You are currently browsing the category archive for the 'Politics' category.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
MIGRANTE SECTORAL PARTY OF OVERSEAS FILIPINOS AND THEIR FAMILIES, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, CONCEPCION BRAGAS-REGALADO,
Petitioner,
- versus – G.R. No. 190126
Very Urgent Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus with Very Urgent Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x—————————————————-x
VERY URGENT PETITION
FOR CERTIORARI,
PROHIBITION
AND MANDAMUS
(WITH VERY URGENT APPLICATION
FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND/OR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION)
PETITIONER, through the undersigned counsel, unto the Honorable Supreme Court, most respectfully states that:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1. This Petition is about the valid assertion of the party-list system of representation of overseas Filipinos workers. Petitioner seeks the nullification of the following Resolutions of respondent Commission on Elections: (1) En Banc Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 which removed or cancelled the registration of petitioner Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and their Families as a sectoral party under the party-list system; and (2) En Banc Resolution in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) dated November 17, 2009 affirming Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 and dismissing the verified opposition filed by petitioner to said Resolution No. 8679.
2. The prayer for the declaration of respondent’s Resolution No. 8679 and Resolution in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) as null and void is anchored on the following crucial grounds, thus:
(a) First, respondent has issued Resolution No. 8679 without any prior notice and hearing, in patent violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7941 or The Party-List System Act which clearly and categorically requires that the registration of a party under the party-list system may be removed or cancelled only after due notice and hearing;
(b) Second, the reason used by respondent in the removal or cancellation of petitioner’s registration is not included among the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system; and
(c) Third, the reason used by respondent in the removal or cancellation of petitioner’s registration is not within the scope of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act.
Thus, respondent has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the issuance of the foregoing assailed Resolutions.
3. This Petition is a special civil action for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus brought under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Rule 65 of the said Rules, thus:
“RULE 64
REVIEW OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS OR RESOLUTIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Section 1. Scope.
This Rule shall govern the review of judgments and final orders or resolutions of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit.
Sec. 2. Mode of review.
A judgment or final order or resolution of the Commission on Elections and the Commission on Audit may be brought by the aggrieved party to the Supreme Court on certiorari under Rule 65, except as hereinafter provided.” (Emphasis supplied)
4. Moreover, under the circumstances obtaining in this case, petitioner has no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law which will promptly and immediately relieve herein petitioner from the injurious effects of the assailed Resolutions, which are manifestly illegal.
On October 26, 2009, petitioner filed a verified opposition to respondent’s Resolution No. 8679, in accordance with said Resolution’s directive that any adversely affected party may file a verified opposition thereto on October 26, 2009.
On November 19, 2009, petitioner received respondent’s Resolution dated November 17, 2009 affirming Resolution No. 8679 and dismissing petitioner’s verified opposition.
Thus, petitioner’s verified opposition must be considered as the motion for consideration of Resolution No. 8679. And respondent’s Resolution dated November 17, 2009 affirming Resolution No. 8679 and dismissing petitioner’s verified opposition must already be considered as the Resolution denying the motion for reconsideration. This is because the issues that have been duly raised in petitioner’s verified opposition are the same issues that would have been raised in a motion for reconsideration, if one is even necessary. Hence, to avoid any further delay that would prejudice the interests of petitioner, its verified opposition must be considered as the motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 8679. Besides, both assailed resolutions have already been decided upon by respondent En Banc.
Furthermore, respondent’s prescribed period for the filing of manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections already starts on November 20, 2009, the date of filing of this Petition, until December 1, 2009 – only seven (7) working days as November 30, 2009 is a regular holiday. And only those party-lists considered as qualified by respondent and have filed within the prescribed period their respective manifestations of intent to participate shall be included by respondent in the printing of official ballots, which is necessary because May 10, 2010 elections shall already be automated.
Hence, the urgent necessity for the resolution of the questions raised herein and any further delay would prejudice the interests of petitioner. Verily, there is extreme urgency for relief.
The circumstances obtaining in this case show that a motion for reconsideration separate from the verified opposition filed by petitioner and already dismissed by respondent would be useless, as respondent has been very vocal in the media that respondent would no longer reverse its decision.
Petitioner was deprived of the specific and definite due process required under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act, which clearly and categorically requires that the registration of a party under the party-list system may be removed or cancelled only after due notice and hearing, as respondent has removed or cancelled the registration of petitioner under the party-list system without any prior notice and hearing.
The issues raised herein are one purely of law, and public interest is necessarily involved in this Petition because it concerns the party-list representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sector of over ten million overseas Filipino workers and their families. And such genuine sectoral representation has been deprived to them by respondent through its assailed Resolutions.
These exceptions to the rule that certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed, if one is even necessary considering the circumstances obtaining in this Petition, are well-recognized in this jurisdiction, thus:
“Thus, in Abraham v. NLRC [353 SCRA 739 (2001)], the Court ruled:
“Generally, certiorari as a special civil action will not lie unless a motion for reconsideration is filed before the respondent tribunal to allow it an opportunity to correct its imputed errors. However, the following have been recognized as exceptions to the rule:
(a) where the order is a patent of nullity, as where the court a quo has no jurisdiction;
(b) where the questions raised in the certiorari proceedings have been duly raised and passed upon by the lower court, or are the same as those raised and passed upon in the lower court;
(c) where there is an urgent necessity for the resolution of the question and any further delay would prejudice the interests of the Government or of the petitioner or the subject matter of the action is perishable;
(d) where, under the circumstances, a motion for reconsideration would be useless;
(e) where petitioner was deprived of due process and there is extreme urgency for relief;
(f) where, in a criminal case, relief from an order of arrest is urgent and the granting of such relief by the trial court is improbable;
(g) where the proceedings in the lower court are a nullity for lack of due process;
(h) where the proceedings was ex parte or in which the petitioner had no opportunity to object; and
(i) where the issue raised is one purely of law or where public interest is involved.” [METRO TRANSIT ORGANIZATION, INC. v. THE COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 142133, November 19, 2002] (Emphasis supplied)
5. Petitioner Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and their Families, represented herein by its Chairperson, Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, is a party directly and adversely affected by respondent’s assailed Resolutions.
6. Petitioner thus humbly prays that the Honorable Court issue a judgment:
(a) Declaring respondent’s Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009, in so far as petitioner Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and their Families is concerned, as null and void;
(b) Declaring respondent’s Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) as null and void;
(c) Enjoining respondent from implementing Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009, in so far as petitioner is concerned, and Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP);
(d) Commanding respondent to allow petitioner to validly file its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections, and to give due course to the same; and
(e) Declaring petitioner as qualified and eligible to participate in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections.
7. Petitioner is likewise praying for the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction due to the seriousness and extreme urgency of the matters involved, as well as the grave and irreparable injuries that are sustained and will continue to be sustained by petitioner if the assailed Resolutions are continued to be implemented by respondent until the end of December 1, 2009, the last day of the filing of manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections, thus:
(a) That petitioner replead by reference the foregoing allegations as well as the allegations hereunder, as part of this application;
(b) That grave and irreparable injuries result to petitioner which has sustained direct and personal injuries and will continue to sustain direct and personal injuries by the continued implementation of the assailed Resolutions;
(c) That grave and irreparable injuries result to petitioner if it would not be able to validly file its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections within the prescribed period from November 20, 2009 until December 1, 2009;
(d) That grave and irreparable injuries result to petitioner and over ten million overseas Filipino workers and their families as the continued implementation of the assailed Resolutions would deprive them of genuine sectoral representation;
(e) That petitioner and millions of overseas Filipino workers and their families are entitled to the relief demanded in the instant Petition, and part of such relief consists in restraining respondent from the continued implementation of the assailed Resolutions especially during the period from November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009, otherwise the instant Petition may be rendered ineffectual;
(f) That the continued implementation of the assailed Resolutions especially during the prescribed period from November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009 would work injustice to petitioner and millions of overseas Filipino workers and their families, as the assailed Resolutions would deprive them of genuine sectoral representation;
(g) That petitioner must be allowed to validly file its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections during the prescribed period from November 20, 2009 until December 1, 2009 in order for petitioner to be included in the printing of official ballots for the automated elections next year. Otherwise, the absence of the name of petitioner in the printed official ballots shall make the instant Petition ineffectual. Thus, the necessity for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction in order not to render the judgment ineffectual; and
(h) There is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to address these pervasive injuries to the petitioner and to the millions of overseas Filipino workers and their families before this Petition could be heard by the Honorable Court.
Hence, premises considered, petitioner is entitled to the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction to restrain respondent from the continued implementation of the assailed Resolutions especially during the period from November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009.
THE PARTIES
THE PETITIONER
8. Petitioner MIGRANTE SECTORAL PARTY OF OVERSEAS FILIPINOS AND THEIR FAMILIES (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner”), represented herein by its Chairperson, Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, in accordance with petitioner’s Executive Board Resolution No. 09-09 dated November 19, 2009, is a sectoral party registered under the party-list system since January 6, 2004. Its office address is at 63 Narra St., Brgy. Claro, Project 3, Quezon City, Philippines where it may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.
A certified true and correct copy of petitioner’s Executive Board Resolution No. 09-09 dated November 19, 2009 authorizing its Chairperson, Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, to represent petitioner in this Petition is attached hereto as Annex “A”.
