LAMBINO VS. COMELEC [G.R. No.

174153; 25 Oct 2006] Facts:Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to changethe 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratifytheir initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government tounicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governinginitiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate toimplement the initiative petitions.Issue: Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of theConstitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete,inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Groups petition. Held:According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse o fdiscretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution onDirect Proposal by the PeopleThe petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders the initiative void.2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision throughInitiativesThe fram ers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between amendment andrevision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive isa radical change, therefore a constitutes a revision. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not NecessaryEven assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the presentpetition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitutionbefore complying with RA 6735Petition is dismissed.