Lambino vs. COMELEC, Oct.

25, 2006
Facts:

On February Lambino Group, with other groups and individuals, started gathering

signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. In particular, this
initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI
(Legislative Department) 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.

Six months later, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7
of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735"). 

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 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 prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC
should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification.

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.

Issue:

Whether or not the Lambino Groups’ initiative petition is sufficient compliance with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
people’s initiative.

Whether or not there is a need to revisit this Court’s ruling in Santiago declaring RA
6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to cover the
system of initiative to amend the Constitution.

Answer:

No, the Lambino Groups’ initiative petition is not sufficient compliance with Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s
initiative. Under the law and existing jurisprudence, when proposing amendments
through people’s initiative, two essential elements must be present. The author must be
the people and thus the sign up the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign
on their behalf. The proposal must also be embodied in the petition so the people will
sign the proposal so that they must be aware.

However, in this case, the author of the proposed amendment is not the people and that
the Lambino Group only gathered signatures from the people without first showing to
them the full text of the proposed amendment. Further, the proposed provision itself is
not a mere amendment but a total revision. Quantitatively, it overhauls Art. VI –
Legislature and Art. VII – Executive affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
Constitution. Qualitatively, Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical
change in the structure of government. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential
System to a Unicameral- Parliamentary System is a revision of the Constitution.

there is no need for the Court to revisit the ruling in Santiago’s case. Additionally, an
affirmation or reversal of Santiago’s case will not change the outcome of the present
petition as RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to
implement the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution. Therefore, Lambino
Groups’ initiative petition is not sufficient compliance with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative and there is
no need for the Court to revisit the ruling in Santiago’s case.
 Lagman v. Media

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,
effective May 23, 2017, and for a period not exceeding 60 days.

Within the timeline set by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the President
submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report on the factual basis of the
said proclaimation. 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. In particular, the President chronicled in his Report the events which
took place on May 23, 2017 in Marawi City which impelled him to declare a state of
martial law and suspend the privilege of writ of habeas corpus

The unfolding of events, as well as the classified reports he received, led the President
to conclude that the activities constitute not simply a display of force, but a clear attempt
to establish the groups' seat of power in Marawi City for their planned establishment of a
DAESH wilayat or province covering the entire Mindanao. In fact, on May 23, 2017, a
government operation to capture the high-ranking officers of the Abu Sayyaf Group
(ASG) and the Maute Group was conducted. These groups, however, confronted the
government operation by intensifying their efforts at sowing violence aimed not only
against the government authorities and its facilities but likewise against civilians and
their properties.

The cutting of vital lines for transportation and power; the recruitment of young Muslims
to further expand their ranks and strengthen their force; the armed consolidation of their
members throughout Marawi City; the decimation of a segment of the city population
who resist; and the brazen display of DAESH flags constitute a clear, pronounced, and
unmistakable intent to remove Marawi City, and eventually the rest of Mindanao, from
its allegiance to the Government.

There exists no doubt that lawless armed groups are attempting to deprive the
President of his power, authority, and prerogatives within Marawi City as a precedent to
spreading their control over the entire Mindanao, in an attempt to undermine his control
over executive departments, bureaus, and offices in said area; defeat his mandate to
ensure that all laws are faithfully executed; and remove his supervisory powers over
local govemments.

According to the Report, the lawless activities of the ASG, Maute Group, and other
criminals, brought about undue constraints and difficulties to the military and
government personnel, particularly in the performance of their duties and functions, and
untold hardships to the civilians
The Report highlighted the strategic location of Marawi City and the crucial and
significant role it plays in Mindanao, and the Philippines as a whole. In addition, the
Report pointed out the possible tragic repercussions once Marawi City falls under the
control of the lawless groups.

In addition to the Report, representatives from the Executive Department, the military
and police authorities conducted briefings with the Senate and the House of
Representatives relative to the declaration of martial law.

After the submission of the Report and the briefings, the Senate issued P.S. Resolution
No. 388 expressing full support to the martial law proclamation and finding Proclamation
No. 216 "to be satisfactory, constitutional and in accordance with the law". In the same
Resolution, the Senate declared that it found "no compelling reason to revoke the
same". 

The Senate's counterpart in the lower house shared the same sentiments. The House of
Representatives likewise issued House Resolution No. 1050 expressing the full support
of the house of representatives to the President.

On June 5, 2017, Representatives Edcel C. Lagman et al filed a Petition under the

Third Paragraph of Section 18 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution claiming that the
declaration of martial law has no sufficient factual basis based on five principal grounds.
Thus, asking the Court to exercise its specific and special jurisdiction to review the
sufficiency of the factual basis of Proclamation No. 216 and render "a Decision voiding
and nullifying Proclamation No. 216" for lack of sufficient factual basis.

In a Resolution dated June 6, 2017, the Court required respondents to comment on the
Lagman Petition and set the case for oral argument on June 13, 14, and 15, 2017.

On June 9, 2017, two other similar petitions docketed as G.R. Nos. 231771 and 231774
were filed and eventually consolidated with G.R. No. 231658.

Issue: Whether or not there is a sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law
and the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus over the whole Mindanao.

Yes, there is a sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the
suspension of habeas corpus. Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution provides that
in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, the President may, for
a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The
Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. The Court may also strike down the proclamation in
an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen on the ground of lack of sufficient factual
basis.

In this case, President Rodrigo Roa Duterte, in issuing Proclamation No. 216 had
sufficient factual bases. He submitted to Congress on May 25, 2017, a written Report
which pointed out that for decades, Mindanao has been plagued with rebellion and
lawless violence which only escalated and worsened with the passing of time. In
particular, the President chronicled in his Report the events which took place on May
23, 2017 in Marawi City as well as the classified reports he received that led him to
conclude that the activities constitute not simply a display of force, but an actual
rebellion, a clear attempt to establish the groups' seat of power in Marawi City for their
planned establishment of a DAESH wilayat or province covering the entire Mindanao. In
fine, the President satisfactorily discharged his burden of proof. Therefore, there is a
sufficient factual basis for the declaration of martial law and the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus over the whole Mindanao and that Proclamation No. 216 cannot be void
or nullified.
First, the declaration of martial law has no sufficient factual basis because there is no
rebellion or invasion in Marawi City or in any part of Mindanao. Second, the President's
Report contained "false, inaccurate, contrived and hyperbolic accounts". Third, the
President's Report mistakenly included the attack on the military outpost in Butig, Lanao
del Sur in February 2016, the mass jail break in Marawi City in August 2016, the
Zamboanga siege, the Davao market bombing, the Mamasapano carnage and other
bombing incidents in Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, and Basilan, as additional factual bases
for the proclamation of martial law. Forth, the President acted alone and did not consult
the military establishment or any ranking official before making the proclamation. Fifth,
during the presentation before the Committee of the Whole of the House of
Representatives, it was shown that the military was even successful in pre-empting the
ASG and the Maute Group's plan to take over Marawi City and other parts of Mindanao;
there was absence of any hostile plan by the Moro Islamic Liberation Front; and the
number of foreign fighters allied with ISIS was "undetermined" which indicates that
there are only a meager number of foreign fighters who can lend support to the Maute
Group.