THE RESPONDENT
9. Respondent COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”) is the quasi-judicial body which has issued Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 and Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP). Respondent’s office address is at Palacio Del Gobernador Building, Intramuros, Manila where it may be served notices, orders, resolutions, judgment and other court processes.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10. Petitioner is a sectoral party registered under the party-list system since January 6, 2004 under SPP No. 03-33, and has been qualified to participate in the May 10, 2004 and May 14, 2007 party-list elections.
11. Petitioner participated during the May 10, 2004 elections and obtained 0.8644-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system.
12. Petitioner did not participate during the May 14, 2007 elections, and even formally informed respondent in a letter dated March 6, 2007, attaching therewith the petitioner’s Executive Board Resolution No. 02-06 dated December 17, 2006, of its intention not to participate during the May 14, 2007 elections, as petitioner shall consolidate and strengthen its ranks and membership.
13. Petitioner has the intention to participate in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections.
14. On October 13, 2009, respondent En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 8679 which removed or cancelled petitioner’s registration as a party under the party-list system on the ground of petitioner’s failure to obtain two-percent of the votes cast in one (1) election, 2004 elections, and failure to participate in one (1) election, 2007 elections.
15. Said Resolution No. 8679 directed that any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition adversely affected thereby may file a verified opposition thereto on October 26, 2009.
16. Petitioner became aware of the existence of Resolution No. 8679 only from media reports stating that petitioner’s registration as a party under the party-list system has already been removed or cancelled by respondent.
17. On October 26, 2009, petitioner filed its verified opposition to Resolution No. 8679, and docketed as SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP).
18. Only on October 26, 2009, hours after petitioner filed its verified opposition, did petitioner receive a copy of Resolution No. 8679 sent through registered mail by respondent.
The original copy of Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 received by petitioner from respondent is attached hereto as Annex “B”.
A copy of petitioner’s verified opposition dated October 26, 2009 and docketed as SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) is attached hereto as Annex “C”.
19. Prior to the respondent’s promulgation of Resolution No. 8679, petitioner did not receive any notice from respondent as to the latter’s initiative to remove or cancel petitioner’s registration as a party under the party-list system, as respondent did not send any notice to petitioner. Respondent likewise did not conduct any hearing prior to the promulgation of Resolution No. 8679.
20. On November 17, 2009, twenty-two (22) days since the filing of petitioner’s verified opposition, petitioner filed a Motion for Early Disposition of Case, as the continued delay in the resolution of petitioner’s verified opposition adversely affects petitioner and limits the time available to petitioner to avail of remedies under the law, in the event of an adverse decision, before the lapse of the November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009 prescribed period for the filing of manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections.
A copy of petitioner’s Motion for Early Disposition of Case dated November 17, 2009 is attached hereto as Annex “D”.
21. On November 19, 2009, one day before the start of the above-stated prescribed period, petitioner received respondent En Banc Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) affirming Resolution No. 8679, in so far as petitioner is concerned, and dismissing petitioner’s verified opposition.
The original copy of Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) received by petitioner from respondent is attached hereto as Annex “E”.
22. Prior to the respondent’s promulgation of Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP), petitioner likewise did not receive any notice from respondent regarding petitioner’s verified opposition, as respondent did not send any notice to petitioner for any hearing on the verified opposition. Again, respondent did not conduct any hearing prior to the promulgation of such Resolution dated November 17, 2009.
23. The respondent’s prescribed period for the filing of manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections is from November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009, only seven (7) working days as November 30, 2009 is a regular holiday.
24. As the May 10, 2010 elections shall be an automated election, the names of candidates and party-lists have to be printed in the official ballots. Those absent in the printed official ballots cannot be voted upon by the voters.
25. The assailed Resolutions have effectively deprived more than ten million overseas Filipino workers and their families of genuine sectoral representation under the party-list system for purposes of the May 10, 2010 elections.
Hence, this Petition.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL DATES
26. On October 13, 2009, respondent En Banc promulgated Resolution No. 8679 which removed or cancelled the registration of petitioner as a party under the party-list system on the ground of petitioner’s failure to obtain two-percent of the votes cast in one (1) election, 2004 elections, and failure to participate in one (1) election, 2007 elections.
27. Said Resolution No. 8679 directed that any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition adversely affected thereby may file a verified opposition thereto on October 26, 2009.
28. On October 26, 2009, petitioner filed its verified opposition to Resolution No. 8679, and docketed as SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP).
29. Only on October 26, 2009, hours after petitioner filed its verified opposition, did petitioner receive a copy of Resolution No. 8679 sent through registered mail by respondent.
30. On November 17, 2009, petitioner filed a Motion for Early Disposition of Case.
31. On November 19, 2009, petitioner received respondent En Banc Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) affirming Resolution No. 8679, in so far as petitioner is concerned, and dismissing petitioner’s verified opposition.
32. Thus, this Petition is well within the prescribed period of thirty (30) days under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court within which to file the present Petition.
GROUNDS
I.
RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ISSUED RESOLUTION NO. 8679 DATED OCTOBER 13, 2009 WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE AND HEARING, IN PATENT VIOLATION OF SECTION 6 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941 OR THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT WHICH CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE REGISTRATION OF A PARTY UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM MAY BE REMOVED OR CANCELLED ONLY AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING.
II.
THE REASON USED BY RESPONDENT IN THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER’S REGISTRATION IS NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT FOR THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION OF A PARTY UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM.
III.
THE REASON USED BY RESPONDENT IN THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER’S REGISTRATION IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 6 (8) OF THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT.
DISCUSSION
I.
RESPONDENT COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ISSUED RESOLUTION NO. 8679 DATED OCTOBER 13, 2009 WITHOUT ANY PRIOR NOTICE AND HEARING, IN PATENT VIOLATION OF SECTION 6 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7941 OR THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT WHICH CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE REGISTRATION OF A PARTY UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM MAY BE REMOVED OR CANCELLED ONLY AFTER DUE NOTICE AND HEARING.
Respondent Commission on Elections issued Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 without any prior notice and hearing, in patent violation of Section 6 of The Party-List System Act which clearly and categorically requires that the registration of a party under the party-list system may be removed or cancelled only after due notice and hearing.
33. Section 6 of The Party-List System Act is clear and categorical about the requirements of notice and hearing prior to the removal or cancellation of the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition, thus:
“Sec. 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:” (Emphasis supplied)
34. The foregoing provision is unequivocal about such requirement of prior notice and hearing, whether such removal or cancellation of the registration of a party-list is done motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party.
35. The Party-List System Act, a statute enacted by the legislature, provides for such a specific and definite requirement of prior notice and hearing. This statutory requirement must be complied with by respondent at all times, as respondent is the proper body designated to implement such provision. To this duty, respondent has failed miserably at the expense of petitioner and over ten million overseas Filipino workers and their families.
36. Any act of respondent less that is clearly and categorically provided by The Party-List System Act on the requirement of prior notice and hearing is a patent violation of the said statute, and therefore cannot be countenanced. This is because what is at stake is not simply the registration of a party under the party-list system but it is really the representation of the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of our society.
37. This specific and definite statutory requirement of prior notice and hearing does not simply mean “a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air one’s side”.
This specific and definite statutory requirement of prior notice and hearing means “a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air one’s side through due notice and hearing prior to any decision that may be rendered by a tribunal”. Indeed, to this end, respondent has failed miserably.
38. In defending its position of not complying with the statutory requirement of prior notice and hearing before it removed or cancelled petitioner’s registration as a party under the party-list system through its Resolution No. 8679, respondent stated the following in its Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP), thus:
“xxx. Resolution No. 8679 did not automatically delete from the list of accredited party-list organizations those listed therein. In fact, it invited any national, sectoral party, organization or coalition affected adversely to file an opposition to the resolution. In this case, the Commission fulfills the mandate of the law to give due notice and hearing to those affected by the resolution so much so that only those who failed to file an opposition and those whose opposition is bereft of merit would be deleted from the list mentioned.
The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air their side. The Commission has done precisely that by giving the organizations, associations and coalitions deleted from the list the opportunity to file their verified oppositions thereto; particularly, by letting Oppositor MIGRANTE file this Opposition.” (Emphasis supplied)
39. Respondent is at a loss for words; respondent posited the view that “Resolution No. 8679 did not automatically delete” petitioner from the list of accredited parties under the party-list system. And that, according to respondent, it has in fact provided petitioner the opportunity to be heard when it allowed petitioner “to file its verified opposition” to Resolution No. 8679.
This excuse is too lame. The glaring fact remains that respondent has already and unequivocally removed or cancelled the registration of petitioner as a party under the party-list system when respondent issued Resolution No. 8679. Respondent has already made a clear and categorical decision of removing or cancelling petitioner’s registration through Resolution No. 8679 sans a prior notice and hearing.
Providing petitioner the opportunity to be heard on the matter through its verified opposition was already after the fact of the unequivocal removal or cancellation of its registration as a party under the party-list system.
Thus, petitioner’s verified opposition is, in essence, already a motion for reconsideration of respondent’s Resolution No. 8679. And a motion for reconsideration is a remedy entirely different and distinct from the remedy or remedies available to petitioner prior to the removal or cancellation of its registration as a party under the party-list system.
Even the resolution of petitioner’s verified opposition was made by respondent absent any notice and hearing.
