STRIKE ONE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MANILA 004502 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV RP SUBJECT: STRIKE ONE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE REF: A. MANILA 3565 ¶B. MANILA 1638 ¶C. MANILA 1538 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Following the October 25 Supreme Court ruling against a "people's initiative" to amend the Constitution in order to form a unicameral parliamentary system, supporters of charter change or "cha cha" will next move to form a constituent assembly of the sitting Congress. Given the unlikelihood of Senate support, that approach is also likely to end up in the Supreme Court as well. The other "cha cha" option -- supported publicly by the head of the influential Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines -- is a constitutional convention, composed of specially elected delegates. Few are holding their breaths that any major Constitutional changes are imminent, and most observers expect that the May 2007 elections will proceed. End Summary. -------------- Supreme Court stops "People's Initiative" -------------- ¶2. (U) On October 25, the Supreme Court, voting 8-7 (with outgoing Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban casting the deciding vote),upheld an August 31 decision by the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) declining to accept a petition filed by "Sigaw ng Bayan" (Cry of the People) -- alleging endorsed by 10 million signatures -- calling for change to a unicameral parliamentary system. The basis for COMELEC,s refusal had been a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that there was inadequate enabling legislation for the "people's exercise of the power of initiative" to amend the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court's 52-page decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, ruled that the signatures failed to comply with the constitutional requirement that the initiative must be directly proposed by the people, who must understand the full text of the proposed amendments before signing a petition. The Court also noted that the signatures were obtained "deceptively," with signature sheets signed without the proposed amendments attached. ¶3. (U) The Court also clarified that a "people's initiative" should be used only to amend -- not to revise -- the Constitution, and that this petition sought an overhaul of the entire political structure. The court affirmed that COMELEC did not commit any grave abuses of discretion in its August 31 decision on the petition, noting that COMELEC only complied with the Supreme Court's earlier injunction against 
entertaining a people's initiative without an adequate enabling law. ¶4. (U) Justice Reynato Puno -- a possible successor to Chief Justice Panganiban, who retires in December -- led the seven dissenting justices. In his dissenting opinion, Puno did not dwell on the technicalities of the law but stressed that the people's voice is sovereign in a democracy and must be heard. "Sigaw ng Bayan" leader Raul Lambino separately stated that, given the close vote, his group will now consider filing a motion of reconsideration. ¶5. (U) Opponents of the "People's Initiative" hailed the Court's decision. Former Senate President Franklin Drilon lauded the high court for its &admirable sense of independence,8 which has &restored people's faith in the rule of law8 and &reinforced confidence in the democratic system and its institutions.8 The head of the influential Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, Archbishop Angel Lagdameo, publicly welcomed the Court's decision "with joy and appreciation." -------------- Other Constitutional options -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Supporters of Constitutional change now have two remaining options. In addition to a people's initiative, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution permits the formation of a constituent assembly (a joint session of both houses of Congress) or a constitutional convention of specially elected delegates. The administration's political allies in Congress, led by House Speaker Jose de Venecia, are now aggressively pursuing the former option, perhaps as early as December 2006, despite the objections of an apparent majority of Senators. De Venecia has asserted that the vaguely worded Constitutional clause should enable a three-fourths combined vote of both houses -- even exclusively from the lower house, if need be -- rather than separate votes in each house, as is normally required for all legislation. He admitted to MANILA 00004502 002 OF 002 Ambassador and Pol/C that such a vote will inevitably face a Constitutional challenge again to the Supreme Court, but argued that this is a valid Constitutional issue worthy of clarification. Many observers have expressed doubt, however, that he would be able to secure the necessary 195 votes in the lower house. ¶7. (U) The CBCP's Archbishop Lagdameo publicly reiterated support for a constitutional convention and pledged that the bishops would "pray for it." He commented, however, that "any system of government, presidential or parliamentary or monarchy, will be good if the leaders in it are servant-leaders, men of credible integrity and transparent accountability." -------------- Comment -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The defeat of "People's Initiative" by the Supreme Court is only strike one in the ongoing "cha cha" campaign. Even if Speaker De Venecia succeeds in convening a constituent assembly and passing a new Constitution (which he has said could also include revised economic provisions as well as the change to a unicameral parliamentary model) , the inevitable Supreme Court challenge will force further delay. Many legal experts predict that this effort will end up as strike two in the "cha cha" campaign. The more complicated -- and, critics charge, highly expensive -- process to agree on a constitutional convention and to elect delegates (whose debates could last indefinitely) would make the chances of success for this option even more distant. Some observers have claimed that the entire "cha cha" campaign has served primarily as a political distraction over the past year from the impeachment efforts against President Arroyo. Some also claim that it will now serve the same function in the run-up to the May 2007 elections, in which Malacanang may fear that the Opposition could gain a majority, since so many stalwart Administration supporters are barred from re-election due to term limits. Overall, the debate over "cha cha" seems concentrated principally among Manila's political elites, and has garnered remarkably little public interest, despite the claimed success of the signature campaign of the now discredited people's initiative. Visit Embassy Manila's Classified SIPRNET website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eap/manila/index. cfm You can also access this site through the State Department's Classified SIPRNET website: http://www.state.sgov.gov/ KENNEY