DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs.

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

FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to lift term limits of
elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s
initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is: “Do you approve of lifting
the term limits of all elective government officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of
Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by
at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country, it will be formally filed with the
COMELEC.

COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et al moved for
dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable
by the COMELEC.
a. 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.b. Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3
systems on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the
other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to
some future law.c. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s
initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.d. People’s
initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
term limits constitutes a revision.e. Congress nor any government agency has not yet appropriated
funds for people’s initiative.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

HELD:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735

It was intended to include or cover people’s initiative on amendments to the Constitution but, as
worded, it does not adequately cover such intiative. Article XVII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution
providing for amendments to Constitution, is not self-executory. While the Constitution has recognized
or granted the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution via PI, the
people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.

FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed
afterthought. The word is not relevant to the section which is silent as to amendments of the
Constitution.

SECOND: 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(c) does not include the provisions of the
Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.

THIRD: 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. The argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be
subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope.
Under Subtitle II and III, the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its
nature and character.
National initiative – what is proposed to be enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can
pass.

Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance or resolution which
only legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities,
and barangays can pass.

Potestas delegata non delegari potest

What has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions to the rule are: [1]
Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2] Delegation of emergency powers to the President; [3]
Delegation to the people at large; [4] Delegation to local governments; and [5] Delegation to
administrative bodies.

COMELEC

Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi judicial functions, to promulgate
rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority. 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. Republic Act
No. 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to
the COMELEC is then invalid.

COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300

Insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative. It does not have that power under Republic Act No. 6735.
Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to
obtain an order: (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election
officers to assist Delfin’s movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing
or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.

DELFIN PETITION

COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE
DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that RA 6735 is a full compliance with the power of
Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested
upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid,
the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin
Petition.

The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Without the required
signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. The COMELEC requires jurisdiction over a
petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its
filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc.

Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300,
it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The petition was merely entered as
UND, meaning undocketed. It was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have
been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order
directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file their memoranda or oppositions. In
so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely
wasted its time, energy, and resources.

Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional amendment.

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 Group’s 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 Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s 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 people’s
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.

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 people’s initiative to amend the
Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court’s 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.

FRANCISCO VS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

G.R. NO. 160261. November 10, 2003
Facts:

1. On 28 November 2001, the 12th Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and approved the
Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings, superseding the previous House Impeachment Rules
approved by the 11th Congress.
2. On 22 July 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution, which directed the Committee on
Justice “to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the manner of disbursements and
expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF).
3. On 2 June 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment complaint (first impeachment
complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr. and seven Associate Justices of the Supreme Court
for “culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes.” The
complaint was endorsed by House Representatives, and was referred to the House Committee on Justice
on 5 August 2003 in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. The House
Committee on Justice ruled on 13 October 2003 that the first impeachment complaint was “sufficient in
form,” but voted to dismiss the same on 22 October 2003 for being insufficient in substance.
4. The following day or on 23 October 2003, the second impeachment complaint was filed with the Secretary
General of the House by House Representatives against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on
the alleged results of the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. The second
impeachment complaint was accompanied by a “Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment” signed by at
least 1/3 of all the Members of the House of Representatives.
5. Various petitions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus were filed with the Supreme Court against the
House of Representatives, et. al., most of which petitions contend that the filing of the second
impeachment complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI of the
Constitution that “[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same official more than
once within a period of one year.”

Issues:

1. Whether or not the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment complaint constitute valid impeachable
offenses under the Constitution.
2. Whether or not Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment adopted by the 12th Congress
are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.
3. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution.

Rulings:

1. This issue is a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of the judicial power of the
Supreme Court under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution.
1. Any discussion of this issue would require the Court to make a determination of what constitutes an
impeachable offense. Such a determination is a purely political question which the Constitution has
left to the sound discretion of the legislation. Such an intent is clear from the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission.
2. Courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly unavoidable and is the very lis
mota or crux of the controversy.
2. The Rule of Impeachment adopted by the House of Congress is unconstitutional.
 1. Section 3 of Article XI provides that “The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to
effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Clearly, its power to promulgate its rules on
impeachment is limited by the phrase “to effectively carry out the purpose of this section.” Hence,
these rules cannot contravene the very purpose of the Constitution which said rules were intended to
effectively carry out. Moreover, Section 3 of Article XI clearly provides for other specific limitations
on its power to make rules.
2. It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is the fundamental law. If as
alleged Congress had absolute rule making power, then it would by necessary implication have the
power to alter or amend the meaning of the Constitution without need of referendum.
3. It falls within the one year bar provided in the Constitution.
1. Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the impeachment complaint and
referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3
(5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing
manner, another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period following Article
XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution.
2. Considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former President Estrada against Chief
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and
referred to the House Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint
filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against the Chief
Justice on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional prohibition against the initiation of
impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable officer within a one-year period.

Hence, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings which were
approved by the House of Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the
second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which was filed by Representatives
Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of the
House of Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of Article XI of the
Constitution.