Lambino, et al. vs.

COMELEC
On 15 February 2006, the group o !aul Lambino an" Eri#o $umenta"o %&Lambino
'roup() #ommen#e" gathering signatures or an initiative petition to #hange
the 1*+, Constitution. On 25 $ugust 2006, the Lambino 'roup -le" a petition .ith
the Commission on Ele#tions %COMELEC) to hol" a plebis#ite that .ill ratiy their
initiative petition un"er /e#tion 5%b) an" %#) an" /e#tion , o !epubli# $#t 0o. 6,15
or the Initiative and Referendum Act. 2he propose" #hanges un"er the petition .ill
shit the present 3i#ameral45resi"ential system to a 6ni#ameral45arliamentary orm
o government.
2he Lambino 'roup #laims that7 %a) their petition ha" the support o 6,12,,*52
in"ivi"uals #onstituting at least 128 o all registere" voters, .ith ea#h legislative
"istri#t represente" by at least 18 o its registere" voters9 an" %b) COMELEC
ele#tion registrars ha" veri-e" the signatures o the 6.1 million in"ivi"uals.
2he COMELEC, ho.ever, "enie" "ue #ourse to the petition or la#: o an enabling
la. governing initiative petitions to amen" the Constitution, pursuant to the
/upreme Court;<=s ruling in Santiago vs. Commission on Elections. 2he Lambino
'roup elevate" the matter to the /upreme Court, .hi#h also thre. out the petition.
1. The initiative petition does not comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on direct proposal by the people
/e#tion 2, $rti#le >?@@ o the Constitution is the governing provision that allo.s a
people;<=s initiative to propose amen"ments to the Constitution. Ahile this
provision "oes not eBpressly state that the petition must set orth the ull teBt o the
propose" amen"ments, the "eliberations o the ramers o our Constitution #learly
sho. that7 %a) the ramers inten"e" to a"opt the relevant $meri#an Curispru"en#e
on peoples initiative9 an" %b) in parti#ular, the people must -rst see the ull teBt o
the propose" amen"ments beore they sign, an" that the people must sign on a
petition #ontaining su#h ull teBt.
2he essen#e o amen"ments &"ire#tly propose" by the people through initiative
upon a petition( is that the entire proposal on its a#e is a petition by the people.
2his means t.o essential elements must be present.
First, the people must author an" thus sign the entire proposal. 0o agent or
representative #an sign on their behal.
/e#on", as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embo"ie" in a
petition.
2hese essential elements are present only i the ull teBt o the propose"
amen"ments is -rst sho.n to the people .ho eBpress their assent by signing su#h
#omplete proposal in a petition. 2he ull teBt o the propose" amen"ments may be
either .ritten on the a#e o the petition, or atta#he" to it. @ so atta#he", the
petition must state the a#t o su#h atta#hment. 2his is an assuran#e that every one
o the several millions o signatories to the petition ha" seen the ull teBt o the
propose" amen"ments beore D not ater D signing.
Moreover, &an initiative signer must be inorme" at the time o signing o the nature
an" eEe#t o that .hi#h is propose"( an" ailure to "o so is &"e#eptive an"
mislea"ing( .hi#h ren"ers the initiative voi".
@n the #ase o the Lambino 'roupFs petition, thereFs not a single .or", phrase, or
senten#e o teBt o the propose" #hanges in the signature sheet. 0either "oes the
signature sheet state that the teBt o the propose" #hanges is atta#he" to it. 2he
signature sheet merely as:s a Guestion .hether the people approve a shit rom the
3i#ameral45resi"ential to the 6ni#ameral4 5arliamentary system o government. 2he
signature sheet "oes not sho. to the people the "rat o the propose" #hanges
beore they are as:e" to sign the signature sheet. 2his omission is atal.
$n initiative that gathers signatures rom the people .ithout -rst sho.ing to the
people the ull teBt o the propose" amen"ments is most li:ely a "e#eption, an" #an
operate as a giganti# rau" on the people. 2hatFs .hy the Constitution reGuires that
an initiative must be &"ire#tly propose" by the people B B B in a petition( D meaning
that the people must sign on a petition that #ontains the ull teBt o the propose"
amen"ments. On so vital an issue as amen"ing the nationFs un"amental la., the
.riting o the teBt o the propose" amen"ments #annot be hi""en rom the people
un"er a general or spe#ial po.er o attorney to unname", a#eless, an" unele#te"
in"ivi"uals.
2 The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
disallowin! revision throu!h initiatives
$rti#le >?@@ o the Constitution spea:s o three mo"es o amen"ing the Constitution.
2he -rst mo"e is through Congress upon three4ourths vote o all its Members. 2he
se#on" mo"e is through a #onstitutional #onvention. 2he thir" mo"e is through a
peopleFs initiative.
