Philippine Supreme Court Denies Petition for Amendment by 8 to 7 vote
It was a really close vote! by 8 to 7, The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated petitions for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Basically. In non-legalese (non-lawyer language). You can’t just gather a bunch of signatures in order to have your way(ehem Arroyo). And if you do get signatures — Please, please, please at least let the people know what they are signing and give them copies!
So, if any of you have been in a coma for the last few weeks. Here’s the information.
On 15 February 2006, petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (“Lambino Group”), with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (“RA 6735”).
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals. The Lambino Group’s initiative petition proposed to change the 1987 Constitution by changin our current form of Government (BiCameral) to a Parliamentary type. e.g. from U.S. type to British type…
So, who would gain? Arroyo and her party.
But thank goodnes for Lambino. Lambino was so full of optimism, that he had printed only 100,000 copies of the actual amendments to be made. But wait.. didn’t he say he had the signatures of over 6 million? Well done Lambino.. Don’t you know, people actually have to see the amendment and read it. Your whole case stops right there.
And eventhough it was such a horribly executed petition, they still got 7 votes! By this premise, anyone with enough money to photocopy a few million petitions can get away with this.
Anyway, here’s what the Court had to say: (the full conclusion)
The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.
To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside the constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the new dominant political group that comes will demand its own set of changes in the same cavalier and unconstitutional fashion. A revolving-door constitution does not augur well for the rule of law in this country.
An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of the total votes cast[53] − approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on 11 February 1987. That approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the full expression of the people’s sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed modes for amending or revising the Constitution.
No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution contrary to the specific modes that the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means subverting the people’s sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. This is one act the Court cannot and should never do. As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn duty to defend and protect the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign will of the people.
Incantations of “people’s voice,” “people’s sovereign will,” or “let the people decide” cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people’s fundamental covenant that provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes easily susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation’s stability.
The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the “people’s voice.” However, the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that “ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms.” The Lambino Group thus admits that their “people’s” initiative is an “unqualified support to the agenda” of the incumbent President to change the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be wary of incantations of “people’s voice” or “sovereign will” in the present initiative.
This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people’s sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court’s raison d’etre.
WHERFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
By the way… what is “raison d’etre”? It is from the French language, meaning “reason for being.”
And my conclusion? Power corrupts. Arroyo has had too much of it, and now she wants to hold on. Consolation for Arroyo? Well, at least she can revisit this petition (She only needs to pressure 1 more judge)… But I think it’s too late for a Charter Change, with what was left of her credibility, this case totally exposes her whole party as frauds. Especially with this sorry excuse for a plan. Thank goodness for Lambino admission of only providing 100,000 copies.
I think, for this Christmas. We should all chip in and buy Madam President a photocopy machine.
tags: (none)
