Gonzales vs COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774

G.R. No. L-28196

November 9, 1967

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.
 MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO V. COMELEC

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

Facts:

On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent
Commission on Elections a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective
Officials, by Peoples Initiative wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order 1. Fixing the time
and dates for signature gathering all over the country; 2. Causing the necessary publications of
said Order and the attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of
general and local circulation; 3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the
Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the time and
on the dates designated for the purpose. On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein Senator
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this special civil
action for prohibition raising that the constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed; in fact, Senate Bill No. 1290 entitled An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitutional
Amendments by Peoples Initiative, which petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November
1995, is still pending before the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and It is true
that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution,
on statutes, and on local legislation. However, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle
II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law. Former Senator Arturo Tolentino stressed
this deficiency in the law in his privilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: There is not
a single word in that law which can be considered as implementing. Such implementing
provisions have been obviously left to a separate law.

Issue:

Whether or not R.A. 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the
constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative?

Ruling:

R.A. No. 6735 intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to the
constitution, but is, unfortunately, inadequate to cover that system. Section 2 of Article XVII of
the Constitution provides 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.
This provision is not self-executory. In his book, Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Constitutional Commission, stated: Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate.
Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses
congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action.

By: Maydelyn Joy B. Nequinto

 RAUL L. LAMBINO et. al. vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

FACTS:
On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico
B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the
Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the
Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735"). The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had
the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelveper 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 COMELEC, in its Resolution, denied the
Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution. The COMELEC also invoked the Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections
declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent.
Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and
their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people." Various
groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino
Group's petition. The supporting intervenors uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC
committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing
intervenors hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Section 2 Article XVII
of the 1987 Constitution.

HELD:
The Court ruled that there was no merit to the petition. The Lambino Group miserably
failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's
initiative. For they only The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet
after the oral argument and did not attach it to the present petition. Furthermore, there is not a
single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group's proposed changes in the
signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is
attached to it. There is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants
dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic
requirements of the Constitution.For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of
discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections. Clearly, 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 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. The full text of
the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If
so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed
amendments. Thus, 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.