Lagman: People's initiative for Cha-cha legally defective

The ongoing signature campaign for the people’s initiative seeking to amend the 1987 Constitution is legally defective among other things, lawyer and Albay Representative Edcel Lagman claimed Thursday.

Lagman was referring to the signature campaign for Cha-cha led by a certain Anthony Abad which specifically asks voters if they are in favor of amending Article 17 Section 1 of the Constitution by allowing all members of Congress to jointly vote on proposed constitutional amendments.

This amendment is a departure to the existing provision which does not explicitly state whether the House of Representatives and the Senate should vote jointly or separately on proposed amendments to the Charter via constituent assembly.

Lagman cited that based on a Supreme Court decision on the Santiago v. Commission on Elections (Comelec) case, there is no executory law for people’s initiative for Cha-cha because the Initiative and Referendum Act or R.A. No. 6736 is inadequate.

“The promoters of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution for joint voting in the constituent assembly are brandishing mere scraps of signature sheets. There is no compliant legislation to implement the people’s initiative as required by the Constitution,” Lagman said in a statement, referring to the Supreme Court decision on the petition lodged by then-Senator Miriam Santiago against then-President Fidel Ramos administration’s people’s initiative for Cha-cha.

“The ruling in Santiago has not been abandoned in Lambino vs. Comelec where the petition for people’s initiative was rejected by the Supreme Court because it proposed a full-scale revision of the Constitution from presidential to parliamentary system, while people’s initiative is just limited to amendments,” Lagman added, referring to the High Court decision on the people’s initiative for Cha-cha which was done during the presidency of now Pampanga lawmaker Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

In the Lambino ruling, the High Court ruled against people’s initiative for Cha-cha since the document signed by those in favor of Cha-cha did not state specific provisions of the 1987 Constitution to be amended.

Lagman noted that the main ruling in the Lambino case held that there was no need to revisit the Santiago case ruling because it was not necessary in deciding the principal issue in the Lambino case.

“The passing statement in the brief resolution rejecting the motion for reconsideration of petitioner Lambino wherein it was mentioned that ten justices were in favor of abandoning the ruling in Santiago was a mere orbiter dictum which was not determinative in the ruling of the High Court, unnecessary, and did not constitute a precedent,” Lagman said.

“In layman’s parlance, an obiter dictum is a “by the way” comment akin to “incidentally” which is not the ratio desidendi or rationale for the decision,” he added.

Lagman also argued that proponents of the people’s initiative would need to be voters with active voter registration record, and that signatures would still have to be verified by the Comelec, among other scrutiny.

“Pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 10650 dated January 31, 2020, the alleged signatures are to be verified whether they are genuine and authentic and whether the Petitioner is a voter with an active registration record. Without such prior verification by election officers nationwide, such signatures are not sufficient to support a petition for people’s initiative,” Lagman said.

Finally, Lagman reiterated that the signature campaign is allegedly marred by disinformation and signature buying which is a criminal offense under the Omnibus Election Code in relation to the Initiative and Referendum Act (R.A. No. 6736).

Speaker and Leyte Representative Martin Romualdez earlier said that it is the right of the public to resort to people’s initiative for Cha-cha, and that Cha-cha is for the benefit of the public, not politicians. — RSJ, GMA Integrated News