/e#tion 1 o $rti#le >?@@, reerring to the -rst an" se#on" mo"es, applies to &any
amen"ment to, or revision o, this Constitution.( @n #ontrast, /e#tion 2 o $rti#le
>?@@, reerring to the thir" mo"e, applies only to &amen"ments to this Constitution.(
2his "istin#tion .as intentional as sho.n by the "eliberations o the Constitutional
Commission. $ peopleFs initiative to #hange the Constitution applies only to an
amen"ment o the Constitution an" not to its revision. @n #ontrast, Congress or a
#onstitutional #onvention #an propose both amen"ments an" revisions to the
Constitution.
Hoes the Lambino 'roupFs initiative #onstitute an amen"ment or revision o the
ConstitutionI Jes. 3y any legal test an" un"er any Curis"i#tion, a shit rom a
3i#ameral45resi"ential to a 6ni#ameral45arliamentary system, involving the abolition
o the OK#e o the 5resi"ent an" the abolition o one #hamber o Congress, is
beyon" "oubt a revision, not a mere amen"ment.
Courts have long re#ogniLe" the "istin#tion bet.een an amen"ment an" a revision
o a #onstitution. !evision broa"ly implies a #hange that alters a basi# prin#iple in
the #onstitution, li:e altering the prin#iple o separation o po.ers or the system o
#he#:s4an"4balan#es. 2here is also revision i the #hange alters the substantial
entirety o the #onstitution, as .hen the #hange aEe#ts substantial provisions o the
#onstitution. On the other han", amen"ment broa"ly reers to a #hange that a""s,
re"u#es, or "eletes .ithout altering the basi# prin#iple involve". !evision generally
aEe#ts several provisions o the #onstitution, .hile amen"ment generally aEe#ts
only the spe#i-# provision being amen"e".
Ahere the propose" #hange applies only to a spe#i-# provision o the Constitution
.ithout aEe#ting any other se#tion or arti#le, the #hange may generally be
#onsi"ere" an amen"ment an" not a revision. For eBample, a #hange re"u#ing the
voting age rom 1+ years to 15 years is an amen"ment an" not a revision. /imilarly,
a #hange re"u#ing Filipino o.nership o mass me"ia #ompanies rom 1008 to 608
is an amen"ment an" not a revision. $lso, a #hange reGuiring a #ollege "egree as
an a""itional Guali-#ation or ele#tion to the 5resi"en#y is an amen"ment an" not a
revision.
2he #hanges in these eBamples "o not entail any mo"i-#ation o se#tions or arti#les
o the Constitution other than the spe#i-# provision being amen"e". 2hese #hanges
"o not also aEe#t the stru#ture o government or the system o #he#:s4an"4
balan#es among or .ithin the three bran#hes.
Mo.ever, there #an be no -Be" rule on .hether a #hange is an amen"ment or a
revision. $ #hange in a single .or" o one senten#e o the Constitution may be a
revision an" not an amen"ment. For eBample, the substitution o the .or"
&republi#an( .ith &monar#hi#( or &theo#rati#( in /e#tion 1, $rti#le @@ o the
Constitution ra"i#ally overhauls the entire stru#ture o government an" the
un"amental i"eologi#al basis o the Constitution. 2hus, ea#h spe#i-# #hange .ill
have to be eBamine" #ase4by4#ase, "epen"ing on ho. it aEe#ts other provisions, as
.ell as ho. it aEe#ts the stru#ture o government, the #areully #rate" system o
#he#:s4an"4balan#es, an" the un"erlying i"eologi#al basis o the eBisting
Constitution.
/in#e a revision o a #onstitution aEe#ts basi# prin#iples, or several provisions o a
#onstitution, a "eliberative bo"y .ith re#or"e" pro#ee"ings is best suite" to
un"erta:e a revision. $ revision reGuires harmoniLing not only several provisions,
but also the altere" prin#iples .ith those that remain unaltere". 2hus, #onstitutions
normally authoriLe "eliberative bo"ies li:e #onstituent assemblies or #onstitutional
#onventions to un"erta:e revisions. On the other han", #onstitutions allo. peopleFs
initiatives, .hi#h "o not have -Be" an" i"enti-able "eliberative bo"ies or re#or"e"
pro#ee"ings, to un"erta:e only amen"ments an" not revisions.
@n Caliornia .here the initiative #lause allo.s amen"ments but not revisions to the
#onstitution Cust li:e in our Constitution, #ourts have "evelope" a t.o4part test7 the
Guantitative test an" the Gualitative test. 2he Guantitative test as:s .hether the
propose" #hange is so eBtensive in its provisions as to #hange "ire#tly the
substantial entirety o the #onstitution by the "eletion or alteration o numerous
eBisting provisions. 2he #ourt eBamines only the number o provisions aEe#te" an"
"oes not #onsi"er the "egree o the #hange.