40. Respondent really is at a loss for words, and is even utterly confused.
Respondent says that, “In this case, the Commission fulfills the mandate of the law to give due notice and hearing to those affected by the resolution so much so that only those who failed to file an opposition and those whose opposition is bereft of merit would be deleted from the list mentioned.
Then on the succeeding paragraph, respondent says, “The requirements of due process are satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air their side. The Commission has done precisely that by giving the organizations, associations and coalitions deleted from the list the opportunity to file their verified oppositions thereto; particularly, by letting Oppositor MIGRANTE file this Opposition.”
Verily, while the above-quoted first paragraph has made a wrongful claim that “only those who failed to file an opposition and those whose opposition is bereft from merit would be deleted from the list”, the second quoted paragraph has clearly admitted that the organizations, associations and coalitions which have been given the opportunity to file a verified opposition have already been deleted from the list even prior to such opportunity to file a verified opposition.
Thus, petitioner’s verified opposition is, in essence, already a motion for reconsideration of respondent’s Resolution No. 8679, as such remedy was available to petitioner only after the fact of removal or cancellation of its registration, and not before such removal or cancellation.
41. Hence, the ordinary requirements of due process of simply the “fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air one’s side” are not applicable in this case.
To reiterate, for fear of being redundant, the specific and definite statutory requirement of prior notice and hearing does not simply mean “a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air one’s side”.
This specific and definite statutory requirement of prior notice and hearing means “a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain and air one’s side through due notice and hearing prior to any decision that shall be rendered by a tribunal” and not after any decision that has already been rendered by a tribunal.
42. Thus, absent such clear and categorical compliance by the respondent of the foregoing requirement under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act on prior notice and hearing in the removal or cancellation of the registration of petitioner as a party under the party-list system, the assailed Resolutions are clearly illegal and a patent nullity.
II.
THE REASON USED BY RESPONDENT IN THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER’S REGISTRATION IS NOT INCLUDED AMONG THE GROUNDS ENUMERATED UNDER SECTION 6 OF THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT FOR THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION OF A PARTY UNDER THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM.
The reason used by respondent in the removal or cancellation of petitioner’s registration is not included among the grounds enumerated under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system.
43. In Resolution No. 8679, respondent has removed or cancelled petitioner’s registration as a party under the party-list system on the following reason, thus:
“Participation/Percentage of Votes
May 10, May 14, Reasons for
2004 2007 Deletion
Elections Elections
xxx
19. MIGRANTE 0.8644% Did not Failed to get two
participate percent of the votes
cast in 2004 and did
not participate in the
2007 elections”
(Emphasis supplied)
44. With all due respect, “failure to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in one (1) election and failure to participate in one (1) election” cited by respondent in Resolution No. 8679 is not included among the grounds enumerated under The Party-List System Act for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system. The grounds for the removal or cancellation of such registration are clearly and categorically spelled under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act, thus:
“Sec. 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
It is a religious sect or denomination, organization or association organized for religious purposes;
It advocates violence or unlawful means to seek its goal;
It is a foreign party or organization;
It is receiving support from any foreign government, foreign political party, foundation, organization, whether directly or through any of its officers or members or indirectly through third parties for partisan election purposes;
It violates or fails to comply with laws, rules or regulations relating to elections;
It declares untruthful statements in its petition;
It has ceased to exist for at least one (1) year; or
It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.” (Emphasis supplied)
45. Clearly, “failure to get two-percent of the votes cast in one (1) election and failure to participate in one (1) election” is nowhere among the grounds enumerated above. There is nothing in the above enumerated grounds which state that “failure to get two-percent of the votes cast in one (1) election and failure to participate in one (1) election” is a ground for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system.
46. Thus, as the reason cited and used by respondent against petitioner in the removal or cancellation of its registration as a party under the party-list system is not a ground provided for by The Party-List System Act, the assailed Resolutions are clearly illegal and a patent nullity.
III.
THE REASON USED BY RESPONDENT IN THE REMOVAL OR CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER’S REGISTRATION IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 6 (8) OF THE PARTY-LIST SYSTEM ACT.
The reason used by respondent in the removal or cancellation of petitioner’s registration is not within the scope of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act.
47. The second and third whereas clauses in Resolution No. 8679 have mentioned Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act, thus:
“WHEREAS, Section 6, item no. 8 of Republic Act No. 7941, otherwise known as the Party-List System Act, provides:
Sec. 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
xxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
WHEREAS, Comelec Resolution No. 2847 promulgated 25 June 1996 entitled: “In Re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Election of the Party-List Representatives through the Party-List System”, which states:
Sec. 6. Removal and/or Cancellation of Registration. - The COMELEC may motu proprio or upon verified complaint of any interested party, remove or cancel, after due notice and hearing, the registration of any national, regional or sectoral party, organization or coalition on any of the following grounds:
xxx
(8) It fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections or fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.” (Emphasis supplied)
That is all there is to it. The said clauses simply mentioned said Section 6 (8), and nothing more.
48. Then the fifth and last whereas clause went on simply stating that pursuant to the powers granted to respondent, it was ordering the deletion of twenty-six (26) party-lists, including petitioner, from the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions, and thereby stating the respective reasons for such deletion across the respective names of the deleted party-lists, thus:
“NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the powers granted by the Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code, Republic Act No. 7941 and other election, the Commission hereby orders:
- To DELETE the following party-lists from the list of registered national, regional or sectoral parties, organizations or coalitions:
Participation/Percentage of Votes
May 10, May 14, Reasons for
2004 2007 Deletion
Elections Elections
xxx
19. MIGRANTE 0.8644% Did not Failed to get two
participate percent of the votes
cast in 2004 and did
not participate in the
2007 elections”
(Emphasis supplied)
That is all there is to it. Though Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act has been mentioned twice in Resolution No. 8679, respondent, however, has used a reason against petitioner different from said Section 6 (8), as already discussed above.
49. Moreover, Resolution No. 8679 does not state in clear and categorical terms whether the actual reason used by respondent in the removal or cancellation of petitioner’s registration is within the scope of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act mentioned twice in said Resolution.
50. The fact is, Resolution No. 8679, in its fourth whereas clause, has impliedly stated that the reason “failure to obtain two-percent of the votes cast in one (1) election and failure to participate in one (1) election” is not within the scope of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act, thus:
“WHEREAS, a party registered for the two (2) preceding elections shall be considered to have failed to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system if the latest “Party-List Canvass Reports” for said elections show that the percentage obtained by said party did not reach two per centum (2%) of the votes cast therein. However, this shall not apply if a party, although receiving less than two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in the May 2007 National Elections, was allocated a seat during said election pursuant to the Decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Barangay Association for National Advancement and Transparency (BANAT) vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179271, and Bayan Muna, A Teacher, and Abobo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 179295, as we as, the Resolutions of the Commission implementing the said Decision.” (Emphasis supplied)
51. The said fourth whereas clause is clear that a party-list shall be considered to have failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system if the latest “Party-List Canvass Reports” for the two (2) preceding elections show that the percentage obtained by said party-list did not reach two-percent of the votes cast therein.
52. Thus, only party-lists which participated in said two (2) preceding elections but failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system are considered to have failed to obtain such certain percentage of votes. This must be so because the said fourth whereas clause has referred to “Party-List Canvass Reports” showing the failure of party-lists to obtain two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. Only party-lists which participated in an election are necessarily included in “Party-List Canvass Reports”, and party-lists which did not participate in an election are not included therein precisely because said party-lists did not participate in an election.
53. Hence, a party-list is considered to have failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in an election only if said party-list has participated in said election and has failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system.
Yes, petitioner participated in the May 2004 elections and failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system. That is only one instance.
And in the May 2007 elections, petitioner did not participate therein, thus not included in the “Party-List Canvass Report” for the May 2007 elections. Hence, petitioner is not considered to have failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes under the party-list system in the May 2007 elections because petitioner did not participate therein and is not included in the “Party-List Canvass Report” for said particular election.
Thus, petitioner failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system only once, in the May 2004 elections, and not twice.
54. Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act is clear and categorical that the ground for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system is “failure to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in two (2) preceding elections”. Again, petitioner has failed to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system only once, not twice.
55. Thus, there is no reason to remove or cancel the registration of petitioner as a party under the party-list system.
56. To reiterate, the above-quoted provision under Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act provides two (2) instances by which the registration of a party, organization or coalition under the party-list system may be removed or cancelled, thus:
First, if a party, organization or coalition fails to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered; or
Second, if a party, organization or coalition fails to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in two (2) preceding elections for the constituency in which it has registered.
57. The last two (2) preceding elections prior to the May 2010 party-list elections were the May 2004 and May 2007 party-list elections. Petitioner participated in the May 2004 party-list elections but did not participate only in the May 2007 party-list elections. Thus, petitioner did not fail to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections, as petitioner failed to participate in only one (1) preceding election – the May 2007 party-list elections – since petitioner participated in the May 2004 party-list elections. Thus, the first instance above does not apply against petitioner.
58. The second instance states the failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes – at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system – in two (2) preceding elections. Logically, since the second instance speaks of “failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes,” it presupposes that the concerned party, organization or coalition has participated in the elections by which it has failed to obtain such a certain percentage of votes.
How could the concerned party, organization or coalition under the party-list system have the chance and opportunity to obtain such a certain percentage of votes if it did not participate in an election in the first place?
