MikeLigalig.com

Cha-cha is “dead”
“People’s initiative has already become a closed casket that does not even deserve a visit on All Saints’ Day.”

Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago, a staunch defender of the President, said it would be futile for the administration’s allies to seek a reconsideration of the high court’s 8-7 vote junking the initiative petition.

“My view is: the issue of a people’s initiative has already become a closed casket that does not even deserve a visit on All Saints’ Day,” Santiago said.

“It’s as dead as a doornail. Its worshippers can bring candles and funeral wreaths, but these will not resurrect [it],” said Santiago, who in 1997 opposed in the high court a petition filed by the People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), which was supposedly aimed at extending the term of then President Fidel Ramos.

Santiago, a constitutional law expert, earlier aired her “fearless forecast” that the high court would not grant any motion for reconsideration.

She cited these grounds:

The general rule in trial practice is that a court does not reconsider its decision unless substantial new evidence is presented to render the crux of the decision erroneous and inadequate.

“In other words, the cards are always stacked against [the one who seeks a reconsideration. At the outset he already has a disadvantage,” she said.

The 8-7 vote showed that only one justice was needed to reverse the decision.

“However, because the voting was so close, the public will immediately condemn the somersaulting justice as a party to a quid pro quo with the administration. Whether that would be factual or not will not matter,” she said, adding that the justice who would change his/her side on this case would be committing “professional suicide.”

Santiago said this was the lesson learned by some justices who changed their vote in her 1997 case: “The public roundly booed [them] although in the end the original decision was upheld.”

The decision written by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio carried “extremely strong and condemnatory language.”

“Usually, opinions are factual and narrative instead of opinionated and condemnatory. Hence, the justices who concurred with it will not be able to explain why they concurred with such a violently judgmental decision and then changed their minds at the last minute,” Santiago said.

Not the end
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo urged proponents and supporters of the people’s initiative petition to accept its defeat in the Supreme Court but also stressed the need to “keep the fire” of Charter change “burning.”

Ms Arroyo dwelled on these points twice in separate venues as her allies in the House of Representatives and the initiative proponents pondered their next moves, including a motion for reconsideration and the so-called “Plan B” -- amending the Constitution through a constituent assembly to pave the way for a shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system.

Despite the tribunal’s condemnation of the people’s initiative, Ms Arroyo said its proponents were patriots: “I extol those who fought for the people’s initiative for their patriotism, perseverance and courage.”

“The great idea of Charter reform lives on, and we must keep the fire burning,” she said, and reiterated that a modern Philippines could only happen through a new Constitution and a new system of government.

“We have a vision of having the Philippines join the ranks of First World nations by 2020, and a modern, more cohesive and more accountable political structure is key to achieving that goal,” she said.

But she added that she would leave it to “the concerned institutions as to how we can keep the dreams of the people ascendant and heed the imperatives of change.”

Over dzRH radio, when asked why she continued to push for Charter change, Ms Arroyo said there was a need to “fix the problem of our politics because this is weakening the economy.”

Nevertheless, Sigaw ng Bayan leader Raul Lambino decried the high court’s labeling of the initiative as “a likely deception and gigantic fraud,” saying the latter had no right to make that judgment because it was “not a trier of facts” and “should only decide on issues of laws and jurisdiction.”

Lambino said this would be the main argument that Sigaw and its fellow Charter change proponent, the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), would raise in the motion for reconsideration that they would soon lodge.

Close but firm decision
Former Senate President Jovito Salonga also doubts that the high court will reverse itself in the event that a motion for reconsideration is filed.

“It’s a close but firm decision. I don’t think there will be any substantial change in the way the justices voted,” he told the Inquirer, adding:

“They’ve studied the matter thoroughly. They discussed the issues every day. So when they voted, they already knew how to vote.”

Salonga is a former professor of law with a master’s degree from Harvard University and a doctorate from Yale University.

“This is a good day for the country,” he said when the high court threw out the initiative petition on Wednesday.

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) also praised the tribunal for its decision.

“Congratulations to the Supreme Court for standing free and independent despite external and expensive pressures,” the CBCP president, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, said in a statement.

The CBCP also warned against plans to convene a constituent assembly: “Please pardon the term, but Charter change by Congress converted into a constituent assembly will have all the appearance of ‘self-service’ and ‘lutong makao.’ We will pray against that.”

If indeed Charter change is needed, along with a shift to the unilateral-parliamentary system, the CBCP reiterated its recommendation for a constitutional convention “whose members shall be elected democratically.” (INQ7)

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=83060.0