Sponsorship Speech for Automation of Elections

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
Senator Richard J. Gordon
on Senate Bill No. 2231
(Amending Republic Act No. 8436
An Act Authorizing the Commission on Elections
to Use an Automated Election System)

Mr. President, it is the distinct honor of this representation and the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, to sponsor this Committee Report before this Chamber of the 13th Congress of the Republic of the Philippines at this crucial moment in our country's history. We are at a crossroads right now where our capability to keep our democracy is being tested.

Let us take a good look at our country today, Mr. President. We have a beleaguered President, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, whose legitimacy in office has been put into question largely due to the "Hello Garci" tapes which remain, up to this day, neither resolved nor even adequately explained. In the middle of this all, President Arroyo instituted her Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), which has replaced maximum tolerance in the police dispersal of protest rallies and assemblies against her. She also issued Executive Order No. 464 (EO 464) to principally keep the Executive officials mum on the relevant issues facing her. Her general and wanton invocation of executive privilege through EO 464 continues to violate the principle of the co-equality of the branches of government and separation of powers. Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 declared the country to be in a State of Emergency after threats of a coup d'etat, prompting even more protests, that were broadcast in the international media, painting a picture of chaos and instability in the nation, scaring away potential investors and tourists. Civil society is in a constant state of unrest, rallying in the streets, calling for the President to step down. Administration representatives in Congress and some executive and local government officials are so pre-occupied with proposing Charter Change as a panacea to our problems that even the most basic responsibility of passing the budget has been relegated to the back burner. All of this happened because of the lack of credibility of the electoral process.

Mr. President, if we are to refer to the writings of John Locke and Jean Jacques Rosseau on the concept of a social contract, both thinkers believed that we once lived in a "state of nature" where every person had the freedom to do as they pleased. However, human beings decided to improve their lot by agreeing to create a political society and thus order human affairs more satisfactorily. They argued however, that a contract is only binding as long as all parties adhere to its terms, and these terms state that some people were given the right to rule on the condition that individual rights and liberties were maintained.

Mr. President, we are Asia's first democracy, and as such, one of the crucial rights upon which we are founded is the right to choose our leaders, the right to choose those who would be given the right to govern. But given this situation, our people do not seem to be enjoying the blessings of democracy and getting the leaders and the government that they deserve. At the very least, there is a strong sentiment that they are not getting the leaders that they chose because the electoral process has lost its integrity. If we cannot assure our people that they are governed by the leaders of their choice, can we genuinely say that we are able to promote the true values of democracy where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them expressed through their sacred right of suffrage? Today, our people are adrift in a state of complacency, cynicism and apathy.

Senate Bill No. 2231 addresses this question with a resounding YES. Our Constitution has intended for our people to enjoy "free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections." The government has the highest duty and responsibility to guarantee fair, transparent, and free elections, and I believe that this proposed policy will facilitate the efficient performance of this duty and perhaps turn the tide against the sea of cynicism.

Mr. President, the Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, submits for the consideration of this Chamber, Senate Bill No. 2231 under Committee Report No. 58, entitled:
"AN ACT AMENDING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8436, ENTITLED "AN ACT AUTHORIZING THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS TO USE AN AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM IN THE MAY 11, 1998 NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS AND IN SUBSEQUENT NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTORAL EXERCISES, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES",

in substitution of the bills authored by Senators Edgardo Angara (Senate Bill No. 1069), Ralph G. Recto (Senate Bill No. 1371) and this representation (Senate Bill No. 1851).

At this juncture, Mr. President, the Committee would like to express its gratitude to the dedicated and knowledgeable men and women who helped craft this bill during the Technical Working Group Meetings.

Commissioner Dondi Mapa of the Commission on Information and Communication Technology who served as the Chairman of the TWG, Commissioner Rex Borra and Director Ernie del Rosario, former COMELEC Chairman Christian Monsod, and Atty. Rafael Olaño of the Commission on Elections, Mr. Tony Tinsay and Ms. Bing Van Tooren of the Philippine Computer Society, Mr. Jun Malacaman and Mr. Gus Lagman of the Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, Secretary Estrella Alabastro, Undersecretary Fortunato dela Peña and Engr. Peter Banzon of the Department of Science and Technology, Mr. Raffy Saldaña of the Ateneo de Manila, Mr. Benjie Pineda of the Office of Senator Recto, and Atty. Cabaliw of the Office of Senator Angara, all gave valuable input in crafting this proposed legislation. We would also like to thank Senators Angara and Recto whose bills served as the basis of this proposed legislation.

