Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Manila OPPOSITION. He is a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer and a duly registered voter;

Transcription

1 Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Manila IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION THROUGH A PEOPLE S INITIATIVE A SHIFT FROM A BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT BY AMENDING ARTICLES VI AND VII; AND PROVIDING TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL TO THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, Petitioners. ***************************************** SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. Opposing Party. Case No. ***************************************** OPPOSITION OPPOSING PARTY, by counsel, states that: He is a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer and a duly registered voter; He is filing and submitting this OPPOSITION to the verified petition as above captioned in his above stated capacities; There are TWO [2] alternative grounds strongly relied upon in this Opposition to the petition in the above captioned case, namely: [a] The ABSENCE of an enabling law OR INADEQUACY of the previously enacted law intended to be the enabling statute; and/or [2] The utter failure to attain the required numbers/percentages constitutionally

2 mandated, by reason of a fatally defective signature- gathering process, accompanied by a subsequent similarly infirmed signature-verification procedure undertaken by personnel of this Honorable Commission on Elections. Hereunder discussed and elucidated are the two grounds above specified supporting the prayer for the instant dismissal of the abovecaptioned case/petition. A. Absence and/or Inadequacy of an ENABLING LAW on Initiative to Amend the Fundamental Law: The very CORE of the instant OPPOSITION lies in the expressed and categorical PRONOUNCEMENT of the Honorable SUPREME COURT in the landmark case of Defensor-Santiago et al. vs. Commission on Elections et al. [270 SCRA 106] which unequivocally declared: xxx R.A. No 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. The lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering the Comelec to promulgate such rules and regulation as may be necessary to carry out the purpose of [the] Act Added thereto is the High Court explicit directive that : xxx the COMELEC should be PERMANENTLY ENJOINED FROM ENTERTAINING OR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ANY PETITION FOR INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION UNTIL A SUFFICIENT LAW SHALL HAVE BEEN VALIDLY ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SYSTEM. 2

3 Further, in a later ruling of the High Court in the case of Pirma v. COMELEC [G.R. No , Sept. 23, 1997], then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as ponente, reiterated that: Simply put, Santiago did, in reality declare as unconstitutional that portion of RA 6735 relating to Constitutional initiatives for failure to comply with the completeness and sufficient standard tests with respect to permissible delegation of legislative power or subordinate legislation. However, petitioners attempt to twist the language in Santiago, the conclusion is inevitable: the portion of RA 6735 pertinent to the dispute was held to be unconstitutional. The above clear and unequivocal ruling/s of the Highest Court of the land still hold true to this day, there being NO law, amendatory or otherwise, that has been enacted to rectify the determined deficiency, inadequacy, insufficiency and incompleteness of Rep. Act No Thus, with the above current situation subsisting, the same leaves this Honorable Commission with no option or alternative but to simply order the outright dismissal of the petition in the above captioned case/ matter. The aforesaid Supreme Court resolution/s, this Honorable Commission cannot brush aside and disregard, as they form part of the law of the land, premised on the principle of stare decisis. In fine, any move or any attempt to entertain the above-captioned petition would effectively be in clear and tacit defiance of the said High Court ruling/s, with this Commission opening itself to a citation for 3

4 contempt, for violating the permanent injunctive command of the High Tribunal. In said Santiago, case, the claimed enabling law, RA 6735 was declared inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and that the same has similarly failed to provide sufficient standards for subordinate legislation. thus declaring void and unconstitutional, even those parts of the then promulgated COMELEC Resolution No that attempted to prescribe implementing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative designed to amend the Constitution. The High Court declaration of inadequacy, and the accompanying permanent injunction issued restraining the entertaining of and/or taking cognizance of, any petition for initiative on proposed amendments to the Constitution had likewise declared VOID, this Honorable Commission s implementing Rules and Regulation as contained in said Comelec Resolution No Not until a sufficient enabling law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the appropriate guidelines and implementation of the system, can this Commission act on any petition, the subject matter of which is to pursue a people s initiative to amend the Constitution. The instant rejection and outright dismissal of the petition is therefore most warranted under the currently pervading circumstances. 4