And a party under the party-list system is allowed not to participate in a party-list election but only once; what is prohibited and considered a ground for the removal or cancellation of registration of a party under the party-list system is failure to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections.
59. And such participation in an election by which the concerned party, organization or coalition has failed to obtain such a certain percentage of votes refers – under the second instance – to participation in two (2) preceding elections.
60. Again, prior to the May 2010 party-elections, petitioner participated in only one (1) preceding election – the May 2004 party-list elections – by which it failed to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system.
Petitioner has participated in only one (1) preceding election, and not in two (2) preceding elections. Thus, petitioner did not fail to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system in two (2) preceding elections, as petitioner has participated in only one (1) preceding election by which petitioner has failed to obtain at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast under the party-list system. Thus, the second instance likewise does not apply against petitioner.
61. Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act states “last two (2) preceding elections” for non-participation or “two (2) preceding elections” for failure to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast.
Not one (1) but last two (2) preceding elections as instances of failure to participate; not one (1) but two (2) preceding elections as instances of failure to obtain at least two (2) percent of the votes cast.
62. Under Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act, the failure to participate and the failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes are two different classifications.
Non-participation is non-participation in an election.
Failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes is failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes. In failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes, a party under the party-list system has to participate in an election precisely to obtain votes, and such votes shall be counted. And if the votes obtained are less than two-percent, such party fails to obtain said certain percentage of votes.
63. How can a non-participating party be considered to have failed to obtain a certain percentage of votes if said party did not participate in an election in the first place, and there are no votes for said party to speak of from the beginning?
64. How can a party lose an election which such party did not join and contest from the beginning? And this is considering the fact that The Party-List System Act allows a party under the party-list system not to participate in a party-list election but only once; what is prohibited and considered a ground for the removal or cancellation of registration of a party under the party-list system is failure to participate in the last two (2) preceding elections.
That is why the non-participation and the failure to obtain a certain percentage of votes are two different classifications under Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act.
65. Verily, any of the two (2) instances above under Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act by which the registration of a party, organization or coalition under the party-list system may be removed or cancelled does not apply against petitioner.
66. With all due respect, petitioner humbly submits that it should be allowed and be considered qualified and eligible to participate in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections.
Respondent’s reliance upon the case of Philippine Mine Safety & Environment Association (MINERO) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007) is misplaced.
67. In dismissing petitioner’s verified opposition, respondent has invoked for the first time the case of Philippine Mine Safety & Environment Association (MINERO) v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 177548, May 10, 2007) in respondent En Banc Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP), which likewise affirmed respondent En Banc Resolution No. 8679, in so far as petitioner is concerned.
68. The case of MINERO is a Supreme Court Minute Resolution promulgated on May 10, 2007 and signed by the Supreme Court Clerk of Court, Ma. Luisa D. Villarama.
69. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent’s reliance upon the foregoing case is misplaced. Petitioner in said case, MINERO, went to the Honorable Court on a petition for mandamus with prayer for preliminary injunction “to compel respondent Commission on Elections to include petitioner in the Certified List for the 2007 Party-List Elections.”
MINERO claimed that “under The Party-List System Act, all it has to do is manifest its intent to participate in the 2007 party-list elections since it is already registered and COMELEC is duty bound to certify it.”
70. Thus, the sole issue in the case of MINERO is whether or not respondent COMELEC is duty bound to certify MINERO for the May 2007 party-list elections.
Such issue delved only on the discretionary powers of respondent COMELEC, no more, no less.
That is all there is to it.
71. The instant Petition, however, is raising several issues different from the sole issue raised in the case of MINERO, thus:
(a) Whether or not respondent Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in the removal or cancellation of the registration of petitioner as a party under the party-list system without prior notice and hearing clearly mandated under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act;
(b) Whether or not failure to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in one election and failure to participate in one election is included among the grounds for the removal or cancellation of the registration of a party under the party-list system enumerated under Section 6 of The Party-List System Act; and
(c) Whether or not failure to obtain at least two-percent of the votes cast under the party-list system in one election and failure to participate in one election is within the scope of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act.
The foregoing issues in the instant Petition have not been squarely ruled upon in the case of MINERO.
72. Thus, petitioner most respectfully submits that respondent’s reliance upon the case of MINERO is misplaced. MINERO’s declaration that, “Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections. COMELEC, therefore, is not duty bound to certify it.”, is simply in relation to the sole issue on respondent COMELEC’s discretionary powers raised in the case of MINERO.
That is all there is to it.
73. Besides, petitioner most humbly submits that MINERO’s declaration that, “Since petitioner by its own admission failed to get 2% of the votes in 2001 and did not participate at all in the 2004 elections, it necessarily failed to get at least two per centum (2%) of the votes cast in the two preceding elections.”, is merely a conclusion of law which is not elucidated nor explained in the case of MINERO on how such a conclusion was arrived at.
74. Moreover, petitioner most humbly submits that in case of doubt in the interpretation of Section 6 (8) of The Party-List System Act, if there is any, it must be resolved in favor of the party registered under the party-list system. This is necessary in order to give full effect to the wisdom, intent and spirit of the party-list system of representation for the marginalized and underrepresented sectors of our society.
Otherwise, a “fault-finding” interpretation adverse to the party-list system of representation may render the party-list system of representation itself ineffectual.
Otherwise, the truism that overseas Filipino workers are the present heroes of our society may have dried of substance and importance.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Petitioner most respectfully prays of the Honorable Court the following:
1. That this Petition be given due course;
2. That a Temporary Restraining Order and/or a Preliminary Injunction be issued to restrain respondent Commission on Elections from implementing Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 and Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP), especially during the period from November 20, 2009 to December 1, 2009 in order for petitioner Migrante Sectoral Party of Overseas Filipinos and their Families to validly file its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections during the said period;
3. That after notice and hearing, a final order is issued:
(a) Declaring respondent’s Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009, in so far as petitioner is concerned, as null and void;
(b) Declaring respondent’s Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP) as null and void;
(c) Enjoining respondent from implementing Resolution No. 8679 dated October 13, 2009 in so far as petitioner is concerned, and Resolution dated November 17, 2009 in SPP Case No. 09-003 (MP);
(d) Commanding respondent to allow petitioner to validly file its manifestation of intent to participate in the party-list system of representation in the May 10, 2010 elections, and to give due course to the same; and
(e) Declaring petitioner as qualified and eligible to participate in the May 10, 2010 party-list elections.
Petitioner likewise prays for such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the circumstances.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. Quezon City for Manila, 20 November 2009.
JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG
Counsel for Petitioner
Roll of Attorneys No. 55254
IBP 773865, 03-30-09, Oriental Mindoro
PTR 2598006, 01-13-09, Oriental Mindoro
Admitted to Bar, 2008
MCLE not yet required
Third Floor, Erythrina Building,
No. 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Sts.,
Central District, Quezon City
(02) 920.6660, (02) 927.2812
Copy furnished: Through Registered Mail
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
Palacio Del Gobernador Building
Intramuros, Manila
SOLICITOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
OSG Bldg., 134 Amorsolo St.,
Legaspi Village, Makati City
EXPLANATION FOR SERVICE OF PETITION
THROUGH REGISTERED MAIL
The service of copies of the instant Petition is made through registered mail. Pursuant to Rule 13, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, the service of copies of the instant Petition cannot be made personally due to distance and lack of available personnel.
JULIUS GARCIA MATIBAG
Our Vision and Commitment
KATRIBU is the voice of the indigenous peoples. It manifests the strong desire of the indigenous peoples to work collectively in pursuit of a long dreamt peaceful and just society where the right to self-determination of the indigenous peoples is realized to the fullest.
We, members of KATRIBU, stand by this commitment as we draw inspiration from the historic and valiant struggles of our ancestors.
We embody the collective desire of the indigenous peoples, who have long suffered from the stigma and discrimination resulting from the colonial history of the Philippine nation, to be free from this oppressive condition, and to bear the power to decide and chart our own destiny as indigenous peoples.
We believe that KATRIBU must have a significant role in defining the economic, socio-cultural, and political life of the whole Philippine nation and society, and that genuine participation and representation of indigenous peoples at all levels of government decision-making is necessary.
Upon this vision and commitment, we vow to advance the collective rights and aspirations of the indigenous peoples of the Philippines.
Our Principles
We, indigenous peoples, united by common goals and aspirations, bonded by our common history, taking pride in our struggle for the right to ancestral domains and to self-determination and pursuing social justice and equity, non-discrimination, progress, and peace, do hereby affirm our basic principles that serve as our torch and guide in our endeavors.
We thereby
• Uphold the right to self-determination, self-governance and genuine autonomy of indigenous peoples.
• Commit to defend our ancestral domains and resources and protect the environment from destruction and unbridled exploitation.
• Call for a policy that recognizes, promotes, and respects the collective rights of indigenous peoples as well as their civil and political rights
• Uphold and nurture indigenous socio-political institutions, knowledge systems and culture.
• Pursue a progressive and enlightened unity and cooperation among the indigenous peoples and between the indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples of the Philippines.
• Pledge to work for peace based on justice in local indigenous communities and in the whole Philippines.
• Assert self-determined, self-reliant and sustainable development towards the eradication of poverty in communities of indigenous peoples.
• Engage in international solidarity with other indigenous peoples around the world.
