REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
ATTY. FLORISA ALMODIEL
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO,
Opposition to the Petition for a People’s Initiative
OPPOSITORS, by counsel, respectfully state:
From a Media Report:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS Chair Benjamin Abalos Sr. yesterday challenged groups opposed to the verification of millions of signature in support of a shift to a parliamentary form of government to get an injunction from the Supreme Court if they believed that the verification process violated the high tribunal’s earlier ruling.
“‘Let us stop arguing. They should go to the Supreme Court and stop us,’ Abalos said in a phone interview yesterday.”
No one went to the Supreme Court. So, Sigaw had to use the Comelec to go up to the Supreme Court—filing a Petition with the Comelec in the hope that the Comelec will immediately dismiss the petition at least before September 14. You see, Sigaw expects a favorable decision from the Supreme Court.
But that is not all. SIGAW hopes that the Comelec will not only decide to dismiss the Petition but will also take cognizance of the Petition, in violation of the injunction of course, and look into the ‘authenticity’ of the signatures and the regularity of the certifications and declare that :
“ We find the signatures authentic as per certification of our Election Officers, and that Petitioners have fulfilled the constitutional requirement of garnering 12 % of the total number of registered voters represented by at least 3% in each legislative district. However, since there is an injunction from the Supreme Court, we have to DISMISS the Petition.”
Sigaw wants the Comelec to use the “presumption of regularity” principle on the certifications issued by local Comelec personnel and therefore merely NOTE all objections as to the authenticity of the signatures, similar to what transpired in the 2004 presidential elections.
Armed with a watertight Comelec decision which declared the signatures in order even if no objection to the same was allowed, SIGAW now expects the Supreme Court to reverse Santiago, and, since the COMELEC has verified the signatures, all that the Supreme Court has to do is to remand the case to COMELEC and order it to set the plebiscite, WITHOUT ENTERTAINING ANY OBJECTIONS RELATIVE TO FRAUD, which SIGAW hopes will take place in January 2007 at most.
But SIGAW made a fatal mistake. One of the many actually. It filed the petition with only two petitioners, admitted that the draft petition was crafted only on August 25, 2006, and what the alleged ‘millions’ of signatories signed was actually not the Petition but ‘signature sheets’.
Will the Supreme Court and the Comelec follow the script? Many believe Sigaw will be in for a big surprise. The third round of the Chacha Battle may still end in a resounding defeat for those who pine for “no election” in 2007.
1. Petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado are Filipino citizens, of legal age, registered voters, and with office addresses at Autoland Building, 1616 Quezon Avenue, South Triangle, Quezon City, and at Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, Unit 2803 Summit Tower, 530 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City, respectively.
Oppositors are The Counsels for the Defense of Liberties (CODAL), an organization of civil libertarian lawyers, law students and paralegals who are Filipinos, of legal age, and with office address at # 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Streets, Central District, Quezon City and ATTY. FLORISA ALMODIEL, a member of CODAL, Filipino, of legal age, a registered voter and with office address at # 1 Matatag cor. Maaralin Streets, Central District, Quezon City.
Statement of Facts
1. The Supreme Court on 19 March 1997, the Supreme Court, in the case of Santiago v. COMELEC, declared that Republic Act No. 6735 was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and failed to provide sufficient standards for subordinate legislation. The Supreme Court further declared unconstitutional COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution, and permanently enjoined this Honorable Commission from “entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system” of people’s initiative.
2. On 25 August 2006, Petitioners filed herein Petition with this Honorable Commission, invoking their “constitutional right to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution by way of people’s initiative.” Petitioners allege that the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 are “sufficient enabling details for the people’s exercise” of the “power” of people’s initiative.
(a) The “amendment” of Sections 1-7 of Article VI of the Constitution to creating a unicameral parliament, not only composed of District Representatives but also by Provincial Representatives and City Representatives.
(b) It also amended the Constitution by deleting the constitutional provision establishing the Party List system as part of the legislature and merely reduced its existence a creature of law, if the new legislature so desires to maintain it.
