00:40 - 9:59 (CERILLO)

Article VI, Sec 9, 1987 Constitution. In case of vacancy

FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION
WHAT ARE THE FORMS OF POPULAR INTERVENTION?
in the Senate or in the House of Representatives, a special
election may be called to fill such vacancy in the manner
prescribed by law, but the Senator or Member of the House
of Representatives thus elected shall serve only for the
unexpired term.

1. Elections
2. Plebiscite Sec 4, RA 7166 provides for instances where there is a
3. Initiative and Referendum vacancy in the House of Representatives or Senate, within one
4. Recall year before expiration of the term of the incumbent sought to
be replaced.
COMELEC has the power to enforce all these activities and
implement all laws, rules, and regulations relative to the However, specifically under Art. VI, Sec 9 of the Constitution,
conduct of these forms of popular intervention. with respect to the Senate, in case there is a vacancy in the
Senate, the special election shall be held simultaneously with
the next succeeding regular elections.
ELECTIONS
c. Article VII, Section 10 of the 1987 Constitution
KINDS OF ELECTIONS: provides for special elections when there is a vacancy
in the Office of the President and Vice President, with
1. Regular Elections the limitation that no special election shall be called if
2. Special Elections the vacancy occurs within eighteen months before the
3. Manual Elections date of the next presidential election.
4. Automated Elections
d. Special elections may also be called by the
COMELEC in case there is postponement,
1. REGULAR ELECTIONS – It refers to the elections regularly suspension, or failure of elections, as declared by the
held every three years, as set by law. COMELEC, in accordance with Section 5, 6, and 7 of
the Omnibus Election Code.
2. SPECIAL ELECTIONS – Unlike regular elections, special
elections are not conducted regularly but are undertaken to Lucero vs. COMELEC
supply a vacancy in a particular office before the expiration of G.R. No. 113107 | July 20, 1994
the full term for which the incumbent was elected.
FACTS: The petitioners were two of the five candidates for
Instances where special elections are called: the Second Legislative District of Northern Samar in the
synchronized national and local elections held on 11 May
a. In case of vacancy in the Senate or House of 1992.
Representatives.
The canvass of the Provincial Board of Canvassers of
Northern Samar credited Jose L. Ong, Jr. with 24,272 votes
Q: Pursuant to the Constitution and the amendatory law, and Wilmar P. Lucero with 24,068 votes, or a lead by Ong of
Sec 4, RA 7166, in case of vacancy in the Senate or House 204 votes. However, this tally did not include the results of
of Representatives, when can the COMELEC call for Precinct No. 7 of the municipality of Silvino Lobos, where the
special elections? submitted election returns had not been canvassed because
they were illegible; of Precinct No. 13 of Silvino Lobos,
A: Not earlier than 60 days nor longer than 90 days after the where the ballot boxes were snatched and no election was
occurrence of the vacancy. held; and of Precinct No. 16, also of Silvino Lobos, where all
copies of the election returns were missing.
Sec 4, RA 7166. Postponement, Failure of Elections and Lucero asked the COMELEC, among others, to Order a
Sepcial Elections. In case a permanent vacancy shall occur special election in Precinct 13. On 7 January 1994,
in the Senate or House of Representatives at least one (1) COMELEC en banc promulgated a resolution which
year before the expiration of the term, the Commission provides an Order calling for a special election in the last
shall call and hold a special election to fill the vacancy not remaining Precinct No. 13
earlier than sixty (60) days nor longer than ninety (90) days
after the occurrence of the vacancy. However, in case of ISSUE: Whether the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of
such vacancy in the Senate, the special election shall be discretion in calling for a special election in Precinct No. 13
held simultaneously with the succeeding regular election. after almost two (2) years, or more specifically after one (1)
year and ten (10) months, following the day of the
synchronized elections.
b. Another instance where the COMELEC may call
special elections is pursuant to Article VI, Sec 9 of the RULING: No, the two requirements for a special election
1987 Constitution. under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election Code have
been met.

