Caught in a lie
Ever since I heard that One Voice (and other parties) won the case before the Supreme Court, I couldn’t stop smiling.
The Legion has been put in their place by the Supreme Court – despite all the paid ads and with JDV lobbying in their favor.
I know that the legionnaires will file a motion for recon and they are entitled to that right under our system of laws.
But hey, how can they justify what 8 of the justices consider as the petition’s fatal flaws?
In the decision penned by Justice Carpio, the justices said:
“During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state with certainty how many additional copies the other supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only assure this Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because he himself caused the printing of these 100,000 copies.
Likewise, in the Lambino Group’s Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the Lambino Group expressly admit that “petitioner Lambino initiated the printing and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative xxx.” This admission binds the Lambino Group and establishes beyond any doubt that the Lambino Group failed to show the full text of the proposed changes to the great majority of the people who signed the signature sheets. […]
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets.
In any event, the Lambino Group’s signature sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. This omission is fatal. The failure to so include the text of the proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-compliance with the constitutional requirement that the amendment must be “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.” The signature sheet is not the “petition” envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution.”