Our Program
Guided by our principles and commitment, we affirm the following objectives, to:
1. Unite the indigenous peoples on the basis of KATRIBU’s principles and objectives;
2. Work for the review of laws and programs that impact on indigenous peoples and violate the indigenous peoples’ basic human and collective rights;
3. Promote self-determined development by supporting programs on ancestral land recognition, sustainable development and against the continuing plunder of resources;
4. Undertake programs that protect, nurture and develop the environment for the general peoples’ welfare.
5. Strengthen unity and cooperation among diverse tribes and communities of indigenous peoples and non-indigenous peoples, by pursuing collective actions on common problems and common aspirations;
6. Institute programs and mechanisms that shall address the continuing displacement of the indigenous peoples from their communities and to uphold the right of indigenous peoples to free prior and informed consent over any development projects affecting them.
7. Initiate measures that would allow indigenous peoples to primarily benefit from the resources found within their ancestral territories ;
8. Promote initiatives that shall safeguard the socio-economic and cultural rights of the indigenous peoples in their places of re-settlement and in workplaces abroad;
9. Work for the attainment of peace based on social justice by supporting peace initiatives that address militarization in indigenous territories and initiate the resolution of tribal conflicts;
10. Establish collective and cooperative programs and projects for the welfare of indigenous peoples;
11. Uphold the indigenous peoples’ basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to ensure justice for all victims of human rights violations by initiating corresponding support programs;
12. Promote and develop the indigenous peoples’ culture towards the enrichment of the national cultural heritage;
13. Foster international solidarity relations with other indigenous peoples on the basis of indigenous peoples rights and welfare.
Article III, Section 4 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states in an unequivocal manner: “No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, xxx.”
The landmark case of United States v. Felipe Bustos (G.R. No. L-12592, March 8, 1918) discussed the history of this guarantee in our jurisdiction:
“The Philippine Bill, the Act of Congress of July 1, 1902, and the Jones Law, the Act of Congress of August 29, 1916, in the nature of organic acts for the Philippines, continued this guaranty. The words quoted are not unfamiliar to students of Constitutional Law, for they are the counterpart of the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which the American people demanded before giving their approval to the Constitution.
We mention the foregoing facts only to deduce the position never to be forgotten for an instant that the guaranties mentioned are part and parcel of the Organic Law of the Constitution of the Philippine Islands.
These paragraphs found in the Philippine Bill of Rights are not threadbare verbiage. The language carries with it all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional cases. And what are these principles? Volumes would inadequately answer. But included are the following:
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion of public affairs. Completely liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his official acts. Only thus can the intelligence and the dignity of the individual be exalted. Of course, criticism does not authorize defamation. Nevertheless, as the individual is less than the State, so must expected criticism be born for the common good. Rising superior to any official or set of officials, to the Chief of Executive, to the Legislature, to the Judiciary to any or all the agencies of Government, public opinion should be the constant source of liberty and democracy.”
I repeat – the language carries with it all the applicable jurisprudence of great English and American Constitutional cases.
House Bill No. 3306 or the Right of Reply Act of 2009 is unconstitutional, it is a clear violation of the guarantee of a free press, the guarantee of press freedom and freedom of expression, a guarantee which our forefathers have fought and shed their blood for.
Let me emphasize the controversial provision in the Florida’s 1913 Right to Reply statute, which led to the landmark case of Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, June 25, 1974 striking down the said statute as unconstitutional as it was a clear violation of the First Amendment guarantee of a free press:
“Florida Statute 104.38. – Newspaper assailing candidate in an election; space for reply – If any newspaper in its columns assails the personal character of any candidate for nomination or for election in any election, or charges said candidate with malfeasance or misfeasance in office, or otherwise attacks his official record, or gives to another free space for such purpose, such newspaper shall upon request of such candidate immediately publish free of cost any reply he may make thereto in as conspicuous a place and in the same kind of type as the matter that calls for such reply, provided such reply does not take up more space than the matter replied to. Any person or firm failing to comply with the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in 775.082 or 775.083.”
Florida Statute 104.38 is fundamentally the same as House Bill No. 3306. That we cannot deny. And why did the United States Supreme Court decide to strike down the said statute?
It is on the following reasons:
“The Court has expressed sensitivity as to whether a restriction or requirement constituted the compulsion exerted by government on a newspaper to print that which it would not otherwise print. The clear implication has been that any such a compulsion to publish that which “reason tells them should not be published” is unconstitutional. A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal, but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution and like many other virtues it cannot be legislated.
Appellee’s argument that the Florida statute does not amount to a restriction of appellant’s right to speak because “the statute in question here has not prevented the Miami Herald from saying anything it wished” begs the core question. Compelling editors or publishers to publish that which “reason tells them should not be published” is what is at issue in this case. The Florida statute operates as a command in the same sense as a statute or regulation forbidding appellant to publish specified matter.
Governmental restraint on publishing need not fall into familiar or traditional patterns to be subject to constitutional limitations on governmental powers. The Florida statute exacts a penalty on the basis of the content of a newspaper. The first phase of the penalty resulting from the compelled printing of a reply is exacted in terms of the cost in printing and composing time and materials and in taking up space that could be devoted to other material the newspaper may have preferred to print.
Faced with the penalties that would accrue to any newspaper that published news or commentary arguably within the reach of the right-of-access statute, editors might well conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy. Therefore, under the operation of the Florida statute, political and electoral coverage would be blunted or reduced. Government-enforced right of access inescapably “dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate. There is practically universal agreement that a major purpose of the First Amendment was to protect the free discussion of governmental affairs. This of course includes discussions of candidates.
Even if a newspaper would face no additional costs to comply with a compulsory access law and would not be forced to forgo publication of news or opinion by the inclusion of a reply, the Florida statute fails to clear the barriers of the First Amendment because of its intrusion into the function of editors. A newspaper is more than a passive receptacle or conduit for news, comment, and advertising. The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials – whether fair or unfair – constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”
And this is what constitutes the freedom of the press: “The choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials – whether fair or unfair – constitute the exercise of editorial control and judgment.”
That is the overarching wisdom of the continued guarantee of a free press. This American jurisprudence, which is the controlling doctrine in the United States, is, we all know, applicable in our jurisdiction.
The sponsors have declared and I quote from their sponsorship speech, “xxx, when a person in invoking the freedom of speech and of the press accuses or criticizes another, especially publicly, he must do so recognizing the equal freedom of expression, and the rights to privacy and due process of the person accused or criticized, hence, that person must be accorded the opportunity and right to reply to the accusation or criticism.”
The sponsors are confused. It is elementary that there is a hierarchy of rights under the constitution. In the hierarchy of civil liberties, the rights of free speech, of expression, of the press and of assembly occupy a preferred position as they are essential to the preservation and vitality of our civil and political institutions, and such priority gives these liberties the sanctity and the sanction not permitting dubious intrusions.
So the right to privacy is inferior to the right to freedom of the press. Yes, a person accused or criticized has the right to exercise his or her freedom of expression but not by dictating or imposing upon the press the conveyance of his or her expression. And due process, the press is not a venue for judicial or administrative proceedings for due process to apply.
Though public officials may have suffered under a hostile and an unjust accusation by the press, it is not a reason to legislate and create a statutory right of reply which shall clip and cut the constitutional guarantee of a free press. If Congress shall pass House Bill 3306, Congress shall trample upon one of the highest and preferred rights of every civilized nation.
Other than the fact that House Bill 3306 is unconstitutional for it clearly violates the freedom of the press, it is likewise unconstitutional as it is void for its vagueness, on its face.
In our jurisdiction, the void-for-vagueness doctrine holds that a law is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.
House Bill 3306 penalizes the editor-in-chief, publisher, station manager or owner, as the case may be, of the broadcast media who fails or refuses to receive or publish or broadcast the reply either with a penalty based on the Code of Ethics or fine, as the case may be. That is the prohibited act.
However, the same House Bill 3306 states that the reply of the person so accused or criticized shall be published in the same newspaper, magazine, newsletter or publication or aired over the same program on radio, television, website, or through any electronic device as far as practicable and respecting the editorial judgment and availability of space or airtime.
If the editors have exercised their judgment, and based on their editorial judgment, they decided not to publish or broadcast the reply, what will happen now? Will they be penalized as they have performed the prohibited act under House Bill 3306, that is, the refusal to publish or broadcast the reply? But why would they be penalized when House Bill 3306 itself authorizes the exercise of editorial judgment, and editorial judgment includes the judgment whether to publish or broadcast or not to publish or not to broadcast?
And if the sponsors would say, “Let’s look then at the intention of the editors in their refusal to publish or broadcast the reply.” That is not allowed since House Bill 3306 is a special penal law, and it is not a part of nor an amendment to the Revised Penal Code. Likewise, there is no provision in House Bill 3006 with respect to the intention of the perpetrator of the prohibited act.
In special penal laws, the intention of the perpetrator has no relevance – as long as the prohibited act is committed. Regardless of the intention of the perpetrator, the special penal law is violated once the prohibited act is committed.
So which is which, then? And though House Bill 3306 is a special penal law, since it affects the freedom of expression and of the press, the void-for-vagueness doctrine clearly applies.
Are we going to go back to those dark days of martial rule when unreasonable and arbitrary restrictions are imposed upon the press?
In this time of impunity, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, systematic legal maneuvers, and high-level graft and corruption, are we going to dictate upon the press on what they shall inform the public?
