Name: CALO, Michael John T.

Citation: Santiago v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

Constitutional provision on People's Initiative is not self-executory

Principle of Non-delegation of Powers, Exceptions

FACTS:

Petitioners in this case sought to amend certain provisions of the Constitution,

specifically lifting the limit of terms of elective officials, through peoples initiative.
Santiago et al. opposed on the ground that the constitutional provision on peoples
initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress. There is no law passed yet and RA 6735, which provides for initiative on
statues and local legislation but not initiative on the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 6735 adequately provided for peoples initiative on
Constitution

RULING:

Constitutional provision on peoples initiative is not self-executory

Sec. 2 of Art. XVII of the Constitution...is not self-executory. xxx

Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the
Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the
Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if
Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.

Has Congress provided for the implementation of the exercise of this right?

There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the exercise of the
right than through the passage of a statute or legislative act. xxx

We agree that RA 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution.

But is RA 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to provide for
the implementation of the exercise of the right?

A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.

First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondents COMELEC, Sec. 2 of the Act does
not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The said section reads:

SECTION 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a system of
initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part,
the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon
compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and
guaranteed.

The inclusion of the word Constitution therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is
neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiative and
referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is
silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the
Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the
power to directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to laws,
ordinances, or resolutions.

xxx

Second. It is true that Sec. 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines initiative on
amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative,
and that Sec. 5 (Requirements) restates the constitutional requirements as to the
percentage of the registered voters who must submit the proposal. But unlike in the case
of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition
for initiative on the Constitution. Sec. 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things,
statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among the contents of the petition,
the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the
Constitution.

xxx

Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle
II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for
initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that
the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If
Congress intended RA 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor,
considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.

xxx

The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or

wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be
cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.

Principle of non-delegation of power

The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin
maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest. The recognized exceptions to the rule are
as follows:

1 Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Sec. 28(2), Art. VI;
2 Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Sec. 23(2), Art. VI;
3 Delegation to the people at large;
4 Delegation to local governments; and
5 Delegation to administrative bodies.

Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions,

to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority under
no. 5 above. However, in every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing
that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting
forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable
to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. A sufficient
standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected.

Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, RA 6735

miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of
the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
Name:
Citation: Lambino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

FACTS:
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution under
Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and
Referendum Act.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters.
The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the
signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
(Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions.
These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC
indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their
initiative.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative;
2. Whether 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; and

HELD:
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that
allows a peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section
states:

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. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

The framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment should be ready and shown to the people before they sign such
proposal. The framers plainly stated that before they sign there is already a draft shown
to them. The framers also envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself
because the proponents must prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.

The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two
essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the
entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an
initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is
first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a
petition. Thus, an amendment is directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments.

There is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in

gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they
complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures that the
petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed
amendments.

The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the
paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to
this Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006
when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.

2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements
of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a peoples
initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Courts ruling in
Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or
reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court
must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply
with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on
amendments to the Constitution.
Citation: Gonzales v COMELEC 21 SCRA 774
21 SCRA 774 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political Question vs
Justiciable Question

FACTS:
In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for the COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite for the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was provided in the
said law that the plebiscite shall be held on the same day that the general national
elections shall be held (November 14, 1967). This was questioned by Ramon Gonzales
and other concerned groups as they argued that this was unlawful as there would be no
proper submission of the proposals to the people who would be more interested in the
issues involved in the general election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite.
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by Congress when they
came up with their proposals to amend the Constitution (RA 4913). In this regard, the
COMELEC and other respondents interposed the defense that said act of Congress cannot
be reviewed by the courts because it is a political question.

ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political question.
II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general election.

