Willie N Ng
THE confidence of ranking officials that the Supreme Court may reverse its 1997 decision and allow the current people’s initiative to run its course is infectious.
On what grounds would such reversal be based? Our officials, Solicitor General Eduardo Nachura, Comelec Chairman Benjamin Abalos, and Comelec Commissioner Romeo Brawner are not saying.
They rely on the fact that Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban and Senior Justice Reynato Puno dissented in the 1997 ruling. Would they be saying that the rest of the court would vote with them.?
* * *
The Goebbels-like repetitions have moved even sophisticated observers to concede that they may not be bluffing.
With a court reversal, the administration’s problem will rise to the next level: A people’s initiative allows only specific amendments to the Constitution; it does not allow a revision or a rewriting of the Constitution.
That is clearly stated in the records of the Constitutional Convention which wrote the present Constitution.
* * *
The administration has announced for months that it wants to replace the presidential system with the parliamentary system.
Provisions on the composition and powers of Congress, the composition and powers of the senate, the powers of the President, among others, will have to be replaced with entirely new provisions on the composition and powers of the unicameral legislature, the powers of the Prime Minister, the duties of the President and many others.
Such a major overhaul of the Constitution cannot be made within the limits of the people’s initiative provision.
To salvage something worthwhile from this gargantuan effort, the administration may, if the court does reverse itself, go for amendments, letting go of the parliamentary system overhaul.
Recently, Finance Secretary Gary Teves suggested liberalizing foreign investments provisions in the Constitution. Why not start with that?
|
