What to Make of the People’s Initiative on No-EL

 

HE MAY seem to be the lone voice pushing for the postponement of the midterm elections, but House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez may be getting some other signal from his political bosses, as the latest statement from Malacañang suggests official acceptance of a “people’s initiative.”

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque claims the president is not involved in the scheme to do away with elections in 2019; but that they cannot do anything to stop it. In a press briefing on July 19, Roque said, “If that’s the people’s initiative, what can we do if it came from the people, right?” Pressed on whether the president would allow a people’s initiative, Roque replied, “That’s the nature of the people’s initiative” (“Rody bucks no-el but won’t stop initiative”).

While there had been earlier talk about not holding the scheduled elections in 2019, Alvarez’ iteration seemed part of the campaign that involves serial goals for the administration: the drafting of a federal constitution, its formal adoption, along with Congress forming itself as a constituent assembly (Con-Ass) to approve it. After receiving a copy of the proposed charter on July 11, Alvarez raised the no elections (no-el) scenario to supposedly guarantee its approval (“Alvarez backs ‘no-el’ in 2019 to make way for approval of federal constitution”).

On July 12, Senate President Vicente “Tito” Sotto III gave a hint of support when he said, not so surprisingly, that he was open to the possibility of no-el to accommodate the administration’s government shift from unitary to federal. “If we call for a constituent assembly, this is my opinion, this is not written in stone, if we did pass a joint resolution calling for one, then we can decide if we can finish it by December or not and postpone elections. Then, we can pass a law postponing the elections,” Sotto said (“Senate President Tito Sotto says ‘no-elections’ in 2019 possible”).

On the same day, July 12, Roque said in a press briefing that the elections would push through unless the date of the election stated in our constitution is changed (“Palace distances itself from no-elections proposal”).

Two days later, Sotto retracted his earlier statement and warned against a constituent assembly. He argued that the 2019 elections cannot be postponed by legislation alone. If the Congress members intend to extend their terms to discuss the proposed charter change, he said constitutional amendments are needed (“Sotto retracts 2019 ‘no-el’ statement”).

With no one else in the Senate ready to back the constituent assembly, Alvarez floated the idea of the people’s initiative in an interview on dzMM on July 18, “Mag-umpisa tayo sa no election. Amyendahan natin ‘yong provision na iyan. Kung ayaw ng Senado, well, pwede naming People’s Initiative. May mga tao dyan, marami, na gustong baguhin yung Saligang Batas. In fact, meron diyang mga movement for federalism. Lahat iyan, ‘di ba? Matagal nang umiikot iyan sa bansa, nagkakampanya.”

Along with the con-ass and the constitutional convention (con-con), the people’s initiative is one of the three means provided in the 1987 Constitution to achieve charter change. According to RA 6735, the Initiative and Referendum act, “A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least 3 % of the voters therein” (RA 6735: The Initiative and Referendum Act).

Providing no legal context, media did little to explain people’s initiative, how it can be achieved and how it differs from constituent assembly.

CMFR monitored the three top broadsheets (Philippine Daily Inquirer, The Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin) and the four primetime newscasts (GMA-7’s 24 Oras, ABS-CBN 2 ‘s TV Patrol, CNN Philippines’ News Night and TV5’s Aksyon) including some reports from cable news channel ANC from July 11 to July 18.

Floating a Trial Balloon?

While adequately reporting on Alvarez’ persistent campaign to postpone elections, media organizations also reported opposing views and sentiments against his proposal.

On July 18, the Inquirer reported the sentiments of several senators. Calling the move “self-serving,” Sen. Panfilo Lacson said that the senate, even re-electionists, will fight “tooth and nail” to thwart any move for the unconstitutional postponement. Sen. Francis Escudero expressed doubt about whether the people’s initiative could be done before the 2019 polls as he explained that the signatures of the petitioners would each require verification by the Commission on Elections (Comelec). Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon said the opposition is prepared to go to the Supreme Court should Alvarez push through with his proposal (“Lacson: Senators to fight ‘tooth and nail’ against ‘No-el’ moves,” “Alvarez proposal on no 2019 elections ‘off-tangent, misplaced’ – lawmakers,” “Lawmakers say no to ‘Cha-cha express’”).

Media should track the views expressed after the presidential spokesperson softened the categorical stand he made against delaying elections, and letting on the possibility that Malacañang would not stand against the will of the people.

Cheers!

CMFR notes the critical analysis in the following formats.

The Inquirer’s editorial on July 18 raised a logical alternative to a no-el scenario. “If you cannot work as a constituent assembly because the May 2019 elections are only a few months away, then do not convene Con-Ass until after the midterm elections.” Casting doubt on the need to rush charter change, the editorial also cited the latest Pulse Asia survey, showing that two-thirds (67%) of the voting population do not support cha-cha (“No to ‘No-el’”).

The sustained in-depth coverage of ANC’s Early Edition on the shift to federalism and the no-el scenario took the insights of law experts. In its July 13 episode, 1987 constitutional commission member Atty. Christian Monsod told ANC’s Christian Esguerra that postponing the elections would outrage the voting population. Monsod also said that President Duterte has gained control of the Congress, especially the House. With the Supreme Court making decisions that defer to the president, Monsod said the only thing the president cannot do without changing the constitution is to stay in power.

Asked whether he thought the federalism shift was meant to legitimize Duterte’s term extension, Monsod said, “I think so. Of course, that’s how Marcos did it.” He said the constitution is being maneuvered under the guise of helping the people, when in fact, the ulterior motive is for officials to extend their terms and to stay in power (“Postponement of 2019 polls to spark outrage, Monsod warns”).

On July 17, Early Edition also featured an interview with former dean of the Ateneo School of Government, lawyer Antonio La Viña. He said that if Alvarez’s no-el proposal happens, then the shift to federalism is not genuine constitutional change, but merely power grabbing. He added there is no logic to postponing the elections other than to favor the incumbent politicians. La Viña likened this to the controversial self-executory anti-dynasty provision in the draft constitution, saying that if the provision is removed by Congress there is no point to the federalism shift (“The biggest irony: ‘Imperial Manila’ lives on in draft federal charter, says lawyer”).

Three hundred academics signed on to a public statement on Con-Ass and calling for a process that involves broad discussion among citizens about proposed charter change. The Senate invited their representatives to speak and present their statement at a hearing on July 19. The Inquirer reported this with a banner headline on the same day. The statement also appeared as a paid advertisement in the Inquirer (University heads fight Con-ass move).

The Star reported the critical statement, highlighting the academic stand which said the process of amending the constitution “must be more participatory—including not just those who are for this reform, but also those who oppose it” (“Academics reject ConAss, no-elections scenario”).

Fair elections are at the heart of every representative democracy. Any effort to establish a federal constitution must follow the 1987 Constitution because that is the prevailing law of the land during the period of discussing charter change. That constitution provides for elections in set periods. Public opinion polls show no clamor for charter change. Postponing it to make way for charter change goes against the law and the court of public opinion.

The president’s track record shows two successfully postponed barangay elections in just two years. No threat to stop or to postpone national elections should be taken lightly in this administration.

The media must be on high alert reporting on the progression of the so-called people’s initiative, as, according to Harry Roque, the Duterte administration will not go against the people’s will.