HELD:
I. No. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that the power to amend as well
as the power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not included in the general
grant of legislative powers to Congress. Such powers are not constitutionally granted to
Congress. On the contrary, such powers are inherent to the people as repository of
sovereignty in a republican state. That being, when Congress makes amendments or
proposes amendments, it is not actually doing so as Congress; but rather, it is sitting as a
constituent assembly. Such act is not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is
reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say whether or not
such act of the constituent assembly is within constitutional limitations.
II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must only be held on a
special election. SC held that there is nothing in this provision of the [1935] Constitution
to indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The
circumstance that the previous amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the
people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to
do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit
proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.
Note: **Justice Sanchez and Justice JBL Reyes dissented. Plebiscite should be
scheduled on a special date so as to facilitate Fair submission, intelligent consent or
rejection. They should be able to compare the original proposition with the amended
proposition.

Citation: Tolentino v COMELEC

41 SCRA 702 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Doctrine of Proper
Submission

FACTS:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite concerning only
the proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This was even before the rest of the
draft of the Constitution (then under revision) had been approved. Arturo Tolentino then
filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.

HELD: Yes. If the advance plebiscite will be allowed, there will be an improper
submission to the people. Such is not allowed.
The proposed amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election
at which the amendments are submitted to the people for ratification. Election here is
singular which meant that the entire constitution must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given a proper frame of reference in
arriving at their decision because they had at the time no idea yet of what the rest of the
revised Constitution would ultimately be and therefore would be unable to assess the
proposed amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the Doctrine of
Submission which means that all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be
presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, NOT piecemeal.

Citation: Javellana v Executive Secretary

50 SCRA 30 Political law Constitutional Law Political Question Validity of the
1973 Constitution Restriction to Judicial Power

FACTS:
In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new 1973 Constitution.
Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to enjoin the Exec Sec and other
cabinet secretaries from implementing the said constitution. Javellana averred that the
said constitution is void because the same was initiated by the president. He argued that
the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino people of the
proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify such constitution is not a free
election there being intimidation and fraud.

ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.

HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. Majority of the SC
justices expressed the view that they were concluded by the ascertainment made by the
president of the Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there
being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation during the election, it
is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The
question of the validity of the 1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to
the people in their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had shown
such acquiescence.

Citation: Sanidad v COMELEC

73 SCRA 333 Political Law Constitutional Law Amendment to the Constitution

FACTS:
On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct
1976 for the Citizens Assemblies (barangays) to resolve, among other things, the issues
of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the
period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his
present powers. Twenty days after, the President issued another related decree, PD No.
1031, amending the previous PD No. 991, by declaring the provisions of PD No. 229
providing for the manner of voting and canvass of votes in barangays applicable to the
national referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16, 1976. Quite relevantly, PD No. 1031 repealed
inter alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD
No. 1033, stating the questions to he submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite
on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its whereas clauses that the peoples
continued opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly evinces their
desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constitutional amendment,
providing for a new interim legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the
people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.
On September 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking
to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum
Plebiscite on October 16; to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos.
991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as
Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on Elections to
supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on October
16, 1976.Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant
to the incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to
the new Constitution. As a consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no
constitutional or legal basis. The Soc-Gen contended that the question is political in
nature hence the court cannot take cognizance of it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly propose amendments to the Constitution.

HELD: Yes. The amending process both as to proposal and ratification raises a judicial
question. This is especially true in cases where the power of the Presidency to initiate the
amending process by proposals of amendments, a function normally exercised by the
legislature, is seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power to
propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the interim National Assembly during
the period of transition (Sec. 15, Transitory Provisions). After that period, and the regular
National Assembly in its active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso
facto the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2 of Art. XVI,
1973 Constitution). The normal course has not been followed. Rather than calling the
interim National Assembly to constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the incumbent
President undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed
amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite on
October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of the procedure for amendments, written in
lambent words in the very Constitution sought to be amended, raises a contestable issue.
The implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which commonly
purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid, thus the issue of
the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one, within the competence of this
Court to pass upon. Section 2 (2) Article X of the new Constitution provides: All cases
involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be heard and
decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be
declared unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. . . .. The
Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but
also of the Constitution itself. The amending, like all other powers organized in the
Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so that the Supreme Court
is vested with that authority to determine whether that power has been discharged within
its limits.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose amendments to the
Constitution and he was able to present those proposals to the people in sufficient time.
The President at that time also sits as the legislature.