|
Saturday, April 22, 2006
Speak out: Charter change push
By Ramon B. Ceniza
Second of Two Parts
Even Chief Justice Panganiban, who dissented from the majority decision in the Santiago case, had to caution would-be petitioners using people’s initiative as a system to amend the Constitution by inviting attention to certain procedural requisites, both under the law on Initiatives (RA 6735) and Comelec Resolution No. 2300 providing for its implementation, the most important being that the same must be signed by the required number of registered voters as prescribed by the Constitution (12 percent and 3 percent).
If the required number of voters does not sign the petition, it will be treated as a useless piece of paper to be consigned to the wastebasket.
It is believed however that the petition to amend the Constitution by people’s initiative would comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the law.
Otherwise, the proponents would only have themselves to blame for failure to heed the teaching in Santiago.
Pivotal question
Should the petition be given due course by the Comelec after having satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements, the pivotal question is whether the proposed changes are mere amendments or are meant to overhaul the present system of government or effect a change in its fundamental philosophy amounting to revision.
It may be noted that the changes to be introduced into the Constitution appear to be more ambitious, if not more far-reaching, than the ill-fated changes proposed by Pirma and arise at a different time and political and judicial climate and circumstance.
Amendment vs. revision will be the constitutional issue that the Supreme Court will have to confront should it resolve to re-examine the earlier Cha-Cha cases.
Plebiscite
The propositions now being directly proposed by people’s initiative will then be the subject of a plebiscite.
Should the people ratify the changes in a plebiscite, which can conceivably take place this year in the absence of a temporary restraining order, crucial to the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court is the question on whether or not the changes proposed are mere amendments rather than revision---the latter argument being the most seriously advanced by the opponents of people’s initiative.
An interesting query may be asked, even if this may be going one step ahead:
Should the people ratify in a scheduled plebiscite the changes by a verifiable vote even if such changes may amount to a revision?
Can the Supreme Court stand in the way to block the peoples will while the case may still be under deliberation?
Otherwise stated, will the distinction between amendment and revision not be automatically obliterated after the results of plebiscite favor such changes?
There should be confidence however that the Supreme Court will not allow itself to be pre-empted by a potential Constitutional crisis.
For Bisaya stories from Cebu. Click here. (April 22, 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
|
