People's Initiative: Genuine or Puppeteer's Play?

by Xye Dela Cruz

In relation, any initiative and change that invoke the name of the people demands discussion and transparency and must be a result of informed choice.

Subjects under Humanities and Social Sciences (HUMSS) have been an avenue for HUMSS students to develop critical viewpoint and understanding of governmental and social issues especially so that many senior high students are already participating in national election.

With this, they raised their concern over the People’s Initiative (PI) controversy. Is it genuine or merely a product of manipulation?

On a survey conducted to the grade 12- HUMSS learners, 41% of the respondents believe that the PI is under manipulation, 28% say it is realistic as many are looking for change in the government while 31% don’t care about the issue.

Under Republic Act 6735, a constitutional amendment through people’s initiative requires signatures from at least 12% of all registered voters and representation from at least 3% of voters in each legislative district. However, without presenting the purpose of the signature campaign to the voters, this PI is argued to contradict the essence of a genuine people’s power.

People’s Initiative or ‘Pekeng Initiative’, as senators call it, became controversial after the ‘unexplained’ signature campaign in barangays brought to public attention. It is claimed to be a signature drive in support of amending the 1987 Constitution or Charter change (Cha-cha). Allegedly, people who signed the campaign were not informed of its factual purpose instead what they know was it is for government aid or ‘ayuda’.

Adding fuel to the fire, a TV ad supporting these changes has sparked controversy by blaming the 1986 EDSA revolution for current issues. Instead of promoting economic reforms, it has caused disagreement and doesn't seem to have a positive message.

Looking at the process and turn of events, the approach doesn't seem effective in gaining public support for this matter because it seems to be that the purpose is not genuine and someone is manipulating the process.

In relation, any initiative and change that invoke the name of the people demands discussion and transparency and must be a result of informed choice.