Lambino vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

FACTS:

On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the

COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
petition to change the 1987 Constitution under Section 5(b) and
(c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and
Referendum Act.

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of
6,327,952 individuals constituting 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’s initiative petition changes the 1987

Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
Department)4 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.

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.

he COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC

declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.
ISSUES:

1. Whether 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;

2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring

RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms
and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to
amend the Constitution; and

HELD:

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2,

Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing

constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. This section states:

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly

proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least
three per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

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.”
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its
face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements
must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the
entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
Second, 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 no presumption that the proponents observed the

constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The
proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the
constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures – that the
petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of
the proposed amendments.

The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with
this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their
initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a
copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September
2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.

2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with
the basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution. There is no 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. An affirmation or reversal of
Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus,
this Court must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled
that RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the
Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to
the Constitution.
Tolentino vs. Comelec
GR No. L-34150, October 16 1971, 41 SCRA 702

FACTS:

The 1971 Constitutional Convention came into being by virtue of

two resolutions of the Congress approved in its capacity as a
constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a
convention to propose amendments to the Constitution.

After election of delegates held on November 10, 1970, the

Convention held its inaugural session on June 1, 1971.

In the morning of September 28, 1970, the Convention approved

Organic Resolution No. 1 which is entitled as, "A RESOLUTION
AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE
CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE TO
18."

On September 30, 1971, the COMELEC "resolved" to follow the

mandate of the Convention, that it will hold the said plebiscite
together with the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971 .

Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for prohibition, its

main thrust being that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the necessary
implementing resolutions subsequently approved have no force
and effect as laws in so far as they provide for the holding of a
plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial elections, on the ground
that the calling and holding of such a plebiscite is, by the
Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in Congress as a
legislative body and may not be exercised by the Convention, and
that, under Article XV Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, the
proposed amendment in question cannot be presented to the people
for ratification separately from each and all other amendments to
be drafted and proposed by the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Organic Resolution No. 1 of the 1971

Constitutional Convention violative to the Constitution.
HELD:

NO.

All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must

be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite.

In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of a Constitutional

amendment may be validly held, it must provide the voter not only
sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the
nature of the amendment per se but as well as its relation to the
other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a
harmonious whole.

In the present context, where the Convention has hardly started

considering the merits, if not thousands, of proposals to amend the
existing Constitution, to present to the people any single proposal
or a few of them cannot comply with this requirement.

PABLO C. SANIDAD and PABLITO C. SANIDAD vs

HONORABLE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS &
HONORABLE NATIONAL TREASURER
G.R. No. L-44640
October 12, 1976

FACTS: On September 2, 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos

issued Presidential Decree No. 991 to call for a national
referendum on October 16, 1976 through the so-called Citizens
Assemblies (“barangays”). Its primary purpose is to resolve the
issues of martial law (as to its existence and length of effectivity).
On September 22, the president issued another proclamation (P.D.
1033) to specify the questions that are to be asked during the
referendum on October 16. The first question is whether or not the
citizen wants martial law to continue, and the second one asks for
the approval on several proposed amendments to the existing
Constitution.
The COMELEC was vested with the exclusive supervision and
control of the national referendum in October 16.
Father and son, Pablo and Pablito Sanidad filed for prohibition
with preliminary injunction to enjoin the COMELEC from holding
and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16, and to
declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and
1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the Constitution.
Another petitioner, Vicente Guzman filed for prohibition with
preliminary injunction, asserting that the power to propose
amendments or revisions of the Constitution during the transition
period is expressly conferred to the interim National Assembly
under Section 16, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Another set of petitioners, Raul Gonzales and Alfredo Salapantan
sought to restrain the implementation of Presidential Decrees
relative to the forthcoming Referendum-Plebiscite of October 16.
They assert that the incumbent President cannot act as a constituent
assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution and a
referendum-plebiscite is untenable under the Constitutions of 1935
and 1973.
The submission of the proposed amendments in such a short period
of time for deliberation renders the plebiscite a nullity. To lift
Martial Law, the President need not consult the people via
referendum; and allowing 15-.year olds to vote would amount to
an amendment of the Constitution, which confines the right of
suffrage to those citizens of the Philippines 18 years of age and
above.
The Solicitor General contends that petitioners have no standing to
sue, and that the issue raised is political in nature – and thus it
cannot be reviewed by the court. The Solicitor General also asserts
that at this state of the transition period, only the incumbent
President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the
referendum-plebiscite is a step towards normalization.
ISSUE: WON the issue poses a justiciable question (specifically on
the constitutionality of PDs 991 and 1033).
HELD: YES. 7 Justices of the Court held that the issue is a
justiciable question, while only 3 maintained it was of political
nature and thus not justiciable.
The Court did not agree with the Solicitor General’s contention
that the issue is a political one. This is because the 1973
Constitution expressly provided that the power to propose
amendments to the constitution resides in the interim National
Assembly in the period of transition.
After that transition period, and when the regular National
Assembly is in its active session, the power to propose
amendments becomes ipso facto the prerogative of the regular
National Assembly. The normal course has not been followed.
Rather than calling the National Assembly to constitute itself into a
constituent assembly, the president undertook the proposal of
amendments through Presidential Decree 1033 and in effect,
through a Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the
irregularity of the amendment procedure raises a contestable issue.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC(G.R. No. 127325 -
March 19, 1997)Facts:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president o
f P e o p l e ’ s I n i t i a t i v e f o r R e f o r m s , Modernization and
Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the
constitution to liftthe term limits of elective officials, through
People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII,Sec. 2
of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the
people to exercise the power to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the
COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the
petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the
case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP,
Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, PublicInterest Law
Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as
intervenors-oppositors.Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss
the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizableby
the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago,
Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpinfiled this civil action
for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against
COMELEC and theDelfin petition rising the several arguments,
such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision
onpeople’s initiative to amend the constitution can
only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited
to amendments to theConstitution, not to revision thereof.
Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it
isoutside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court
granted the Motions for Intervention.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is
a self-executing provision.
(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
regarding the conduct of initiative onamendments to the
Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific
provisions onthe conduct of such initiative.
(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials
would constitute a revision or anamendment of the
Constitution.