(c) The “amendment” of Sections 1-7 of Article VI of the Constitution to extend the term of office of Members of Parliament from three (3) years to five (5) years, and to eliminate the restriction on the number of times such Members of Parliament can run for reelection;
(d) The “amendment” of Sections 1-4 of Article VII of the Constitution, to designate the President as the Head of State, with the executive power to be exercised by the Prime Minister who shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of Parliament from among themselves.
(e) The inclusion of a new Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions” to allegedly ensure “an orderly transition from the bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. Such “Transitory Provisions” provide for:
(i) The expiration of the terms of office of the incumbent President and Vice-President on 30 June 2010;
(ii) The creation of an “interim Parliament” which shall be composed of the incumbent Vice-President, the incumbent members of the Senate and House of Representatives and incumbent members of the Cabinet who are heads of the executive departments, which shall continue until the members of the “regular Parliament” shall have been elected and shall have qualified;
(iii) The designation of the incumbent Vice-President’s duties as convenor of the “interim Parliament” and presiding officer over its sessions for the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among themselves;
(iv) The designation of the incumbent President’s duty to nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the members thereof;
(v) The designation of the interim Prime Minister’s duty to oversee the various ministries and perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated by the incumbent President;
(vi) The assumption by the interim Prime Minister of the powers and responsibilities of the incumbent President in the event of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and Vice-President;
(vii) The Second Charter Change through the convening of the interim Parliament within forty-five (45) days from ratification of the proposed Constitutional “amendments” to further propose another round of “amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization, and a strong bureaucracy”;
(viii) The conduct by the interim Parliament of an election of the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election of all local government officials;
(ix) The designation of the incumbent Vice-President’s duty, as member of Parliament, to immediately convene the Parliament and initially preside over its session for the purpose of electing the Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of all the members of Parliament from among themselves; and
(x) The duty of the duly elected Prime Minister to continue and exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice-President.
“Do you approve the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system, and providing Article XVIII as transitory provisions for the orderly shift from one system to the other?”
THE INSTANT PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED AS IT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT FOR A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO BE VALID, IT MUST BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH “A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS”
THE PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE FATALLY DEFECTIVE AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE, HAVING VIOLATED COMELEC’S PROCEDURAL RULES AND FOR ITS FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE 12% AND 3% REQUIREMENT DUE TO FRAUD AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION RULES
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE CAN PROCEED, THE PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED AS IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT ONLY ALLOWS A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO UNDERTAKE AMENDMENTS AND NOT REVISION
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION IS PROHIBITED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SANTIAGO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), FROM ENTERTAINING OR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF A PETITION FOR A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
THE PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED AS IT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT FOR A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO BE VALID, IT MUST BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH “A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS”
The Constitution provides in Art. XVII, Sec. 2 that :
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative, UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. (underscoring supplied)
The Constitution is clear. The ‘twelve percent’ of the total number of registered voters referred to must be the petitioners in a petition for a people’s initiative. In this case, there are only two Petitioners—Mr. Lambino and Mr. Aumentado. The Petition cannot, therefore, survive because the registered voters who compose the “twelve per centum” required by the Constitution are not the Petitioners in the subject Petition.
Furthermore, the verification and certification against forum shopping were not signed by the registered voters who compose the required “Twelve Per Centum”. These registered voters therefore do not attest that the Petition is true and correct of their own personal knowledge or based on authentic record. Even if Mr. Lambino and Aumentado declare that no similar actions were filed in another tribunal, the ‘Twelve Per Centum” made no such certification. All these are fatal to the Petition. After all, it is possible that the ‘twelve per centum’ did not know some or all of the allegations in the Petition, especially the proposed ‘amendments’. It must be noted that the verification required in a peoples initiative is not merely to see if the signatures “seem to appear” similar to that in the Voters Registry, but on whether the signatories actually understood the Petition including its proposed “amendments” and attest to the correctness of its contents, including the proposed “amendments”. This is what a verified petition means.
