One Voice 2006 Opposition in Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution Through a People's Initiative

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 30
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Document Description
In Augut 28, 2006, One Voice filed a petition at the COMELEC to junk the People's Initiative petition of Sigaw ng Bayan.
Document Share
Documents Related
Document Tags
Document Transcript
  REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESCOMMISSION ON ELECTIONSMANILAIN THE MATTER OF PROPOSINGAMENDMENTS TO THE 1987CONSTITUTION THROUGH APEOPLE’S INITIATIVE: A SHIFTFROM A BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIALTO A UNICAMERALPARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT BYAMENDING ARTICLES VI AND VII;AND PROVIDING TRANSITORYPROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLYSHIFT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL TOTHE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEMCase No. _____________ RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B.AUMENTADO, Petitioners,   ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUELL. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T.TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE andCARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. Oppositors  . xx -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- xx O P P O S I T I O N OPPOSITORS in the above-entitled case, by their undersignedcounsels, and by way of opposition to the Petition dated 25 August2006 (the “Petition”), and to this Honorable Commission, respectfullypray that the Petition be denied due course on the grounds that:(1) This Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to evenentertain the Petition inasmuch as there is still nosufficient enabling law to cover the system of initiative to   2 amend the 1987 Constitution and therefore thepermanent injunction against this Honorable Commissionentertaining or taking cognizance of any petition forinitiative on amendments to the Constitution as laid downby the Supreme Court in Santiago v. Commission on Elections  , 270 SCRA 106, (1997) stands;(2) This Honorable Commission has no legal basis andauthority to verify if the instant Petition is sufficient asthere is no valid law, rule or regulation which prescribesthe requirements and procedure for such verification;(3) There is no showing that the Petition contains the sameproposals allegedly presented to, and purportedlyapproved by, the people as required under Section 2,Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;(4) The petitioners have no legal capacity to file the instantPetition as they do not represent the required percentageof registered voters under Section 2, Article XVII of the1987 Constitution;(5) The Petition is fatally defective as it does not contain theproper verification and certification against forum-shopping;(6) The Petition is violative of Sections 2 and 4, Article XVII ofthe 1987 Constitution since it seeks a revision—and not amere amendment—of the Constitution;   3 (7) The Petition is violative of the very law and rules itinvokes since it embraces more than one subject matter;and(8) The Petition is, in fact, insufficient as it does not meet therequired percentage of registered voters under Section 2,Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. T HE O PPOSITORS ONEVOICE INC. is an incorporated non-partisan, non-stock, non-profit association of citizens who are very concerned about thepolitical developments in the country, with address at 16 th Floor, WestTrade Center, West Ave., Quezon City, Philippines.  CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at   Morado St., Dasmarinas Village, Makati City, Philippines.  RENE B. AZURIN is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at   15-CRufino Pacific Tower, Ayala Ave., Makati City, Philippines.  MANUEL L. QUEZON III is a Filipino, of legal age, with address atGarden Island Condominium Tower 2, N. Domingo St., New Manila,Quezon City, Philippines.  BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR. is a Filipino, of legal age, with addressat M.V. del Rosario St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines.  SUSAN V. OPLE is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at 2/FMarbella II Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila, Philippines.     4 CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. is a Filipino, of legal age, with address atRm. 101, Ground Floor, APS Building, 20 Rockwell Drive, RockwellCenter, Makati City, Philippines.   P REFATORY S TATEMENT   At the outset, it must be emphasized that the instant Petition isnothing but an invalid revival of the people’s initiative, notwithstandingthe categorical and unequivocal ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections  , wherein a similar petition for an alleged people’sinitiative was brought before this Honorable Commission and struckdown by the Supreme Court, thus – “This petition must then be granted, and theCOMELEC should be permanently enjoined fromentertaining or taking cognizance of any petition forinitiative on amendments to the Constitution until asufficient law shall have been validly enacted toprovide for the implementation of the system. x x x. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered a) GRANTING the instant petition;b) DECLARING R. A. No. 6735inadequate to cover the system of initiative onamendments to the Constitution, and to havefailed to provide sufficient standard forsubordinate legislation ;c) DECLARING void those parts ofResolution No. 2300 of the Commission onElections prescribing rules and regulations onthe conduct of initiative or amendments to theConstitution ; andd) ORDERING the Commission onElections to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN petition(UND-96-037).
Search Related
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks