Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest
The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with
Lambino Vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 174153
Oct. 25 2006
Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 constitution, they filed a
petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
that will ratify their initiative petition under RA
6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition
had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what
was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their
petition changes the 1987 constitution by
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4
of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed
changes will shift the present bicameral-
presidential form of government to unicameral-
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition
due to lack of enabling law governing initiative
petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec
ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement
the initiative petitions.
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.
Whether or Not 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.
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Group’s petition.
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group
failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held
that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.
1.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
Direct Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the
initiative signer must be informed at the time of
the signing of the nature and effect, failure to
do so is “deceptive and misleading” which
renders the initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear
distinction between “amendment” and
“revision, it is intended that the third mode of
stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may
propose only amendments to the constitution.
Merging of the legislative and the executive is a
radical change, therefore a constitutes a
revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not
Necessary
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not
change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative,
must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735
Petition is dismissed.
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
SSUES:
•
Whether or not the proposed changes
constitute an amendment or revision
•
Whether or not the initiative petition is
sufficient compliance with the constitutional
requirement on direct proposal by the people
RULING:
Initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2,
Art. XVII on direct proposal by people
Sec.2, Art. XVII...is the governing provision that
allows a people’s initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. While this
provision does not expressly state that the
petition must set forth the full text of the
proposed amendments, the deliberations of the
framers of our Constitution clearly show that:
(a) the framers intended to adopt relevant
American jurisprudence on people’s initiative;
and (b) in particular, the people must first
seethe full text of the proposed amendments
before they sign, and that the people must sign
on
a petition containing such full text.
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.
2 elements of initiative
1. First, the people must author and thus sign
the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf.
2.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. 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 stated 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.
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be
informed at the time of signing of the nature
and effect of that which is proposed” and failure
to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which
renders the initiative void.
In the case of the Lambino Group’s petition,
there’s 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 are asked to sign the signature
sheet. This omission is fatal.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the
people without first showing to the people
the full text of the proposed amendments is
most likely a deception, and can operate as a
gigantic fraud on the people. That’s why the
Constitution requires that an initiative must be”
directly proposed by the people x x x in a
petition” - meaning that the people must sign
on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as
amending the nation’s fundamental law, the
writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the people
under a general or special power of
attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected
individuals.
The initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of
the Constitution disallowing revision through
initiatives article XVII of the Constitution speaks
of three modes of amending the Constitution.
The first mode is through Congress upon three-
fourths vote of all its Members. The second
mode is through a constitutional convention.
The third mode is through a people’s initiative.
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first
and second modes, applies to “any amendment
to, or revision of, this Constitution.” In contrast,
Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third
mode, applies only to “amendments to this
Constitution.” This distinction was intentional as
shown by the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. A people’s initiative to change the
Constitution applies only to an amendment of
the Constitution and not to its revision. In
contrast, Congress or a constitutional
convention can propose both amendments and
revisions to the Constitution.
Does the Lambino Group’s initiative constitute a
revision of the Constitution?
Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction,
a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the
abolition of the Office of the President and the
abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond
doubt a revision, not a mere
amendment.
Amendment vs. Revision
Courts have long recognized the distinction
between an amendment and a revision of a
constitution. Revision broadly implies a change
that alters a basic principle in the
constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks-
and-balances. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects
substantial provisions of the constitution. On
the
other hand, amendment broadly refers to a
change that adds, reduces, or deletes without
altering the basic principle involved. Revision
generally affects several provisions of the
constitution, while amendment generally affects
only the specific provision being amended.
Where the proposed change applies only to a
specific provision of the Constitution without
affecting any other section or article, the change
may generally be considered an amendment
and not a revision.
For example, a change reducing the voting age
from 18years to 15 years is an amendment and
not a revision.
Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership
of mass media companies from 100% to 60% is
an amendment and not a
revision.
Also, a change requiring a college degree as an
additional qualification for election
to the Presidency is an amendment and not a
revision.
The changes in these examples do not entail any
modification of sections or articles of the
Constitution other than the specific provision
being amended. These changes do not also
affect the structure of government or the
system of checks-and-balances among or within
the three branches.
However, there can be no fixed rule on whether
a change is an amendment or a revision. A
change in a single word of one sentence of the
Constitution may be a revision and not an
amendment. For example, the substitution of
the word “republican” with “monarchic” or
“theocratic” in Section 1, Article II of the
Constitution radically overhauls the entire
structure
of government and the fundamental ideological
basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific
change will have to be examined case-by-case,
depending on how it affects other provisions,
as well as how it affects the structure of
government, the carefully crafted system of
checks-and-balances, and the underlying
ideological basis of the existing Constitution.
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic
principles, or several provisions of a
constitution, a deliberative body with recorded
proceedings is best suited to undertake a
revision. A revision requires harmonizing not
only several provisions, but also the altered
principles with those that remain unaltered.
