Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DIGESTED
DIGESTED
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not
petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of change the result because the present petition
the Constitution on amendments to the violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative,
Constitution through a people’s initiative. must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its
ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 Petition is dismissed.
“incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions” to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the ISSUES:
Constitution.
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative
petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave the Constitution on amendments to the
abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Constitution through a people’s initiative;
Lambino Group’s petition.
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held proposals to amend the Constitution; and
that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition. HELD:
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on The Lambino Group did not attach to their
Direct Proposal by the People present petition with this Court a copy of the
paper that the people signed as their initiative
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this
governing constitutional provision that allows a Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral
people’s initiative to propose amendments to the arguments of 26 September 2006 when they
Constitution. This section states: filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.
There are two tests to determine whether a The Lambino Group’s petition also does not
change is an amendment or a revision: comply with RA 6735. Indeed, It violates Section
5(b) of RA 6735 requiring that the signatories,
Quantitative test – examines the number of consistitng of 12% of the total number of
provisions, not the degree of change, in order to registered voters, sign the petition since it has
test how extensive the proposed changes are. already been established that the 6 million
Qualitative test – based on qualitative effects, signatories only signed a signature sheet and
asks whether the proposed changes create far not the petition itself.
reaching changes in the nature of the basic
governmental plan thus amounting to a It also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735, which
revision. states that no more than 1 subject can be
The prosed changes by the Lambino Group embraced by a petition, through its provision
significantly alter the basic plan of government which mandates the interim Parliament to
as it would effectively alter the separation of propose further amendments which as
powers through the abolition of the Office of determined earlier is unrelated to the subject of
the President and merging of the legislative and a shift from presidential to parliamentary form
executive, and alter the system of checks and of government.
balances within the legislature through the
abolition of one chamber of Congress.
3. The COMELEC did not commit a grave of the 1987 constitution will be changed and thus
abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino the big bulk of the 1987 Constitution would
Group’s Initiative petition. remain unaffected.
Since the COMELEC merely followed the Court’s Based on the work of Garner, who says that a
ruling in Santiago, the Commission did not good constitution is composed of the
gravely abuse its discretion. constitution of liberty, constitution of
government, and constitution of sovereignty,
the proposed changes only affect the
constitution of government and even then the
DISSENTING OPINION: changes do not change the fundamental nature
of our state as a democratic and republican
Puno, J. state.
According to Dean Vicente G. Sincon, revision
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the refers to a consideration of the entire
examination of Santiago on the following constitution while amendment refers only to
grounds: particular provisions to be added to or altered
in a constitution. This traditional distinction
In the Santiago ruling, the court ruled RA 6735 guided our people when they effected changes
as insufficient but if did not strike it down as in the 1935 and 1975 Constitutions.
unconstitutional, by doing so the Court The court should let the voice of the people be
“usurped the exclusive right of legislators to heard.
determine how far laws implementing
constitutional mandates should be crafted,” The petition for people’s initiative is but the first
defying the principle that courts cannot dictate step towards the amendment of the
on Congress the style on writing laws and in constitution. The petition, if approved, does not
doing so rendered an intolerable ruling. constitute already the amendment of the
The ruling in Santiago involves the sovereignty constitution. It will still require debate and
of the people. deliberation of the people, as well as ratification
The ruling should not impede the will of the 6.3 by majority of the people. Every step of the way
million signatories. it is the people who should decide, the court
RA 6735 is sufficient to implement the people’s should not prohibit them from doing so
initiative.