Petitioners’ claim that they filed the Petition “together with the registered voters who have affixed their signatures to the signature sheets’ will not help, but on the contrary, will only drown this Petition further in the morass of fatal defects. Petitioner admits that the registered voters composing the twelve percentum signed on ‘signature sheets’ rather than on the Petition, as required by the Constitution. Not only did they fail to alleged that the signatories saw, read or understood the Petition when they signed but Petitioners even admitted that said signatories did not sign the petition but mere “signatures sheets”.
Lastly, and this is the cruel blow to Petitioners’ ambition, there was actually no opportunity at all, for the signatories to sign the Petition, since as the Petitioners themselves admit, the Petition was only drafted on August 25, 2006 ! It is, therefore, impossible for the “twelve percentum’ to have seen the petition, much less understood its contents, if it has not been drafted until August 25.
A genuine and valid petition must have been drafted and finalized long before the signatories were made to sign. There would have been no problem had the instant Petition been dated and crafted on August 25, 2005, or even August 25, 2001, for surely you can draft your proposed Petition and campaign for three or four years among the registered voters. That Petition would still be valid, since there is no time limit as to the period for the signature drive. It is impossible, however, for the Petitioners to claim that they drafted the Petition on August 25, 2006 on the same day that they were able to get millions of registered voters to sign.
Petitioners cannot now belatedly claim that when the signatories signed the ‘signature sheets’, they were actually attached to herein Petition because that would be perjury, a serious offense that merits criminal prosecution and disbarment. After all, any one of the alleged 8-10 million ‘signatories’ can attest that no such thing happened. Surely, no charter change advocate would risk being respondents in hundreds of criminal and administrative cases that will definitely be filed against them should they commit perjury.
Petitioners cannot belatedly insist that a draft Petition was attached to the signature sheets when the latter were signed. Not only is this another case for perjury but also because, a draft petition is not the Petition contemplated by the Constitution. Furthermore, Petitioners now have the burden of proving that said draft petition is EXACTLY the same as herein Petition. If a single word or provision in the draft Petition they may claim to have attached to the signature sheets has been deleted in the Petition they filed before this Commission, then the entire Petition dies a violent death since it is no longer the same as the one signed by the signatories. If the current petition no longer contains a provision in the supposed draft Petition such as, for example, the deletion of the provision stating that “Senators whose terms end in 2010 shall be members of the Interim Parliament” such omission is fatal to the Petition and this Honorable Commission has no recourse but to dismiss it with a friendly advice for Petitioners to conduct a signature campaign one more time or file another Petition in the future.
Lastly, this Honorable Commission, even if such claim were now made by Petitioners, cannot give credence to such claim, since the Petition on its face has already expressly admitted that it was drafted on August 25 2006 and that the ‘signatories’ signed mere “signature sheets” and not herein Petition.
For its failure to follow the constitutional requirement under Section 2, Article XVII, the instant Petition should be dismissed.
THE PETITION MUST BE DISMISSED BECAUSE IT IS FATALLY DEFECTIVE AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE, HAVING VIOLATED COMELEC’S RULES ON PROCEDURE AND FOR ITS FAILURE TO ACHIEVE THE 12% AND 3% REQUIREMENT DUE TO FRAUD AND OTHER VIOLATIONS OF ELECTION RULES
COMELEC rules require Petitioners to submit 12 sets of their petition just like anyone who files similar Petitions with the Comelec. In the instant Petition, the Petitioners did not file the proper number of copies, together with the attachments and supposed millions of signature that should support the petition. Oppositors were required by this Honorable Commission to submit 12 copies of this Opposition together with its annexes and other attachments. Petitioners on the other hand, failed to submit 12 copies of the annexes including the alleged millions of signatures they have attached to their Petition.
Secondly, the Certification issued by election officers of the legislative districts do not conform to the constitutional requirement of assuring that at least 12% of the registered voters nationwide with at least 3% of the voters in a legislative district. These officers did not see the signatory voter actually sign the signature sheet, and not being experts on the matter, could not have certified that the signatures are actually the signatures of the signatories. Any certification that a signature ‘seems to’ or ‘appears to be’ the signature of the registered voter is not the certification required. This is the reason why, the Comelec implementing rules on people initiatives require signature stations, since it is the only way for a Comelec personnel to actually verify both the signature of the registered voter and the fact that he indeed read the Petition and understood it.
