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,
failed to comply with the basic requirements for inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
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.
Facts: Held:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
of People’s Initiative for Reforms, executory, thus, without implementing
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with legislation the same cannot operate. Although
COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution the Constitution has recognized or granted the
to lift the term limits of elective officials, right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress
through People’s Initiative. He based this does not provide for its implementation.
petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987
Constitution, which provides for the right of the The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
people to exercise the power to directly which prescribes rules and regulations on the
propose amendments to the Constitution. conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order Constitution, is void. It has been an established
directing the publication of the petition and of rule that what has been delegated, cannot be
the notice of hearing and thereafter set the delegated (potestas delegata non delegari
case for hearing. At thehearing, Senator Roco, potest). The delegation of the power to the
the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and promulgate rules and regulations to implement
Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.
intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a
motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the The lifting of the term limits was held to be that
ground that one which is cognizable by the of a revision, as it would affect other provisions
COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator of the Constitution such as the synchronization
Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin of elections, the constitutional guarantee of
filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule equal access to opportunities for public service,
65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision
the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, cannot be done by initiative. However,
such as the following: (1) The constitutional considering the Court’s decision in the above
provision on people’s initiative to amend the Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is
constitution can only be implemented by law to a revision or amendment has become
be passed by Congress. No such law has been academic.
passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to
amendments to the Constitution, not to issues:
revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits (1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987
constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the Constitution is a self-executing provision.
power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court (2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No.
granted the Motions for Intervention. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is valid,
Issues:(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the considering the absence in the law of specific
1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision. provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. (3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective
2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on officials would constitute a revision or an
amendments to the Constitution is valid, amendment of the Constitution.
hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-
Held: Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, PublicInterest
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong
executory, thus, without implementing Pilipino appeared as intervenors-
legislation the same cannot operate. Although oppositors.Senator Roco filed a motion to
the Constitution has recognized or granted the dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that
right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress one which is cognizableby the COMELEC. The
does not provide for its implementation. petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander
Padilla, and Isabel Ongpinfiled this civil action
The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of
which prescribes rules and regulations on the Court against COMELEC and theDelfin petition
conduct of initiative on amendments to the rising the several arguments, such as the
Constitution, is void. It has been an established following: (1) The constitutional provision
rule that what has been delegated, cannot be onpeople’s initiative to amend the constitution
delegated (potestas delegata non delegari can only be implemented by law to be passed
potest). The delegation of the power to the byCongress. No such law has been passed; (2)
COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly The people’s initiative is limited to amendments
promulgate rules and regulations to implement to theConstitution, not to revision thereof.
the exercise of the right to people’s initiative. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision,
therefore it isoutside the power of people’s
The lifting of the term limits was held to be that initiative. The Supreme Court granted the
of a revision, as it would affect other provisions Motions for Intervention.
of the Constitution such as the synchronization Issues:
of elections, the constitutional guarantee of (1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987
equal access to opportunities for public service, Constitution is a self-executing provision.(2)
and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
cannot be done by initiative. However, regarding the conduct of initiative
considering the Court’s decision in the above onamendments to the Constitution is valid,
Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is considering the absence in the law of specific
a revision or amendment has become provisions onthe conduct of such initiative.(3)
academic. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective
officials would constitute a revision or
anamendment of the Constitution.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC(G.R. No. Held:
127325 - March 19, 1997)Facts: Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president executory, thus, without
of People’s Initiative for Reforms,Modernization implementinglegislation the same cannot
and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a operate. Although the Constitution has
petition to amend the constitution to liftthe recognized or granted the right,the people
term limits of elective officials, through People’s cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide
Initiative. He based this petition on Article for its implementation.The portion of COMELEC
XVII,Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and
provides for the right of the people to exercise regulations on theconduct of initiative on
the power todirectly propose amendments to amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has
the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC been an established rule thatwhat has been
issued an order directing the publication of the delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas
petition and of the notice of hearing and delegata non delegari potest). Thedelegation of
thereafter set the case for hearing. At the the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the
latter cannot validly promulgate rulesand HELD:YES. Decision of CFI affirmed. The
regulations to implement the exercise of the National Defense Law, in so far as it establishes
right to people’s initiative.The lifting of the term compulsory military service, does not go against
limits was held to be that of a revision, as it this constitutional provision but is, on the
would affect other provisions of the contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The
Constitution such as the synchronization of duty of the Government to defend the State
elections, the constitutional guaranteeof equal cannot be performed except through an army.
access to opportunities for public service, and To leave the organization of an army to the will
prohibiting political dynasties. A revisioncannot of the citizens would be to make thisduty of the
be done by initiative. However, considering the Government excusable should there be no
Court’s decision in the above Issue, the issueof sufficient men who volunteer to enlist
whether or not the petition is a revision or therein.In US cases, it was stated that the right
amendment has become academic. of the Government to require compulsory
military service is a consequence of its duty to
PEOPLE vs. LAGMANG.R. Nos. L-45892 and defend the State; and, that aperson may be
45893 compelled by forceâ
ACTS:Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and
Primitivo de Sosa are charged with a violationof
¦to take his place in the ranks of the army of
section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, known
hiscountry, and risk the chance of being shot
as the National Defense Law. Itis alleged that
down in its defense.What justifies compulsory
these two appellants, being Filipinos and having
military service is the defense of the State,
reached the ageof twenty years in 1936, whetheractual or whether in preparation to
willfully and unlawfully refused to register in make it more effective, in case of need.
the military service between the 1st and 7th of
Thecircumstances of the appellants do not
April of said year, even though they had been
excuse them from their duty to present
required to do so. The two appellants were duly
themselves before the Acceptance Board
notified to appear before the Acceptance Board
because they can obtain the proper pecuniary
in order to register for military service but still
allowance to attend to these family
did not register up to the date of the filing of
responsibilities (secs. 65 and 69 of
the information.Appellants argue that they did
Commonwealth Act No. 1).
not register because de Sosa is fatherless and
has a mother and a brother eight years old to
support, and Lagman also has a father to
support, has no military learnings, and does not
wish to kill or be killed. The Court of First
Instance sentenced them both to one month
and one day of imprisonment, with the costs.