Carpio to Garcia: Keep 2 key items when tweaking Comelec rules
Retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio (INQUIRER FILE PHOTO)
MANILA, Philippines – If the Commission on Elections (Comelec) will amend its existing rules on the conduct of people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution, retired Supreme Court Senior Associate Antonio Carpio said it could not touch two key provisions of the rules.
On Monday, Comelec Chairman George Garcia announced that the commission has decided to suspend all people’s initiative proceedings to make room for reviewing and amending the rules regarding the initiative.
Garcia was referring to Comelec Resolution 10650, the rule governing the conduct of people’s initiative, promulgated on Jan. 31, 2020.
“I have no idea what amendments they want. But they should not change or remove Section 7 (b) of the Definition of Terms and Section 8 (a) on Prohibited Measures because they embody Lambino v. Comelec,” Carpio told 黑料社.
“If they change or remove these provisions, then they are obviously favoring the proponents of the present people’s initiative,” he added.
Section 7 (b) defines “constitutional amendment” as any change in the Constitution that adds reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved and without affecting the substantial provisions of the Constitution. Revision is not included.
Section 8 (a) mentions constitutional revision as a prohibited measure.
“The present PI is a revision, not a mere amendment. A PI can only amend, not revise, the Constitution.,” Carpio said.
The gathering of signatures nationwide seeks to get the public’s support to amend the Constitution.
There were debates on whether or not the House and the Senate should vote jointly or separately. There were also talks about changing the form of government.
The Lambino vs. Comelec case is a Supreme Court ruling. Carpio wrote the majority decision. It was a people’s initiative move of the Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado group.
They went to the Supreme Court after the Comelec denied their petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution.
But the Supreme Court also dismissed the petition for failure to comply with the constitutional provision regarding people’s initiative.
