In 2005 , President Arroyo made a similar attempt. She created an appointive
commission to propose constitutional changes,
(^33) which proposed a change in the form
of government: from a presidential to a parliamentary system, from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature, and from a unitary to a federal government. These revisions
would enable Arroyo to continue in power as prime minister in the new setup. The
Supreme Court rejected the petition by applying the rules rather strictly,^34 inter alia the
unstated but obvious requirement that the actual proposed amendments be appended
to the petition when the citizen affixed his or her signature.^35 The court explained:
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people withoutfirst
showingto the people the full text of the proposed amendments is
most likely a deception, and can operate as agigantic fraud on the
people. That is why the Constitution requires that an initiative must be
“directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition” – meaning that the
people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments
cannot behidden from the peopleunder a general or special power of
attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals.^36
The court also argued that a “people’s initiative” can initiate only “amendments”
and not “revisions” that “radically alter the framework of government,”
37
which
can be initiated only through Congress or a constitutional convention.
38
Otherwise,
the court cautioned, the power of direct initiative “becomes easily susceptible to
manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false prom-
ises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation’s stability.”^39
The irony here is that the court purported to defend constitutional democracy
from an aspiring dictator by stopping a plebiscite or, in other words, to preserve the
people’s voice by not letting them speak.
Judicial assertion and co-optation
The 1987 constitution adopted another antidote to Marcos-style dictatorship by
expanding the power of judicial review in three ways. First, the drafters curtailed
the courts’ excessive use of the political-question doctrine to wash its hands and
defer to a powerful president. They adopted the existing “grave abuse of discretion”
standard, hitherto applied in reviewing judicial decisions, and extended it to open-
ended discretion exercised by the political branches of government. Thus the
(^33) Executive Order No 453 (Creating the Consultative Commission to Propose the Revision
of the 1987 Constitution with Various Sectors of Society) (August 19 , 2005 ).
(^34) Constitution Art.xvii§ 2.
(^35) Lambinov.Commission on Elections, G.R. No 174153 (October 25 , 2006 ).
(^36) Ibid., original emphasis. (^37) Ibid. (^38) Constitution Art.xvii§ 1. (^39) Lambino.