The Constitution, being a relatively short document, cannot by its nature contain all the details of the law of the land, including universally accepted principles of law and equity such as “constructive abandonment”, “constructive resignation”, estoppel in pais, waiver, declaration against interest, “clean-hands” doctrine, ejusdem generis, etc. These are among the precepts that the SC uses in interpreting a constitutional provision.

Your obviously made-up term “constructive sedition”, I think, is disingenuous but cute. Sedition’s primordial element is overt activity aimed at inciting treason, rebellion or commotion against public authority. It cannot be committed by implication.

After she was sworn in, PGMA became the President (not merely “acting president”) by Constitutional mandate.

I’m not a lawyer, atty Bencard, these terms and concepts are “way up over my simple mind”. But some terms seem self explanatory “extra-constitutional” means outside of the constitution, “constructiive resignation” is not written nor could be “constructed” to be in the constitution, that even granting that such is established it falls short of the requirement of the constitution, the prescribed procedure for a President to tender resignation was not followed, so that, I think, the proceedings at EDSAII lead by CJ Davide could be a case of “constructive sedition”.

btw, Atty Paguia presented his case against CJ Davide before an audience of lawyers who were afterwards polled as to the merit of Paguia’s arguments. The lawyers’ verdict favoring Paguia was almost unanimous.

re “‘super’ judicial activism being a threat to democracy”:

Did any of GMA’s supporters in the legal profession complain about ‘super judicial activism’ by the SC that ‘act as just another political body’ when the Davide SC committed something worse than an ‘abuse of discretion’ when they went onstage at EDSA to swear in GMA as (acting) President ousting a duly elected President on the strength of the VP GMA’s letter to the CJ Davide that Pres Estrada is ‘incapacitated’? Wasn’t that an act of sedition? Atty Paguia’s case against the SC was a chance at a ‘judicial correction’. Can you advance your case against ‘super judicial activicm’ without tracing the anomally back to the SC’s role in EDSA II and supporting Atty Paguia’s standing position against it?
Just wondering.

Noted constitutionalist author and profesor Jose M. Aruego expressed this concern, thus: “(h)uman beings that they were, with some of them not completely divorced from politics or from men high in politics, they were not entirely free from nor immune to politics. They also had their own loyalties, and these were not only to their own judicial work.”

I think the majority in Lambino vs. Comelec went beyond its constitutional duty (to interpret and apply the Constitution in a justiciable case) by rendering what amount to be an advisory opinion on a theoretical issue that was not even raised by the litigants in the first place.

Lambino was in the SC to ask the court to review the action of the Comelec in not giving due course to the PI on the ground that the enabling law (RA 6735)was inadequate.

Instead of “reviewing” the Comelec’s action (which, of necessity, would involve a revisit of the Santiago ruling on the adequacy of RA 6735), the majority (through Justice Carpio) engages in a fact finding exercise to determine whether or not the “Labino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative”. Concluding that it did not, the court dismissed the petition.

It should be noted that the Comelec did not receive or hear any evidence on whether or not the Lambino group’s initiative petition was in compliance with the relevant provision of the Constitution. There was no factual record to review which is why the certiori petition was limited to the Comelec’s failure to give due course to the initiative. Its principal purpose was to determine whether it was proper for the Comelec not to submit the initiative to a plebescite in accordance with RA 6735. Instead of a reviewing tribunal, SC acted as a trial court passing upon the procedures and methodologies employed in the gathering of signatures, among other things, but relying mostly on arguments of counsels and self-serving memoranda submitted by the protagonists instead of fact witnesses and properly-admitted evidence.

I think the ruling in itself was an abuse of discretion, albeit unappealable, and non-reviewable except by the court itself.

I’m not for abortion but I just wanted to point out a possible amendment.

RA 6735 actually wants it to be a single subject only too.

But I don’t feel that the Jury system is for us.

It is hard to fathom the SC decision whether RA 6735 is an actual enabling law already. If you read the CJ’s concurring opinion; it seems he agrees that there is an enabling law like he opined in the PIRMA decision. That would appear to be a majority for RA 6735 as an enabling law.

Still, I could see a Supreme Court challenge that will REQUIRE a ruling and again, there is no reasonable expectation that what looks like a simple amendment to you and me is a big deal to someone else.

In essence, this treats the people like children who would not know better and is consistent i suppose with the fact that we also do not have a JURY SYSTEM in this country.