Mr. President, Republic Act No. 8436, authorized the COMELEC to use an Automated Election System (AES) in accordance with the policy of the State to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections, and assure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot in order for the results of elections, plebiscites, referenda, and other electoral exercises to be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people.

But to this day, R.A. 8436 has not been fully implemented, for two reasons.

First, the Supreme Court, in the case of Information Technology Foundation of the Philippines, et al. v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 159139, 13 January 2004, scrapped the billion-peso automated election contract awarded to Mega Pacific Consortium due to anomalous bidding, rendering the counting machines useless.

Second, the legislation was too specific that it almost decided for the COMELEC what machine to buy. Out of 57 companies who bought the bid specifications, only two submitted responsive bids due to the stringent requirements of the law particularly the requirement that the Counting Machine be an "optical scanning/mark-sense reading device or any similar advanced technology". This unduly limited the technology that may be used in the automation process and did not allow for flexibility in case of advancements.

Consequently, the May 2004 elections were done manually, from the voting to the canvassing of the results. The process was slow, tedious, and subject to criticism since the security of the electoral process and its capacity to preserve the sanctity of the ballot and the will of the electorate was put to question; a question that continues to haunt the credibility of the current administration to this day. This haunting question has placed the political, mental and psychological faculties of the entire country out of focus, which has resulted in political gridlock and system dysfunction.

Mr. President, this bill seeks to authorize the COMELEC, with the help of an Advisory Council and a Technological Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee, to use an Automated Election System that is technology-neutral with accompanying safeguards against tampering and electoral fraud in the 2007 national and local elections and subsequent electoral exercises.

It also aims to respond to the high incidence of voting irregularities consistently reported throughout our country, which is overwhelming, to say the least. Indeed, in Philippine elections, there are no losers - only the winners and the cheated. Hence, to address this perennial concern, Senate Bill No. 2231 declares that it is "the policy of the State to ensure free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible electoral exercises, using an automated election system that will assure the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot in order that the results of elections, plebiscites, referenda and other electoral exercises shall be fast, accurate and reflective of the genuine will of the people." This law will ensure that the state policy to "ensure the sanctity and secrecy of the ballot" and "free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and credible elections" is not just an empty promise, but a concrete reality.

As such, Mr. President, let me now discuss the specific amendments proposed by our Committee.

Senate Bill No. 2231 provides for the use of an Automated Election System (AES), which is defined as a "system using appropriate technology for voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, transmission of election results, and other processes in the conduct of electoral exercises." It expands the scope of the current automation law - Republic Act No. 8436 - by authorizing the use of an Automated Election System (AES) that is more flexible, using the most appropriate, applicable, and cost-effective technology available. It does not preclude any current or future technology. Flexibility is key, for it must be the best technology, not just the cheapest, but that which is practical, speedy, and cannot be trifled with.

It also provides for the secure ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION of electoral results from the precinct level to Congress, the various Board of Canvassers, the parties, the accredited citizens' arm, and the media. This prevents wholesale cheating because tampering with the Certificates of Canvass will no longer be possible. The election returns and certificates of canvass transmitted electronically and digitally signed shall be considered as official election results and shall be used as basis for the proclamation of a candidate. This is a new feature not previously found in Republic Act No. 8436 and it addresses that part of the election process most vulnerable to wholesale cheating.

Mr. President, the greatest source of doubt in the credibility of any election is the number of hands that handle the ballot. If I may quote from former US Congressman Bob Shaffer, "There are many hands touching ballots after a voter drops his ballot into the ballot box. There is no guarantee of ballot secrecy for anyone, which makes the whole system vulnerable to intimidation and bribery." This Committee believes that an automated process will respond to this concern by limiting the amount of human handling of the ballots, through the use of technology, thus limiting the opportunities to tamper with them.

