Lambino vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006

OVERVIEW:
This is case is composed of consolidated petitions on the Resolution of the COMELEC denying due course to an initiative petition on
amending the 1987 Constitution.

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;

RULING:

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.

Relevant Provision:

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution

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.
 Marmeto vs Comelec
G.R. No. 213953
OVERVIEW:
This is a petition for certiorari and mandamus seeking to annul the Resolution of COMELEC which declared that people’s initiative by
Marmeto cannot be invoked due to lack of budgetary appropriation for the conduct of the initiative process.
Facts:
Marmeto assails the COMELEC's Resolution No. 14-0509, contending that the denial of an initiative petition due to lack of
appropriated funds constitutes a gross neglect and abandonment of the COMELEC's duties under the Constitution
He asserts that the COMELEC evaded its mandated duty by citing unavailability of funds as ground to frustrate the conduct of local
initiative
The COMELEC, on the other hand, claims that the denial of Marmeto's initiative petition was proper, since the propositions therein
were beyond the legal powers of the Sangguniang Panlungsod to enact
"initiative shall extend only to subjects or matters which are within the legal powers of the Sanggunian to enact."
The COMELEC refers to Section 458 of the LGC which enumerates the powers and duties of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, noting
that nothing in the provision grants the Sanggunian the power to create a separate local legislative body.
In its Comment and Memorandum, the COMELEC defends the dismissal of Marmeto's second initiative petition on the ground that
the propositions raised therein were matters that were not within the powers of the Sangguiang Panlungsod to enact. This
petition purportedly proposed the creation of another legislative body separate from the Sanggunian, composed of 12 appointive
sectoral representatives. Not only does the LGC denies to the Sanggunian the power to create a separate legislative body, but it also
limits the number of sectoral representatives in the Sanggunian itself to only three elected members
Issues: WON
The COMELEC is mandated to enforce and administer the laws on local initiative and referendum
The COMELEC cannot defeat the exercise of the people's original legislative power for lack of budgetary allocation for its conduct
The COMELEC has the power to review whether the propositions in an initiative petition are within the power of the concerned
Sanggunian to enact
Ruling:
the Court has definitely ruled the question of whether the COMELEC may prevent the conduct of a recall election for lack of specific
budgetary allocation therefor.
The Court added that "when the COMELEC receives a budgetary appropriation for its 'Current Operating Expenditures,' such
appropriation includes expenditures to carry out its constitutional functions x x x."
The term "election" is comprehensive enough to include other kinds of electoral exercises, including initiative elections.
Initiative and referendum are the means by which the sovereign people exercise their legislative power, and the valid exercise
thereof should not be easily defeated by claiming lack of specific budgetary appropriation for their conduct. 
Nonetheless, as the Court ruled in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, the COMELEC is likewise given the power to review the
sufficiency of initiative petitions, particularly the issue of whether the propositions set forth therein are within the power of the
concerned Sanggunian to enact. In as much as a sanggunian does not have the power to create a separate local legislative
body and that other propositions in Marmeto's initiative petition clearly contravene the existing laws, the COMELEC did not
commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the petition and cannot be
ordered to conduct and supervise the procedure for the conduct of initiative elections.
Petition is DISMISSED, COMELEC’s resolution is AFFIRMED.

Lagman v Medialdea
G.R. No. 231658
OVERVIEW:
This is a petition for review filed by Lagman et. Al on the Declaration of Martial law in Mindanao.
FACTS:
 Effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216
declaring a state of martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the whole of Mindanao.
 In accordance with Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President, on May 25, 2017, submitted to Congress a written
Report on the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216.
 The Report pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion and lawless violence which only
escalated and worsened with the passing of time.
 On May 23, 2017, as the President stated in his Report, the Maute terrorist group took over a hospital in Marawi City;
established several checkpoints within the city; burned down certain government and private facilities and inflicted casualties
on the part of Government forces; and started flying the flag of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in several areas,
thereby indicating a removal of allegiance from the Philippine Government and their capability to deprive the duly constituted
authorities – the President, foremost – of their powers and prerogatives.
The Report also highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City; the role it plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines as a
whole; and the possible tragic repercussions once it falls under the control of the lawless groups.
 After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate declared that it found “no compelling reason to revoke
Proclamation 216.
  The Lagman Group, the Cullamat Group and the Mohamad Group petitioned the Supreme Court, questioning the factual
basis of President Duterte’s Proclamation of martial law.

ISSUE:
WON the petitions are the “proper proceeding” to invoke SC’s power of review over proclamations of martial law
WON the Court has jurisdiction to review the declaration of the President
WON the President had sufficient factual basis in declaring martial law in Mindanao

RULING:

Yes, the Petitions invoke the proper proceedings as contemplated by the Constitution. Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution had
stated the jurisdiction of the court. The phrase "in an appropriate proceeding" appearing on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article
VII refers to any action initiated by a citizen for the purpose of questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of the
Chief Executive's emergency powers, as in these cases. It could be denominated as a complaint, a petition, or a matter to be
resolved by the Court.
The Court agrees that the jurisdiction of this Court under the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII is sui generis. It is a special
and specific jurisdiction of the Supreme Court different from those enumerated in Sections 1 and 5 of Article VIII. The
phrase “in an appropriate proceeding” appearing on the third paragraph of Section 18, Article VII refers to any action initiated by a
citizen for the purpose of questioning the sufficiency of the factual basis of the exercise of the Chief Executive’s emergency powers,
as in these cases. It could be denominated as a complaint, a petition, or a matter to be resolved by the Court.

In determining the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration and/or the suspension, the Court should look into the full
complement or totality of the factual basis, and not piecemeal or individually. Neither should the Court expect absolute correctness of
the facts stated in the proclamation and in the written Report as the President could not be expected to verify the accuracy and
veracity of all facts reported to him due to the urgency of the situation. To require him otherwise would impede the process of his
decision-making.

Relevant Provision:

Sec 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution

XXX

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision
thereon within thirty days from its filing.