Lambino v. COMELEC October 25 2006 | Carpio J Adoption and Amendment of the C Docirine: Section 2, Article XVII ‘© Requirements for Initiative Petition for Amendments to the Constitution © Constitutional Amendment vs. Constitutional Revision Test to Determine whether Amendment or Revision Case Summary: These are consolidated petitions on the August 31 2006 Resolution of the COMELEC denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution on grounds that it did not comply with Section 2, Article XVI. FACTS: * On 15 Feb 2006, petitioners et. al commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. They alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,852 individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters with each district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. * Petitioner also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified signatures of the 6.3 million individuals. * On 25 Aug 2006, Lambino Group filed with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act), * Lambino’s Group initiative petition proposed changes to the 1987 Constitutior Section 1-7 Article VI (Legislative Department) > Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) > Adding Article XVI entitled Transitory Provisions Parliamentary form of government, * On 30 Aug, petitioner filed an Amended petition with COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative. © On31 Aug, COMELEC’s ruling denied petition for “lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions fo amend the Constitution”, invoking SC’s ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, declaring RA 6375 “inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals” * Petitioner prayed for issuance of writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the Resolution, contending COMELEC committed grave abuse of diseretion in denying due course to petition. ISSUE: 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. - NO. etition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People + Although the provision does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments, the deliberations of the Constitutional Constitution clearly show that the framers intended the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the people "before" they sign such proposal. * 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 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 elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people. The purpose is to provide sufficient information so that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign it, * The petitioners did nor attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The petitioner submitted a copy of the signature sheet however the signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. It merely asked them whether they approve of a shift to the Unicameral-Parliamentary + The petitioner's statement that they circulated it to the people appears as an afterthought after the Integrated Bar of the Philippines and Atty. Quadra pointed out that the sig sheets did not contain the text of proposed changes. They alleged they circulated “the petition for initiative” but failed to mention the “amended petition” + Even assuming they circulated the amended petition, they admitted circulating only very limited copies -100,000 where each signature sheet has space for only ten signatures, that’s only a maximum number of 1,000,00 people who saw the petition before signing it. * There are highly controversial proposed changes in the full text which were not stated or even indicated in the signature sheets so signatories had no idea they were proposing them, or the nature and effect of the proposed changes: © The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely; © The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office © Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. + Inshort, petition is VOID and UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it dismally fails requirement that initiative must be “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” 2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives + A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an AMENDMENT and NOT TO AREVISION. * A close reading of Secs. 1 and 2 of Article XVII showed that the framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional convention may propose revisions while a people's initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. * This begs the question, does the petitioner's initiative constitute an amendment or revision? If itis ‘revision, then it cannot stand because that’s not constitutional © REVISION ~ alters a basic principle in the Constitution (ex. altering principal of separation of powers or system of checks and balances) or if it alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution © AMENDMENT ~ a change that adds, reduces, or deletes WITHOUT altering the basic principles involved. © Applying a two-part test: the quantitative and qualitative test, petitioner’s initiative is a REVISION and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, it affects as many as 105 provisions, Qualitatively, the changes substantially alter the basic plan of government. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure as it alters separation of powers, * By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential 10 a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision. DISPOSITION: Petition dismissed.