Thus, constitutions normally authorize
deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies
or constitutional conventions to undertake
revisions. On the other hand, constitutions
allow people’s initiatives, which do not have
fixed &identifiable deliberative bodies or
recorded proceedings, to undertake only
amendments & not revisions.
Tests to determine whether amendment or
revision
In California where the initiative clause allows
amendments but not revisions to the
constitution just like in our Constitution, courts
have developed a two-part test: the
quantitative test and the qualitative test. The
quantitative test asks whether the proposed
change is so extensive in its provisions as to
change directly the substantial entirety of the
constitution by the deletion or alteration of
numerous existing provisions. The court
examines only the number of provisions
affected and does not consider the degree of
the
change.
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative
effects of the proposed change in the
constitution. 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. Whether
there is an alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus,
a revisions because members of the deliberative
change in the nature of [the] basic
governmental plan includes change in its
fundamental
framework or the fundamental powers of its
Branches. A change in the nature of the basic
governmental plan also includes changes that
jeopardize the traditional form of government &
the system of check and balances
Under both the quantitative and qualitative
tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision
&Not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the
Lambino Group’s proposed changes overhaul
two articles - Article VI on the Legislature and
Article VII on the Executive -affecting a total of
105 provisions in the entire Constitution.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter
substantially the basic plan of government, from
presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature.
A change in the structure of government is a
revision
A change in the structure of government is a
revision of the Constitution, as when the three
great co-equal branches of government in the
present Constitution are reduced into two. This
alters the separation of powers in the
Constitution. A shift from the present
Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary system is a revision of the
Constitution.
Merging the legislative and executive branches
is a radical change in the structure of
government. The abolition alone of the Office of
the President as the locus of Executive
Power alters the separation of powers and thus
constitutes a revision of the Constitution.
Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of
Congress alters the system of checks-and-
balances within the legislature and constitutes a
revision of the Constitution.
The Lambino Group theorizes that the
difference between amendment and revision is
only one of procedure, not of substance. The
Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative
body drafts and proposes changes to the
Constitution, substantive changes are called
body work full-time on the changes. The same
substantive changes, when proposed through
an initiative, are called amendments because
the changes are made by ordinary people who
do not make an occupation, profession, or
vocation out of such endeavor. The SC, however,
ruled that the express intent of the framers and
the plain language of the Constitution
contradict the Lambino Group’s theory. Where
the intent of the framers and the language of
the Constitution are clear and plainly stated,
courts do not deviate from such categorical
intent and language.
RATIO:
1. The Lambino Group failed to comply with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
a. The petition is not directly proposed by the
people.
The Lambino Group’s Initiative does comply
with the requirement that the amendment be
“directly proposed by the people upon a
petition” because the Lambino group failed to
present the full text of the proposed changes to
the Constitution to the signatories and thus it
cannot be assumed that the signatories had
knowledge of the full nature and effect of the
changes they were supporting. Given that the
Initiative first gathered signatures without
showing the full text of the proposed
amendments, it can be seen as a “gigantic fraud
on the people.”
While Section 2, Article XVII does not explicitly
state that the full text of proposed amendments
to the constitution should be presented to the
people before they sign the petition, as shown
on the record of the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission, it was the intent of
the framers that 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 signatories have not first been informed of
the full extent of the proposal he/she is signing,
and that the attachment of the full text proposal
would provide the assumption that people
would be informed in their decision whether to
sign or not.
Moreover, the signature sheet submitted by the
Lambino Group to the Court does not contain
the full text of the proposed changes to the
Constitution; instead, the signature sheet
merely asks whether the people approve a shift
from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary system of government.
The petitioners alleged that they circulated the
draft of their 30 August 2006 amended petition
during the signature gathering from February to
August 2006, having the Court believe that they
prepared their amended petition almost seven
months earlier in February 2006 and even
before they filed their 25 August 2006 petition.
While Aumentado gives as evidence ULAP
Resolution No. 2006-02, as proof that the
amended petition was circulated six months
before the petitions were filed, ULAP Resolution
No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner
Aumentado to prepare the petitions, rather, it
only states that ULAP “supports the proposals of
the Consultative Commission on Charter
Change” which are vastly different from the
proposals of the Lambino Group, thus the ULAP
Resolution does not establish that the Lambino
Group circulated the draft of the petition.
There is inconsistency in the story of the
Lambino Group as it was first stated that they
circulated both the 25 August 2006 petion and
the 30 August 2006 amended petion; however,
Atty. Lambino later changed the story stating
that only the amended petition was circulated.
