized and degraded by the assaults of the mob and of ill-conceived
designs. The Court must
single-mindedly defend the Constitution
from bogus efforts falsely attributed to the sovereign people.
The
judiciary may be the weakest branch of government. Nonetheless, when ranged against incessant
voices from the more powerful branches of government, it should never cower in
submission. On the other hand, I daresay
that the same weakness of the Court becomes its strength when it speaks
independently through decisions that rightfully uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The strength of the judiciary lies not in its
lack of brute power, but in its moral courage to perform its constitutional
duty at all times against all odds. Its
might is in its being right.[15]
During the past weeks, media outfits
have been ablaze with reports and innuendoes about alleged carrots offered and
sticks drawn by those interested in the outcome of this case.[16] There being no judicial proof of these
allegations, I shall not comment on them for the nonce, except to quote the
Good Book, which says, “There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and
nothing secret that will not be known and come to light.”[17]
Verily,
the Supreme Court is now on the crossroads of history. By its decision, the Court and each of its members
shall be judged by posterity. Ten years,
fifty years, a hundred years -- or even a thousand years -- from now, what the
Court did here, and how each justice opined and voted, will still be talked
about, either in shame or in pride.
Indeed, the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate, the abomination of Dred Scott, and the loathing of Javellana still linger and haunt to this day.
Let
not this case fall into the same damnation. Rather, let this Court be known
throughout the nation and the world for its independence, integrity, industry and intelligence.
WHEREFORE,
I vote to DISMISS the Petition.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Chief
Justice McLachlin spoke on “
[2] GR No.
127325,
“Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the majority, holds that:
‘(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the ‘initiatory’ Delfin Petition.
‘(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to ‘be directly proposed by the people through initiative,’ there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735 is ‘incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.’
‘(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2300, ‘insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.’
“I
concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can
show the required number of signatures — in this case, 12% of all the
registered voters in the
“Under
the above restrictive holdings espoused by the Court's majority, the
Constitution cannot be amended at all through a people's initiative. Not by Delfin, not by PIRMA, not by anyone, not even by all the
voters of the country acting together. This decision will effectively but
unnecessarily curtail, nullify, abrogate and render inutile the people's right
to change the basic law. At the very least, the majority holds the right
hostage to congressional discretion on whether to pass a new law to implement
it, when there is already one existing at present. This right to amend through
initiative, it bears stressing, is guaranteed by Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution, as follows:
their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders. While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be resolutely struck down, on the other, their legitimate exercise should be carefully nurtured and zealously protected.
“WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition
of Sen. Miriam D. Santiago et al. and to DIRECT Respondent Commission on
Elections to DISMISS the Delfin Petition on the
ground of prematurity, but not on the other grounds
relied upon by the majority. I also vote to LIFT the temporary restraining
order issued on
[3] GR No.
129754,
“Petitioners assail the
“1. In refusing to act on the PIRMA petition, the Comelec allegedly acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and
“2. In declaring R.A. 6735 “inadequate to cover its system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution” and “declaring void those parts of Resolution 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of [an] initiative [on] amendments to the Constitution,” the Supreme Court’s Decision in G.R. No. 127325 entitled Miriam Defensor Santiago vs. Commission on Elections (hereafter referred to as Santiago) should be reexamined because said Decision is allegedly “unconstitutional,” and because, in any event, the Supreme Court itself, in reconsidering the said issue per its June 10, 1997 Resolution, was deadlocked at six votes one each side.
“The following in my position on each of these two issues:
First
Issue:
No Grave Abuse of Discretion
in Comelec’s Refusal to Act
“The
Respondent Commission’s refusal to act on the “prayers” of the PIRMA petition
cannot in any wise be branded as “grave abuse of discretion.” Be it remembered that the Court’s Decision in
[4] Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735,