Automation also means speed, giving no time for the sore loser to tamper with the ballot. The longer the period between the time that the vote is cast and the time that the winners are announced, the greater the time and opportunity to tamper with the results. This leads to violent elections as losing candidates who feel the stab of every vote counted against him or her, begin to resort to extra-legal means to change the tide of their fate. The psychological effect of impending loss, and the shame of losing face prompt losing candidates to use guns, goons and gold to tamper with the ballot. Juxtapose this with the statesmanlike example set by Vice President Al Gore who gallantly conceded defeat to President-elect George W. Bush, during the 2000 US Presidential elections despite the imperfections of the electoral system. The point is, Mr. President, the absence of a reliable system that works robs every Filipino of the capability to be a statesman, and this is the fundamental reason why we cannot move forward.

For Filipino candidates, when guns, goons and gold prove inadequate, they resort to filing electoral protests, which clog our courts and the COMELEC. Millions of pesos are spent on resolving these cases, resources which are better spent addressing the immediate needs of the communities represented by these candidates, and addressing the requirements of the justice system. Losing candidates become perpetual roadblocks to the efforts of winning candidates, sowing animosity and disunity in the community.
There is simply no sportsmanship and civility in a slow count. This brings to mind the words of Knut Rockne, which is constantly repeated to us by the Jesuits in the Ateneo, as he called for sportsmanship in battle:

"Lord, in the battle that goes on through life, I ask for a field that is fair;
A chance that is equal with all in strife, and the courage to strive and to dare.
If I should win, let it be by the code, with my faith and my honor held high,
but if I should lose, let me stand by the road and cheer as the winner goes by."

With the technology that we have today, it is entirely possible for the results in every polling precinct to be automatically, simultaneously and electronically transmitted to the Board of Canvassers, the political parties and the media, so that results of the elections are known on election day itself.

We have also pre-empted the Americans by proposing a system with a voter-verifiable paper audit trail, in order to leap from the pitfalls of a dimples and hanging chads system.

Hence, in determining which election technology to use, it is vital that the technology chosen is the most APPROPRIATE, APPLICABLE, and COST-EFFECTIVE. Cost should not be the only determinant. It must be the best technology, which is practical, speedy, and cannot be trifled with.

This automation process must facilitate FASTER results, by using ballots as proof of votes already cast, through automation, as opposed to ballots counted manually.

It must also deliver FAIR and RELIABLE results by automating the process of transmitting the results, and requiring the System to ensure secure electronic transmission of encrypted election results.

The technology will be supported by the provision that among the three regular members of the board of election inspectors in every precinct, at least one shall be an "information technology-capable person, who is trained and certified to use the Automated Election System (AES)." Each Board of Canvassers shall also have as consultant an information technology expert trained and authorized to use the AES. For this purpose, the Comelec shall deputize information technology experts from government offices and agencies.

The bill also proposes the creation of an Advisory Council to review and recommend the most appropriate, applicable and cost-effective technology to be applied in the AES, and participate as non-voting members of the bidding and awards committee in the conduct of the bidding process for the AES.

The Advisory Council shall include one representative each from the Commission on Information and Communications Technology (CICT), the Department of Science and Technology (DOST), the Department of Education, the academe, three members from Philippine-based Information Communications Technology (ICT) professional organizations, and two members from non-governmental electoral reform organizations.

A Technical Ad Hoc Evaluation Committee shall be created to certify, not later than three months before the date of the electoral exercise, that the AES is operating properly, following the successful conduct of a field testing process in a mock election event in one or more cities and municipalities, and other tests.

The evaluation committee shall be composed of a representative each from the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Comelec, the CICT and the DOST.

The AES chosen must also provide for a contingency system in the event of a systems breakdown or ANY EVENTUALITY resulting in the delay, obstruction or non-performance of the system, as well as provide for the necessary safeguards to protect itself from fake or counterfeit ballots.

Mr. President, almost every Presidential election in our recent history has been fraught with allegations of cheating, which has divided our country and paralyzed our progress as a nation.

Former President Marcos declared himself to be the winner of the Presidential Snap Elections in 1986. The people disagreed and flocked to the streets resulting in the overthrow of his government in a bloodless revolution and installing former President Cory Aquino into the highest office in the land.

Our very esteemed colleague, Senator Miriam Defensor-Santiago protested the results of the 1992 Presidential Elections, which declared former President Ramos as the winner, a protest that she maintains to this day.

The nation had a brief respite when his opponents for the Presidency immediately conceded to former President Estrada's victory, which led to his quick proclamation.

But again, in 2004, the credibility of President Arroyo's victory was questioned by the opposition alleging that Mr. Fernando Poe Jr. was the real victor, an issue that remains unresolved to this day, an issue, which continues to haunt, divide and paralyze the Philippines as a nation.

