Santiago v COMELEC

Petitioners: Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla Respondents: COMELEC, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa Petitioner-Intervenors: Sen. Raul S. Roco, DIK, IBP, LABAN Ponente: Justice Davide Jr. Facts: December 6, 1996 Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by Peoples Initiative wherein Atty. Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order. 1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country 2. Causing necessary publications of the said Order and petition in newspapers of general and local circulation 3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose Provisions sought to be amended: Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, section 4 of Article VII, Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution Upon filing of the Delfin Petition UND 96-037 (INITIATIVE), COMELEC through its Chairman issued an order 1. Directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative on 1987 Constitution and the notice of hearing in three (3) newspapers of general circulation at his own expense not later than December 9, 1996 2. Setting the case for hearing on December 12, 1996 at 10:00 am. December 12, 1996 Atty. Delfin, Atty. Quadra, representative of PIRMA , and the Petitioner-Intervenors appeared at the hearing. On the same day, Sen. Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC December 18, 1996 Petitioners Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed special civil action for prohibition with arguments: 1. The constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. But no such law has been passed yet and Senate Bill No. 1290, An Act Prescribing and Regulating Constitutional Amendments by Peoples Initiative is still pending.

2. R.A No. 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates the matter of peoples initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law. 3. R.A. No. 6735 will take effect after publication in print media, an indication that the act covers only laws and not constitutional amendments. 4. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments is concerned. 5. Lifting of term limits constitute a revision, not amendment and peoples initiative is limited to amendment only. 6. Congress has not yet appropriated funds for the peoples initiative. December 19, 1996 Court issued a TRO enjoining COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive. January 2, 1997 Atty. Quadra filed a comment on the petition: 1. In contrary to the petitioners argument re budget, National Treasury for General Registration of voters will not amount to 180,000,000.00 pesos. 2. All expenses in the signature gathering are all for the account of Delfin and his volunteers. 3. The court in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v COMELEC case upheld resolution No. 2300 pursuant to R.A. 6735. The court said: The COMELEC can do no less by seasonably and judiciously promulgating guidelines and rules for both national and local use, in implementing of these laws. 4. Lifting of term limits is not a revision, but an amendment. Atty. Delfin also filed a comment on the petition: 1. What he filed on December 6, 1996 is an Initiatory Pleading or Initiatory Petition 2. The absence of a subtitle on initiative on the Constitution in RA 6735 does not affect the validity or sufficiency of the law. 3. The claim that COMELEC Resolution 2300 is ultra vires is contradicted by Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution and Section 20 of RA 6735. 4. Lifting of term limits is not a revision, but an amendment for it alters only a few specific provisions of the Constitution. Office of the Solicitor General filed a comment: 1. RA 6735 deals with, inter alia, peoples initiative to amend the Constitution.

2. A separate subtitle on initiative in RA 6735 is not necessary because of it being national in scope. 3. Lifting of term limits constitutes an amendment, not revision. 4. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid. January 14, 1997 The court confirmed nunc pro tunc the TRO and granted the Motion for Intervention by Sen. Roco January 17, 1997 DIK and MABINI filed a Motion for Intervention with the following arguments: 1. Delfin proposal is a revision, not an amendment, of the Constitution for it would involve a change in political philosophy. 2. Removal of term limits will negate the philosophy of governance which promotes effective proper empowerment for participation in policy and decision-making for the common good. 3. Delfin proposal in in contrast with the purpose of an initiative. An initiative may be availed of by the people if they are dissatisfied with the performance of elected officials, not if they want to reward elected officials for good performance. 4. RA 6735 is deficient and inadequate, and is not an enabling law. And there being no enabling law, COMELEC has no jurisdiction to hear Delfins petition. 5. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot remedy the deficiency of RA 6735 January 20, 1997 - Sen. Roco affirms RA No. 6735 is the enabling law that implements the peoples right to initiate constitutional amendments, and it is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505. He also submits that COMELEC was empowered under Section 20 of RA 6735 to promulgate COMELEC Resolution 2300. But, Sen Roco contends that COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance the Delfin Petition because it is not the initiatory pleading contemplated under RA 6735 January 21, 1997 IBP filed for a Motion for Intervention 1. Congress has failed to pass an enabling law mandated in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. 2. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the required implementing law on the initiative to amend the Constitution 3. Petition for Initiative does not have the required number of signatures 4. The petition seeks a revision which can be proposed only by the Congress or a Con-Con. January 23, 1997 Hearing of the Case

Issues: 1. WON it is proper for the SC to take cognizance on the petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC 2. WON R.A. 6735 intended to include initiative on amendments of the Constitution 3. WON COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid 4. WON COMELEC has jurisdiction over the order asked by the respondents 5. W the lifting of terms limits of elective officials constitutes an amendment or a resolution of the Constitution HELD/RATIO: 1. YES. The COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Delfin Petition and that it becomes imperative for SC to stop the COMELEC from proceeding any further. 2. YES. RA 6735 intends to include initiative on amendments of the Constitution but it is deficient and inadequate in terms of how to carry it out. Since the legislature has not yet pass an implementing law, initiative on amendments of the Constitution cannot operate. 3. NO. COMELEC cannot prescribe rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments of the Constitution. It does not have that power under RA 6735. 4. NO. Since the Delfin Petition does not have the required signatures, it cannot be deemed validly initiated. Is not the initiatory petition under RA 6735 and it should not have been given cognizance by COMELEC. 5. The Court rendered the discussion on the issue of whether Delfins Petition constitutes an amendment or revision, unnecessary since it is not considered an initiatory petition.