Even with the assumption that the amended
petition was indeed circulated while the
signatures were being gathered it could still be
concluded that there would not be enough
copies of the petition for all the signatories to
see. As per Atty. Lambino’s own admission only
100,000 copies could be confirmed to have
been printed as these were printed by Lambino
himself. Assuming that each signature sheet,
which had space for 10 signatures, was attached
with a copy of the petition, there would be
enough copies for only 1 million people, far
from the 6,327,952 signatures gathered by the
Lambino Group.
Having proved that majority of the signatories
were not able to see the full text of the of the
proposed changes proposed signing, they could
not have known the full nature and effect of the
proposed changes which include three
controversial amendments:
The lifting of term limits on the members of the
legislature.
The interim Parliament will continue to function
indefinitely until it decides to call for
parliamentary elections thus enabling its
members to determine when they will end their
term.
Within 45 days after the proposed changes, the
interim Parliament will convene to propose
further amendments to the constitution.
This provision is determined by the Court to be
totally unrelated to the stated objective of the
initiative and is considered logrolling.
Logrolling refers to the incorporation of an
unrelated subject matter in the same petition
thus creating two propositions within one
petition thus putting the people in a dilemma
where since they can only say yes or no to the
whole petition they cannot agree to one
proposition without also agreeing to the other.
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the
people.
While Atty. Lambino states that this provision is
not necessary and should thus be ignored, the
Court does not agree since this provision could
effectively invalidate the whole exercise of the
people’s initiative as through this provision the
interim Parliament could, in theory, propose
amendments not agreed upon by the
signatories of the initial petition.
b. People’s initiative can only be done for
constitutional amendments and not revisions.
Based on the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission, the framers intentionally made a
distinction between amendments and revisions.
It was the intent, as is written, that only
Congress or a constitutional convention can
propose revisions while a people’s initiative is
limited only to the proposal of amendments.
A revision implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution while amendment
refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes, without altering the basic principle of
the constitution. A change in a single word
could already be considered a revision as long
as it overhauls the structure of government and
the ideological basis of the Constitution.
There are two tests to determine whether a
change is an amendment or a revision:
Quantitative test – examines the number of
provisions, not the degree of change, in order to
test how extensive the proposed changes are.
Qualitative test – based on qualitative effects,
asks whether the proposed changes create far
reaching changes in the nature of the basic
governmental plan thus amounting to a
revision.
The prosed changes by the Lambino Group
significantly alter the basic plan of government
as it would effectively alter the separation of
powers through the abolition of the Office of
the President and merging of the legislative and
executive, and alter the system of checks and
balances within the legislature through the
abolition of one chamber of Congress.
Under both quantitative and qualitative tests,
the Lambino Group’s proposed changes
constitute a revision and not simply an
amendment as it “radically alters the framework
of government set forth in the Constitution.
The Court states that since the proposed
changes constitute a revision and would require
far-reaching amendments in not just the
specified articles and provisions but also in
several others, a deliberative body with
recorded proceedings would be the best vehicle
to undertake them, as was intended by the
framers and is stated in the constitution, and
not a people’s initiative.
2. There is no need to revisit the Court’s ruling
in Santiago since an affirmation or reversal of
the said ruling would not change the outcome
of this petition.
Even if it is assumed RA 6735 is valid, contrary
to the ruling in Santiago, the outcome of the
Lambino Group’s petition would not change
since before referring to RA 6735 a petition
must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII,
and as was previously established, it does not.
The Lambino Group’s petition also does not
comply with RA 6735. Indeed, It violates Section
5(b) of RA 6735 requiring that the signatories,
consistitng of 12% of the total number of
registered voters, sign the petition since it has
already been established that the 6 million
signatories only signed a signature sheet and
not the petition itself.
It also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735, which
states that no more than 1 subject can be
embraced by a petition, through its provision
which mandates the interim Parliament to
propose further amendments which as
determined earlier is unrelated to the subject of
a shift from presidential to parliamentary form
of government.
3. The COMELEC did not commit a grave of
abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino
Group’s Initiative petition.
Since the COMELEC merely followed the Court’s
ruling in Santiago, the Commission did not
gravely abuse its discretion.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Puno, J.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the
examination of Santiago on the following
grounds:
In the Santiago ruling, the court ruled RA 6735
as insufficient but if did not strike it down as
unconstitutional, by doing so the Court
“usurped the exclusive right of legislators to
determine how far laws implementing
constitutional mandates should be crafted,”
defying the principle that courts cannot dictate
on Congress the style on writing laws and in
doing so rendered an intolerable ruling.
The ruling in Santiago involves the sovereignty
of the people.
The ruling should not impede the will of the 6.3
million signatories.
RA 6735 is sufficient to implement the people’s
initiative.
The intent of the legislators in enacting RA 6735
was the implementation of the right of the
people to propose amendments to the
Constitution through direct action.
The court has the duty to give effect to the
intent.
Only implementing details were omitted from
RA 6735 and not fundamental principles. The
implementing details of a law can be delegated
to the COMELEC.