And we are only speaking of the Presidential post here, Mr. President. Today, there are still many unresolved electoral protests for provincial and local positions still pending with the Commission on Elections and our courts from as far back as 2002. This is such a waste of time effort and money for the candidates, the COMELEC and our courts.

It is not enough that our elections are free, it must also be clean and must be perceived to be so. It is vital that every vote count, and that every vote be counted as cast; otherwise it will be in the results that we eventually pay, as we are paying now. In the words of Mr. Tom Stoppard, an English playwright, "Its not the voting that's democracy, it's the counting."

In the midst of all this chaos, Mr. President, majority of our population continue to live in poverty, the educational sector continues to suffer from shortages, prices continue to go up and our people continue to lose hope everyday. Instead of focusing on ways to attract investors, generate job opportunities and provide our people with a safe and stable environment that is conducive to progress, we have given them division and unrest.
Mr. President, the Committee believes that the passage of this law is crucial in bringing a new sense of civility and order in our country, and reinvigorating our democracy. It is more than just an Automation Law, it is a commitment to respecting the right of our people to choose those who will lead them. It is a launching pad for a renewed sense of unity among our countrymen through the assurance that the process through which they choose their leaders is clean, free and credible, and they believe it. Let us be united in trying to bring about transparent, free and clean elections.
Inasmuch as the doubt that has paralyzed our country emanated from the sentiment that the results of the elections were tampered with, substantial electoral reform through an Automated Election System will be a strong start towards once again building the confidence of our people in their government, arresting the spiral of cynicism and curbing the apathy brought about by the lack of faith in the integrity of the system.
Today, the government is at a standstill, and the Presidency and our nation is in a morass, because of the lack of credibility of our electoral process. This brings to mind the words of Benjamin Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanac:

"For the want of a nail, the shoe was lost; for the want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for the want of a horse the rider was lost, being overtaken and slain by the enemy, all for the want of care about a horseshoe nail."

When this law is passed - and I say when, not if - it then remains to be seen whether this country's leaders are as committed to clean, honest, fair, transparent, and peaceful elections as they say they are.

Our Constitution declares that sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. Therefore, it is our paramount duty to safeguard and improve the electoral system, and we will not waver in our commitment to protecting the sanctity of the democratic process, where fast and fair elections stand as its cornerstone. For, borrowing from the words of Abraham Lincoln, "the ballot is stronger than the bullet."

Our people have lost confidence in our country's ability to fairly and accurately run an election. That is simply unacceptable. Elections are the very fiber and bedrock of our democracy. Our people deserve elections they can trust using only best technology for voting as well as a reliable, secure, and credible electoral process.

There are those who would say that this is another exercise in futility, but to them I respond with a quote from St. Francis of Assisi, "Start by doing what's necessary; then do what's possible; and suddenly you are doing the impossible."

Let us begin with passing this law, Mr. President, because it is necessary to institute reform in our electoral system, to make it possible to restore our people's confidence in our country, in its governance, and in themselves, and finally achieve what seems impossible at this stage; creating a caring, compassionate, competitive, united, liberal, transformational, secure and successful Philippine society. It is for these reasons and the foregoing explanations, that the approval of this bill is earnestly sought.

Thank you, Mr. President.

IN BEHALF OF DEMOCRACY

A Privilege Speech
Senator Richard J. Gordon
27 March 2006

"Constitutionalism, in a narrow sense, is the practice of limited government ensured by the existence of the Constitution. Thus Constitutionalism can, in this sense, be said to exist when government institutions and political processes are effectively constrained by constitutional rules. More broadly, Constitutionalism is a set of political values and aspirations that reflect the desire to protect liberty through the establishment of internal and external checks on governmental power. Constitutionalism ensures that authority arises 'from below', and is always grounded in legitimacy. The classic expression of this doctrine is that government must be based upon the 'consent of the governed'. In this sense, Constitutionalism is a species of political liberalism."

Mr. President, honorable colleagues, good afternoon. The statement that I just quoted came from the writings of contemporary political thinker Andrew Heywood on Constitutionalism.

I stand before you today on a matter of personal and collective privilege to call for the strengthening of liberal democracy, a democracy that our forefathers gave their lives to achieve. This democracy is under severe threat Mr. President, from faceless people who come like thieves in the night, hoping to seize power while the Filipino people sleep soundly on the bed of their apathy.

