LAMBINO V COMELEC The Constitutional framers intended, and wrote, a clear distinction
OCTOBER 25 2006 | CARPIO, J between amendment and revision of the Constitution.
FACTS:
2006 - Feb 15: Lambino and Aumentado (Lambino Group) gathered
signatures for an initiative petition to amend the 1987 constitution proposing
changes that will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a
Unicameral- Parliamentary form of government.
Aug 25: Pursuant to the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735), Lambino
Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for
ratification of their initiative petition. Their initiative petition was supported
by the 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered
voters with each legislative district represented by at least 3%, as
required by RA 6735.
Aug 30: Lambino Group filed an Amended petition with the COMELEC
indicating modifications in the Transitory provisions of their initiative.
Aug 31: COMELEC, in its Resolution, denied Lambino Groups petition for
lack of anenabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution.
ISSUE/S:
1. WON the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Sec. 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
peoples initiative NO
The initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct proposal by the people
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.
A signature requirement would be meaningless if the person
supplying the signature had not first seen what it is he or she is
signing.
Although the Constitution does not expressly require the inclusion of
the full text of the proposed amendments, the deliberations of the
constitutional framers clearly show their intent to adopt relevant
American jurisprudence on peoples initiative.
The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with
the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures.
There is logrolling when the initiative petition incorporates an
unrelated subject matter in the same petition. Proposed Section 4(4)
providing that the interim parliament shall convene to propose
amendments/revisions of this constitution within 45 days from
ratification is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the
Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral- Parliamentary system.
The initiative violates Sec. 2, Article XVII of the Constitution disallowing
Revision through initiatives
o Only Congress or a constitutional convention may propose
revisions whereas a peoples initiative may propose only
amendments.
o A revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution and affects several provisions
whereas amendment refers to a change that adds, reduces,
or deletes without altering the basic principle involved and
affects only the specific provision being amended.
o In California, courts have developed a two-part test: the
quantitative test and qualitative test. In the former, the court
examines only the number of provisions affected and does
not consider the degree of change. In the latter, the main
inquiry is whether the change will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental
plan as to amount to a revision. Under both these tests, the
Lambino Groups initiative is a revision that alters the
structure of government and separation of powers in the
constitution.
A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 M signatures, cannot
justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the
Constitution itself.
A deliberative body with recorded proceedings like constituent
assemblies or constitutional conventions is best suited to undertake
a revision since it would affect basic principles or several provisions
of a constitution. A revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is not necessary.
2. WON 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- NO
A revisit of Santiago v COMELEC is not necessary
An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of
the present petition. The Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving
the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be
resolved on some other grounds.
RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the petition as
signatories. In the instant case, the Lambino Group merely attached
the signature sheets to the petition and amended petition.
Lambino Groups logrolling initiative also violates RA 6735 stating that
no petition embracing more that one subject shall be submitted to the
electorate The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing the Lambino Groups initiative for following the
COMELECs ruling. Held: Petition dismissed
DISSENTING OPINION
PUNO, CJ serve as a precedent. Numerous cases in the past established the
The initiative does not violate Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution jurisprudence that an equally divided court cannot set a precedent. It
allowing revision through initiatives. merely disposes of the present controversy as between the parties
Ratio: The assessment on whether or not an amendment is and settles no issue of law. As such the decision only has res
substantial enough to be classified as a revision cannot be judicata and not stare decisis. In line with this, COMELEC committed
accurately determined by the qualitative and quantitative test. Nor a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction in
can the traditional distinctions between amendment and revision, denying due course to Lambino and Aumentados petition on the
practiced in the changing of the previous Constitution, conclusively basis that Santiago established a doctrine that RA 6735 was an
confirm that substantial amendments amount to revisions. As such, insufficient law.
the cardinal rule in rule in interpreting the Constitution shall apply
which is to construe the wordings to give effect to the intention of the
people who adopted it. In this respect, Section 1, Article II of the
Constitution emphasizes a democratic state which recognizes the
power of the sovereign people to act directly and not through their
representatives through the system of initiative, referendum and
recall. Thus, the sovereign power of the people to initiate
amendments as stated in Section 2 Article XVII should not be limited
just because the proposed amendments are substantial.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of
Santiago
Ratio: Courts refuse to be bound by the stare decisis rule where
(1) its application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional
holdings; (2) it cannot accommodate changing social and political
understandings; (3) it leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional
law solely in the hands of Congress; and, (4) activist judges can
dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare
decisis are stuck agreeing with them.
The court should re-examine its ruling on Santiago since RA 6735 is
sufficient to implement the peoples initiative.
Ratio: RA 6735 clearly expressed the legislative policy for the people
to propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action. While
the legislature may have omitted certain details on the
implementation of such law, it is not a sufficient reason to claim that
the law is incomplete. Since under section 2(1), Article IX-C of the
Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to enforce and administer
all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of initiatives, the
implementing details lacking in the law can be supplied by the rule-
making power of the COMELEC. Therefore, by ruling the above-
mentioned law as insufficient but not unconstitutional, the six justices
failed to give due recognition to the indefeasible right of the
sovereign people to amend the constitution which would warrant a
re-examination of their ruling on Santiago.
The COMELECs reliance on Santiago constitutes grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Ratio: The deadlock vote of 6-6 with 1 inhibition following the filing of
a motion for reconsideration failed to establish a doctrine that could