In fixing the date of the special election, the COMELEC
should see to it that: (1) it should be not later than thirty days
after the cessation of the cause of the postponement or
suspension of the election or the failure to elect, and (2) it
should be reasonably close to the date of the election not
held, suspended, or which resulted in failure to elect. The
first involves questions of fact. The second must be
determined in the light of the peculiar circumstances of a
case.
In the instant case, the delay was not attributable to the poor
voters of Precinct No. 13 or to the rest of the electorate of
the Second Legislative District of Northern Samar. The delay
was, as stated in the opening paragraph of this ponencia,
primarily caused by the legal skirmishes or maneuvers of the
petitioners which muddled simple issues.
Considering then that the petitioners themselves must share
the blame for the delay, and taking into account the fact that
since the term of office of the contested position is only three
years, the holding of a special election in Precinct No. 13
within the next few months may still be considered
“reasonably close to the date of the election not held.”
DISCUSSION
Specifically, significant is the case of Lucero vs COMELEC
wherein the SC said that in the calling of a special elections or
in fixing the date of special elections, the COMELEC should
see to it that:
● The special election should be held not later than
thirty days after the cessation of the cause of the
postponement or suspension of the election or the
failure to elect
● The special election should be called on the date
reasonably close to the date of the election not held,
suspended, or which resulted in failure to elect.
Q: What is the difference between the two instances
where the COMELEC may call special elections? Is the
first related to the second? Or should it concur together?
What does “a date reasonably close to the date of the
election not held” mean?
A: In the first instance, it is merely a matter of mathematical
computation. The COMELEC may, in case of postponement or
failure of elections, call special elections within 30 days from
the cessation of the cause. If due to a force majeure, for
example the election was postponed or suspended on May 1,
or there is a failure of elections declared on May 1, so the
COMELEC will just count 30 days from that date.
On the second instance, the phrase “reasonably close to the
date of the election not held” is based on the circumstances
attending the situation as to why the COMELEC was not able
to call a special election within 30 days.
Q: What would serve as basis for a date reasonably close
to the date of the election not held?
A: In the case of Lucero vs. COMELEC, the special election
was called one year and a half after the election not held,
which is more than the 30-day period within which to call a
special election. The fact that the special election was held one
year and a half from the date of the election not held was
raised before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court said that even if the special election was
called beyond the 30-day period as required by law, the calling
of a special election in this particular case, which was one year
and a half after the cessation of the cause, was not due to the
electorate. It was not the electorate’s fault, but due to the fault
of the lawyers of both parties who caused delays, and which
delays took one year and a half to settle.
Even if it was held more than one year and a half from the date
of the cessation of the cause, it can still be considered a date
reasonably close to the date of the elections not held because
it was not the fault of the electorate. Otherwise, the electorate
will be disenfranchised.
3. MANUAL ELECTIONS – It means the manual and
mechanical casting of votes, counting, and canvassing stages
which involve the following:
a. The use of write-in ballots wherein the voter writes in
the ballot during the casting of the ballot
b. The direct reading and manual tallying of votes in
multiple copies of election returns. It is the Board of
Election Inspectors (BEI) who reads the ballots for
purposes of tallying it.
10:00-19:28 (PAHM)
c. The manual addition of results in Statement of Votes
(SOVs) and the Certificates of Canvass (COCCs)
Election Returns (ER) Statements of Votes (SOV)
by precincts
It is the result of the votes -collated ERs in a tabulated
cast in a particular precinct form by the canvassing body
It is submitted to the -summary of the votes cast
canvassing body after the in the precincts within the
counting is completed and territorial jurisdiction.
after the results of the
election in the particular
precinct has been
announced to the public.
Certificates of Canvass—is the result of who won in that
particular election. The Board of Canvassers will prepare this
document wherein they will rank from highest to lowest all the
candidates in a particular position based on the votes that they
garnered.
4. AUTOMATED ELECTION SYSTEM (AES) – a system using
appropriate technology which has been demonstrated (limited
to the ff.) in the voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing,
and transmission of election result, and other electoral
processes. (Sec. 2, RA 9369, The Automated Election System
Law, As Amended)
Although there are three phases in the Electoral Process—pre-