Who are these faceless people? These faceless people are political opportunists with forked tongues whispering sweet chicanery, promising a cure for all the nation's ills. They propose a charter change through people's initiative using barangay assemblies, a proposal that sounds deceptively legitimate. But, Mr. President, let our people not be fooled by their sweet promises lest we awaken to a nightmare where our rights have been trampled and our democracy lies in shambles.

Erosion of the Value of the Constitution

The Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, but today, Mr. President, we bear witness to a time in our history when the Constitution is steadily losing its value. Politicians motivated by blind ambition and selfish interest have made a travesty of the Constitution by blatantly ignoring the processes that it prescribes in its sacred pages that should govern the conduct of our country. The political maelstrom that continues to plague our country has tested our character, and sad to say, Mr. President, we have been found wanting.

The highway of our national history is littered with the muddy footprints of politicians and entities that have intervened in the process of Constitutional changes starting from the 1935 Constitution to the 1987 Constitution.

The first Philippine constitution was drafted during the American period under American tutelage. It was enforced starting in 1935. Two amendments were introduced in 1940. The first was to create a bicameral legislature, and the second was to amend the original term of office of the President from six years to four years with re-election.

In 1946, the constitution was revised granting parity rights to Americans. In line with the thrust for full independence, a Constitutional Convention was convened in 1971, but President Marcos intervened and declared martial law to lengthen his hold on power. Shortly thereafter, the draft of the 1973 Constitution was formally approved by the Constitutional Convention and was submitted to the Citizen's Assemblies for ratification through a show of hands. This Constitution set up a modified parliamentary system of government with unicameral National Assembly.

In 1981, another amendment was made modifying the Parliamentary System by giving the President control over the ministries.

In 1984, the Constitution was amended to restore representation in Batasan Pambansa by district, create the office of the Vice-President and give the President power of legislation.

When Ferdinand E. Marcos was ousted in 1986, the new government led by Corazon C. Aquino promulgated what is now known as the Freedom Constitution in order to legitimize her administration. This 1987 Constitution restored the presidential form of government.

What I wish to highlight here Mr. President are the interferences and infirmities in the processes of amending the Constitution; interferences and infirmities that the proponents of charter change today seek to propagate and once again, introduce. All these experiences have led to the decline of the Philippines from Asia's number one to Asia's used to be.

To date, the 1987 Constitution still stands, but the lobby for another charter change is so intensive that its proponents are willing to resort to extra-constitutional means to achieve it, despite the Filipino people's clear rejection of the proposal reflected in the Pulse Asia Survey showing that 60% of Filipinos oppose a shift to a parliamentary system of government and 55% think it inappropriate to amend the Constitution now.

Severe Challenges to the Constitution

Mr. President, we were the first democracy in Asia, but in these days of uncertainty, where true character is bound to reveal itself, our democracy has bared its weaknesses, like an ill-trained boxer tottering in the ring.

The first barrage of blows was dealt by the executive, when threatened by the people's dissatisfaction with its performance, instituted a Calibrated Preemptive Response (CPR), which has replaced maximum tolerance in the police dispersal of protest rallies and assemblies against her. It threw a one-two combination with Executive Order No. 464 and Presidential Proclamation 1017.

The first blow was a shot to the stomach through EO 464. This was quickly followed by a right haymaker to the breadbasket with the issuance of Presidential Proclamation No. 1017 which declared the country to be in a State of Emergency after threats of a coup d'etat. These two major blows to the body came after a series of punches to the ribs with a previous declaration of a State of Rebellion during the May 1 uprising known as EDSA III and again during the Oakwood Mutiny.
These declarations were actually unnecessary as the inherent powers of the President would have enabled her to deal with these uprisings. The fact that she declared them shows a pattern of increasing brazenness, which caused a chilling effect on the people's enjoyment of their civil liberties, especially with the issuance of Proclamation 1017, and the warrantless raid and arrests that followed.

Mr. President, the concept of liberal democracy ensures the rule of law, where the government is subject to law, the Constitution is the criterion of validity, civil rights are guaranteed, there is an independent judiciary and the people's welfare is paramount.

These blows have considerably weakened the rule of law. Our democracy stands bloodied and bruised in the middle of the ring. Our people whose fate is tied to our democracy have been whipped into submission, its body weakened, about to be knocked-out.

