RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO
B.
AUMENTADO,
TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952 REGISTERED
VOTERS,
Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006
- versus -
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE
B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN
T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P.
MEDINA, JR.
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,
Intervenor.
x-------------------------------------------x
|
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson
Dr. Carolina
Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN MUNA
represented by its Chairperson,
Dr. Reynaldo
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented
by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD
represented by its
Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas,
MIGRANTE represented
by its Chairperson
Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA
represented by its Secretary General
Emerenciana de Jesus,
GABRIELA WOMEN’S
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina
Palabay,
ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de
Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS represented by Chair
Vencer
Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the
League of
Concerned Professionals and
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO
of the Solidarity of Health Against Charter
Change, DR. REGINALD
PAMUGAS of
Health Action for Human Rights,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
|
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO
F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
GAT
INCIONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO
MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented
by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D.
BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and
RANDALL TABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE
CHAPTERS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO
Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and
SENATORS
SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III,
JAMBY
MADRIGAL, JINGGOY
ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and
PANFILO LACSON,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
and
PWERSA
NG MASANG
PILIPINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL
BINAY,
SOFRONIO
UNTALAN, JR.,
and
RENE
A.V. SAGUISAG,
Petitioners,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
G.R. No. 174299
October 25, 2006
-versus- chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
represented by Chairman BENJAMIN
S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners
RESURRECCION Z.
BORRA,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON,
ROMEO A.
BRAWNER,
RENE V.
SARMIENTO,
NICODEMO T. FERRER,
and
John
Doe and Peter
Doe,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty.
Beverley McLachlin [1]
Chief Justice of Canada
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.
chan robles virtual law library
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
authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people’s power to
amend the Constitution.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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 PIRMA therein,” since the
Commission had “only complied” with the Santiago Decision.
I added “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.” I stressed that PIRMA must show the following, among others:cralaw:red
(1)
The proposed change -- the lifting of term limits of
elective officials -- “constitute[s] a mere amendment and not a
revision of the
Constitution”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
(2) The “six million signatures are
genuine and verifiable”; and 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.”
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
In the present case, I steadfastly stand by my foregoing
Opinions in Santiago and PIRMA. Tested against them, the present
Petition of Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado must be DISMISSED.
Unfortunately, the right thing is being rushed in the wrong way and for
the wrong reasons. Let me explain.
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 Santiago permanently
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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 Santiago and PIRMA. Even assuming
arguendo that Comelec erred in ruling on a very difficult and unsettled
question of law, this Court still cannot attribute grave abuse of
discretion to the poll body with respect to that action.[6]
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 Santiago, the same reason given by Comelec in
this case. The Separate Opinions in PIRMA gave no other
reason. No one argued, even remotely, that the PIRMA Petition
should have been dismissed because the signatures were unverified.
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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] chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.
chan robles virtual law library
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?
chan robles virtual law library
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
Santiago.
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
ConstitutionAt 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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
This belief will not, however, automatically and blindly
result in an initiative to change the Constitution, because the present
Petition violates the following:cralaw:red
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 contract, 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.
chan robles virtual law library
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.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1]
Chief Justice McLachlin spoke on “Liberty, Prosperity and the Rule of
Law” in her speech before the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity
held on October 18-20, 2006 in Manila. She further stated: “Without the
rule of law, government officials are not bound by standards of
conduct. Without the rule of law, the dignity and equality of all
people is not affirmed and their ability to seek redress for grievances
and societal commitments is limited. Without the rule of law, we
have no means of ensuring meaningful participation by people in
formulating and enacting the norms and standards which organize the
kinds of societies in which we want to live.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[2]
GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 336 Phil. 848. For ease of
reference, my Separate Opinion is reproduced in full:cralaw:red
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the majority, holds that:cralaw:red
‘(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.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
‘(3) Comelec Resolution No.
2300, ‘insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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 Philippines with at
least 3% in every legislative district — no public funds may be spent
and no government resources may be used in an initiative to amend the
Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition
absent such signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the
majority's two other rulings. Let me explain.
“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:cralaw:red
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 18 December 1996 insofar as it
prohibits Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa from
exercising their right to free speech in proposing amendments to the
Constitution.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[3]
GR No. 129754, September 23, 1997 (still unpublished in the Philippine
Reports or in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated). Again, for
ease of reference, I reproduce my Separate Opinion in full:cralaw:red
“Petitioners assail the July 8, 1997 Resolution of
Respondent Commission dismissing their petition for a people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution. Said petition before the
Comelec (henceforth, PIRMA petition) was backed up by nearly six (6)
million signatures constituting about 16% of the registered voters of
the country with at least 3% in each legislative district. The
petition now before us presents two grounds: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“The following in my position on each of these two issues:cralaw:red
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 Santiago permanently
enjoined the Comelec “from entertaining or taking
cognizance of any
petition for initiative
on amendments to
the
[4] Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735, December 14, 2001.
