PAGBABAGO                

Two events -- the passing of RA 11479 by Congress and its signing into law by the President, and the refusal by Congress to renew ABS-CBN’s franchise, both measures that defied popular will, triggered some groups to seek legal remedies.

Added to groups I mentioned last week, several more had joined the list of petitioners (I’m with Sen. Pangilinan’s group) against the Anti-Terrorism law. Defenders of press freedom are not giving up following the refusal of Congress to renew the network’s franchise. Likewise, they are getting ready to mobilize people power through RA 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act of 1989, which allows people toinitiate legislation that Congress had refused to pass.They are encouraged by the Social Weather Stations’ survey showing that 75 percent believe that Congress should renew the franchise  while 56 percent think that non-renewal is inimical to press freedom.

The provision which the ABS-CBN supporters cite is Section 32, Article VI, of the Constitution which states:

Congress shall, as early as possible, provide a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws, or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefore signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters thereof.

Although some think that it is feasible, others doubt whether Comelec would be able to allocate funds needed to carry out all the activities.

Let me share this brief background on how this system of initiative, recall, and referendum became a provision in Article VI, by citing proceedings in the Record of the 1986 Constitutional Commission on July 8, 24, and Sept. 18, 1986. As the provision is innovative, the Legislative Committee had to respond to need for considerable clarification and justification.  Here are highlights on the exchange:

Com. Gascon: My first amendment is to change the word ten to EIGHT. Ten percent is much harder to get than eight percent. Too, it would encourage people to become more politically active.

The amendment  didn’t pass so he proposed another one, this time to insert the phrase, WITHIN NINETY DAYS, after “Congress” and “provide”…or IMMEDIATELY, after Com. Rodrigo noted that the provision was “directory,” not  “mandatory.”  They didn’t want to pressure the new Congress by giving a time frame. Either “as soon as possible” or “immediately” were suggested and the former got the nod. Com. Bennagen proposed “must” instead of  “shall” after Congress, also in the first sentence, but this did not pass.

It is apparent from the exchange that some fear or doubt about  translating these progressive provisions into laws existed among most of the framers. That unless it is made specific, it may take years before Congress would be able to enact a law. Com. Bengzon described it as “laboring under a certain “syndrome” of the traumatic experiences we had in the last 20 years.”

Congress did not wait four or six years as the law on initiative, recall and referendum was passed in 1989.

As some may know, both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions describe the Philippines as a “republican” state. Sovereignty resides in our people and all government authority emanates from them. But the 1987 Constitution added “democratic” to “republican.”

When Com Ople questioned Com. Nolledo, chair of Declaration of Principles, whether this was done merely for emphasis, this was the reply.

Com. Nolledo: “Democratic” was added because of need to emphasize people’s power. Provisions on recall and initiative recognize participation, and people’s rights as against authoritarianism.

Com. Ople: The meaning of democracy has been evolving since 1935. Does “democracy” in this context accommodate all the nuances of democracy in our time?

Com. Nolledo:  According to Com. Rosario Braid, democracy as defined here  is understood as “participatory” democracy.

Com. Ople: It is good to know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rests upon the people so that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution.

It is interesting to note that of the 15 survivors out of 48 framers of the 1987 Constitution, most of them actively participated in the debate on this issue. They are Felicitas Arroyo, Adolf Azcuna, Ponciano Bennagen, Hilario Davide, Chito Gascon, Ed Garcia, Chris Monsod, Joaquin Bernas, SJ, Ricardo Romulo, Wilfrido Villacorta, Rene Sarmiento, and this writer. The others are Bishop Teodoro Bacani, Jaime Tadeo, and Bernardo Villegas.

During these times, when some observers have started to plant doubts about  our country’s capacity to survive, and whether we are still a democracy, we are encouraged by the thought that some, civic-minded citizens are pushing for initiative even if they are aware of the difficult hurdles ahead. They maintain the hope that our people would eventuallydiscover what they thought they had lost -- their strength, power, and sense of self-worth.

My email, [email protected]