We have always relied on the Supreme Court to ring the bell to end the round; to uphold the Constitution in our behalf. But the Supreme Court is so overloaded right now with constitutional cases of extreme national importance. Let us not further put our democracy to the test and burden our political system, particularly the Judiciary with matters that can be amicably settled out of self-restraint and respect between co-equal branches of the government. It is about time that we as citizens come to the defense of democracy.

Mr. President, today, let me speak in behalf of democracy, to lay bare the sham that threatens to throw the knock-out punch.

Mr. President, several attempts have been made to facilitate charter change.
First, the Consultative Commission was convened by the President to study possible amendments to the Constitution without any legal justification nor appropriation for the same.

Second, the proposed No Election (NO-EL) scenario was floated to muster support for charter change, which remains a possibility to this day despite ethical considerations. The intention of the NO-EL provision reveals itself plainly for the incumbent elected officials to perpetuate themselves in power. Clearly what they seek is change for their benefit and not for the benefit of the Filipino people.

Third, the House of Representatives proposed a Constituent Assembly and insinuated that the Senate was a dispensable party in this process. The Senate responded to this insinuation by passing Resolution No. 473, expressly stating that "the sense of the Senate that any proposed amendment to, or revision of, the constitution requires the approval of the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately."

And now, their most recent attempt is passing off a DILG scheme for a people's initiative. This scheme was spurred into motion by Memorandum Circular No. 2006-17 dated February 23, 2006 and Memorandum Circular No. 2006-25 dated March 10, 2006, setting the dates for Barangay Assemblies on March 25 and October 21, 2006. In several interviews with the press, government officials admitted that the purpose of these assemblies was to gather signatures in support of charter change. Their chicanery allegedly bore fruit as they claimed to have collected four million signatures in support of this proposal.

The concerted move to change the Constitution through the DILG-initiated barangay assemblies nationwide are useless at this time and are a waste of precious time and resources. Congress has yet to provide for the implementation of the exercise of people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. There is a need for an enabling law to be first enacted by Congress for the exercise of this right. Thus, those who want to propose amendments to the Constitution via people's initiative must first go to Congress and get an ENABLING LAW passed. Furthermore, there can be no people's initiative when government money is being spent to spur it on. It is a masquerade, an abomination. It must not be allowed to happen. Perhaps we should investigate the DILG for misappropriating funds for this dubious exercise.

In a previous attempt to propose an amendment lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, the Supreme Court has already declared that Republic Act No. 6735, The Initiative and Referendum Act, is inadequate to cover the system on initiative on amendments to the Constitution in Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, 27 March 1997. Since no law has yet been passed by Congress, the same situation holds true at present and any effort to change the Constitution via people's initiative will only be futile.

However, this lack of legal foundation has not stopped its proponents from taking steps to promote this initiative, another vivid example of cheap politics and lack of regard for the rule of law, which continues to steal our dignity as a people and as a nation.

In Zambales, a certain politician launched an innovative signature campaign in connection with this same people's initiative that we see today. Bags of rice, canned goods and other food items were distributed to the townspeople. She invited the poorest of the poor to her birthday celebration and gave them rice and sardines on the condition that they apply for, and surrender, their cedulas. This is the epitome of patronage politics and lack of respect, that these politicians would exploit the poverty of our people to propagate their political agenda. As early as that week, I already sounded the warning that moves like this can be used to promote charter change. This is what it has become. Politicians are giving rice, goods and money in exchange for signatures in support of charter change. They have begun to identify people who are "buyable". Minamaliit nila ang Konstitusyon, habang binobobo at inaapi ang mga tao dahil hindi sila nabibigyan ng sapat na pagkakataong pag-aralan ang Konstitusyon.

A people's initiative form to change the Constitution was also circulated in Olongapo City containing the following question: "Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in government, and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?"

This proposal is not just an amendment to the Constitution, it is practically a revision of the entire Constitution. Hence, this cannot be done through a people's initiative. People's initiative as a mode to change the Constitution only covers amendments to, not the revision of, the Constitution. The power to propose any revision of the Constitution belongs only to Congress or a constitutional convention.

