BY RAYMOND AFRICA and WENDELL VIGILIA
SENATE minority leader Aquilino Pimentel III yesterday urged President Marcos Jr. to dissuade his cousin, Speaker Martin Romualdez, from pursuing the people’s initiative (PI) drive to amend the Constitution amid the growing animosity between members of the two houses of Congress.
Pimentel, in a press conference, said all information relayed to the Senate indicates that the brains behind the PI signature campaign is Romualdez.
Romualdez said he would not engage in a word war with the Senate because “that is (their) right” and “that is their freedom of expression.”
When asked to react to Pimentel’s statement, the Office of the Speaker referred the media to Romualdez’s answer to a similar allegation made by Sen. Ronald dela Rosa where he laughed off the accusation and said that he does not respond to “hearsay.”
As senators and congressmen continue to exchange words on the PI drive for Charter change, Pimentel said the President should now step in and ask Romualdez to cease from the PI campaign “and exercise the power and prerogatives of his office to stop this foolishness.”
He said the House has “hijacked” the PI, which he stressed is “seriously disrupting legislative works.”
Pimentel said that while the President should not have an actual role in Charter change, it is best if Marcos comes up with a “political solution” so that the Senate and the House can rekindle their “good relations,” pointing out that the bickering affects his administration.
He reiterated that Cha-cha is not the solution to the problems besetting the country today as there are other ways in which the government can solve them other than revise the Constitution.
Besides, he added, the President has the support of 22 senators to pass his administration’s priority measures.
“Mr. President, four and a half years, gusto naman namin kayong mag-succeed. Sana isabatas na lang… Ang ganda ng formula na for his (Marcos) success, guguluhin mo pa (referring to Romualdez). For what? For a procedural amendment of the Constitution na ike-claim niyo galing sa taumbayan. Stop this foolishness! (Mr. President [you still have] four and a half years [in office] and we want you to succeed. We can just create laws [to solve the country’s problems]. The formula for your success is very good [with the support of the 22 senators] but some people want to destroy it. For what? For a procedural amendment of the Constitution that they claim emanated from the people? Stop this foolishness!),” he said.
BRAINS
Pimentel said that based on information that senators have been receiving, it appears that Romualdez is behind the PI campaign, which calls for Charter amendments via a constituent assembly with both houses of Congress voting jointly.
“Ang feedback na nakukuha naming, very uniform and very consistent. Sino ang kumikilos sa baba? Congressmen. Members of the House of Representatives. Sila ang nagmo-monitor. Sino ang nagmamayabang na ‘we already got the votes’? Congressmen. Members of the House of Representatives (The feedback that we [senators] have received are very uniform and very consistent. Who are carrying out the campaign in the grass roots?
Congressmen. Members of the House of Representatives. They are also the ones monitoring the developments. Who are boasting that ‘we already got the votes’?
Congressmen, Members of the House of Representatives),” Pimentel said.
Looking at the House structure, Pimentel said the lower chamber functions under a “centralized leadership” which may be from a “small group of people” or “could be only just one person.”
“And who is that one person and who is that leader of that house? It goes by the title Speaker of the House of Representatives — my good friend, my classmate, Speaker Martin Romualdez,” he added.
LEAVE PI ALONE
Romualdez said the House is ready to “embrace” Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri’s Resolution of Both Houses No. 6 seeking economic amendments to the Constitution but insisted that proponents of the PI should be “left alone.”
“I’m ready to work with them hand-in-hand. As I said, we are ready to embrace the Resolution of Both Houses and I’m already telling everyone here that this is a welcome development, the House and the Senate can work together in unity – because that has always been the message of the President: to work together for the betterment of the country,” he told reporters on Wednesday night.
Romualdez insisted that Charter change “is for all Filipinos, not for congressmen, the President or the Senate.”
The Speaker, however, said that while the House wants to work with the Senate, he is against calls to stop the PI signature drive because “it is a right enshrined in the Constitution.”
“Pero ‘yong PI, kumbaga, ‘yan talaga ang right ng taongbayan ‘di ba? Kanila po ‘yon dahil naka-enshrine ‘yan sa Constitution. Pwede tayong mag-constituent assembly, constitutional convention, or people’s initiative. So hayaan mo na lang ‘yan (But the PI, that’s really a right of the people, right? It’s theirs because it’s enshrined in the Constitution. We can have a constituent assembly, constitutional convention or a people’s initiative. So just let them be,” he said.
But Pimentel said the contents of the PI signature campaign did not come from the people since it involves “procedural amendments” to the Charter. He insisted that the contents came from “someone” who is well-versed of the Constitution.
“It’s impossible. Kahit mag-survey ka rito na ano ba ang problema sa Constitution natin.
Procedural? Imposible pong maisip ng taumbayan kaya nang nakita ko ang subject matter, sabi ko, this is not a real people’s initiative. Maybe a politician’s initiative or maybe a professor’s initiative kasi kailangan medyo professor of law ka rito para maintindihan mo yun eh
(It’s impossible. Even if you conduct a survey and ask the respondents what the problems of the Constitution are. Procedural? It’s impossible that the people can think of it. That’s why when I saw the subject matter, this is not a real people’s initiative. Maybe a politician’s initiative or maybe a professor’s initiative because you somehow need to be a law professor to understand this),” he said.
