Lambino Vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153, Oct.

25 2006
Ponente: Justice Antonio Carpio

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:
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.

Decision:
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 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.

Ratio:
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 deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment “directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,”