Held:
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self execut
ory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot
operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the
right,the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for
its implementation.The portion of COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on theconduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been
an established rule
thatwhat has been delegated, cannot be delegated (pote
stas delegata non delegari potest). Thedelegation of the
power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot
validly promulgate rulesand regulations to implement the
exercise of the right to people’s initiative.The lifting of the
term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it
would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the
synchronization of elections, the constitutional guaranteeof equal
access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting
political dynasties. A revisioncannot be done by initiative.
However, considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue, the
issueof whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has
become academic.

MANUEL B. IMBONG, petitioner,

vs.
JAIME FERRER, as Chairman of the Comelec, LINO M. PATAJO
and CESAR MILAFLOR, as members thereof, respondents.
G.R. No. L-32432
September 11, 1970
IN THE MATTER OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF R.A. No. 6132,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION ACT OF 1970. RAUL M.
GONZALES, petitioner,
vs.
COMELEC, respondent.
G.R. No. L-32443
September 11, 1970

FACTS:
Petitioners Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzales, both interested in
running as candidates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, filed
separate petitions for declaratory relief, impugning the
constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that it prejudices their rights
as candidates.
Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution
No.2, which called for the Constitutional Convention to propose
Constitutional amendments. After its adoption, Congress, acting as
a legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914 implementing said
resolution, restating entirely the provisions of said resolution.
Thereafter, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed
Resolution No. 4 amending the Resolution No. 2 by providing that
―xxx any other details relating to the specific apportionment of
delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of the
Constitutional Convention shall be embodied in an implementing
legislation xxx.
Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted R.A. 6132,
implementing Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing
R.A. 4914.

ISSUE:
May Congress in acting as a legislative body enact R.A.6132 to
implement the resolution passed by it in its capacity as a
Constituent Assembly?

HELD:
YES. The Court declared that while the authority to call a
Constitutional Convention is vested by the Constitution solely and
exclusively in Congress acting as a constitutional assembly, the
power to enact the implementing details or specifics of the general
law does not exclusively pertain to Congress, the Congress in
exercising its comprehensive legislative power (not as a
Constitutional Assembly) may pass the necessary implementing
law providing for the details of the Constitutional Conventions,
such as the number, qualification, and compensation of its member.
The reasons cited by the Court in upholding the constitutionality of
the enactment of R.A. 6132 are as follows:
Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Article XV
of the Constitution has authority to propose constitutional
amendments or call a convention for the purpose by ¾ votes of
each house in joint session assembled but voting separately.
Such grant includes all other powers essential to the effective
exercise of the principal power by necessary implication.
Implementing details are within the authority of the Congress not
only as a Constituent Assembly but also in the exercise of its
comprehensive legislative power which encompasses all matters
not expressly or by necessary implication withdrawn or removed
by the Constitution from the ambit of legislative action so long as
it does not contravene any provision of the Constitution; and
Congress as a legislative body may thus enact necessary
implementing legislation to fill in the gaps, which Congress as a
Constituent Assembly has omitted.

RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner,

vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING
and AUDITOR GENERAL, respondents.
G.R. No. L-28196
NOVEMBER 9, 1967

FACTS:
The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously.
The first, proposing amendments to the Constitution so as to
increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a
maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a
maximum of 180.
he second, calling a convention to propose amendments to said
Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective
delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the
general elections.
In addition, the third, proposing that the same Constitution be
amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned
constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats
in Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon
approval by the President, became Republic Act No. 4913
providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the
aforementioned resolutions be submitted, for approval by the
people, at the general elections.
The petitioner assails the constitutionality of the said law
contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously propose
amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a
constitutional convention.

ISSUE(S):
Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional?
WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the
Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional
convention?

HELD:
YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to
amend or revise the Constitution, is different from the law-making
power of Congress. Congress can directly propose amendments to
the Constitution and at the same time call for a Constitutional
Convention to propose amendments.
Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose
amendments thereto is not included in the general grant of
legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of
the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state,
such as ours— to make, and, hence, to amend their own
Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the
Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power.
Hence, when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of
Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly.
When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their
authority from the Constitution, unlike the people, when
performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate
from the Constitution — they are the very source of all powers of
government, including the Constitution itself.
Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to
the Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority
from the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not
have the final say on whether or not their acts are within or beyond
constitutional limits. Otherwise, they could brush aside and set the
same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that ours is a
government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our
Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the
Constitution expressly confers upon the Supreme Court, the power
to declare a treaty unconstitutional, despite the eminently political
character of treaty-making power.