G.R. No.

127325 March 19, 1997

SANTIAGO V. COMELEC

Petitioners:
Miriam Defensor Santiago - A former senator and constitutional law expert.

Initiator of Legal Action:

The petitioners, Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin, initiated the legal action by
filing a petition with the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

Respondent:
The respondent in this case is the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), the constitutional body responsible for
administering elections in the Philippines.

Jurisdiction of the Court:

The case was heard by the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which is the highest court in the country and has the
jurisdiction to interpret the Constitution, including matters related to constitutional amendments. The Supreme
Court's jurisdiction extends to cases involving questions of constitutionality, legality, and the proper interpretation
of laws and regulations.

In this case, the petitioners sought the Court's interpretation of the constitutional provision regarding the people's
initiative to amend the Constitution, specifically focusing on whether a petition to amend the Constitution through a
people's initiative could be entertained by the COMELEC without implementing legislation from the Philippine
Congress.

The context or background of the case The context or background of the case.

Events and circumstances that led to the legal dispute:

The 1987 Constitution: The Philippines adopted a new Constitution in 1987, following the ousting of the
authoritarian regime of Ferdinand Marcos. This Constitution outlined the process for amending or revising its
provisions to ensure a democratic and accountable government.

People's Initiative for Constitutional Amendments: Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provided for different
modes of amending the Constitution, including amendments proposed by a "people's initiative." However, this
mode required the signature of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, with each legislative district
represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.

Efforts to Amend the Constitution: In the years that followed the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, there were
discussions and debates about the potential amendments to certain provisions. Various groups and individuals
expressed interest in utilizing the people's initiative as a means to initiate amendments directly from the citizens.

Initiatives and COMELEC: Amidst these discussions, certain groups began collecting signatures for petitions to
amend the Constitution through a people's initiative. However, questions arose regarding the mechanics and
requirements of the people's initiative, particularly the role of the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) in verifying
the signatures and the need for implementing legislation to facilitate the process.

Legal Challenge and Petitioners: In this context, Miriam Defensor Santiago, who were legal experts and civic
leaders, initiated a legal action by filing a petition with the Supreme Court. They questioned the authority of
COMELEC to verify the signatures for a people's initiative without enabling legislation from the Congress.

Key Issues: The central issues in the case included the interpretation of the constitutional provisions on people's
initiative, the extent of COMELEC's role in the process, and whether implementing legislation from the Congress
was necessary to facilitate constitutional amendments through people's initiative.

The background and circumstances leading to the legal dispute highlight the complexity and significance of the issue
surrounding the people's initiative as a mechanism for amending the Constitution. The petitioners' concerns
reflected the need for clarity on the proper interpretation of constitutional provisions and the roles of different
branches of government in this process.
ARGUMENTS, LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND PRECEDENTS (PETITIONER)

The petitioners presented several arguments in challenging the authority of the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to verify the signatures for a people's initiative to amend the Philippine Constitution. Their arguments
were rooted in legal principles and constitutional provisions. Here are some of the key arguments presented by the
petitioners:

Lack of Implementing Legislation: The petitioners argued that there was no enabling law enacted by Congress to
provide the mechanics and guidelines for conducting a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. They
contended that since Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution required Congress to enact the necessary
implementing laws, COMELEC could not validly act on the verification of signatures in the absence of such
legislation.

Role of COMELEC: The petitioners questioned the authority of COMELEC to verify the signatures for a people's
initiative without the required enabling law. They asserted that COMELEC's function was limited to conducting and
supervising elections and referenda, and that the verification of signatures for constitutional amendments was not
explicitly within its mandate.

Constitutional Intent: The petitioners invoked the intent of the framers of the Constitution. They argued that the
framers intended for the people's initiative to be a citizen-driven process, but the absence of enabling legislation
could lead to manipulation and abuse. They contended that the framers wanted a higher threshold for
amendments initiated by the people to ensure that they were well-considered and supported.

Preservation of the Constitution's Integrity: The petitioners emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity
and stability of the Constitution. They argued that allowing COMELEC to verify signatures without proper guidelines
could lead to hasty and ill-considered amendments, undermining the fundamental law of the land.

Legal Precedents and International Law: The petitioners referred to legal principles established in previous cases,
such as Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006), which emphasized the need for enabling
legislation for a people's initiative. They also cited international standards and practices related to constitutional
amendments to support their arguments.

Role of the Courts: The petitioners contended that it was the duty of the courts to safeguard the Constitution and
ensure that its provisions were followed. They argued that the judiciary should intervene to prevent any
unconstitutional actions that could arise from the absence of implementing legislation for a people's initiative.

In presenting these arguments, the petitioners sought to establish that COMELEC's involvement in verifying
signatures for a people's initiative without the required implementing legislation was unconstitutional and could
potentially lead to the abuse of the amendment process. They relied on constitutional provisions, the intent of the
framers, legal precedents, and principles of constitutional integrity to support their case.

