Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Comelec
G.R. No. 174153
Oct. 25 2006
CARPIO, J:
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 17 of Art 6 and sections 14 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the
present bicameralpresidential form of government to unicameralparliamentary. 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with 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
DISPOSITION: Petition is dismissed.
Dissent
PUNO:
1. Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the present petition in behalf of the
more than six million voters who allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution
There is no need for the six million voters to all file separate documents, the petitioners can file in
their behalf
Petitioners, as “persons aggrieved”, can file for petition for certiorari and petition for mandamus
2. The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the examination of Santiago
“Stare decisis et non quieta movere” meaning stand by the thing and do not disturb the calm
3. A reexamination of RA 6735 will show that it is sufficient to implement the people’s initiative
It is clear that Congress intended the said law to implement the right of the people, thru initiative, to
propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action
Seen through: the text of RA 6735 referencing the right of the people; legislative history
showing the clear intent of law makers; sponsorship speeches of the authors of RA 6735
demonstrate this intent
The omitted details in RA 6735 are mere details and not fundamental policies, we cannot dodge the
duty to give effect to the intent of the law makers to implement the right of initiative to amend the
Constitution
4. The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are mere amendments and can be
undertaken through people’s initiative
Disagrees with the ruling that only “simple” but not “substantial” amendments can be done through
people’s initiative
Constitution did not adopt any test that determines whether an amendment is simple or
substantial
The big bulk of the 1987 Constitution will not be affected
Proposed changes would basically affect only the constitution of the government, and not the
fundamental nature of our state as a democratic and republican state
1940 conversion from unicameral system to bicameral structure were considered amendments only,
not a revision—vs replacement of 1935 Constitution with 1973 Constitution, which is considered a
revision
5. The issues at bar are not political questions
6. Whether the Petition for Initiative filed before the COMELEC complied with Section 2, Article XVII of
the Constitution and RA 6375 involves contentious issues of the fact which should first be resolved
by the COMELEC
The issue’s (of whether petitioners have complied w/ constitutional requirement) resolution will
require presentation of evidence and their calibration by the COMELEC
7. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to the Lambino and Aumentado
petition
8. Finally, let the people speak
Right of the people to make decisions is the essence of sovereignty
CORONA:
Agrees with Justice Reynato Puno’s dissent
Additional opinion:
Santiago does not apply to this case, but only to the 1997 Delfin Petition
People’s initiative should not be subject to conditions
People’s right and power to propose changes to the constitution directly should not be
unreasonably curtailed