MANILA, 27 October 2006 — Saying that the current system of government in the Philippines is “divisive,” President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo yesterday vowed to pursue her campaign to streamline the country’s legislature despite the Supreme Court’s rejection of a petition to change the constitution.

“The great idea for charter reform lives on and we must keep the fire burning,” Arroyo said in a statement a day after the high court rejected a petition filed by her allies to allow changes in the Philippine Constitution through the “people’s initiative” method.

Voting 8-7, the court said the petition, which gathered 6.3 million signatures calling for a plebiscite to decide whether to change the form of government, was invalid because the proposed changes would constitute a major revision to the constitution, and the “people’s initiative” can only be used for lesser amendments.

The court also found that the signatures were obtained irregularly .

Arroyo yesterday said her administration will follow the court’s decision, and that the government will not get involved in appealing the decision, leaving it to the authors of the petition.

Lawyer Raul Lambino, who spearheaded the signature drive, said he would file an appeal with the Supreme Court, noting that the 15 justices were “sharply divided.”

But Arroyo stressed that the campaign for constitutional amendments was far from over and would have to be pursued through other means.

She called the current system of government “destructive” and said it has stalled the country’s development, leaving it poor and divided. “We have a dream that the Philippines could join the ranks of first nations in 2020. A modern, more cohesive and more accountable political structure is key to that objective.”

“This is about creating a modern, working Philippines; to leave behind the degenerated system that is holding the nation back and keeping it too poor and too divided,” she said on radio DZRH.

“We leave it now to the concerned institutions as to how we can keep the dreams of the people ascendant and heed the imperatives of change,” she added, apparently referring to Congress, which can convene into a constituent assembly to consider amendments. There is a pending resolution in the House of Representatives to convene Congress into a constituent assembly (con-ass), but this could happen only if the Senate agrees.

Majority of the senators are opposed to the idea because the ultimate goal of Arroyo is to eliminate the Senate, whose members are traditionally independent-minded.

Surveys have shown that while a big number of Filipinos agree that the constitution needs to be improved, many want it deferred until Arroyo’s term is over. Suspicions about her agenda have increased after she alleged rigged the presidential election in 2004 and defeated the immensely popular action movie star Fernando Poe Jr.

Poe died later that year even before a tribunal could look into his complaint of cheating.

A third option of amending the constitution is through the more expensive constitutional convention, in which representatives are elected nationwide by district. Although delegates to a constitutional convention could also be bribed and manipulated, this option is acceptable to the opposition and other critics of the two other modes of amendment.

The refusal of Arroyo and her allies to take this more acceptable mode has only given rise to suspicions of a nefarious design.

Apart from abolishing the opposition-dominated Senate and set up an interim parliament composed of the current members of the Senate and the House of Representatives plus most of Arroyo’s Cabinet, the proposed changes would allow Arroyo to serve as head of state until her term ends in 2010, and would be given powers to nominate the prime minister from among members of the interim parliament.

Previous attempts to amend the constitution have been opposed by majority of Filipinos, wary that politicians could be changing the charter to perpetrate themselves in power, similar to what late dictator Ferdinand Marcos did during his 20-year rule.

Disappointed

A day after the Supreme Court rejected the petition, Malacañang remained stunned by the defeat, especially since it was eagerly expecting a victory. “We were expecting a 9-6 vote in favor of the people’s initiative based on our reports. We still don’t know what happened; there were some people we expected to vote (for the people’s initiative) but..." said Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, without finishing the sentence in an interview with the Inquirer.

Ermita, who maintained that the Palace did not interfere in the court’s deliberations, said the decision proved once more his axiom — “It’s hard to say something that is not final because things happen in between."

“Sapagkat lahat tayo’y tao lamang (Because we’re only human). Some people might have influenced them for their own reasons," added Ermita.

In a separate interview with reporters, Ermita admitted he still could not fathom why eight of the justices thumbed down the petition.

He acknowledged that President Arroyo was disappointed by the verdict but she has not lost her resolve to push for charter change.

“She would have voted differently because we all know she is pushing for constitutional reform. But the president is a political leader; she knows the elements that go into certain decisions. We have to respect the decision of the Supreme Court,’’ Ermita said.

‘Closed Casket’

Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, an ally of the president, said it would be futile for the administration and its allies to seek a reconsideration of the ruling. “My view is the issue of a people’s initiative has already become a closed casket that does not even deserve a visit on All Saints Day,” said Santiago, who started the fight over the legality of a people’s initiative in 1997 when she filed a petition against a people’s initiative filed by a group called PIRMA, which supposedly aimed to extend the term of then President Fidel Ramos.

The Supreme Court then voted 10-5 in what is now known as Santiago vs. Comelec, its decision centering on the lack of an enabling law to implement the people’s initiative as a means of proposing amendments to the constitution.

Sen. Joker Arroyo, who argued the Senate’s case in the high court, said the losers in the people’s initiative petition are banking on the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice who could swing the vote in favor of the expected motion for reconsideration.

But Santiago believes the Supreme Court will not grant any motion for reconsideration on three grounds.

First, she said the general rule in trial practice is that a court does not reconsider its decision unless substantial new evidence is presented to render the crux of the decision erroneous and inadequate.

The high court said there was not even a need to revisit Santiago vs. Comelec because the petition did not even comply with the basic requirement of the constitution for conducting a people’s initiative.

Second, Santiago pointed out that the voting in the petition filed by Sigaw ng Bayan and ULAP shows that only one justice is needed to reverse the 8-7 decision. Because the voting was so close, she said, “the public will immediately condemn the somersaulting justice as a party to a quid pro quo with the administration. Whether that would be factual or not will not matter,” she said, adding that justice who will change his or her vote on this case will be committing “professional suicide.”

Santiago said this was the lesson learned by some justices who changed votes in her 1997 case. “The public roundly booed the justices although in the end the original decision was still upheld,” she recalled.

Santiago said the third obstacle to the success of any motion for reconsideration is the way the 8-7 decision was written. “The majority opinion is written in extremely strong and condemnatory language. Usually, opinions are factual and narrative instead of opinionated and condemnatory, hence the justices who concurred with it will not be able to explain why they concurred with such a violently judgmental decision and then changed their minds at the last minute.”

Roses From Militants

Meanwhile, militant groups trooped to the Supreme Court yesterday morning, not to protest, but to pay tribute to the eight justices who voted to dismiss the petition.

The eight — Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Associate Justices Antonio Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez, Romeo Callejo Sr., Ma. Alicia Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales and Adolfo Azcuna — got a dozen roses each from two Akbayan members who were allowed to enter the court building.

Carpio, who penned the decision, which said the high court “cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the constitution,” was also given a cake with the message, “Your integrity inspires the nation.”

The Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) said it welcomed “with joy and appreciation” the Supreme Court for “standing free and independent despite external and expensive pressures.”

A statement signed by Jaro Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, CBCP president, did not explain what “expensive pressures” meant.

Last week, Chief Justice Panganiban disclosed that the justices were being heavily pressured into voting in favor for the “people’s initiative” petition. (With input from INS & Agencies)