2he Gualitative test inGuires into the Gualitative eEe#ts o the propose" #hange in
the #onstitution. 2he main inGuiry is .hether the #hange .ill ;<Na##omplish su#h
ar rea#hing #hanges in the nature o our basi# governmental plan as to amount to a
revision.;< Ahether there is an alteration in the stru#ture o government is a
proper subCe#t o inGuiry. 2hus, ;<Na #hange in the nature o OtheP basi#
governmental plan;< in#lu"es #hange in its un"amental rame.or: or the
un"amental po.ers o its 3ran#hes. $ #hange in the nature o the basi#
governmental plan also in#lu"es #hanges that Ceopar"iLe the tra"itional orm o
government an" the system o #he#: an" balan#es.
6n"er both the Guantitative an" Gualitative tests, the Lambino 'roup initiative is a
revision an" not merely an amen"ment. Quantitatively, the Lambino 'roup
propose" #hanges overhaul t.o arti#les D $rti#le ?@ on the Legislature an" $rti#le
?@@ on the EBe#utive D aEe#ting a total o 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the propose" #hanges alter substantially the basi# plan o
government, rom presi"ential to parliamentary, an" rom a bi#ameral to a
uni#ameral legislature.
$ #hange in the stru#ture o government is a revision o the Constitution, as .hen
the three great #o4eGual bran#hes o government in the present Constitution are
re"u#e" into t.o. 2his alters the separation o po.ers in the Constitution. $ shit
rom the present 3i#ameral45resi"ential system to a 6ni#ameral45arliamentary
system is a revision o the Constitution. Merging the legislative an" eBe#utive
bran#hes is a ra"i#al #hange in the stru#ture o government. 2he abolition alone o
the OK#e o the 5resi"ent as the lo#us o EBe#utive 5o.er alters the separation o
po.ers an" thus #onstitutes a revision o the Constitution. Li:e.ise, the abolition
alone o one #hamber o Congress alters the system o #he#:s4an"4balan#es .ithin
the legislature an" #onstitutes a revision o the Constitution.
2he Lambino 'roup theoriLes that the "iEeren#e bet.een ;<Namen"ment;< an"
;<Nrevision;< is only one o pro#e"ure, not o substan#e. 2he Lambino 'roup
posits that .hen a "eliberative bo"y "rats an" proposes #hanges to the
Constitution, substantive #hanges are #alle" ;<Nrevisions;< be#ause members o
the "eliberative bo"y .or: ull4time on the #hanges. 2he same substantive #hanges,
.hen propose" through an initiative, are #alle" ;<Namen"ments;< be#ause the
#hanges are ma"e by or"inary people .ho "o not ma:e an ;<No##upation,
proession, or vo#ation;< out o su#h en"eavor. 2he /C, ho.ever, rule" that the
eBpress intent o the ramers an" the plain language o the Constitution #ontra"i#t
the Lambino 'roup;<=s theory. Ahere the intent o the ramers an" the language
o the Constitution are #lear an" plainly state", #ourts "o not "eviate rom su#h
#ategori#al intent an" language.
" A revisit of Santiago vs. COMELEC is not necessary
2he petition aile" to #omply .ith the basi# reGuirements o /e#tion 2, $rti#le >?@@ o
the Constitution on the #on"u#t an" s#ope o a peoples initiative to amen" the
Constitution. 2here is, thereore, no nee" to revisit this Courts ruling
in Santiago "e#laring !$ 6,15 in#omplete, ina"eGuate or .anting in essential terms
an" #on"itions to #over the system o initiative to amen" the Constitution. $n
aKrmation or reversal o Santiago .ill not #hange the out#ome o the present
petition. @t settle" that #ourts .ill not pass upon the #onstitutionality o a statute i
the #ase #an be resolve" on some other groun"s.
Even assuming that !$ 6,15 is vali", this .ill not #hange the result here be#ause
the present petition violates /e#tion 2, $rti#le >?@@ o the Constitution, .hi#h
provision must -rst be #omplie" .ith even beore #omplying .ith !$ 6,15. Aorse,
the petition violates the ollo.ing provisions o !$ 6,157
a. /e#tion 5%b), reGuiring that the people must sign the petition as signatories. 2he
6.1 million signatories "i" not sign the petition or the amen"e" petition -le" .ith
the COMELEC. Only $ttys. Lambino, Honato an" $gra signe" the petition an"
amen"e" petition.
b. /e#tion 10%a), provi"ing that no petition embra#ing more than one subCe#t shall
be submitte" to the ele#torate. 2he propose" /e#tion R%R) o the 2ransitory
5rovisions, man"ating the interim 5arliament to propose urther amen"ments or
revisions to the Constitution, is a subCe#t matter totally unrelate" to the shit in the
orm o government.