SANTIAGO VS COMELEC
FACTS:
1. Atty. Jesus S. Delfin (on 6 Dec 1996) filed with COMELEC a “Petition to
Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by People’s
Initiative”
2. Movement for People’s Initiative, lead by Delfin.
o They are a group of citizens and are volunteers who intend to
exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution. Delfin asked the COMELEC to:
 Exercise of that power shall be under the control and
supervision of COMELEC
 Time and dates shall be fixed by COMELEC by issuing an
order
 Signature stations shall established all over the country
 For better information dissemination, that the petition
be published in a newspaper of general and local
circulation
3. MD Santiago et al (on 18 Dec 1996) filed a special civil action for
prohibition against the Delfin Petition & argues that:
o The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress and no such law has yet been passed
o A 6735 indeed provides for three systems of initiative namely,
initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on local legislation.
 The two latter forms of initiative were specifically
provided for in Subtitles II and III
 Omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative
to amend the Constitution was left to some future law –
as pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
ISSUE
Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the
constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
HELD
A) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard
for subordinate legislation;
1. Initiative on the Constitution is only confined to amendments, as
deliberated and approved in the 1986 Constitutional Commission. The
provision in RA 6735 to “directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in
WHOLE or in part” is not part of the power accorded to the people on
initiatives.
2. RA 6735, unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, does not
provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. On
the contrary, the conduct and requirements for the initiative of a national
and local law are well-defined and specified in the act. This furthers the
point that the Act’s focus is the guidelines on the conduct of initiative for
national and local laws. They even have their own subtitle.
3. Conspicuous silence of the Act on the amendments for the Consitution
proves that it reserves such for another law. Court argued that of the many
sections in the Act, it merely (a) mentions the Constitution and (b) includes
it in an enumeration of the three systems of initiative. The Court referred to
this as a downplay to the initiative on the Constitution, which brings us to
the:
CONCLUSION: The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
B) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN
petition (UND-96-037).
COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
entertaining the Delfin Petition. A petition for initiative requires a vote of 12% from
the total registered voters and a minimum of 3% from every legislative district.
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of
voters. Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that the
purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather
signatures.
Without the correct number of required signatures, the petition cannot be
initiated therefore COMELEC does not acquire jurisdiction.