Thirdly, Petitioners claim that all the signatories are ‘residents’ and ‘registered voters’, despite findings in many areas such as Makati City that there are signatories who have migrated abroad (and therefore are not “residents”) or have died (and therefore, are no longer registered voters). Petitioners therefore failed to achieve the 12% and 3% requirement in the Constitution.
Petitioners cannot claim a presumption of regularity of the Certifications because there is no common, official and regular guidelines in the verification procedure resulting in the use, by the various Comelec election officers of different procedures that are irregular and invalid. There can be no presumption of regularity in the said certification since the process of generating the signatures and the verification of the same was attended by fraud or irregularity, and there was no transparency in the undertaking such as notice to the possible Oppositors, thereby putting into question the credibility of the result and the validity of the certification by local Comelec officials.
Furthermore, the content of the Petition itself is totally incomprehensible to the supposed signatories, as even lawyers, and possibly this Honorable Commission would find the proposals full of vague provision that cannot pass either in the signature drive or in a plebiscite.
(3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
Arguendo, did the supposed millions of signatories, (and even those who will vote in a plebiscite), understand that when they approve the current “amendments” they are also actually approving another process for the ‘amendments to, or revisions of,’ the Constitution they have just ratified? Do the signatories know that there are two “amendments” and ratifications that will result from the current campaign for charter change ?
The abstract or question posed in the petition, does not sufficiently describe the issue being asked of the electorate nor can the electorate’s vote of a yes describe his intention. What if he or she wants a parliamentary form of government but does not want a unicameral one, or a German model instead of the French model? Should she vote YES? If so, then the plebiscite cannot and will not reflect his or her will.
Voting NO does not address the problem, since it does not reflect that particular voter’s will, which in this case, actually favors a shift to a parliamentary system. No country in the world has burdened its electorate in a plebiscite that includes the amendment of at least FIFTY FIVE SECTIONS of their Constitution, such as those contained in the instant petition. Should the people’s initiative be allowed, the new Constitution will always be a questioned document, its credibility and therefore authority subject to disrespect and mistrust. The process of amending a Constitution is as important as the content of the proposal.
Due to the vagueness not only of the Petition, but even the proposed ‘amendments’ contained in the petition, this Honorable Commission cannot allow such a Petition to become subject of a plebiscite. The Petition cannot be granted if only for any of the above fatal defects.
ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE CAN PROCEED, THIS PETITION MUST BE DISMISSE IT VIOLATES THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT ONLY ALLOWS A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO UNDERTAKE AMENDMENTS
The 1987 Constitution states that:
ART. XVII AMENDMENTS AND REVISION
“SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
“(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
“(2) A constitutional convention.
“SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.”
“The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.” (underscoring supplied)
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION IS PROHIBITED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN SANTIAGO V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), FROM ENTERTAINING OR TAKING COGNIZANCE OF A PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
Pursuant to the role of the Supreme Court in the system of a constitutional government, it has the prerogative to declare what the law is. It is its determination of what the Constitution or any statute for that matter says that is binding and until a new reading is had by the Court, what it has said in a case is the law for everybody else to follow. Nobody has the right to second guess the Court, much less challenge its determination in a manner that borders on direct challenge to its authority to pronounce what the law is.
The Court pointedly said in Santiago v. COMELEC:
“This petition must then be granted, and 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.
“We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
“a) GRANTING the instant petition;
“b) DECLARING R. A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
“c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; xxx
So far, Congress has tarried. No law has been passed to replace the invalidated initiatives law.
The Solicitor General himself Eduardo Nachura, when he was a member of the 12th Congress filed a bill that will implement the constitutional provision on Initiative. This is an open admission by the main defender of the Petitioners, that indeed, there is no existing law that will allow for a people’s initiative.