ARGUMENTS COUNTER FOR THE PETITIONERS CLAIM (RESPONDENTS)

Respondents presented arguments to counter the claims of the petitioners who were challenging the authority of
COMELEC to verify the signatures for a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The respondents' arguments
aimed to establish the legality and legitimacy of COMELEC's actions. Here are some of the key arguments presented
by the respondents:

Constitutional Provisions: The respondents argued that the power of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through an initiative was expressly provided for in the Constitution itself (Article XVII, Section 2).
They contended that this constitutional provision did not explicitly require an enabling law to be enacted by
Congress before the people could exercise this initiative power.

Limited Role of COMELEC: The respondents asserted that COMELEC's role in the initiative process was ministerial in
nature. They argued that COMELEC's function was simply to verify the signatures on the initiative petition and
determine whether the proponents had gathered the required number of signatures. COMELEC's involvement,
according to the respondents, did not involve substantive judgment on the merits of the proposed amendments.

Legislative Intent: The respondents argued that while Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution mentioned the
enactment of an implementing law, the absence of such law should not hinder the exercise of the people's initiative
right. They pointed out that the framers of the Constitution did not intend to make the initiative process contingent
on the passage of an enabling law.
Respect for the People's Will: The respondents contended that a narrow interpretation requiring an enabling law
would unduly restrict the power of the people to propose amendments directly. They argued that the initiative
process was meant to be a reflection of the people's will, and strict limitations would run counter to this intention.

Initiative as an Expression of Sovereignty: The respondents emphasized that the initiative process was a
manifestation of the people's sovereign power. They argued that this power should not be hampered by legislative
inaction, and that any doubts or ambiguities regarding the exercise of this power should be resolved in favor of the
people's right to initiate amendments.

Role of the Courts: The respondents cautioned against judicial interference in the initiative process, asserting that
the courts should be hesitant to hinder the exercise of a constitutionally granted power. They argued that judicial
intervention could undermine the balance of powers among the branches of government.

In countering the petitioners' claims, the respondents sought to establish that the absence of an enabling law should
not impede the people's exercise of the initiative power. They emphasized the direct grant of this power in the
Constitution, the limited role of COMELEC, the importance of respecting the people's will, and the need to preserve
the people's sovereignty. The respondents aimed to show that COMELEC's involvement in verifying signatures for a
people's initiative was constitutional and that the absence of implementing legislation should not be a barrier to its
exercise.

KEY LEGAL ISSUES AND CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS

Validity of People's Initiative: The central issue was whether the "people's initiative" method, as provided under
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, can be used to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution. The petitioners questioned the validity of using this method to propose amendments.

Authority of COMELEC: Another significant issue was whether the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) had the
authority to verify and canvass the signatures gathered in the people's initiative. The petitioners contested
COMELEC's role in the process.

Form of Petition: The case also touched on the required form of the petition for a people's initiative. The petitioners
argued that the petition should embody the full text of the proposed amendments.

Substantial Amendments: The question of whether the proposed amendments were "substantial" alterations to the
Constitution was raised. Substantial amendments require a constitutional convention or constituent assembly,
while less substantial changes can be done through a people's initiative.

Effect of Signatures: There was an issue regarding the effect of the collected signatures. The petitioners argued that
the collected signatures were invalid due to various deficiencies.

Res judicata: A procedural issue was raised about whether the case was barred by a prior Supreme Court decision.
The respondents contended that a similar case had already been decided, invoking the principle of res judicata.

These legal issues and constitutional questions were pivotal in determining the validity and legality of the proposed
people's initiative to amend the Philippine Constitution. The resolution of these issues would have far-reaching
implications for the process of constitutional amendments and the authority of COMELEC in such matters.

FACTS RELATING TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES BEING RAISED

The facts of the case directly related to the constitutional issues being raised, as they provide the context and
circumstances that led to the legal dispute. The case involves a petition to prevent the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) from conducting a plebiscite to ratify proposed amendments to the Constitution through a people's
initiative. Here's how the facts relate to the constitutional issues:

Proposed Amendments Through People's Initiative: The proponents gathered signatures to propose amendments
to the Constitution through a people's initiative, specifically to lift term limits for elected officials. This raised the
constitutional issue of whether such substantial amendments could be proposed through a people's initiative, as
allowed under Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution. The petitioners contested the constitutionality of using a
people's initiative for this purpose.

Validity of Signatures: The petitioners questioned the validity of the signatures gathered, alleging irregularities and
fraudulent practices in the signature-gathering process. This aspect of the case relates to the procedural integrity of
the people's initiative process and its compliance with constitutional requirements. It also connects to the issue of
whether the proposed amendments truly had substantial public support.
Role of COMELEC: The COMELEC, as the agency tasked with overseeing elections and plebiscites, was involved in
the case because it scheduled a plebiscite to ratify the proposed amendments. The legal issue here was whether
the COMELEC had the authority to verify and validate the signatures for the purpose of the people's initiative, as
well as to conduct the plebiscite itself. This touches on the constitutional role and powers of the COMELEC.