The proposed changes are amendments and
can be undertaken through people’s initiative
Using the same quantitative test it could be
argued that since only 2 out of the 18 articles of
the 1987 constitution will be changed and thus
the big bulk of the 1987 Constitution would
remain unaffected.
Based on the work of Garner, who says that a
good constitution is composed of the
constitution of liberty, constitution of
government, and constitution of sovereignty,
the proposed changes only affect the
constitution of government and even then the
changes do not change the fundamental nature
of our state as a democratic and republican
state.
According to Dean Vicente G. Sincon, revision
refers to a consideration of the entire
constitution while amendment refers only to
particular provisions to be added to or altered
in a constitution. This traditional distinction
guided our people when they effected changes
in the 1935 and 1975 Constitutions.
The court should let the voice of the people be
heard.
The petition for people’s initiative is but the first
step towards the amendment of the
constitution. The petition, if approved, does not
constitute already the amendment of the
constitution. It will still require debate and
deliberation of the people, as well as ratification
by majority of the people. Every step of the way
it is the people who should decide, the court
should not prohibit them from doing so
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC case digest
(CONSTI-1)
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC
(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
Facts:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president
of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization
and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a
petition to amend the constitution to lift the
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
thehearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-
Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest
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
cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners
herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and
Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising
the several arguments, such as the following: (1)
The constitutional provision on people’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 the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of
the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore
it is outside 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 on
amendments to the Constitution is valid,
considering the absence in the law of specific
provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective
officials would constitute a revision or an
amendment of the Constitution.
Held:
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
executory, 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 the
conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void. It has been an established
rule that what has been delegated, cannot be
delegated (potestas delegata non delegari
potest). The delegation of the power to the
COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
promulgate rules and 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 guarantee of
equal access to opportunities for public service,
and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision
cannot be done by initiative. However,
considering the Court’s decision in the above
Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is
a revision or amendment has become academic.
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 on
amendments to the Constitution is valid,
considering the absence in the law of specific
provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective
officials would constitute a revision or an
amendment of the Constitution.
Held:
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
executory, 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 the
conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void. It has been an established
rule that what has been delegated, cannot be
delegated (potestas delegata non delegari
potest). The delegation of the power to the
COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
promulgate rules and 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 guarantee of
equal access to opportunities for public service,
and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision
cannot be done by initiative. However,
considering the Court’s decision in the above
Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is
a revision or amendment has become academic.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC(G.R. No.
127325 - March 19, 1997)Facts:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president
of People’s Initiative for Reforms,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 todirectly 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
byCongress. 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
executory, thus, without
implementinglegislation 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 (potestas
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.
PEOPLE vs. LAGMANG.R. Nos. L-45892 and
45893
ACTS:Appellants Tranquilino Lagman and
Primitivo de Sosa are charged with a violationof
section 60 of Commonwealth Act No. 1, known
as the National Defense Law. Itis alleged that
these two appellants, being Filipinos and having
reached the ageof twenty years in 1936,
willfully and unlawfully refused to register in the
military service between the 1st and 7th of April
of said year, even though they had been
required to do so. The two appellants were duly
notified to appear before the Acceptance Board
in order to register for military service but still
did not register up to the date of the filing of
the information.Appellants argue that they did
not register because de Sosa is fatherless and
has a mother and a brother eight years old to
support, and Lagman also has a father to
support, has no military learnings, and does not
wish to kill or be killed. The Court of First
Instance sentenced them both to one month
and one day of imprisonment, with the costs.
contrary, in faithful compliance therewith. The
duty of the Government to defend the State
cannot be performed except through an army.
To leave the organization of an army to the will
of the citizens would be to make thisduty of the
Government excusable should there be no
sufficient men who volunteer to enlist therein.In
US cases, it was stated that the right of the
Government to require compulsory military
service is a consequence of its duty to defend
the State; and, that aperson may be compelled
by forceâ

¦to take his place in the ranks of the army of
hiscountry, and risk the chance of being shot
down in its defense.What justifies compulsory
military service is the defense of the State,
whetheractual or whether in preparation to
make it more effective, in case of need.
Thecircumstances of the appellants do not
excuse them from their duty to present
themselves before the Acceptance Board
because they can obtain the proper pecuniary
allowance to attend to these family
responsibilities (secs. 65 and 69 of
Commonwealth Act No. 1).

ISSUE:WON the National Defense Law (Sec 60,

Commonwealth Act No. 1) was constitutionalby
virtue of Section 2, Article II of the Constitution
which states that:SEC. 2. The defense of the
state is a prime duty of government, and in the
fulfillment of this duty all citizens may be
required by law to render personal military or
civil service

HELD:YES. Decision of CFI affirmed. The National

Defense Law, in so far as it establishes
compulsory military service, does not go against
this constitutional provision but is, on the