DEFENSOR SANTIAGO vs COMELEC – GR No.

127325 March 19, 1997

FACTS:
Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the Constitution, to lift
term limits of elective officials, by People’s initiative.

COMELEC issued an order directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition.

Senator Santiago filed a special civil action for prohibition raising the following
arguments:

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. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 to govern "the conduct of initiative on the

Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local laws, is ultra
vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned,
since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the
exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is
authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.

3. The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution,

not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a
revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative.

Delfin asserts that:

1. R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative to amend the Constitution
and Section 9(b) thereof specifically provides that the proposition in an
initiative to amend the Constitution approved by the majority of the votes
cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as of the day of the plebiscite.

2. The claim that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires is contradicted by
(a) Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which grants the COMELEC the
power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall; and (b)
Section 20 of R.A. 6735, which empowers the COMELEC to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the
Act.

3. The proposed initiative does not involve a revision of, but mere amendment
to, the Constitution because it seeks to alter only a few specific provisions of
the Constitution, or more specifically, only those which lay term limits. It
does not seek to reexamine or overhaul the entire document.

ISSUE:
 1. WON RA 6735 cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so,
whether the Act, adequately covers such initiative

2. WON that portion of COMELEC Reso. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the
law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

3. WON he COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over the
petition.

RULING:

1. We agree that RA 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments

to the Constitution but it is not in full compliance with the power and duty of
Congress to provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right.

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through
the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution
until Congress provides for its implementation.

Initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people

are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole
or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so
with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions."

R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and

conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

2. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the

exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that power under
R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C
of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are
those promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is authorized and which
satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.

3. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance with the
power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or
that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation
and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.

Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b)of R.A. No.
6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of
the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does
not contain signatures of the required number of voters.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by
the COMELEC.

LAMBINO vs COMELEC – GR No. 174153 October 25, 2006

FACTS:

The COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's
petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution.

The Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus
to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the
COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition.

ISSUE:

WON 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.

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."

2 essential elements:
a. The people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf.
b. 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 not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino
Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the
signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to
it.

The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift
from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of
government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of
the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet.
Clearly, the signature sheet is not the"petition" that the framers of the
Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution.

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the

Constitution:

1. Through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members.

2. Constitutional convention.

3. Through a people's initiative.

A clear distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution. The

framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional convention
may propose revisions to the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote,
that a people's initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution.

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the

constitution. Amendment broadly refers toa change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle involved.

Two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test.

The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the
deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." The court examines only the
number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.

The qualitative test inquiries into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in
the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
revision." Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper
subject of inquiry.

Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a
revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's
proposed changes overhaul two articles — Article VI on the Legislature and Article
VII on the Executive — affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of
government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature.