The Supreme Court has ruled on Sigaw ng Malacañang’s motion for reconsideration regarding the Court’s decision in Lambino v. Comelec. Aside from junking the motion, the Court also in effect ruled that the law governing initiative is sufficient.

Basically, the Court had junked the Sigaw petition not because there is no enabling law; the Court notes that (1) the signature gathering is suspicious, (2) the law covers only amendments; and (3) the Sigaw petition calls for a revision of, not amendment to, the Charter.

Now that the initiative law is deemed sufficient for the purposes stated in the Charter, there’s no more hindrance for a true people’s initiative. Currently simmering in the comments section of several blogs (like this one) is an idea of a people’s initiative to amend the Charter in such a way that the terms of the current President and Vice President are cut and new elections are called.

An issue may arise due to RA 6735 (Initiative Law) itself, no thanks to Sigaw. Section 5 (b) states:

(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.

The operative clause is this: “Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.”

Now the question is this: since an initiative can only be exercised once every five years (after such exercise?), can a people’s initiative be exercised after the Sigaw fiasco? That will depend on how the word “exercised” is defined, and that I leave to lawyers.

Basically, if we follow the timeline from the Delfin/PIRMA petition of 1997 to Sigaw, almost nine years had passed; the Sigaw petiton satisfies the once-every-five-years rule. If the Sigaw petition is considered a exercise in initiative though voided by the Court (as the Dean said it, SC void Sigaw petition due to insufficiency in form), that means the next time an initiative can be exercised is on 2011, way past the term of Gloria Arroyo.

NB: If the previous definition of an initiative exercise is correct, the Sigaw petition was pushed as such so that any other petition can only be made after 2010.

I believe the best definition of the word “exercised” (as far as I can glean from the spirit of RA 6735) is a completed petition timeline – from filing up to plebiscite. Mere filing of a petition does not mean the initiative is exercised.

But that’s conjecture. Lawyers better explain that to us (blawggers, please!).

Anyway, back to the topic. Let us exercise our brains for a bit. Let us propose an amendment to the 1987 Charter that will cut short the terms of the President (or all elected officials if you want) and will call for an election. So let’s put into words that idea:

Section 1. Amending Article IV, section 4 (cvj amendment), the terms of the incumbent President and Vice President elected during the 2004 national elections are hereby cut and will end four months after the ratification of this amendment.

Section 2. (1) Three months after the ratification of this amendment, an election to replace the outgoing President and Vice President shall be held.

(2) In case no candidate for President or Vice President can garner at least 40 per cent of the total votes cast, a run-off elections between the top two candidates shall be held.

Section 3. The elected President shall take the oath of office immediately upon proclamation by the National Board of Canvassers. The terms of the elected President and Vice President shall last until June 30, 2010 be for six years starting from the day the oath is taken (cvj amendment).

Please feel free to comment and refine. This is very inelegant and not well thought of.

The 2007 elections is seen as a referendum on the Arroyo administration. And based on surveys made by Pulse Asia (link here) and Ibon Foundation (link here), it is expected that the people will elect senators that will probably vote to convict Gloria Arroyo in an impeachment trial.

Take a look at Pulse Asia’s list:

(1) former Senator Legarda (48.6%)
(2) Senator Francis N. Pangilinan (39.0%)
(3) Senator Panfilo M. Lacson (34.9%)
(4) Senator Manuel B. Villar, Jr. (34.2%)
(5) Senator Ralph G. Recto (33.1%)
(6) former Senator Vicente C. Sotto III (31.0%)
(7) Atty. Aquilino Pimentel III (29.9%)
(8) Taguig-Pateros Representative Alan Peter S. Cayetano (29.5%)
(9) former Senator Greogorio B. Honasan (27.7%)
(10) San Juan Mayor JV Ejercito-Estrada (23.8%)
(11) Ilocos Norte Representative Imee R. Marcos (23.1%)
(12) former Senator John Henry Osmeña (22.7%)

NB: I find it weird that a virtual unknown (Aquilino Pimentel III) appears on the list.

Here is Ibon’s list (presented with choices):

1 Legarda, Loren
2 Pangilinan, Francis
3 Marcos, Imee
4 Cayetano, Alan Peter
5 Pimentel, Aquilino III
6 Recto, Ralph
7 Escudero, Francis
8 Villar, Manuel Jr.
9 Arroyo, Joker
10 Sotto, Vicente III
11 Failon, Ted
12 Ejercito-Estrada, Jayvee

However, some sectors find the list of senatoriables unpalatable. And the non-existence (so far) of administration ticket (it’s too early, anyway) does not help.

Some have a wish list of senatoriables: see here and here.

Basically, I am seeing the play in the game: to battle the seemingly inevitable opposition win, attack the undecided (which I believe most of the middle class are), repeat the same mantra over and over. Simple: push the undecided into the decision that the opposition is no better, that there is no choice. The same play since 2005.

It seems that the opposition (the vocal one) is again unwittingly doing its part in the game.

I guess our only hope is for a third flank – a set of senatorial candidates that is acceptable to the undecided. While this will play for the administration’s advantage (dividing the opposition), this is the only way (in my mind) to convince the undecided and the majority of the so-called middle class. By presenting candidates who are acceptable, untainted, competent, and qualified, the no-choice reasoning will no longer be in play.

NB: Theodore Roosevelt’s Bull Moose tragedy comes into mind.

For the main opposition to win, first it must present a list of acceptable and qualified candidates. Second, it must convince the undecided of its fitness to be chosen by the people. Third, not play according to administration’s playbook. The opposition really needs a single strategist.

The third flank will divide the votes. The beauty of this is that it affects both sides. The third flank should instead campaign against the administration and at the same time show that it is better than the main opposition.

Otherwise, the administration only has to present a so-so but credible slate and enjoy the fireworks. The opposition will self-destruct if it plays to the administration’s tune.

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.