People's initiative must be clearly specific on a particular amendment they wish to propose in the Constitution, one that leaves no room for doubt. Changing the form of government has too many details, which the people cannot adequately propose through initiative. Article VI on Legislative Department of the Constitution has 32 sections, while Article VII on Executive Department has 23 sections. What portions of these two major articles of the Constitution do they want to change? What transitory provisions do they have in mind for the shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government? This necessarily involves much debate, which can only be threshed out in Congress or a constitutional convention as it entails a revision of, and not merely an amendment to, the Constitution.

For the sake of clarity, let me define revision and amendment. According to Father Joaquin Bernas, a known Constitutionalist, and the Dean of the Ateneo School of Law, both signify change in the constitutional text. An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provisions of the Constitution. Its guiding original intention is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions or to suppress existing ones accordingly as addition or subtraction might be demanded by existing conditions.

In revision, however, the guiding intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the entire document or an important cluster of provisions in the document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. The end product of a revision can be an important structural change in the government or a change which affects several provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. President, according to Section 397(b), Chapter 6, Title I, Book III of the Local Government Code fathered by our esteemed Minority Floor Leader, Nene Pimentel:
"The barangay assembly shall meet at least twice a year to hear and discuss the semestral report of the sangguniang barangay concerning its activities and finances as well as problems affecting the barangay. Its meetings shall be held upon call of the punong barangay or of at least four (4) members of the sangguniang barangay, or upon written petition of at least five percent (5%) of the assembly members."

Furthermore, the powers of the barangay assembly are also provided in Section 398 which states that:

"The barangay assembly shall:
(a) Initiate legislative processes by recommending to the sangguniang barangay the adoption of measures for the welfare of the barangay and the city or municipality concerned;
(b) Decide on the adoption of initiative as a legal process whereby the registered voters of the barangay may directly propose, enact, or amend any ordinance; and
(c) Hear and pass upon the semestral report of the sangguniang barangay concerning its activities and finances."

Hence, the purpose of a barangay assembly is simply to resolve matters concerning the barangay. Furthermore, any genuine initiative from this assembly should emanate from the ground up instead of the other way around like this proposal for charter change.

Simply put, the barangay assembly is being misused as a forum to push for the political agenda of charter change that is so remote from local barangay matters. It is being used for a purpose for which it was not intended and in the process becomes an unauthorized use of public funds and resources. To add insult to injury, our people are unable to comprehend this dubious agenda, with the complex question propounded to them.

The jurisdiction of the barangay assembly is limited to problems affecting the barangay and the local community. Unfortunately, certain politicians have chosen to overlook this lawful limitation to use the barangay assembly as a means to change the form of government. The dirty handprints of their intentions are clear. They are like prowlers, enemies we do not see, whose purpose is to snatch democracy from beneath our own feet.

In a people's initiative, the COMELEC would indispensably have to certify the sufficiency of a petition to propose an amendment to the Constitution, assuming that there is already an enabling law for charter change. Unfortunately, the credibility of our electoral process has been placed in serious doubt due to the Hello Garci controversy and the anomalous bidding for poll automation. Hence, before any amendment to the Constitution, we must reform the electoral process to ensure that the Philippines is capable of conducting free, orderly, honest, peaceful and credible elections. As such, before we embark on amending the Constitution, should we not focus on reforming the COMELEC and the electoral system first? The electoral system is the basic foundation of a liberal democracy. We must secure the sovereign will of the people through a clean, effective and efficient electoral system. Inevitably, charter change would also have to go through the process of a plebiscite under the COMELEC's watch. Thus, the COMELEC must primarily be strengthened as a vital democratic institution.

Mr. President, we all read the news, and the realities that I have cited today are not new to any of us. In fact, all of them have become such old news, that our people have long since ceased to be amazed or alarmed by any of them. And it is precisely this lack of alarm, this jaded apathy, and a growing sense of helplessness that will enable this blatant sham of a proposal to slip through.

Those who will trample on the Constitution for their personal agenda are relying on our people's inaction. They are relying on the premise that our electorate has become "buyable". They are relying on our people not caring that they will lose their right to vote over the fundamental law that will govern them. Mr. President, let us prove them wrong.

Let us render their attempt to subvert the Constitution futile. Mr. President, each of us was elected to this Chamber by the entire nation. We each took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Let us do our duty, Mr. President, let us fulfill our oaths.

They have vested us with the right to legislate the laws that will govern them, and in the same vein protect them by upholding the Constitution that guarantees their rights and civil liberties.

