G.R. No. 174153 petition of 25 August 2006 or the amended 1. Implementing Statute (abandon Santiago v. Date: October 25, 2006 petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the COMELEC) COMELEC. In the COMELEC, the Lambino FACTS: - Yes. There is no need to revisit this Court’s Group merely attached the signature sheets ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 to the petition and amended petition. Thus, Lambino et al. sought to propose amendments to “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in the petition and amended petition filed the Constitution by People’s initiative through RA essential terms and conditions” to cover with the COMELEC did not even comply 6735. The sheet used to gather signatures from the the system of initiative to amend the with the basic requirement of RA 6735 that people contained only the questions “Do you Constitution. the Lambino Group claims as valid. approve of the Amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of the - This is because the present petition government from the present bicameral- warrants dismissal for failure to comply 2. Distinction between Amendment and Revision presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system with the basic requirements of Section 2, of government in order to achieve greater Article XVII of the Constitution on the - Yes. The Initiative Violates Section 2, efficiency xxx; and providing Article XVIII as conduct and scope of a people’s initiative Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Transitory Provisions” The signature sheet further to amend the Constitution. An affirmation Revision through Initiatives. provides a table wherein the personal data of the or reversal of Santiago will not change the person signing shall be indicated. Subsequently, - Revision generally affects several outcome of the present petition. Lambino et al. filed with COMELEC to hold a provisions of the constitution, while plebiscite to ratify their proposal. They have in fact - This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling amendment generally affects only the gathered signatures of >12% of all registered voters involving the constitutionality of a statute if specific provision being amended. with each district represented by 3% at least the case before the Court can be resolved Revision - broadly implies a change (6,327,952 voters). COMELEC invoked Santiago v. on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a that alters a basic principle in the COMELEC and denied the petition. logical consequence of the well-settled constitution, like altering the doctrine that courts will not pass upon the ISSUE: (ordered in relevance to class topic) principle of separation of powers or constitutionality of a statute if the case can the system of checks-and-balances. be resolved on some other grounds. 1. WON a Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is There is also revision if the change Not Necessary -Even then, the present initiative violates alters the substantial entirety of 2. WON the Initiative Violates Section 2, Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires that the constitution, as when the Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing the “petition for an initiative on the 1987 change affects substantial Revision through Initiatives Constitution must have at least twelve per provisions of the constitution. 3. WON the Initiative Petition Does Not centum (12%) of the total number of Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Amendment - broadly refers to a registered voters as signatories.” Section Constitution on Direct Proposal by the change that adds, reduces, or 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people People must sign the “petition x x x as signatories.” deletes without altering the basic initiative may propose only amendments to government will be affected but will principle involved. the Constitution. Where the intent and not change state as “democratic and language of the Constitution clearly republican.” In any case, Constitution - In California, where the initiative clause is did not adopt these tests of substance withhold from the people the power to just like in our constitution, courts have of amendments. It only distinguished propose revisions to the Constitution, the developed a two-part test: the quantitative amendment from revision by defining people cannot propose revisions even as the latter as a complete change. test and the qualitative test. Under both they are empowered to propose the quantitative and qualitative tests, the - Initiative and referendum powers amendments. Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and must be construed in favor of not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, - As to Justice Puno’s Dissent: maintaining maximum power of the the Lambino Group’s proposed changes people. The addition of “democratic” in 1. A reexamination of RA 6735 will show that it overhaul two articles—Article VI on the describing the state in the Constitution is sufficient to implement the people’s initiative Legislature and Article VII on the Executive was for the need to emphasize for Constitutional amendments. —affecting a total of 105 provisions in the people’s role/participation, as in a - The law is replete with demonstration participatory democracy. To say that entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the of rights to initiative to amend the people cannot propose substantial proposed changes alter substantially the Constitution. It properly defines amendments to change Constitution is basic plan of government, from presidential to betray sovereignty (legal initiative and plebiscite. It provides to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a requirements for petition for initiative omnipotence) of the people. Let the unicameral legislature. to amend Constitution. people speak. The first principle enthroned by blood in Constitution is - A people’s initiative to change the - There is an intent to use the law as sovereignty of the people, their right to Constitution applies only to an instrument for people’s initiative. Clear make decisions for people and amendment of the Constitution and not to intent of lawmakers is to use RA 6735 Constitution. its revision. Article XVII of the Constitution to implement people’s initiative. This provides in Sec. 2. Amendments to this intent is shown in sponsorship 3. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion. speeches of authors of law. Constitution may likewise be directly - COMELEC merely relied on Santiago proposed by the people through initiative. - Omissions are too weak a reason to case which did not firmly establish how (Emphasis supplied) throttle the people’s right to initiative RA 6734 is insufficient. 8 then on to amend Constitution. consideration, only 6 Justices - The framers of the Constitution intended, reiterated insufficiency. Consider the and wrote, a clear distinction between 2. The proposed Constitutional changes are non-binding effect of split/equal “amendment” and “revision” of the substantial but are mere amendments that can rulings. be undertaken through people’s initiative. Constitution. The framers intended, and 3. Meaning of “directly proposed by the people”: wrote, that only Congress or a - Quantitative and qualitative tests are constitutional convention may propose flimsy. Quantitatively, the big bulk of - Yes. The Initiative Petition Does Not revisions to the Constitution. The framers the Constitution will not be affected. Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the intended, and wrote, that a people’s Qualitatively, constitution of Constitution on Direct Proposal by the wisdom of the people even if the members People of this Court do not personally know the people who sign the petition. However, this - The signature sheets do not also explain trust emanates from a fundamental what specific amendments or revisions the assumption: the full text of the proposed initiative proponents want the interim amendment is first shown to the people Parliament to make, and why there is a before they sign the petition, not after need for such further amendments or they have signed the petition. revisions. The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of the - In short, the Lambino Group’s initiative is proposed changes. Certainly, such an void and unconstitutional because it initiative is not “directly proposed by the dismally fails to comply with the people” because the people do not even requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of know the nature and effect of the the Constitution that the initiative must be proposed changes. “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.” - An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. That is why the Constitution requires that an initiative must be “directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition” —meaning that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals.
- The Constitution entrusts to the people
the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. This Court trusts the