Republic of the Philippines

NATIONAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSIONS
Quezon City

Re: APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF

PUBLIC CONVENIENCE TO INSTALL, OPERATE
AND MAINTAIN A CABLE TELEVISION SYSTEM
(CATV) IN PINTUYAN, SOUTHERN LEYTE, WITH
PRAYER FOR THE ISSUANCE OF PROVISIONAL
AUTHORITY
Opposing Party.

*****************************************

OPPOSITION

OPPOSING PARTY, by counsel, states that:

He is a Filipino citizen, a taxpayer and a duly registered voter;

He is filing and submitting this OPPOSITION to the verified petition as above

captioned in his above stated capacities;

There are TWO [2] alternative grounds strongly relied upon in this Opposition

to the petition in the above captioned case, namely: [a] The ABSENCE of an enabling

law OR INADEQUACY of the previously enacted law intended to be the enabling

statute; and/or [2] The utter failure to attain the required numbers/percentages

constitutionally
mandated, by reason of a fatally defective signature- gathering process,

accompanied by a subsequent similarly infirmed signature-verification procedure

undertaken by personnel of this Honorable Commission on Elections.

Hereunder discussed and elucidated are the two grounds above specified

supporting the prayer for the instant dismissal of the above- captioned case/petition.

A. Absence and/or Inadequacy of an ENABLING LAW on Initiative to

Amend the Fundamental Law:

The very CORE of the instant OPPOSITION lies in the expressed and

categorical PRONOUNCEMENT of the Honorable SUPREME COURT in the

landmark case of Defensor-Santiago et al. vs. Commission on Elections et al. [270

SCRA 106] which unequivocally declared:

”xxx R.A. No 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in

essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is concerned. The lacunae on this substantive matter
are fatal and cannot be cured by “empowering” the Comelec “to
promulgate such rules and regulation as may be necessary to carry out
the purpose of [the] Act”

Added thereto is the High Court explicit directive that :

“xxx the COMELEC should be PERMANENTLY ENJOINED

FROM ENTERTAINING OR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF ANY
PETITION FOR INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION UNTIL A SUFFICIENT LAW SHALL HAVE BEEN
VALIDLY ENACTED TO PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE SYSTEM”.

2
 Further, in a later ruling of the High Court in the case of Pirma v. COMELEC

[G.R. No. 129754, Sept. 23, 1997], then Chief Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. as ponente,

reiterated that:

“Simply put, Santiago did, in reality declare as unconstitutional

that portion of RA 6735 relating to Constitutional initiatives for failure to
comply with the “completeness and sufficient standard tests” with
respect to permissible delegation of legislative power or subordinate
legislation. However, petitioners attempt to twist the language in
Santiago, the conclusion is inevitable: the portion of RA 6735 pertinent
to the dispute was held to be unconstitutional.”

The above clear and unequivocal ruling/s of the Highest Court of the land still

hold true to this day, there being NO law, amendatory or otherwise, that has been

enacted to rectify the determined deficiency, inadequacy, insufficiency and

incompleteness of Rep. Act No. 6735.

Thus, with the above current situation subsisting, the same leaves this

Honorable Commission with no option or alternative but to simply order the outright

dismissal of the petition in the above captioned case/ matter.

The aforesaid Supreme Court resolution/s, this Honorable Commission cannot

brush aside and disregard, as they form part of the law of the land, premised on the

principle of stare decisis.

In fine, any move or any attempt to entertain the above-captioned petition

would effectively be in clear and tacit defiance of the said High Court ruling/s, with

this Commission opening itself to a citation for

3
contempt, for violating the permanent injunctive command of the High Tribunal.

In said Santiago, case, the claimed enabling law, RA 6735 was declared

inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and

that the same has similarly failed to provide sufficient standards for subordinate

legislation…. thus declaring void and unconstitutional, even those parts of the then

promulgated COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 that attempted to prescribe

implementing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative designed to amend the

Constitution.

The High Court declaration of inadequacy, and the accompanying permanent

injunction issued restraining the entertaining of and/or taking cognizance of, any

petition for initiative on proposed amendments to the Constitution had likewise

declared VOID, this Honorable Commission’s implementing Rules and Regulation as

contained in said Comelec Resolution No. 2300. Not until a sufficient enabling law

shall have been validly enacted to provide for the appropriate guidelines and

implementation of the system, can this Commission act on any petition, the subject

matter of which is to pursue a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.

The instant rejection and outright dismissal of the petition is therefore most

warranted under the currently pervading circumstances.

4
 B. Utterly Flawed SIGNATURE GATHERING and SIGNATURE
VERIFICATION

With no competence to entertain any such people’s initiative petition, even the

claimed completion of and compliance with the signature verification process and

requirement, becomes irrelevant and constitutes a sheer exercise in futility, and a

total waste of time, effort and of public funds.