Conflict with Other Constitutional Provisions: The case also delved into potential conflicts with other constitutional
provisions. For instance, the prohibition against candidates running for more than one office in the same election
(Article VI, Section 32) was raised as an argument against the proposed amendments that sought to remove term
limits. This highlights the interconnectedness of different parts of the Constitution.

Overall, the facts of the case provide the concrete scenario in which the constitutional issues are embedded. The
legal arguments presented by the parties revolve around the constitutionality of using a people's initiative for
substantial amendments, the validity of the signature-gathering process, the role of COMELEC, and the potential
conflicts with other constitutional provisions. The resolution of these issues hinged on the court's interpretation of
the Constitution and its application to the specific facts at hand.

COURTS RULING AND DECISION

The Supreme Court rendered a decision on March 19, 1997. The ultimate decision or ruling of the Court was that
the proposed amendments to the Constitution could not be submitted to a plebiscite for ratification through a
people's initiative.

In essence, the Court ruled that the proposed amendments, which aimed to lift term limits for elected officials,
could not be pursued through a people's initiative. The Court declared that the use of a people's initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution is limited to "initiatives to amend," which refer to changes that involve
alterations, revisions, or modifications of the Constitution, but not the "initiatives to propose amendments" that
would actually open up the Constitution to substantial revisions.

The Court's decision was grounded in a strict interpretation of the relevant constitutional provisions. It held that
while the Constitution does provide for a people's initiative to propose amendments, such amendments must be
limited to specific provisions and should not completely overhaul or rewrite the Constitution. The Court maintained
that the Constitution had established other methods, such as a constitutional convention or amendments by
Congress, for more substantial revisions.

The Court's ultimate ruling had significant implications. It set a precedent that clarified the boundaries of what can
be proposed through a people's initiative. The decision limited the scope of changes that could be initiated by the
people, ensuring that substantial revisions to the Constitution would go through more deliberative and inclusive
processes.

Overall, the Court's decision in Santiago v. COMELEC affirmed the importance of preserving the integrity of the
Constitution while also recognizing the mechanisms for public participation in the amendment process. It
established a legal precedent that continues to influence the interpretation and application of the Constitution in
cases involving initiatives for amendments.

RATIONALE OF THE COURT TO SUPPORT ITS DECISION

Distinction Between "Initiatives to Amend" and "Initiatives to Propose Amendments": The Court emphasized that
there is a clear distinction between "initiatives to amend" and "initiatives to propose amendments." While the
Constitution does allow for initiatives to propose amendments, these amendments should be limited to specific
provisions and not involve substantial revisions or overhauls of the entire Constitution. The Court pointed out that
the proposed amendments in this case sought to lift term limits for elected officials, which would significantly alter
the Constitution's structure and intent.

Intent of the Framers: The Court examined the intent of the framers of the Constitution regarding the process of
amendments. It highlighted that the framers intended for the Constitution to be a stable and enduring document,
and that's why they provided specific modes for amendments, such as through Congress or a constitutional
convention. The framers did include the people's initiative as an alternative mode but with the understanding that
it would be used for specific amendments, not wholesale revisions.

Amendment vs. Revision: The Court distinguished between amendments and revisions, asserting that while
amendments involve isolated or particular changes, revisions entail a reexamination of the entire document. The
Court held that allowing substantial revisions through a people's initiative would be tantamount to a "revision by
initiative," which contradicted the intention of the framers.
Preservation of the Constitution's Identity and Integrity: The Court underscored the importance of preserving the
Constitution's identity and integrity. Allowing radical changes through a people's initiative could lead to instability
and inconsistency in the Constitution, affecting the rule of law and the foundations of the legal system.

Constitutional Provisions for Substantial Revisions: The Court highlighted that the Constitution provides for
mechanisms for substantial revisions, such as constitutional conventions and amendments by Congress. These
mechanisms are better suited to the task of reviewing and proposing major changes to the Constitution.

Safeguarding the Constitution's Stability: The Court expressed concerns that allowing sweeping changes through a
people's initiative might undermine the stability and predictability of the legal and political system, potentially
leading to uncertainty and conflict.

Balancing Popular Participation and Constitutional Integrity: The Court acknowledged the importance of popular
participation in the amendment process but stressed that such participation must be balanced with the need to
maintain the fundamental principles and structure of the Constitution.

Overall, the Court's rationale was centered on the interpretation of the Constitution's provisions, the framers' intent,
and the delicate balance between public participation and the stability of the constitutional framework. The Court's
decision was guided by a commitment to uphold the Constitution's integrity while still providing avenues for
meaningful public involvement in the amendment process.