[5]
Well-entrenched is this definition of grave abuse of discretion. Id.;
Benito v. Comelec, 349 SCRA 705, January 19, 2001; Defensor-Santiago v.
Guingona Jr., 359 Phil. 276, November 18, 1998; and Philippine
Airlines, Inc. v. Confesor, 231 SCRA 41, March 10, 1994.
[6]
In PIRMA, I submitted as follows: “I believed, and still do, that the
majority gravely erred in rendering such a sweeping injunction [that
covered ANY petition, not just the Delfin petition], but I cannot fault
the Comelec for complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed
with said decision’s ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec was
directly enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice
but to obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of
discretion. Regusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse
open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have
constituted defiance of the Court and would have been struck down as
grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court’s
supremacy as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies.”
[7]
42 Am. Jr. 2d, §26, citing Birmingham Gas Co. v. Bessemer;
250 Ala 137, 33 So 2d 475, 250 Ala 137; Tacker v. Board of Comrs., 127
Fla 248, 170 So 458; Hoxie V. Scott, 45 Neb 199, 63 NW 387; Gill v.
Board of Comrs., 160 NC 176, 76, SE 204.
[8] Partido ng Manggagawa v. Comelec, GR No. 164702, March 15, 2006.
[9] Article XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)
“SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:cralaw:red
(1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
“SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people though 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.
“SEC. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members,
call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.
“SEC. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution
under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such
amendment or revision.
chan robles virtual law library
“Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the
petition.”
[10]
Republic Act 6735
, Sec. 10, provides:cralaw:red
“SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures. – The following cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum petition:cralaw:red
(a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate; and
(b) Statutes involving emergency
measures, the enactment of which are specifically vested in Congress by
the Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until ninety (90)
days after its effectivity.”
[11]
The principle of separation of powers operates at the core of a
presidential form of government. Thus, legislative power is given to
the legislature; executive power, to a separate executive (from whose
prominent position in the system, the presidential nomenclature is
derived); and judicial power, to an independent judiciary. This
system embodies interdependence by separation.
On the other hand, a parliamentary system personifies
interdependence by integration, its essential features being the
following: “(1) The members of the government or cabinet or the
executive arm are, as a rule, simultaneously members of the
legislature. (2) The government or cabinet, consisting of the political
leaders of the majority party or of a coalition who are also members of
the legislative, is in effect a committee of the legislature. (3) The
government or cabinet has a pyramidal structure, at the apex of which
is the Prime Minister or his equivalent. (4) The government or cabinet
remains in power only for as long as it enjoys the support of the
majority of the legislature. (5) Both government and legislature are
possessed of control devices with which each can demand of the other
immediate political responsibility.” These control devices are a vote
of no-confidence (censure), whereby the government may be ousted by the
legislature; and the power of the government to dissolve the
legislature and call for new elections. (J. BERNAS, THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES A COMMENTARY, Vol. II, 17-18 (1988 ed.).
With respect to the
transformation from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature, the change
involves the form of representation and the lawmaking process.
[12]
Attached to the Opposition-in-Intervention of Intervenors OneVoice
Inc., etc., is a photocopy of the Certification dated August 23, 2006,
issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, the election officer for the 3rd
District and the officer-in-charge for the 1st and the 2nd Districts of
Davao City. The Certification states that “this office (First,
Second and Third District, Davao City) has not verified the signatures
of registered voters x x x.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
[13] In
People v. Veneracion, the Court held: “Obedience to the rule of law
forms the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guide
of religious or political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted
beyond boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the
duties of their office, then law becomes meaningless. A
government of laws, not of men, excludes the exercise of broad
discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under
this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought ‘to
protect and enforce it without fear or favor,’ resist encroachments by
governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own
personal beliefs.” (249 SCRA 244, October 13, 1995, per Kapunan, J.)
[14] An
American professor on legal philosophy, A. Altman, puts it thus: “By
ratifying the constitution that included an explicit amendment process,
the sovereign people committed themselves to following the rule of law,
even when they wished to make changes in the basic system of
government.” A. ALTMAN, ARGUING ABOUT LAW 94 (2001).