Appearing to rely on the same Santiago case, this Hon. Commission had

seemingly “sanctioned” the petitioner-instigated

process of signature VERIFICATION, thereby allowing petitioner to misleadingly

show some semblance of legitimacy to the current petition, at least in the aspect of

alleged compliance with the required number/mandated percentage of signatures

gathered favoring the said initiative to proposed amendment to the Constitution.

Citing a selected portion of the same High Court’s pronouncement in the

Santiago case, which portions are really nothing more but obiter

dicta, petitioner now makes a claim that it has complied with the minimum signature

requirement necessary to come up with its initiatory pleading – the present petition,

herein strongly opposed.

The cited OBITER states:

“The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative

only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading.

5
 Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting
en banc.

The only participation of the COMELEC or its personnel before

the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the petition; (2)
to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate
on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district;
(3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of
signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the
signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voter’s identification
cards used in the immediately preceding election.”

Absent any FORMAL specific resolution/order or directive emanating from this

Honorable Commission EN BANC, but with the tacit prodding of the individual

Comelec Members/commissioners, the Comelec field officials and subordinate

personnel, undertook the supposed signature verification process, acting solely on

the REQUEST of petitioners, which claimed to be the signature-gatherers.

Availing of the above-quoted mere obiter, with the added claim that the same

is merely a simple routine/administrative function, the supposed verification of the

supposed validly-gathered signatures was commenced and undertaken by the

Commission’s field personnel and subordinate officials. And now, petitioner makes

the claim and asserts that said signature verification has been completed, and the

required number/percentage, already attained. Hence, the current petition, herein

opposed.

6
 The claim that the required number/percentage of VERIFIED signatures

having been attained, is really a total FARCE and a complete SHAM.

Thus, even on the assumption, but definitely not conceding, that there is valid

and sufficient enabling statute that allows a people’s initiative, the present petition

herein opposed will still fail miserably – as there was NO legitimate process adopted

in the signature gathering, in addition to the fact that there was similarly a totally

flawed process of signature verification undertaken by the Commission’s field

personnel.

The process of signature gathering and signature verification as adopted and

undertaken by the petitioner, and the Commission’s field personnel is replete with

irregularities and anomalies, that there is no way that the present petition could merit

the approval of this Honorable Commission.

The Commission must consider the following fatal infirmities and deficiencies,

to be supported by overwhelming evidence, testimonial and documentary:

1. In the Signature Gathering process undertaken by

Petitioner/s

[a] Numerous signatures were affixed on the basis of deliberate

misrepresentation by representatives of the petitioners, if not through

7
outright lies and falsehoods, committed by the petitioners’ signature gatherers and their

cohorts;

[b] In several instances, signatures were affixed by reason of illicit monetary

consideration/s or the giving of various things of value, illicitly inducing the signature

affixing.

[c] Absence of actual gathering of signatures, but instead, the outright

falsification and forgery of the signatures appearing in the petitioner-submitted

documents, a representative sample is hereto attached as ANNEXES “A” and “A-1”;

[d] Even the gathering and signing process were absolutely defective, as the
supposed signatories were not appropriately briefed as to the true and real import of

signature affixing process, as misrepresentation pervaded the process;

[e] Signatures were gathered through the DIRECT intervention of elective

and appointive public officials and with the use of public funds, in glaring violation of

the requirement that the initiative must be purely the undertaking of the people. The

unqualified and categorical support illicitly extended by numerous local elective

government officials is made manifest by the fact that one petitioner appears to be an

elected Governor of a province;

2. In the Signature Verification Process by COMELEC Field

Personnel/Subordinate Employees

8
 [a] IN numerous instances, there were no signature gatherings.

Instead, what were submitted for verification were falsified, forged and fabricated

signatures, illicitly perpetrated by a few individuals representing the petitioners;

[b] The defectively- gathered signatures were not really, properly and
legitimately subjected to verification , as the signature gathering was not done at the

required signing stations where the Comelec election officers and its representatives

were present;

[c] The claimed signature verification was performed by Comelec personnel

who are without any working knowledge respecting determination of genuine and

authentic signatures;

[d] The verification was confined to the determination of mere

similarly of appearance of the supposed signatures, and not premised on

a truly actual verification/confirmation of the authenticity and

genuineness of the submitted signatures, limiting their inspection/ verification to

simplistic comparison and then making a findings that the signatures are either [a]

appear similar or [b] appear dissimilar.

[e] Signature comparison, not verification, were conducted surreptitiously,

disallowing the presence of watchers, observers and oppositors while the signature

“comparison” not verification was being undertaken.