Airah “Airah” Cadiogan www.eightysea.multiply.com
Chairperson
Jaqueline “Jaque” Eroles
Vice-Chairperson
Councilors
Katrina Nessa “Nessa” Abad
Fermina “Amme” Agudo
Isabelle “Issa” Therese Baguisi
Ronnie “Ron” Bermundo
Allan “Allan” de Guzman
Janina Karla “Karla” Domingo
Jemimah Grace “Gem” Garcia
Efren “Efren” Maglangsakay, Jr.
Iris Charmaine “Iris” Olaso
Raymong Charles “Mon” Pestana
Mohamad Jumer “Jumer” Sali
Marian Kris “Marian” Santos
College Representatives
Danim “Danim” Majerano (CAL)
Kim Elaine “Kim” Balderama (CHE)
April Angela “Gel” Nolasco (CMC)
Rainer Astin “Rain” Sindayen (CSSP)
Ana Angela “Angela” Cayabyab (CSWCD)
Ma. Cristina “Brandy” Brandares (CEduc)
Demi Anne “Demi” Obidiencia (CEng’g)
Rudolph “Ralph” Guibani (CFA)
Catherine “Kate” Razo (CMusic)
RG Emmanuel “RG” Tessa (NCPAG)
Teopisto “Theo” Futalan, Jr. (SLIS)
Lester “Lester” Cajegas (SStat)
STRENGTHEN OUR UNITY, ADVANCE OUR STRUGGLE FOR GREATER VICTORIES!
Last week, we secured the historic success of the CRSRS (Codified Rules on Student Regent Selection) Referendum, a process that drew over 26,000 students from all over the nation, a resounding 73% if which voted yes. This is the epic triumph of all iskolar ng bayan who responded to the clarion call of the times, heeding the need to defend that most basic of civil liberties – fair representation.
Our success in the referendum attests to three things: that efforts to discredit the mandate of the Office of the Student Regent – an institution that is borne and continues to assume the democratic struggle of the students – will end in futility; that attempts to place student representation at the crux of uncertainty will fail at the gates of our collective dissent; and finally, that we are ready to overcome divisions so that higher battles may be fought and won over.
Indeed, both the UP administration and the state have evolved mechanisms to thwart our democratic rights, covertly attacking student formations and institutions. Yet no assault can withstand the strength of our united stance; our collective resolve shall always persist and prevail.
The referendum, however, is just one of a series of victories. Last year, we were able to set a dialogue with UP Pres. Emerlinda Roman, resulting in the barring of Provision 444 of the 2006 UP Code, which unduly prohibits sectarian organizations.
Through UMAKSYON, an alliance of student formations against commercialization, we exposed exorbitant and pending fee increases from the colleges of Engineering, Mass Communication, Human Kinetics, Economics, and Education. We also forged inter-unit alliances to assist other UP units in their campaigns. For instance, following strong pressure from students systemwide, UP Los Baños Chancellor Luis Rey Velasco finally recanted his earlier stance to bar the university student elections, resulting in the highest voter turn-out of 70.53% in UP LB after seven months of delay.
We also made a deep mark in national affairs, mobilizing some of the largest number of students, professors, workers and other sectors to protest the depravity of the current Gloria Arroyo regime. We lead in the convening of the national youth alliance, Youth ACT Now, to press for truth and accountability from the government, especially after the $329 million NBN-ZTE scandal.
In all these, the iskolar ng bayan was a critical participant in the shaping of issues both local and national in scope.
For in a time of conflict, where opposing ideas contend to determine the order of society, it is all the more crucial to stand for the voiceless and marginalized. This is why, in its 100 years of existence, UP has stood as a stronghold of activism.
STRENGTHEN OUR UNITY
At this juncture, we recognize the long, arduous road ahead; there are grave concerns that we have yet to confront. Even as the global economic crisis deepens, with over 1 million Filipinos jobless, the thrust of the government is still aligned with the blatant neglect of social services. Our response, then, is to glean lessons form previous victories to guide us in present confrontations.
Today, battles continue to be fought. The ferocity of struggles we wage within and outside the university is crucial in the resolution of social ills that have kept many deprived. We should not hesitate in the fulfillment of such vital responsibility.
As past events demonstrate, only the collective action of students can counter the regime’s systematic attempts to abandon the education sector at the behest of commercial and corporate interests. Let us summon, therefore, the spirit of collective indignation.
Let us rebuke authorities who occupy the highest echelon of government, but do not serve the common interests of the people. Let us break the bonds of apathy and silence, and instead, claim the nation’s destiny as our own. Let the force of our united dissent reverberate through the halls, inside the classrooms, and in all corners of the university.
ADVANCE OUR STRUGGLE FOR GREATER VICTORIES
Thus, we look on to the future, resolute in the struggle for our student rights, and those of other marginalized sectors.
We shall amplify our fight for added state subsidy, and assert our legitimate right for accessible and quality education. We have endured dilapidated facilities and equipment, and declining university services due to reduced state subsidy. But we share an abiding desire to end this imposed scarcity, seeing that budget cuts have proven disastrous for UP.
We will push for democratic access of education, especially for the brightest and poorest of our youth. We are steadfast in the belief that education is a universal right, in which each of us has a claim. It is tragic irony when solons refuse to provide adequate funding for education but, in the same breath, condone the lavish misallocation of resources to military spending and corruption.
We will expose commercialization as a scheme that merely reinforces state abandonment. The government has maliciously approved various policies that erode the basic rights of the people. Through the Long Term Higher Education Plan (LTHEDP), exorbitant tuition and other fees have been imposed, despite the intense hardship of the Filipino people. But we know that once commercial interests pervade the university, profit-making — not academic pursuit or democratic access — becomes the overriding concern. That is anathema to the needs of the Filipino people who, at the very least, deserve a relief from the excessive fees that have kept them from receiving education, a right that is duly theirs in the first place.
Hence, our principal task is to advance our struggle for democratic rights, in the perspective of attaining a nationalist, scientific, and mass-oriented education. Let us condemn state abandonment by opposing the UP tuition policy while simultaneously insisting on greater state subsidy. Let us fight the commercialized and repressive nature of neoliberal education by renouncing its manifestations — such as exorbitant fees, scarce resources and services, attacks on student representation, and the lack of tambayans and even the unfair procedure for the recognition of student organizations.
On this historic platform, we will not be silent or passive.
History tells the story of a great struggle for democratic rights. That struggle is alive and well today, in each of the thousands of youths who will stand for justice, freedom, and ultimately, real and encompassing democracy.
Iskolar ng Bayan
Pag-aralan ang lipunan
Paglingkuran ang Sambayanan!
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:
The student regent rejected on Friday proposals from several student groups to include alternative questions for the January 26-31 referendum.
In a statement released last January 16, Student Regent Shan Abdulwahid reiterated her earlier decision to submit only one question to the students during the referendum:
“Do you approve of the existing Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS) as rules and qualifications to govern the selection of our student representative to the UP Board of Regents?”
SR Abdulwahid denied the protest-appeal submitted by 13* student councils and several student leaders to include specific questions regarding proposed amendments to the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS). According to the proponent councils, such amendments would provide voting students with options, unlike the present question which “only pushes students to the wall” for a “yes” vote.
In a 6-page decision, SR Abdulwahid said that RA 9500 provides only for a referendum rather than an initiative. While the former gives constituents the power to approve or reject legislation, the latter allows them to propose and enact legislation.
SR Abdulwahid also cited Republic Act 9500 of the UP Charter of 2008, stating that under the current CRSRS, “proposed changes thereto should be submitted to the Office Of The Student Regent not later than the first day of October” (i.e. October 1, 2008 ) and that such rules “may be changed through the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP system.” If these two conditions are met, then such changes become “valid and proposed amendments” to the CRSRS, and can thus be put to a vote of yes or no among the students.
The student councils and student leaders who appealed, collectively known as the Choose to Know Alliance, criticized the SR’s decision as a manifestation of her unwillingness to yield to the substantial merits of the proposal by resorting to and insisting on mere technicalities.
–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:
The Office of the Student Regent’s decision never resorted to and insisted on mere technicalities in denying the Appeal filed by a certain group known as the Choose to Know Alliance.
The denial was premised on the fact that the OSR has no authority to include the said group’s alternative questions in the forthcoming referendum because such questions precisely have the purpose of amending the Codified Rules for Student Regent Selection (CRSRS).
To reiterate, as explicitly provided under the CRSRS, only all the student councils of the University of the Philippines System, through their majority vote, after compliance with the requirement of the submission to the OSR of the proposed changes to the CRSRS not later than October 1 (October 1, 2008 for the school year 2008-2009), have the power and authority to adopt and make valid any proposed changes to the CRSRS.
These are not mere technicalities. These are substantive matters.
The OSR cannot simply ignore or disregard the existing CRSRS, as all the student councils of the UP System, through their majority vote, have previously validly and legitimately passed and adopted the same.
In the same breath, the OSR cannot simply ignore or disregard the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP System in their collective and democratic decision to pass and adopt the existing CRSRS. Otherwise, the OSR would be guilty of resorting to dictatorial schemes by a deliberate and conscious decision to solely and unilaterally entertain the proposals of the group Choose to Know Alliance in changing the CRSRS.
The OSR, as a lone office, does not possess any power or authority to overrule or supersede any valid and legitimate act of the majority vote of all the student councils of the UP System. The OSR alone does not possess any power or authority to overrule or supersede the General Assembly of Student Councils (GASC), which is the body constituted by all the student councils of the UP System.