election, election proper and post-election, the AES does not
start from the pre-election phase. The AED is mostly part of
election proper and post-election phase because it is limited to
voting, counting, consolidating, canvassing, and transmission
of election results, and other electoral processes.
PLEBISCITE
Plebiscite –an electoral process by which an initiative on the
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people (Sec. 3,
R.A. 6735 “The Initiative and Referendum Act). It is
generally associated with the ratification process.
Plebiscite is required –
a. Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, with reference
to the voting to determine whether the voters in the country are
in favor of or against the ratification of the Constitution or an
amendment thereto; and
Three Modes of Amending the Constitution
1) by Congress upon ¾ votes of all its members
2) through Constitutional Commission
3) by the people through the process of initiative (new mode
pursuant to the effectivity of RA6735 and under the 1987
Constitution)
b. Sec. 10, Art. X, in connection with the voting to determine
whether the voters in the political units affected agree to a
proposed creation, division, merger, abolition or boundary
change of a political unit.
Ex: When the Mother barangay is already qualified to create
another barangay out of its existing territory, then a plebiscite
may be held. Just like the case of Brgy. Agdao in Davao City
which is now qualified for the creation of several barangays
because of its current population. The ordinance or the law
creating the nine barangays out of the Mother Barangay Agdao
will be submitted to the people for ratification, whether they are
in favor of or against the proposed creation of these nine
barangays out of the mother barangay.
Padilla Jr. v. COMELEC
214 SCRA 735
The COMELEC resolved to approve the conduct of the
plebiscite in the area or units affected for the proposed
Municipality of Tulay-na-Lupa and the remaining areas of
the mother Municipality of Labo, Camarines Norte.
Majority of the electorates in the units affected rejected
the creation of Tulay-na-Lupa.
Petitioner Gov. of Camarines Norte in a Special Civil
Action for Certiorari, sought to set aside the Plebiscite
asserting that it was a complete failure and that the
results obtained were invalid and illegal because the
Plebiscite as mandated by COMELEC Res. No. 2312
should have been conducted only in the political unit or
units affected (which is the 12 barangays and should not
have included the mother unit of the Municipality of
Labo.)
HELD: We rule that respondent COMELEC did not
commit grave abuse in promulgating Resolution No. 2312
and that the plebiscite, which rejected the creation of the
proposed Municipality, is valid.
With the approval and ratification of the 1987
Constitution, more specifically, Art. X, Section 10, the
creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of the
boundaries of any political unit shall be subject to the
approval by a majority of the votes cast in a Plebiscite in
the “POLITICAL UNITS AFFECTED”.
POLITICAL UNITS AFFECTED was held to mean that
residents of the political entity who would be
economically dislocated by the separation of a
portion thereof have a right to vote in the said
Plebiscite or the plurality of political units which
would participate in the Plebiscite. The Court
reiterated its ruling in Tan v. COMELEC 142 SCRA 727
(1986), that “in the conduct of a Plebiscite, it is imperative
that all the constituents of the mother and daughter units
affected shall be included.
19:29 – 28:56 (QUIÑONES)
In relation to the example of creating several barangays from
Mother Barangay Agdao-- All the constituents of the mother
barangay and the creation of the nine (9) barangays are
required to vote in that plebiscite to determine the majority of
votes cast whether or not the constituents are in favor of or
against the division or separation of the political units.
Q: Why is it required?
A: Because there will be a change in the boundaries and
territorial jurisdiction. So there will now be a new technical
description with regards to the boundary of each political unit.
Q: What is the nature of a plebiscite?
A: Significant is the case of Sanidad vs. COMELEC.
Sanidad vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 90878 | 29 January 1990
FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari assailing the
constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No.
2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press.
On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled “AN
ACT PROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE
CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS REGION” was enacted into
law. Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and the
Cordilleras which consist of the provinces of Benguet,
Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-Apayao, all
comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall take
part in a plebiscite for the ratification of said Organic Act.
The Commission on Elections promulgated Resolution No.
2167 which Sec. 19 thereof provides the prohibition on
columnists, commentators or announcers from using his
column or radio or television time to campaign for or against
the plebiscite issues.
It is alleged by petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to