And so, Mr. President, esteemed colleagues, we must act now to ensure that our people are not led to blindly sign their names onto a future they hardly know anything about. We must stop this diabolical plan that uses government resources to implement a plan that serves the interests of a powerful few. We must not allow liberal democracy to be put in peril. We must act now. Because as Voltaire said, "So long as the people do not care to exercise their freedom, those who wish to tyrannize will do so; for tyrants are active and ardent, and will devote themselves in the name of any number of gods, religious and otherwise, to put shackles upon sleeping men."

I call upon the Senate today to perform this sacred duty, to truly stand in behalf of the interest of our constituents by opposing any and all moves towards Charter Change that does not respect and abide by the provisions and processes enshrined in the Constitution. Perhaps at some better time in the future when there are no questions on the credibility of our electoral process, and no questions on the election of the President, we can then amend the Constitution. But now is not the time.

Mr. President, evil can only flourish when good men do nothing. In the children's story, The Emperor's New Clothes, the wily tailors would have gotten away with their dastardly deed, having correctly relied on the foolishness of the king and the people's fear of pointing it out. All it took was one child, one child in the crowd who dared speak the truth; the king was naked, the clothes were a sham.

The barangay assemblies are a sham, Mr. President, a sham concocted to circumvent the Constitution and undermine democracy. Let us be the Senate that exposed it. Let us awaken the people from their slumber of apathy. Let us not allow them to settle for the crumbs of patronage, before they are led to slaughter.

Thank you and good afternoon.

GORDON: EFFORTS TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION VIA PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE ARE USELESS AT THIS TIME

In response to the concerted move to change the Constitution via people’s initiative through the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)-initiated barangay assemblies nationwide, Senator Richard J. Gordon stated that “efforts to change the Constitution via people’s initiative are useless at this time and are a waste of precious time and resources.”

Chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments, Revision of Codes and Laws, Gordon said that “Congress has yet to provide for the implementation of the exercise of people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.” He added that “there is a need for an enabling law to be first enacted by Congress for the exercise of this right. Thus, those who want to propose amendments to the Constitution via people’s initiative must first go to Congress and get a law passed.”

Gordon explained that “in a previous attempt to propose an amendment lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, the Supreme Court has already declared that Republic Act No. 6735, The Initiative and Referendum Act, is inadequate to cover the system on initiative on amendments to the Constitution in Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, 27 March 1997. Since no law has yet been passed by Congress, the same situation holds true at present and any effort to change the Constitution via people’s initiative will only be futile.”

Referring to a people’s initiative form to change the Constitution which was circulated in Olongapo City with the following proposition: “Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in government, and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?” Gordon stated that “the proponents of this move are proposing not an amendment to, but practically a revision of the entire Constitution.”

Gordon added that “people’s initiative as a mode to change the Constitution only covers amendments to, not revision of, the Constitution. The power to propose any revision of the Constitution belongs only to Congress or a constitutional convention.”

Gordon stressed that “people’s initiative must be clearly specific on a particular amendment they wish to propose in the Constitution, one that leaves no room for doubt. Changing the form of government has too many details which the people cannot adequately propose through initiative. Article VI on Legislative Department of the Constitution has 32 sections, while Article VII on Executive Department has 23 sections. What portions of these two major articles of the Constitution do they want to change? What transitory provisions do they have in mind for the shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government?”

“This necessarily involves much debate which can only be threshed out in Congress or a constitutional convention as it entails a revision of, and not merely an amendment to, the Constitution,” Gordon said.

Gordon added that “the move to hastily change the Constitution is highly suspicious. It seems obvious that there are individuals out there who are deviously doing everything in their powers to have charter change under the pretext of a people’s initiative this time.”

“They continue to impose their will upon the people, despite a recent Pulse Asia survey showing that a majority of Filipinos oppose a shift to a parliamentary system of government (60%) and think it inappropriate to amend the Constitution now (55%),” said Gordon.

“The reasons speak for themselves: ‘Charter change is not the solution to the country’s many problems (24%); changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary will not work if the politicians will not change (19%); charter change is just being used by the incumbent leadership to divert public attention from the current political crisis being faced by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (17%); charter change is being pushed by some politicians only because they want to be the ones to lead the country (12%); there is no need for charter change at all (10%); the Philippines is not ready for a parliamentary government now (9%); and charter change is just being used to ensure the graceful exit of the President (7%)’,” cited Gordon.