|
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Dossier: Comelec opinion on the Pirma case
By Regalado E. Maambong
(The following are excerpts of a letter, dated Feb. 4, 2006, sent to Jose V. Abueva by Associate Justice Regalado Maambong a day after Abueva's talk on the parliamentary system at the Manila Hotel.)
The factual situation is very simple. In the Pirma initiative, the Supreme Court directed the Comelec, when I was commissioner, to dismiss the petition. Naturally, we in the Comelec complied. I was the ponente because Chairman Pardo moved for the suspension of the rule on raffle and the Comelec en banc instead designated me to make the decision.
We talked about this because the House of Representatives, according to the papers, will use people’s initiative to amend the Constitution...A problem might arise because in ordering Comelec to dismiss the Pirma petition, the Supreme Court interpreted the implementing law (RA 6735) in this manner (per Justice Hilario Davide as ponente):
“The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on the substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by `empowering’ the Comelec to promulgate’ such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of (the) Act.”
Since the Supreme Court has spoken, short of saying that the law is unconstitutional, it now appears that the House has no implementing law.
Some members of the House, however, have been quoted as saying that people’s initiative to amend the Constitution is a constitutional provision that needs no implementing law. Anyway, they say, Comelec already promulgated rules and regulations in Resolution No. 2300.
A constitutional question could arise whether the Supreme Court can enjoin people’s initiative because it ruled the law to be insufficient. In the ponencia of the Comelec, which I penned, the Comelec obeyed the Supreme Court but disagreed that the law is insufficient:
“...Before the Santiago petition was initiated in the Supreme Court, the Members of the Commission unanimously maintained that Republic Act No. 6735 was sufficient and adequate...Our position was consistent with the opinion of the principal author of the law, Sen. Raul S. Roco, who, in his memorandum, filed before the Supreme Court on Feb. 20, 1997 as petitioner-intervenor also argued that Comelec Resolution No. 2300 is valid."
But, as you know, the Supreme Court decision prevails over that of the Comelec although Comelec has primary jurisdiction.
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (March 30, 2006 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