There are three bills currently pending in the Senate, filed by Sen. Richard Gordon, Sen. Mirriam Santiago and Sen. Loi Ejercito Estrada. Again, another admission of the fact that indeed, nothing has changed since the Santiago ruling—there is no existing law to implement the people’s initiative. And therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain any petition on the people’s initiative and has no authority to order the verification of the signatures therein.
Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed of this Honorable Commission to:
1. DISQUALIFY CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN ABALOS from participating in the deliberation and decision on herein petition, having publicly pre judged the issue and supported the legitimacy and constitutionality the verification of signatures in the subject petition, a major issue that will be decided upon by the Commission.
2. DISMISS the Petition for being unconstitutional and violative of the permanent injunction by the Supreme Court. Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling prohibiting the Comelec from entertaining and taking cognizance of any petition for a people’s initiative, we further pray that the Decision dismissing the Petition should not DISCUSS OR RULE ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE SIGNATURES AND THE VALIDITY OF THE CERTIFICATION ISSUED THEREIN, since tackling the FACTUAL BASIS OF THE PETITION IS ESSENTIALLY AND ACTUALLY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE PETITION. The Commission or any election personnel in the field CANNOT RULE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SIGNATURES AND THE FACT THAT NO FRAUD WAS COMMITTED IN PROCURING THESE SIGNATURES as this is in direct violation of the injunction.
In the ALTERNATIVE, should the Commission tackle the issue of the sufficiency of the required signatures and fulfillment by the petition of the 12%-3% constitutional requirement, Oppositors pray that the Commission look into the signatures presented and allow Oppositors the opportunity to object against the admission of any signature not deemed authentic by Oppositors.
3. DISMISS the petition as it was not filed by the “12 of the total number of registered voters” as required by the Constitution, it seeks to revise the Constitution rather than merely amend it, and for Petitioner’s violation of the various election rules and laws, both procedural and substantive.
4. NULLIFY the certification issued by the local COMELEC officers in relation to the Petition, for having been issued in violation of the permanent injunction imposed by the Supreme Court, and being constitutive of an illegal expenditure of government funds and resources.
Other forms of relief, just and equitable, are also prayed for.
28 August 2006, Pasig City for City of Manila.
Counsel for the Oppositors
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
Roll No. 35226 [5-28-1988]
PTR No. 7355588 [2-3-2006, QC]
IBP No. 674541 [2-3-2006, QC]
NERI JAVIER COLMENARES
IBP 673655 02-20-06
PTR No. 7154810, 02-20-06
Roll No. 43060
No. I Matatag corner Maaralin Streets
Central District Quezon City
Pursuant to Rule 13, section 11 of the Rules of Court, Opposers respectfully manifest that the Petitioners were served their copies of this Opposition by means of registered mail because of the lack of messengerial staff to effect personal service, the lack of material time, and the considerable distance between the parties’ respective offices.
Neri Javier Colmenares
Counsel for Petitioner Raul Lambino
1616 Quezon Avenue
South Triangle, Quezon City
Counsel for Petitioner Erico Aumentado
No. 12 Fourth St
Saint Ignatius Village Quezon City
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
_______________, METRO MANILA ) S.S.
VERIFICATION AND CERTIFICATION
OF NON-FORUM SHOPPING
I, FLORISA ALMODIEL, of legal age, Filipino, a registered voter, and with office address at No. 1 Matatag corner Maaralin Streets after having been sworn in accordance with law, hereby state that:
1. I am one of the Opposers in the foregoing Opposition;
2. I have read the contents of the foregoing Opposition and I attest that the contents of the same are true and correct of my own knowledge and on the basis of authentic documents in my possession;
3. I attest that I have not commenced any other action or proceeding, involving the same issues subject of this present Opposition, in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency;
4. To the best of my knowledge, no such action or proceeding is, or remains, pending in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency.
5. If I should hereafter learn that a similar action or proceeding has been filed or is pending before the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, or the different divisions thereof, or any other tribunal or agency, I undertake to promptly inform this Honorable Court of that fact within five (5) days from such notice.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this ___ day of August 2006 in ___________________ affiant exhibiting to me her Community Tax Certificate No. 18883274 issued on 4-21-06 in Marikina City
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2006.