The Supreme Court has junked the Sigaw-ULAP initiative, in a close vote, 8-7.

The Supreme Court thinks that the Sigaw-ULAP initiative is moot because of the following:

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

The explanation is more on procedural matters than anything else. The issue that the Court finds most grave is the fact that the Sigaw-ULAP group asked the people to sign without even showing the entire proposed amendments! Thus, as DJB says, the first reason that the Sigaw petition was junked because it was insufficient in form!

NB: This is really a tech-savvy Court. It used the Web to find the ULAP resolution, which ULAP had failed to present the Court. Maybe ULAP was hiding something – read the ULAP resolution here.

NB: Heck, the Court can’t even stop itself taking a snipe against you-know-who:

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.(Emphasis mine)

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives

Here the Court made a distinction between an amendment and a revision. I agree with the Court’s observation on this matter, so I quote lengthily:

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.

In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is “so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions.” The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.” Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, “a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan” includes “change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches.”[38] A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that “jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances.”

Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group’s proposed changes overhaul two articles – Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on the Executive – affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.[40] Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of government.

NB: The Court observed that the best way to revise the Charter is through a deliberative body.

NB: The Court used the term logrolling – a petition containing an unrelated subject matter. In argumentation, it is similar to the fallacy of complex, or loaded, question.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Why? Because the Sigaw petition did not even comply with the basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution regarding amendments and revisions! As the Court had said: “An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition.”

I have scanned Justice Puno’s dissenting opinion, and he seems to disagree on almost everything that Justice Carpio has written. I leave the comments on that dissenting opinion to others.