[15] See my
Separate Opinion in Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, 415 SCRA
45, November 10, 2003.
[16] See,
for instance, the front page Malaya report entitled “Lobbyists soil
dignity of Supreme Court” (October 23, 2006).
[17] Lk 8:17.
-------------------------------------------------
‘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.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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 16 January 1991. Such Resolution,
by its very words, was promulgated "to govern the conduct of initiative
on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local
laws," not by the incumbent Commission on Elections but by one then
composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac, Comms. AlfredoE.
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 18 December 1996 insofar as
it prohibited Petitioner Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from exercising
their right of initiative. In fact, I believe that such restraining
order as against private respondents should not have been issued, in
the first place. While I agree that the Comelec should be stopped from
using public funds and government resources to help them gather
signatures, I firmly believe that this Court has no power to restrain
them from exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose
amendments to the Constitution is really a species of the right of free
speech and free assembly. And certainly, it would be tyrannical and
despotic to stop anyone from speaking freely and persuading others to
conform to his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire once said, ‘I may
disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
to say it.’ After all, freedom is not really for the thought we agree
with, but as Justice Holmes wrote, ‘freedom for the thought that we
hate.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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 Constitution x x x.” While concededly, petitioners in this case were
not direct parties in Santiago, nonetheless the Court’s injunction
against the Comelec covered ANY petition, not just the Delfin petition
which was the immediate subject of said case. As a dissenter in
Santiago, I believed, and still do, that the majority gravely
erred in rendering such a sweeping injunction, but I cannot fault
the Comelec for complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed
with said decision’s ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec was directly
enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice but to
obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse open to the
Comelec. Any other mode of action would have constituted defiance of
the Court and would have been struck down as grave abuse of discretion
and contumacious disregard of this Court’s supremacy as the final
arbiter of justiciable controversies.
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.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“In my dissent in Santiago, I wrote that “there is a right way to do
the right thing at the right time and for the right reason.” Let me
explain further.
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, September 26, 1996], this Court unanimously
held that “(l)ike elections, initiative and referendum are
powerful and valuable modes of expressing popular
sovereignty. And this Court as a matter of policy and doctrine will
exert every effort to nurture, protect and promote their legitimate
exercise.”chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The Right Way
“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:cralaw:red
‘c.1 contents or text of the [provision or provisions] sought to be x x x amended, x x x;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
c.2 the proposition [in full text];chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor [fully and clearly explained];
chan robles virtual law library
c.4 that it is not one of exceptions provided herein;chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
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.’chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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.
“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:cralaw:red
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.
“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 Subic Bay, we specified
that ‘initiative is entirely the work of the electorate x x x a process
of lawmaking by the people themselves without the participation and
against the wishes of their elected representatives.’ As ponente of
Subic Bay, I stand foursquare on this principle: The right to amend
through initiative belongs only to the people – not to the government
and its minions. This principle finds clear support from utterances of
many constitutional commissioners like those quoted below:cralaw:red
“[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
“[Initiative is an] extraordinary power given to the people [and]
reserved for the people [which] should not be frivolously resorted
to.” -- Commissioner Romulo chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
”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 Santiago, I exclaimed that such
precipitate action “is equivalent to burning the whole house to
exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of
pain.” I firmly maintain that to defeat PIRMA’s effort, there is no
need to “burn” the constitutional right to initiative. If PIRMA’s
exercise is not “legitimate,” it can be exposed as such in the ways I
have discussed – short of abrogating the right itself. On the other
hand, if PIRMA’s position is proven to be legitimate – if it hurdles
the four issues I outlined earlier – by all means, we should allow and
encourage it. But the majority’s theory of statutory inadequacy has
pre-empted – unnecessarily and invalidly, in my view – any judicial
determination of such legitimacy or illegitimacy. It has silenced the
quest for truth into the interstices of the PIRMA petition.
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 May 11, 1998 polls. Between today and the next
national elections, less than eight (8) months remain. Santiago, where the
single issue of the sufficiency of RA 6735 was resolved, took this
Court three (3) months, and another two (2) months to decide the motion
for reconsideration. The instant case, where the same issue is also
raised by the petitioners, took two months, not counting a possible
motion for reconsideration. These time spans could not be abbreviated
any further, because due process requires that all parties be given
sufficient time to file their pleadings.
“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.
Epilogue chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
“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 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.”
|