5 B. Utterly Flawed SIGNATURE GATHERING and SIGNATURE VERIFICATION With no competence to entertain any such people s initiative petition, even the claimed completion of and compliance with the signature verification process and requirement, becomes irrelevant and constitutes a sheer exercise in futility, and a total waste of time, effort and of public funds. Appearing to rely on the same Santiago case, this Hon. Commission had seemingly sanctioned the petitioner-instigated process of signature VERIFICATION, thereby allowing petitioner to misleadingly show some semblance of legitimacy to the current petition, at least in the aspect of alleged compliance with the required number/mandated percentage of signatures gathered favoring the said initiative to proposed amendment to the Constitution. Citing a selected portion of the same High Court s pronouncement in the Santiago case, which portions are really nothing more but obiter dicta, petitioner now makes a claim that it has complied with the minimum signature requirement necessary to come up with its initiatory pleading the present petition, herein strongly opposed. The cited OBITER states: The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. 5

6 Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voter s identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. Absent any FORMAL specific resolution/order or directive emanating from this Honorable Commission EN BANC, but with the tacit prodding of the individual Comelec Members/commissioners, the Comelec field officials and subordinate personnel, undertook the supposed signature verification process, acting solely on the REQUEST of petitioners, which claimed to be the signature-gatherers. Availing of the above-quoted mere obiter, with the added claim that the same is merely a simple routine/administrative function, the supposed verification of the supposed validly-gathered signatures was commenced and undertaken by the Commission s field personnel and subordinate officials. And now, petitioner makes the claim and asserts that said signature verification has been completed, and the required number/percentage, already attained. Hence, the current petition, herein opposed. 6

7 The claim that the required number/percentage of VERIFIED signatures having been attained, is really a total FARCE and a complete SHAM. Thus, even on the assumption, but definitely not conceding, that there is valid and sufficient enabling statute that allows a people s initiative, the present petition herein opposed will still fail miserably as there was NO legitimate process adopted in the signature gathering, in addition to the fact that there was similarly a totally flawed process of signature verification undertaken by the Commission s field personnel. The process of signature gathering and signature verification as adopted and undertaken by the petitioner, and the Commission s field personnel is replete with irregularities and anomalies, that there is no way that the present petition could merit the approval of this Honorable Commission. The Commission must consider the following fatal infirmities and deficiencies, to be supported by overwhelming evidence, testimonial and documentary: 1. In the Signature Gathering process undertaken by Petitioner/s [a] Numerous signatures were affixed on the basis of deliberate misrepresentation by representatives of the petitioners, if not through 7

8 outright lies and falsehoods, committed by the petitioners signature gatherers and their cohorts; [b] In several instances, signatures were affixed by reason of illicit monetary consideration/s or the giving of various things of value, illicitly inducing the signature affixing. [c] Absence of actual gathering of signatures, but instead, the outright falsification and forgery of the signatures appearing in the petitioner-submitted documents, a representative sample is hereto attached as ANNEXES A and A-1 ; [d] Even the gathering and signing process were absolutely defective, as the supposed signatories were not appropriately briefed as to the true and real import of signature affixing process, as misrepresentation pervaded the process; [e] Signatures were gathered through the DIRECT intervention of elective and appointive public officials and with the use of public funds, in glaring violation of the requirement that the initiative must be purely the undertaking of the people. The unqualified and categorical support illicitly extended by numerous local elective government officials is made manifest by the fact that one petitioner appears to be an elected Governor of a province; 2. In the Signature Verification Process by COMELEC Field Personnel/Subordinate Employees 8

9 [a] IN numerous instances, there were no signature gatherings. Instead, what were submitted for verification were falsified, forged and fabricated signatures, illicitly perpetrated by a few individuals representing the petitioners; [b] The defectively- gathered signatures were not really, properly and legitimately subjected to verification, as the signature gathering was not done at the required signing stations where the Comelec election officers and its representatives were present; [c] The claimed signature verification was performed by Comelec personnel who are without any working knowledge respecting determination of genuine and authentic signatures; [d] The verification was confined to the determination of mere similarly of appearance of the supposed signatures, and not premised on a truly actual verification/confirmation of the authenticity and genuineness of the submitted signatures, limiting their inspection/ verification to simplistic comparison and then making a findings that the signatures are either [a] appear similar or [b] appear dissimilar. [e] Signature comparison, not verification, were conducted surreptitiously, disallowing the presence of watchers, observers and oppositors while the signature comparison not verification was being undertaken. 9

