Lambino v.

Commission on Elections
G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

FACTS: On February 15, 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L.
Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (“Lambino Group”), with other groups and
individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the
1987 Constitution. On August 25, 2006, 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.

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) 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.

ISSUE: Whether or not 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: No. The Court ruled that the petition does not comply with Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution on direct proposal by the people. 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 test of the proposed
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such
complete proposal in a petition. The full text of the proposed amendments may be
either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition
must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the
several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed
amendments before – not after – signing.

In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition, there is not a single word, phrase,
or sentence of text of the 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 were asked to sign the signature sheet. This omission, the Court declared, is
fatal.