Pimentel, Lagman question legality of Cha-cha via people’s initiative

Metro Manila (CNN Philippines, January 26) — Opposition lawmakers are questioning the legality of pushing to amend the 1987 Constitution through people’s initiative, noting the only law that can be cited to support it has been deemed insufficient by the Supreme Court.

There is an ongoing signature campaign to push for Cha-cha via people’s initiative. People's Initiative for Modernization and Reform Action (PIRMA) has admitted that it was behind the move.

However, lawyer and Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman said there is no law governing this because the “Initiative and Referendum Act or R.A. No. 6736 is inadequate to implement people’s initiative to amend the Constitution as held in Santiago vs. Comelec.”

“Ang declaration ng (The declaration of the) Supreme Court this is not a well-written law and it is not sufficient to support a people’s initiative,” Senate Minority leader Koko Pimentel also told CNN Philippines’ The Source.

The lawmakers cited the 1997 Supreme Court ruling on the petition filed by former Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and other petitioners after a move was made to lift the term limits of elective officials through a people’s initiative.

Lagman noted this ruling “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.”

According to Pimentel, the petitioners in the Lambino vs. Comelec case also made a mistake by not specifying the amendments they want which should be written on the petition.

Both lawmakers also mentioned that in the rejected motion for reconsideration of the Lambino case, there was a part that mentioned ten justices said the R.A. No. 6736 was sufficient.

“That is not a ruling, that is not sufficient to reverse the ruling or decision of the Supreme Court En Banc in the Miram Defensor Santiago case,” Pimentel pointed out.

He added this cannot take precedence over the Santiago case because “there are statements in a resolution or decisions which are not important to deciding the case and this is one of those.”

“One paragraph lang ito (This is only one paragaph), last paragraph pa, resolution pa hindi (it's a resolution not even a) decision signed by the clerk of court, not by the justices… it’s a statement which could not have been made and yet the decision stands,” Pimentel added.