Sen. Jose “Jinggoy’ Estrada said the ongoing attempt to amend the 1987 Constitution is an “assault on the checks and balances and bicameralism intended to prevent Congress from abusing its power.”
According to the People’s Initiative for Reform Modernization and Action (PIRMA), the purpose of the group’s proposal that amendments to the Charter be decided by senators and congressmen voting jointly and not separately is intended to “dilute” the Senate.
“The idea that a simple joint vote could render our bicameral system meaningless is not only an insult to this august chamber (the Senate) but a betrayal of the trust the people have placed on us… Any attempt to undermine the independence and integrity of this Senate should be met with resolute opposition,” Estrada said.
LEDAC
Senate majority leader Joel Villanueva said there was a scheduled Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) meeting in Malacañang yesterday but was “postponed” after the President separately met with senators and congressmen in an executive session in the Palace.
“LEDAC was postponed. Instead, we had an executive session with the President,” Villanueva said in a Viber message to the media.
Aside from him, Villanueva said also present on the Senate side were Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri, Senate president pro tempore Loren Legarda, and senators Imee Marcos, Joseph Victor Ejercito, Juan Edgardo Angara, Pia Cayetano, Sherwin Gatchalian, and Mark Villar.
Villanueva said President Marcos first met with the senators, then later with the congressmen.
The executive meeting was held amid the brouhaha on the PI.
No further details were made available.
URGENT
Camarines Sur Rep. Luis Raymund Villafuerte said senators should put the urgency for amending the 1987 Constitution at “front and center of the national debate rather than befuddle the people with bogus issues.”
“The Senate is now raising the issue of political reforms in the Constitution in its Jan. 23 manifesto–although the popular clamor now is only for lifting the anachronistic economic provisions that spook foreign investors–apparently out of fear that any Charter Change initiative could possibly lead to rationalizing or reforming the term-limit provisions of which our senators are the biggest beneficiaries,” he said.
Villafuerte said the Senate is opposing Cha-cha because the political provisions of the 1987 Charter allow them, among all elective officials, the longest time of 12 years, six years plus a re-election of another six years, to serve in their legislative posts.
He the senators “seem seized with mental anguish about the possibility for political reforms in the 37-year-old Constitution that would rationalize term limits and thereby put them on equal footing with all other elective officials in the land.”
“But what makes our senators so special among all our elective officials that they are accorded the privilege of serving for the longest time of 12 years in the Senate when even our President and Vice President are restricted to a single term of six years?” he stressed.
“Why not make our senators as equals of their peers in the House or with local elective officials by having all of them serve for, say, three, four or six years?”
He said that senators “should explain to our people that they have not resorted to a diversionary tactic in raising the bogus issue of political reforms in the Constitution in their manifesto, in a shrewd bid to keep the door shut on any prospects for political reforms in the future that could alter for good reason the current term limits that benefit them the most in the Senate.”
Villafuerte said the “sham” issues that senators have raised in their manifesto only tend “to obscure the urgent need for turbocharging the post-COVID economic rebound and creating abundant jobs, which should be at front and center of the national debate on why the Philippines has transmogrified from being a postwar powerhouse next only to Japan to landing in the tail-end of the economic boom sweeping the region.”
ALVAREZ PETITION
Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez, a former speaker under the Duterte administration, who, himself, had pushed for Charter change to pave the way for a shift to federalism, vowed to question the PI signature campaign before the Supreme Court.
“Sigurado magfa-file ako diyan (I will surely file a petition there),” he told reporters.
“Titingnan natin itong mangyayari kasi sa tingin ko naman, talagang makukuha nila yung numbers dun sa requirement (We’ll see what will happen because I think they’ll get the required number of signatures).”
Alvarez, a lawyer, said he is documenting and preparing the evidence against the proponents of the signature drive and would welcome senators if they want to join him in filing a petition.
The former speaker, who is a member of the supermajority bloc, said it would be unwise to file a petition as early as now because the High Court may only dismiss it since the issue is not yet ripe for “adjudication.”
“Hihintayin ko ‘yung finile na nila ‘yung mga signatures (I’ll wait until they file the signatures with the Comelec),” he said. “Titingnan natin kasi subject to verification naman ‘yung mga signatures. (We’ll see because the signature are subject to verification).”
For his part, Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, an opposition lawmaker said the proponents of the PI are “brandishing mere scraps of signature sheets” because it is legally flawed.
Pursuant to Comelec Resolution No. 10650 dated January 31, 2020, Lagman said the signatures are to be verified whether they are “genuine and authentic and whether the Petitioner is a voter with active registration record.”
Lagman said the signature campaign “is 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)” and no formal prerequisite petition has been filed with the Comelec until now.
He said the Commission on Elections should be the one to set the timeline for people’s initiative and not the proponents.
Lastly, the veteran lawyer-lawmaker said there is no compliant legislation to implement the people’s initiative as required by the Constitution.
Lagman said the prevailing jurisprudence is that 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.
“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. The main ruling in Lambino held that there was no need to revisit Santiago because it was not necessary in deciding the principal issue in Lambino,” he said.
He said the “passing statement” in the brief resolution rejecting the motion for reconsideration of petitioner Lambino wherein it was mentioned that 10 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.”
“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,” Lagman said.
