EDITORIAL
A gigantic fraud
“An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people.” These words resonated in the decision of the Supreme Court in Lambino v. COMELEC on October 25, 2006.
On 15 February 2006, the Lambino Group, with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (“RA 6735”).
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition supported 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve percent (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three percent (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.These changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
The COMELEC denied due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
Several years later, the attempt to amend the Constitution was again revived, allegedly fueled by public funds. This year’s version of the cha-cha seeks to amend the Constitution to open the floodgates of fraud on the people. The proposal is to put clarity on a very controversial provision of constituent assembly as a mode of amending the constitution.
Early this month, signature documents began circulating nationwide, seeking to amend the Constitution to allow the House and the Senate to vote as one when a motion to form a constituent assembly is called.
The proposal seeks to disregard the Senate as a separate and independent chamber in Congress and to reduce it to a mere group with a maximum voting power of 24 as opposed to the House of Representatives, which has 316 votes.
There is nothing wrong in attempting to amend or revise our more than 37-year-old Constitution. What is shocking, though, is Congressman Edsel Lagman’s allegation that funds parked under the Comelec’s conduct and supervision of elections, referenda, recall votes, and plebiscites will be used to bankroll lawmakers’ Charter change rampage and that House lawmakers are facilitating a people’s initiative drive to amend the Charter and allegedly mobilize local executives to collect signatures through P100 payouts.
Again, this is another gigantic fraud at a cheaper price of P100 per person.