If the OSR were to consider the alternative questions, and include the same in the forthcoming referendum, the OSR would be deliberately and consciously ignoring and disregarding the democratic manner by which the GASC has previously passed and adopted the CRSRS. In that case, the OSR would exercise powers beyond its jurisdiction, and encroach upon the powers of all the student councils of the UP System.
That is dictatorship, as what the group Choose to Know Alliance wants the OSR to do. That is dictatorship, as what the group Choose to Know Alliance wants to happen.
But the glaring truth is that the group Choose to Know Alliance sat and slept on their right to submit to the OSR any proposed changes to the CRSRS within the prescribed period. The said group chose to do the same, and only such group is to blame for their own inaction, no one else.
–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:
The SR could not invoke the October 1 deadline for submission of amendments since it was set without consultation, contrary to Article IX of the CRSRS. Said provision states that, “The dates and periods pertinent to the selection process in the college, and system levels shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.”
–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:
The above-quoted statement of the group Choose to Know Alliance is misplaced, false and erroneous.
The pertinent provisions of the CRSRS as regards the matter are the following:
“ARTICLE IX
General Provisions
xxx
Section 3. The dates and periods pertinent to the selection process in the college, AU and system levels shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.
Section 4. These rules shall be amended or repealed through the majority vote of all the student councils in the UP System. Proposals to amend should be submitted to the OSR not later than the first (1st) day of October.
Section 5. These rules shall take effect immediately upon approval by at least a majority of all student councils present and voting.”
The above-mentioned Section 3, which was quoted by the group Choose to Know Alliance in their statement, is separate and distinct from the subsequent Section 4 of the CRSRS.
Section 3 refers to the “dates and periods pertinent to the selection process” of the Student Regent “in the college, AU and system level”, and such dates and periods “shall be fixed by the OSR with the consent of all the USCs and regional units.”
That is all there is to it. Section 3 has no relation whatsoever to the October 1 deadline for the submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS since such deadline is provided for under a different provision, which is Section 4, and not Section 3.
This is precisely because the October 1 deadline under Section 4 is a date for the purpose of submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS; it is not a date for the purpose of the selection process of the Student Regent.
The submission to the OSR of any proposed changes to the CRSRS is a matter entirely separate and distinct from the selection process of the Student Regent. Thus, there is no relation between the “dates and periods” in Section 3 and the October 1 deadline in Section 4, as each matter stands on its own.
Therefore, the OSR has validly invoked the said deadline for the submission thereto of any proposed changes to the CRSRS, not only because the same is provided for under the CRSRS but also because the CRSRS have been validly and legitimately passed and adopted by all the student councils of the UP System, through their majority vote, in a democratic and just manner.
Hence, the above-quoted statement of the group Choose to Know Alliance on the matter is utterly misplaced, false and erroneous, and intended only to confuse and divide the Iskolar ng Bayan as to the matters involving the forthcoming referendum.
–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:
The Alliance also questioned the SR’s interpretation of a referendum as involving only a single question and her reliance on the ruling in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996).
Sophia San Luis, the College of Law Representative to the University Student Council (USC), said “There is nothing in the laws and jurisprudence cited that says there should only be one question in a referendum. In fact, in Sanidad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court upheld a referendum where there was more than one question in the ballot.”
–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:
At this moment, we advise the group Choose to Know Alliance to review its premises with regard to their arguments.
With respect to the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. L-35929, January 22, 1973) cited by the group Choose to Know Alliance in their statement, it is true that any number of questions may be generally asked in a referendum. An instance that may be cited is that of the January 10-15, 1973 referendum among Citizens Assemblies during the dark days of Martial law, whereby the referendum posed eleven (11) questions to the Filipino people for their approval or rejection, as discussed in the said case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, as follows:
“[1] Do you like the New Society?
[2] Do you like the reforms under martial law?
[3] Do you like Congress again to hold sessions?
[4] Do you like the plebiscite to be held later?
[5] Do you like the way President Marcos is running the affairs of the government?
[6] Do you approve of the citizens assemblies as the base of popular government to decide issues of national interests?
[7] Do you approve of the new Constitution?
[8] Do you want a plebiscite to be called to ratify the new Constitution?
[9] Do you want the elections to be held in November, 1973 in accordance with the provisions of the 1935 Constitution?
[10] If the elections would not be held, when do you want the next elections to be called?
[11] Do you want martial law to continue?” (Emphasis supplied)
However, based on the formulation of the referendum questions in the said Citizens Assemblies, it can be clearly seen that with respect to the issue of the approval or rejection of the new Constitution, there is only one question posed for such purpose; and that is question number 7 as highlighted above.
Any proposed amendments to the said new Constitution are not separately asked to the Filipino people in the said referendum. This is precisely because all proposed amendments to the Constitution have already been validly adopted and passed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention prior to the said referendum, and such act of the 1971 Constitutional Convention resulted to the proposed new Constitution subject to the approval of the people.
Hence, the said proposed new Constitution, which was subjected to the Filipino people through Citizens Assemblies for their approval or rejection, already contained all the validly adopted proposed amendments thereto – thus the wisdom behind the single question with respect to the approval or rejection of the new Constitution.
This is the same wisdom behind the single question posed to the UP students in the forthcoming referendum. And since the group Choose to Know Alliance has cited the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections in their statement as a basis for their arguments, albeit in a misplaced and erroneous manner, the DEFEND OSR likewise invokes the said case as regards the wisdom, merits, propriety and legitimacy of a single question in the forthcoming referendum as to the approval of the CRSRS.
–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:
The Law Representative argued that the case (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996] cited by the SR is inapplicable. “The laws cited in the abovementioned case were created for a specific purpose. RA 6735 Section 3 says, ‘For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean…’”
“What this tells us is that the purpose of the definition that followed was limited specifically to initiative and referendum in order to amend the constitution, statutes or local legislation. As stated in the case of Defensor v. Roco (G.R. No. 127325), “R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, ” and the CRSRS does not, by any means, fall under this,” she said.
–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:
The group Choose to Know Alliance is downright confused, in the same way that the said group’s arguments are confusing and contradictory.
First, the said group argued this:
“Sophia San Luis, the College of Law Representative to the University Student Council (USC), said “There is nothing in the laws and jurisprudence cited that says there should only be one question in a referendum. In fact, in Sanidad v. Comelec, the Supreme Court upheld a referendum where there was more than one question in the ballot.”
By making this argument, the group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis in their concept of a referendum – in the formulation of referendum questions, albeit misplaced and erroneous – that which refers to the approval or rejection of the new Constitution (1973 Constitution), as discussed in the said case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections. That decision of the Supreme Court in that case involves, among others, the issue of the approval of the 1973 Constitution through the referendum among Citizens Assemblies.
The group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis the concept of a referendum involving the 1973 Constitution.
Then, the said group suddenly posited this view:
“The Law Representative argued that the case (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996] cited by the SR is inapplicable. “The laws cited in the abovementioned case were created for a specific purpose. RA 6735 Section 3 says, ‘For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean…’”
What this tells us is that the purpose of the definition that followed was limited specifically to initiative and referendum in order to amend the constitution, statutes or local legislation. As stated in the case of Defensor v. Roco (G.R. No. 127325), “R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution, ” and the CRSRS does not, by any means, fall under this,” she said.”
If the group Choose to Know Alliance has used as basis the concept of a referendum involving the 1973 Constitution, as the group cited the case of Sanidad v. Commission on Elections in support of their arguments, why then the said group suddenly and surprisingly contradicted their own view by stating in their immediately preceding quoted statements that the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections [G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996], which cited Republic Act No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) and invoked by the OSR, is allegedly not applicable as regards the forthcoming referendum for the CRSRS, when such statute (R.A. No. 6735) likewise refers to the Constitution or legislation, as the case may be.
If the said group has relied in a Supreme Court decision (Sanidad) involving the 1973 Constitution, why then did such group choose to disregard another Supreme Court decision (Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority) discussing a statute (R.A. No. 6735) involving the same thing – Constitution – or legislation in certain cases.
Truly, the said group’s arguments are confusing and contradictory. The group Choose to Know Alliance merely copies and selects arguments that suit their personal interests. And no wonder why their arguments immediately fall to pieces upon scrutiny and analysis.
In the letter of the OSR denying the appeal of the group Choose to Know Alliance, the OSR, in invoking the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, has categorically stated that such case is quoted only “by analogy as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) processes” of initiative and referendum, thus:
“The decision of the Supreme Court en banc in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission of Elections (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996) is instructive as to the statutory and conceptual demarcations between a referendum and an initiative, which is quoted here by analogy as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) processes:”
This is because no other relevant statutes, except R.A. 6735 and the related statutes cited in the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, define the concepts of the processes of initiative and referendum within the Philippine jurisdiction. Therefore, it is only proper and correct for the OSR to invoke such R.A. 6735 and the related statutes cited and discussed in the case of Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority as regards the conceptual differences between the two (2) process of initiative and referendum.
–
The group Choose to Know Alliance has stated in their statement:
Following the SR’s “final statement” on the matter, the student councils and student leaders strongly condemned the decision of the SR to make the process “undemocratic by taking away choices from the students, while hiding behind unsound technicalities of her own inaction”.
