JUSTICE YNARES-SANTIAGO A. Whether Lambino groups petition follows constitutional requirements. a. No.

The proposal was not contained or attached to the petition. This requirement is important because the petition is supposed to be a direct petition of the people, thus, they must know what is actually, and not merely a general idea, the content. b. Lambino group committed logrolling. A shift from presidential to parliamentary form does not necessarily require a shift from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. B. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or an amendment. a. It is a revision. It may be conceded that it fails the quantitative test, however, qualitatively, it does not only affect our basic governmental plan, but also redefine our rights as citizens in relation to the government (e.g., under the presidential form, we directly elect the executive, but under the parliamentary form, we indirectly elect through the members of the parliament the executive). b. The parliamentary system is consistent with constitutional democracy, however, the underlying tenets and governmental framework are different. As already explained, the legislature and the executive are only one, affective framework, power relations, and checks and balances. c. The intent of the petition is not merely to change Articles VI and VII, but to consider all the provisions of the Constitution. This is evidenced by the fact that the proposal contains a mandatory formation of a constitutional assemblee once the change of government form is instituted. Since the intent is to consider the whole Constitution, the intent is for a revision, not an amendment. C. Whether the peoples sovereignty is violated by the dismissal of the petition. a. No. It is in accord with the Constitutionthe embodiment of the peoples sovereigntythat peoples initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution. The people, through the constitution, in the first place, exercised their sovereign will when they ratified the Constitution, including the provision that limits peoples initiatives to amendments. This limitation is their sovereign will, binding upon them and upon future generations, and not even the dissenting voice of millions can usurp it. JUSTICE SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ A. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. a. No, because it did not dismiss the petition in a capricious or whimsical manner and it did not act in an arbitrary and despotic manner, the dismissal of the petition being based on the precedence of Santiago vs. Comelec. B. Whether Santiago vs. Comelec has precedence. a. Yes. The decision is workable, and it is relied upon, as proven by the fact that people, especially law practitioners, students, the entire judiciary, and litigants recognize it as such, and there are bills passed in

Congress to cure the defect of RA 6735. As no bill to cure the defects has been signed to law, there is no development in law that can overrule the decision. C. Whether the Lambino petition is a revision or an amendment. a. It is a revision. It will alter the very structure of government and create multifarious ramifications. It creates a domino effect on different provisions of the Constitution, which may constitute substantially the entirety of the charter. b. There is a change in the principle of separation of power, which is interwoven in the fabric of the Constitution, thus the petition is a revision. D. Whether Lambino or Aumentado can file the petition. a. No. Amendment through peoples initiative is a direct petition of the people, and being a direct petition, it cannot admit representation within its meaning. b. Since the proposal was not attached to the petition, there can be no presumption that the people knew what the proposal is really about, thus, it cannot be said that it is a direct petition by the people. JUSTICE CORONA A. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. a. Yes. Santiago vs. Comelec ruling is res judicata, for reasons already mentioned (e.g., by Justice Puno). In addition, here are the res judicata requisites: the former judgment is final; the judgment was rendered by a court with jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; the judgment is on merits; and identity (sameness) of the parties. Since the parties are now the Lambino group and the Comelecnot Santiago and Comelecthere is a violation of the fourth requisite, thus the Santiago vs. Comelec ruling cannot used in the Lambino vs. Comelec case. B. Whether the peoples initiative provision is inoperative because of RA 6735s supposed defect? a. The provision is operative. Declaration that a law is inadequate simply because of lack of sub-heading and other grammatical and insignificant omissions cannot restrain Constitutional rights, otherwise the provision is emasculated. JUSTICE CALLEJO A. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion/ a. It did not. It was merely following courts ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec, which permanently enjoins the Comelec from entertaining any petition for initiative on amending the Constitution until a valid law shall have been enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. Until the ruling is overruled by the Court en banc, it is part of the legal system.

b. The ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec remains definitive, since the motion for reconsideration failed to persuade the majority of the court. c. RA 6735 do not empower Comelec to hear the initiative petition. B. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or an amendment. a. It is a revision. It changes the basic plan and substance of the tripartite system and the principle of separation of powers, thus, this change is not within the lines of the original instrument. C. Whether limiting peoples initiatives to change the Constitution infringes the peoples sovereignty. a. No. It was by exercise of their sovereign will that the people imposed limits upon themselves. JUSTICE AZCUNA A. Whether RA 7635 is adequate. a. It is adequate. It is not subject to regular rules of establishing sufficiency of laws, because when Congress passed it, it exercised constituent, not legislative, power, as the law relates to the Constitution of Sovereignty. B. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or amendment. a. It is a revision. Change in the system of government is a revision because it will affect other provisions. For example, a change to the parliamentary system will affect the power of judiciary, as well as affect the system of checks and balances, since the Parliament is supreme. b. Justice Azcuna said that a change from bicameral to unicameral legislature is an amendment. ( Just a thought: This is because it does not affect separation of powers and constitutional principles, among other reasons.) Change to a parliamentary system is a revision. JUSTICE TINGA A. Whether the ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec set precedence. a. It does not set precedence. In addition of Justice Punos explanation, the ruling is erroneous, illogical, and should not be perpetuated. The court affirmed RA 6735s constitutionality, but barred its enforcement by declaring it inadequate. This violates Article 9 of the Civil Code. B. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. a. It did. Since Santiago vs. Comelec has no precedence, it has to do its duties contained in RA 6735.

JUSTICE CHICO-NAZARIO A. Whether RA 6735 is adequate. a. Yes. There is no need to provide for what the Court found lacking in its ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec, because the enabling law which Congress has been commanded to enact must give life to the provision on peoples initiative, and make the exercise of the right to initiative possible, not to regulate, limit, or restrain it. B. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. a. Yes. The ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec is res judicata. JUSTICE VELASCO A. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or an amendment. a. It is an amendment, because it concerns only a few provisions, and not the entirety of the Constitution. The question of whether a proposal is a revision or an amendment is difficult, and when confronted with this matter, which pertains to the sovereign peoples political rightsor with any matter pertaining to the sovereign peoples political rightsthe Court must lean more towards a more liberal interpretation favoring the peoples right to exercise their sovereign power.