10 [f] Field personnel who have issued CERTIFICATIONS as to the alleged verification, never actually conducted a true and real verification, such that the certifications issued are themselves untruthful, false and fabricated; [g] The entire signature gathering process and the subsequent verification process that followed, were accomplished involuntarily, or through misrepresentation, if not by outright deception. Further, considering that the Chairman and Commissioners of this Honorable Commission had opted to informally extend a free-hand to its field personnel to undertake the supposed verification of signatures absent any clear and specific guidelines and instructions, the end result would be as they have turned out to be a confused and chaotic verification process, totally deceptive and absolutely unreliable, thus fatally flawed - an act of allegedly verifying signatures totally unsanctioned by the Constitution, the applicable law and rules or regulations. Furthermore, the supposed enabling law, RA 6735 and its supposed implementing COMELEC Resolution No having been declared insufficient, inadequate, incomplete and unconstitutional and null and void, any supposed signature gathering and signature verification undertaken, are similarly null and void and without any force and effect whatsoever. 10

11 Additionally, be it noted by the Honorable Commission that, as found in the text of the High Court decision, the afore-quoted selected portion respecting the signature verification process, was preceded by the categorical declaration that RA No and its implementing COMELEC Resolution No are inadequate and insufficient, and void, thus indubitably attesting to its being a mere obiter. Besides, it is very clear that the above quoted selected portion started with the phrase ex gratia clearly, exhibiting its obiter nature and character. In fact, even a reading of the obiter makes very explicit that the formal and legitimate signature verification process would plainly confirm that the signing should be conducted in the presence of the election officers while at the signature stations duly established.. a logical process and fundamental requirement to insure that the signatures affixed are indeed authentic, taking into account the production of some documentary requirements such as the voters affidavits and voters identification cards to be presented by registered voters before the affixing, similar to the voting process. Finally, obviously violated is the Hugh Court ruling that initiative is entirely the work of the electorate xxx a process of lawmaking by the people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives. A pronouncement, negated by the active participation of the local elective officials. 11

12 Described, along with referendum by the High Court speaking through Chief Justice Panganiban clearly negated by the active participation of the local elective officials. The Petitioner cannot claim that it is acting for the PEOPLE, as obviously, the elected politicians are in the middle of the farce and sham process now being initiated through the above captioned petition herein vigorously opposed. WHEREFORE, all of the foregoing duly considered, and after due proceedings, it is most respectfully prayed that the above-captioned PETITION be outrightly dismissed and rejected. Opposing Party also prays for such other relief and remedies just and equitable under the premises. City of Manila; August BRILLANTES NAVARRO JUMAMIL ARCILLA ESCOLIN MARTINEZ & VIVERO Law Offices Counsel for the Oppositor 105-B, ECJ Condominium Building Real corner Arzobispo Streets Intramuros 1002, City of Manila By: FLORENCIO M. MARTINEZ Roll of Attorneys No PTR NO ; ; Manila IBP NO ; ; Capiz VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION Republic of the Philippines) 12

13 City of Manila ) S.S. I, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Filipino, of legal age, taxpayer and a registered voter, with office address at Suite 105-B, ECJ Condominium, Real St., Intramuros, Manila, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and state that: 1. I am the Opposing Party in the above-captioned case/petition; 2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing OPPOSITION; 3. I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records and documents. SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR. Affiant SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26 th day of August 2006 at the City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No issued on February 13, 2006 at City of Manila. Doc. No. Page No. Book No. Series of Copy furnished: ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA Counsel for Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado No. 12 Fourth Street, Saint Ignatius Village, Quezon City ATTY. DEMOSTHENES B. DONATO Counsel for Raul L. Lambino Autoland Building 1616 Quezon Avenue South Triangle, Quezon City EXPLANATION 13

14 Copies of the foregoing OPPOSITION have been sent to the other parties through registered mail instead of personal service due to distance, time constraint and lack of personnel. FLORENCIO M. MARTINEZ FN:\my docs\ppi\oppose CHA doc 14