be a newspaper columnist, that said provision is void and
unconstitutional because it violates the constitutional
guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press
enshrined in the Constitution.
ISSUE: WON Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is
unconstitutional.
RULING: Yes, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167
is unconstitutional.
It is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what
was granted to the Comelec was the power to supervise and
regulate the use and enjoyment of franchises, permits or
other grants issued for the operation of transportation or
other public utilities, media of communication or information
among candidates are ensured. The evil sought to be
prevented by this provision is the possibility that a franchise
holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a
candidate in terms of advertising space or radio or television
time. This is also the reason why a “columnist, commentator,
announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective
office is required to take a leave of absence from his work
during the campaign period (2nd par. Section 11(b) R.A.
6646).
However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section
11(b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can be construed to mean that
the Comelec has also been granted the right to supervise
and regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves
of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media
practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during
plebiscite periods are neither the franchise holders nor the
candidates. In fact, there are no candidates involved in a
plebiscite.
Plebiscite issues are matters of public concern and
importance. The people’s right to be informed and to be
able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be
better served by access to an unabridged discussion of
the issues, including the forum. The people affected by
the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be
unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where the
right to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces
and Comelec radio time may provide a forum for expression
but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to
the public concerned because they are limited to either
specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio or
television times
Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has
no statutory basis.
DISCUSSION
● The COMELEC in resolving a particular issue, issues
a COMELEC Resolution.
● In this case, the media should not be prohibited to air
the plebiscite issues because the people need to
know for them to intelligently cast their vote whether
they are in favor of or against the proposed measure.
● The evil sought to be caught off here is not present.
Why? Because there are no candidates in the said
plebiscite, only the law creating the Autonomous
Region.
● Unlike in regular elections where there are
candidates. In such a scenario, the COMELEC has to
exercise its power to regulate and supervise the
media to afford an opportunity to all candidates – rich
and poor.
City of Pasig vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 125646| 10 September 1999
FACTS: These are two petitions which question the
propriety of the suspension of plebiscite proceedings
pending the resolution of the issue of boundary disputes
between the Municipality of Cainta and the City of Pasig.
On April 22, 1996, upon petition of the residents of
Karangalan Village that they be segregated from its mother
Barangays Manggahan and Dela Paz, City of Pasig, and to
be converted and separated into a distinct barangay to be
known as Barangay Karangalan, the City Council passed
and approved Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1996, creating
Barangay Karangalan in Pasig City. Plebiscite on the
creation of said barangay was thereafter set for June 22,
1996. Meanwhile, on September 9, 1996, the City of Pasig
similarly issued Ordinance No. 52, Series of 1996, creating
Barangay Napico in Pasig City. Plebiscite for this purpose
was set for March 15, 1997.
Immediately upon learning of such Ordinances, the
Municipality of Cainta moved to suspend or cancel the
respective plebiscites scheduled and filed two Petitions with
the Commission on Elections. In both Petitions, the
Municipality of Cainta called the attention of the COMELEC
to a pending case before the Regional Trial Court of
Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 74, for settlement of boundary
dispute.
In the case of Brgy. Karangalan, the COMELEC accepted
the position of the Municipality of Cainta and ordered the
plebiscite on the creation of the said barangay to be held in
abeyance until after the court has settled with finality the
boundary dispute. The COMELEC, however, ruled
differently in the case of Brgy Napico, dismissing the Petition
for being moot in view of the holding of the plebiscite as
scheduled on March 15, 1997 where the creation of
Barangay Napico was ratified and approved by the majority
of the votes cast therein.
ISSUE: WON the plebiscite in the creation of Barangay
Karangalan be held in abeyance.
RULING: Yes the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay
Karangalan should be held in abeyance
Prejudicial Question contemplates a civil and criminal action
and does not come into play where both cases are civil, as
in the instant case. While this may be the general rule, the
Court has held in Vidad v. RTC of Negros Oriental that, in
the interest of good order, the Supreme Court can very well
suspend action on one case pending the final outcome of
another case closely interrelated or linked to the first.
In the case at bar, while the City of Pasig vigorously claims
that the areas covered by the proposed Barangays

