MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL

ONGPIN, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA & CARMEN
PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents.

SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG KONSTITUSYON

(DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD INTEGRITY AND
NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES (IBP),
and LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN), petitioners-intervenors.

Davide, Jr., J:
FACTS: Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution
to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s initiative. He based this petition on
Article XVII, Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to
exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently, the
COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing
and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya –
Ipagtanggol and Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong
Pilipino appeared as intervenors – oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin
petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein
filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and
the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) the 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.; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to
amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a
revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted for
Motions for Intervention.
ISSUES: Whether or not R.A No. 6735, entitled an Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover initiative on
amendments.
RULING: No. Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, RA.
No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in the subordinate legislation.