National and local government officials who paid off individuals in exchange for their signatures to support the people’s initiative (PI) may be charged with various offenses, according to human rights lawyer Chel Diokno.
“The concept of the people’s initiative emanates from the right of the people to amend our Constitution. It is clear in the previous decisions of the Supreme Court that government officials should not interfere,” Diokno said a radio interview Wednesday, Jan. 30.
Diokno made this statement after some witnesses claimed during the Senate committee on electoral reforms and people’s participation hearing yesterday that some local officials offered money in exchange for signing the PI forms.
“If the public funds were used for another purpose other than what they were intended for, it could be considered malversation. It could also fall under anti-graft and corrupt practices as it can be considered inducement to commit any violation of rules and regulations or the law,” he said.
Diokno further noted that public officials who placed conditions on government services could also face legal consequences under the Ease of Doing Business Act.
Instead of pushing for Charter change, the human rights lawyer pressed government leaders to address what is important to the public right now.
“Our leaders should stop trading barbs over the Constitution–whether you are pro- or anti-Charter Change, they should put all their efforts instead on finding solutions to the daily woes faced by our people including the high cost of goods, hunger and education,” he stressed.
Diokno submitted his position paper on the people’s initiative during the hearing of the Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation. In it, he argued that using the PI to alter the Constitution is “destined to fail” because:
- the signature sheets submitted to COMELEC (Commission on Elections) are mere scraps of paper that should have been rejected outright, since they were filed without any accompanying petition and failed to explain the nature and effect of the proposed change;
- a complete enabling law is needed before the Constitution can be amended by the PI, and no such law has been enacted by Congress; and
- the proposed change in the 1987 Constitution is a revision that cannot be done through PI.
Citing Article 17, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, Diokno reminded that amendments must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of voters, of which every district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters therein.