Karangalan and Napico are within its territory, it can not
deny that portions of the same area are included in the
boundary dispute case pending before the Regional Trial
Court of Antipolo. Surely, whether the areas in controversy
shall be decided as within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Municipality of Cainta or the City of Pasig has material
bearing to the creation of the proposed Barangays
Karangalan and Napico. Indeed, a requisite for the creation
of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly
identified by metes and bounds or by more or less
permanent natural boundaries. Precisely because territorial
jurisdiction is an issue raised in the pending civil case, until
and unless such issue is resolved with finality, to define the
territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only
be an exercise in futility.
Therefore, the plebiscite on the creation of Barangay
Karangalan should be held in abeyance pending final
resolution of the boundary dispute between the City of
Pasig and the Municipality of Cainta by the Regional
Trial Court of Antipolo City.
ISSUE: WON the case of Barangay Napico has already
been rendered moot and academic.
RULING: No, merely because a plebiscite had already been
held in the case of the proposed Barangay Napico, the
petition of the Municipality of Cainta cannot already be
rendered moot and academic.
In Tan v. Commission on Elections, the Court struck down
the moot and academic argument where the legality of
the plebiscite itself is challenged for non-compliance
with constitutional requisites, the fact that such plebiscite
had been held and a new province proclaimed and its
officials appointed, the case before the Court cannot truly be
viewed as already moot and academic.Continuation of the
existence of this newly proclaimed province which
petitioners strongly profess to have been illegally born,
deserves to be inquired into by this Tribunal so that, if
indeed, illegality attaches to its creation, the
commission of that error should not provide the very
excuse for perpetration of such wrong.
Therefore, the plebiscite held on March 15, 1997 to ratify the
creation of Barangay Napico, Pasig City, should be annulled
and set aside.
DISCUSSION
● Pursuant to Section 10, Article X of the 1987
Constitution, the case at bar constitutes of the
alteration of the boundaries of this respective
municipality and city. So it has to wait. It needs to be
technically settled before the creation of or alteration
of any boundary dispute, or creation of another
barangay.
Q: What about in the case of Salvacion Buac vs.
COMELEC and Alan Peter Cayetano?
A: This case also involves the matter of plebiscite on whether
or not COMELEC has jurisdiction over plebiscite issues. If
there is a dispute, how should it be resolved?
28:57 – 38:08 (SABATIN)
DISCUSSION
● In the petition for certiorari and mandamus, petitioners
Buac and Bautista, in a petition for certiorari and
mandamus brought before the supreme court, the
comelec issued a resolution that they had NO
jurisdiction over plebiscite issues, so what are the
factual circumstances?
Buac v. Comelec
G.R. No. 155855 | 26 January 2004
(continuation)
FACTS: The comelec is saying they had no jurisdiction over
the plebiscite issues so Buac and Bautista raised this matter
before the SC. The petitioners said that they should annul
the results. The facts of this case show that a plebiscite was
held in Taguig for the ratification of the Taguig Cityhood Law
(RA 8487) proposing for the conversion of Taguig from a
municipality to a city.
Without completing the canvass of 64 other election returns,
the Plebiscite Board of Canvassers (PBOC) declared that
the NO votes won and that the people rejected the
conversion of Taguig to a city. So, the PBOC was, however,
ordered by the COMELEC en banc to reconvene and
complete the canvass which the board did not and in due
time, the board issued an order proclaiming that the
negative votes prevailed. This means the constituents were
not in favor.
Therefore, Buac et. al, the petitioners here, filed with the
COMELEC a petition to annul the results of the plebiscite
with a prayer for revision and recount of the ballots. At this
time, Cayetano moved to dismiss the petition on the ground
of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the COMELEC. He
claimed that a plebiscite cannot be the subject of an election
protest and that the jurisdiction to hear the complaint
involving the conduct of a plebiscite is lodged with the RTC.
Basically, he moved to dismiss the petition because
COMELEC has no jurisdiction for the revision and
recounting of ballots.
Initially, the case was brought to the second division of the
COMELEC. The second division gave due course to the
petition and it ruled that it has jurisdiction over the case. So,
it treated the petition as similar to an election protest
considering that the same allegations (grounds) of fraud and
irregularities in the casting and counting of ballots in the
preparation are the same grounds for assailing the results of
an election. The 2nd division ordered that ballots be brought
to the COMELEC and ordered the revision committee to
recount the plebiscite ballots.
Cayetano (was in agreement to the resolution of the second
division) here filed an unverified motion (verification wherein

