No ghoulies for today’s post. Although I’ll share something really scary (at least for consti law dweebs). This is Justice Puno’s dissenting opinion in Lambino v. COMELEC, the latest “people’s initiative” case. It lost only by one vote. In a parallel world, this is the prevailing ruling of the Court, and we’ll probably have another spooged constitution on our plates by the end of the year.
I’m not one of those who think that the provisions of the Constitution are sacrosanct, and should thus be preserved at all cost. The amendment process was built so that we could do exactly that - evolve our core legal principles so that they can track our changing values. There are parts of the 1987 Constitution that are just broken, and given a well thought out chance to fix them, we should.
What I oppose, however, is hijacking the amendment mechanisms, and in such a sleazy manner, all to advance a selfish agenda.
The dissenting opinion should be taught alongside Carpio’s main opinion, so that it can be carefully analyzed by generations of law students. I don’t even know where to begin (I see a paper here somewhere) with Justice Puno’s opinion. Part of me couldn’t accept that even Justice Puno was buying what he was saying. True, I’ve always found the amendment/revision distinction problematic, but I wasn’t prepared for Puno’s tremendous leap, that as long as we retain the republican character (less than a line in our Constitution), all deep structural changes aside, it’s still an amendment. As an (erstwhile) programmer I have trouble accepting that. Instinctively you feel the difference between a patch and a new release.
So there. I’m back worrying about Constitutional Law. That’s another scary thing.
Entries (RSS)