Meanwhile, students from different UP units have continued to rally behind the proposal. Student council members, organization officers, alumni, and non-partisan students, have signed and expressed their support to the Manifesto of Protest and Appeal to the Student Regent posted at http://choose2know. multiply. com.
The Manifesto denounced the earlier decision of the OSR to limit the referendum question to a mere “yes or no” saying that “such a decision is an affront to elementary concepts of democratic consultation and maximum student participation.” It called on the SR to include amendments to the upcoming referendum. The Student Regent has stuck to her decision notwithstanding mounting protests from various sectors for her to do otherwise.
The Choose to Know Alliance is a group comprised of student councils, student leaders and organizations, with support from ALYANSA and KAISA, formed in order to ensure that the referendum will not be a wasteful exercise of sovereignty.
–
The answer of DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance:
While motherhood statements about elementary concepts of democratic consultation and maximum student participation are ideal, the same should not be resorted to by the group Choose to Know Alliance in confusing and misleading the Iskolar ng Bayan as regards the matters involving the forthcoming referendum.
Instead of dividing the Iskolar ng Bayan about the issues involving the forthcoming referendum, the group Choose to Know Alliance should engage itself and exhaust their efforts in ensuring the success of the referendum. At this point when unity is essential, division and confusion caused by others should not be countenanced.
We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to put the interests and welfare of the students above their own personal interest. We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to bring to an end their continued efforts to undermine the validity and legitimacy of the CRSRS. We appeal to the group Choose to Know Alliance to help us in the success of the forthcoming CRSRS referendum by lending its hand in ensuring that the “Yes” vote shall win in the said referendum.
DEFEND THE OSR System-wide Alliance
Umaksyon-Baguio.Defend OSR-Diliman.Defend OSR-UPEPP.Defend OSR Movement-Manila.Defend OSR-Los Banos.OSR Panalipdan-Visayas.SR Watch-Mindanao.
source: www.eightysea.multiply.com
BAYAN Statement on the Protest Action Condemning Israel’s Siege of Gaza
January 6, 2009
The Bagong Alyansang Makabayan joins the people of the world in condemning the brutal armed aggression of Israel against the Palestinian people in the Gaza. The 8-day airstrikes followed by the ground invasion of Gaza is the latest in the long list of atrocities committed by Israel against the Palestinians under the Occupation.
Israel justifies its armed aggression by saying it is a response to the rocket attacks of Hamas on Israel. This view is also supported by Israel’s # 1 ally, the United States. What Israel refuses to acknowledge is the broader context wherein this violence is happening. The actions of Hamas should be seen in the context of the brutal, more than half-century occupation of Palestinian territory by Israel. In the case of Gaza, while Israel has pulled out its troops and settlements over the past three years, Israel has effectively set up an economic blockade that systematically and collectively punishes, starves and kills the Palestinian people.
The residents of Gaza have been denied any meaningful economic activity as a result of the blockade. For months now, Israel has prevented food, medicine, and fuel from reaching Gazans. Even during the time of the airstrikes, Israel has prevented humanitarian aid from reaching Gaza as it has prevented Gazans from seeking refuge and hospital treatment outside.
It is the brutal occupation which has pushed the Palestinian people to armed resistance. It is the occupation that is the main stumbling block to a meaningful peace. It is Israel’s refusal to recognize the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and the establishment of a Palestinian State which is the root cause of violence in that region.
In light of the historical circumstances of Israeli occupation, the current offensive against the Palestinian people can never be justified.
We condemn in the strongest terms the US government for its political and military support for Israel. For decades now, US government has encouraged and supported Israel’s occupation of Palestine and its armed aggression against the Palestinian people. The US government not only provides billions of dollars of military aid to Israel, it also uses its veto power in the United Nations to support the cause of Israel. Recently, the US government even rejected a UN Security Council ceasefire resolution, a clear indication that the US supports the attacks on Gaza.
We call for an end to the siege of Gaza and for immediate relief for the Palestinian people ravaged by the Israeli armed offensives. We call for an end to the inhumane blockade imposed by Israel on Gaza and for allowing much-needed aid to be brought to Gazans.
We call for an end to the Israeli occupation as the only long-term and viable path to peace. We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their fight of genuine self-determination and freedom from oppression.
STOP THE SIEGE! STOP US-ISRAELI AGGRESSION AND TERRORISM!
END THE OCCUPATION! FREE PALESTINE!
—
The Israeli military is doing the US government’s dirty work!
Stop the ongoing massacres in Gaza now!
BAYAN USA
The US Chapter of Bagong Alyansang Makabayan, or BAYAN USA, an alliance of 12 Filipino organizations in the US, vehemently condemns the US government-sponsored bloodshed that is currently ongoing in the city of Gaza, in the Palestinian territories. As of the writing of this statement, the Israeli military air strikes in Gaza have killed over 300 Palestinians, and nearly 1000 more are critically wounded, including women and children. The death toll from the last 72 hours alone in Gaza marks the highest in the decades-long so-called “Israeli-Palestinian conflict”. Israeli state officials claim the siege on Gaza is a response to the Hamas government’s continued “violent retaliation” in the form of rocket barrages.
To understand the so-called “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” more comprehensively, one must see it in the context of US imperialism’s role in dividing and plundering the Middle East to serve its economic and political interests. The state of “Israel” still serves as a strategic access point for US-imperialism to plunder the entire region’s most profitable resources– black gold and oil.The state of “Israel” is a US surrogate state that has long been funded by Washington DC to do its dirty work and uphold its interests in the region. This includes the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinian families who were violently forced to flee from their ancestral lands beginning in 1948 with the forceful and violent Zionist occupation of Palestine and the establishment of the state of “Israel”. The establishment of Israel and its systemic massacre and displacement of the Palestinian people is one of the greatest offensives of the US government in the Middle East, that duly serves the interests of US imperialism to control the region.
Israel-US government relations remain tight and intimate in this campaign. Israel is the largest recipient of direct economic and military aid from the US government since World War II. This means the Israeli military’s continuing offensives on Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are made possible with generous funding from the US government. The hard-earned tax dollars of the people of the US are fueling these continuing attacks of the US surrogate government of Israel against the Palestinian people. At the same time, the global economic crisis is hitting the people of the US hard with massive job lay-offs, foreclosures, evictions, and budget cuts to health care and education.
In light of their historical oppression, the oppressed Palestinian people have every right to resist and determine their form of resistance in the interest of their national liberation. It is understandable that this heroic resistance includes armed struggle. The Palestinian people have suffered the most horrific crimes of war and massacre from US imperialism at the hands of the Israeli government.
In the same light, the Filipino people are suffering from attacks from the same enemy. If the state of “Israel” is considered US-imperialism’s front door to the rest of the Middle East and Asia, then the Philippines would be the back door. For almost 110 years, the US has forcefully imposed its control over the Philippines, directly and indirectly, for the sake of maintaining this strategic geo-political and economic post in the Asia Pacific region. One of the first colonies of US-imperialism at the turn of the 20th century, the Filipino people suffered great losses. More than one-sixth of the Filipino people were massacred with the first few years of US occupation.
Like the US surrogate government in Israel, the US surrogate government of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo is also performing the same dirty work in the Philippines to advance US imperialism’s control over the country. While Israel is the largest annual recipient of US economic and military aid in the world, the Philippines is the largest recipient in Asia. But US economic aid to the Philippine government is not used for economic development of a very poor nation. Instead the Arroyo administration directs US economic aid towards beefing up the Philippine military, which has been responsible for the gravest human rights crisis in the country since the period of the US-backed Marcos dictatorship, and deepening corruption by buying the loyalty of corrupt Philippine politicians. The Philippine military is also responsible for the massive displacement of millions of Filipinos from their lands, especially the Muslim and indigenous communities.
Here in the United States, oppressed and working people have the responsibility to cripple the state terrorist machinaries of the Israeli and Philippine governments by demanding the withdrawal of US direct economic and military aid to both countries. As the global economic crisis continues to awaken the people in the US to the rotten character of US imperialism, we must strengthen our solidarity ties to national liberation struggles abroad, including Palestine and the Philippines. By intensifying our struggles and resistance against US imperialism in all parts of the globe, we can weaken our common enemy.
Furthermore, President-Elect Barack Obama’s swift appointment of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief-of-Staff foreshadows continued Zionist oppression of the Palestinian people. His father, Benjamin Emanuel, is an ardent Zionist militant who has been infamously quoted as bragging that his son will ensure the incoming Obama administration’s pro-Israel agenda, and offensively remarked that Arabs in the White House are usually relegated to cleaning floors. We must therefore remain vigilant and maintain no illusion that the incoming US presidential administration can effectively or even has the intention to restore peace in the region.
In condemning the attacks on Gaza, we demand justice for the Palestinian people. This means we demand the US-Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people’s ancestral land end, and that the right of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland be globally respected and recognized. Without justice, neither peace nor democracy can be realized or practiced in the Middle East or the Philippines.
STOP THE ATTACKS ON GAZA!
JUSTICE FOR THE PALESTINIAN VICTIMS OF THE US-ISRAELI ATTACKS!
FREE PALESTINE!
WITHDRAW US ECONOMIC AID TO ISRAEL!
WITHDRAW US ECONOMIC AID TO THE PHILIPPINES!
LONG LIVE INTERNATIONAL SOLIDARITY!
Recent Comments