you say that you are the petitioner in this case and that you
have read the statements or allegations therein and you
attest it is true and correct).
In a complete turnaround, the second division issued an
order granting the motion for reconsideration (MR) of
Cayetano notwithstanding the fact that it was unverified or
against the rules. The 2nd division dismissed the petition of
Buac et.al to annul the results of the plebiscite and it ruled
that COMELEC has no jurisdiction over said case as it
involves the exercise of quasi-judicial powers against Sec 2
paragraph 2 (Section 2(2)) of Article IX of the constitution. It
involves quasi judicial powers not contemplated in this
administrative power vested in it (conduct of plebiscite).
On appeal, COMELEC en banc affirmed the ruling of the
second division that they do not have jurisdiction. SO the
COMELEC en banc ruled in justifying the affirmation, they
cannot use their power and administer all laws relative to
the plebiscite because that is administrative in nature as its
power is administrative and not quasi judicial in nature. So,
COMELEC en banc concluded that jurisdiction to annul
Taguig plebiscite is lodged with the RTC under Sec 19 par 6
of Batas Pambansa 129 which states that the RTC have
exclusive original jurisdiction in cases not within the
exclusive jurisdiction of any court or body exercising judicial
or quasi judicial function. Therefore, this petition was
brought to the SC by Buac et.al.
38:09 – 47:00 (SALIGUMBA)
Buac v. Comelec
G.R. No. 155855 | 26 January 2004
(continuation)
Therefore, the petition for certiorari was brought before the
Supreme Court by petitioners Buac et. al.
ISSUE: Whether or not the electorate of Taguig voted in
favor of or against the conversion of Taguig from a
municipality to a city.
RULING: The invocation of judicial power to settle deep
disputes involving the conduct of plebiscite, like what
COMELEC is saying, is misplaced.
According to COMELEC, the nature of this case is quasi-
judicial and therefore they cannot use that judicial power in
the exercise of their administrative functions, pursuant to
section 2 paragraph 2 of article IX-C of the Constitution.
What is Judicial Power? The SC defined Judicial Power
under section 1 Article VIII of the Constitution pertaining to
the duty of the court of justice to settle actual controversies
involving rights which are legally demandable and
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on any part or branch or instrumentality of the
government.
This case, assailing the regularity of the conduct of the
Taguig plebiscite, does not fit the kind of case that
would call for a judicial determination or the exercise of
judicial power. Why? Because there are no plaintiffs or
defendants in this case. It merely involves the
ascertainment of the vote of the electorate on whether
they approve or disapprove the conversion of the
municipality into a highly urbanized city.
The COMELEC is vested with the power to enforce and
implement all laws relative to elections, plebiscites etc.
The Supreme Court went further on defining the word
‘enforce’. To enforce means to cause, to take effect, or to
cause the performance of such act or acts necessary to
bring into actual effect or operation, a plan or measure which
entails all the necessary and incidental power for it to
achieve the holding of an honest, orderly, peaceful, free and
credible elections (HOPE FRECRE).
The Supreme Court was surprised because for the first time,
the COMELEC yielded its historic jurisdiction over a motion
which is not even verified. In fact, it was even filed out of
time, saying they had no jurisdiction over the same
SUMMARY
COMELEC, pursuant to their administrative power to enforce
and to implement all laws, is vested with that power or
jurisdiction to resolve plebiscite issues. Plebiscite issues
merely determine whether the yes votes or the no votes won.
With respect to boundary disputes affecting the creation of the
barangay, it should be settled before any plebiscite is issued.
Plebiscites are matters of public concern, as in the case of
Sanidad v. COMELEC, therefore media should not be
restricted to discuss, on air and in print the matters respecting
the plebiscite.
Q: Who shall vote in a plebiscite?
A: Everyone in the political units that will be affected because
of that ordinance.
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
INITIATIVE
The law was created through the law-making power that
belongs to the people. It is the people who crafted and
prepared the law without the intervention of the legislative
department. This is the people power features of our
constitution

Under R.A. 6735, initiative is defined as the power of the

people to propose amendments to the constitution or to
propose and enact legislation through an election called for the
purpose.

CLASSES OF INITIATIVE
1. Initiative on the Constitution
2. Initiative on statutes

Q: How is an initiative to amend the constitution

undertaken?
A: It will require a petition signed by at least 12% of the total
number of registered voters wherein each legislative district
shall be represented by at least 3%. So that is with respect to
initiative on the constitution.

Q: How is an initiative on statutes undertaken?

A: The petition should be signed by at least 10% of the total
number of registered voters wherein each legislative district
shall be represented by at least 3%.

Take note of the case of Santiago, Raul Lambino, and the case
of Subic Bay

[ma’am asked about the class election and talked about the
recitations]