Making ourselves aware

In the heat of the debate whether or not present moves to shift from a presidential-bicameral form of government to a parliamentary-unicameral form through a so-called "people's initiative" is constitutional, the decision of the Supreme Court in "Santiago vs. Comelec" has been cited again and again by both the pro's and the anti's. It will therefore be helpful for the reader to know what that case was all about.

On 6 December 1996 Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, supposedly representing a citizen's group called the Movement for People's Initiative, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections entitled, "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Terms Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative." Atty. Delfin invoked Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution which provided for the system of constitutional amendments by a "people's initiative". Disagreeing with this move Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Atty. Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a Petition for Prohibition, seeking to stop the Comelec from entertaining the Delfin Petition. Among the grounds for prohibition were that (a) the constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by a law to be passed by Congress, and no such law exists; that while Republic Act No. 6735 supposedly provides for three (3) systems on initiative (i.e., initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on local legislation) the implementing details on statutes and on local legislation were provided for, but none were set out on constitutional change via a people's initiative, and if some future law was needed before it could be implemented.

Senator Santiago and her co-petitioners pointed out that under the last sentence of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution it directed that : "The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right (of people's initiative". They argued that since R.A.No.6735 did not provide for the procedure to do so, the law was clearly inadequate and did not authorize the Comelec to act on the Delfin petition. When it granted the Santiago petition and prohibited the Comelec from recognizing the Petition for a People's Initiative, the Supreme Court noted that while R.A. 6735 was also intended to cover an initiative to propose amendments to the constitution:

a.- it provided no implementing details on constitutional amendments and was therefore woefully inadequate, giving the Comelec no powers to entertain such petitions;

b.- the details only covered amendments to national laws and local ordinances and resolutions

The Supreme Court said: "This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined 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."

On the other hand, noting that the 1987 Constitution did include the concept of a people's initiative to propose amendments, the High Tribunal added in closing that: "We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of the people under that system."

The dissenting opinions given by some of the justices disagreed with the view of the majority mainly in the argument that R.A. 6735 was inadequate since it did not provide the implementing details. As Justice Puno put it, the fact that the law covered amendments to the charter by initiative even though it did not provide the details did not serve to invalidate R.A. 6735. He said "intent is the essence of the law, the spirit which gives life to its enactment." And since there is a law which implements the constitutional provision on amendments by initiative, the decision of the majority which denied the Delfin Petition on the supposed lack of an enabling law is wrong.

With this brief summary on both the constitutional and legal basis (or lack of it) for a "people's initiative" we ask you, the reader, to now form your own opinion and make your own conclusions on the matter.*

back to top