9
 [f] Field personnel who have issued CERTIFICATIONS as to the alleged
verification, never actually conducted a true and real verification, such that the

certifications issued are themselves untruthful, false and fabricated;

[g] The entire signature gathering process and the subsequent verification
process that followed, were accomplished involuntarily, or through misrepresentation,

if not by outright deception.

Further, considering that the Chairman and Commissioners of this Honorable

Commission had opted to informally extend a free-hand to its field personnel to

undertake the supposed verification of signatures absent any clear and specific

guidelines and instructions, the end result would be as they have turned out to be a

confused and chaotic “verification” process, totally deceptive and absolutely

unreliable, thus fatally flawed - an act of allegedly verifying signatures totally

unsanctioned by the Constitution, the applicable law and rules or regulations.

Furthermore, the supposed enabling law, RA 6735 and its supposed

implementing COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 having been declared insufficient,

inadequate, incomplete and unconstitutional and null and void, any supposed

signature gathering and signature verification undertaken, are similarly null and void

and without any force and effect whatsoever.

10
 Additionally, be it noted by the Honorable Commission that, as found in the

text of the High Court decision, the afore-quoted selected portion respecting the

signature verification process, was preceded by the categorical declaration that RA

No. 6735 and its implementing COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are inadequate and

insufficient, and void, thus indubitably attesting to its being a mere obiter.

Besides, it is very clear that the above quoted selected portion started with the

phrase “ex gratia” clearly, exhibiting its obiter nature and character.

In fact, even a reading of the obiter makes very explicit that the formal and

legitimate signature verification process would plainly confirm that the signing should

be conducted in the presence of the election officers while at the signature stations

duly established….. a logical process and fundamental requirement to insure that the

signatures affixed are indeed authentic, taking into account the production of some

documentary requirements such as the voters’ affidavits and voters’ identification

cards to be presented by registered voters before the affixing, similar to the voting

process.

Finally, obviously violated is the Hugh Court ruling that “initiative is entirely the

work of the electorate xxx a process of lawmaking by the people themselves without

the participation and against the wishes of their elected representatives.” A

pronouncement, negated by the active participation of the local elective officials.

11
 Described, along with referendum by the High Court speaking through Chief

Justice Panganiban – clearly negated by the active participation of the local elective

officials.

The Petitioner cannot claim that it is acting for the PEOPLE, as obviously, the

elected politicians are in the middle of the farce and sham process now being

initiated through the above captioned petition – herein vigorously opposed.

WHEREFORE, all of the foregoing duly considered, and after due

proceedings, it is most respectfully prayed that the above-captioned PETITION be

outrightly dismissed and rejected.

Opposing Party also prays for such other relief and remedies just and

equitable under the premises.

City of Manila; August 26 2006.

BRILLANTES NAVARRO JUMAMIL ARCILLA

ESCOLIN MARTINEZ & VIVERO
Law Offices
Counsel for the Oppositor
105-B, ECJ Condominium Building
Real corner Arzobispo Streets
Intramuros 1002, City of Manila
By:

FLORENCIO M. MARTINEZ
Roll of Attorneys No. 27478 PTR
NO. 4556239; 01-03-06; Manila
IBP NO. 667806; 01-04-06; Capiz

VERIFICATION and CERTIFICATION

Republic of the Philippines)

12
City of Manila ) S.S.

I, SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR., Filipino, of legal age, taxpayer and a

registered voter, with office address at Suite 105-B, ECJ Condominium, Real St.,
Intramuros, Manila, after having been sworn in accordance with law, depose and
state that:

1. I am the Opposing Party in the above-captioned case/petition;

2. I have caused the preparation of the foregoing OPPOSITION;

3. I have read the contents thereof and affirm that the same are true and
correct to the best of my personal knowledge and/or based on authentic records and
documents.

SIXTO S. BRILLANTES, JR.

Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 26th day of August 2006 at the
City of Manila, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 16871682
issued on February 13, 2006 at City of Manila.

Doc. No. Page

No. Book No.
Series of 2006.

Copy furnished:

ATTY. ALBERTO C. AGRA

Counsel for Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado
No. 12 Fourth Street,
Saint Ignatius Village, Quezon City

ATTY. DEMOSTHENES B. DONATO

Counsel for Raul L. Lambino
Autoland Building 1616
Quezon Avenue
South Triangle, Quezon City

EXPLANATION

13
 Copies of the foregoing OPPOSITION have been sent to the other parties
through registered mail instead of personal service due to distance, time constraint
and lack of personnel.

FLORENCIO M. MARTINEZ

the nature of petitioner’s interest in the subject matter of the proceeding, and the
way and manner in which such interest is affected by the issues involved in the
proceeding

14