Constitutinal Law 2 Chapter 2 1.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325 - March 19 1997! Fac"s# Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed it! "#M$%$" a petition to amend t!e constitution to lift t!e term limits of elective officials, t!rou&! Peoples Initiative. 'e (ased t!is petition on Article )*II, +ec. , of t!e -./0 "onstitution, !ic! provides for t!e ri&!t of t!e people to e1ercise t!e po er to directly propose amendments to t!e "onstitution. +u(se2uently t!e "#M$%$" issued an order directin& t!e pu(lication of t!e petition and of t!e notice of !earin& and t!ereafter set t!e case for !earin&. At t!e !earin&, +enator Roco, t!e I3P, Demo4rasya5Ipa&tan&&ol an& 6onstitusyon, Pu(lic Interest %a "enter, and %a(an n& Demo4rati4on& Pilipino appeared as intervenors5oppositors. +enator Roco filed a motion to dismiss t!e Delfin petition on t!e &round t!at one !ic! is co&niza(le (y t!e "#M$%$". 7!e petitioners !erein +enator +antia&o, Ale1ander Padilla, and Isa(el #n&pin filed t!is civil action for pro!i(ition under Rule 89 of t!e Rules of "ourt a&ainst "#M$%$" and t!e Delfin petition risin& t!e several ar&uments, suc! as t!e follo in&: (-) 7!e constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend t!e constitution can only (e implemented (y la to (e passed (y "on&ress. ;o suc! la !as (een passed< (,) 7!e peoples initiative is limited to amendments to t!e "onstitution, not to revision t!ereof. %iftin& of t!e term limits constitutes a revision, t!erefore it is outside t!e po er of peoples initiative. 7!e +upreme "ourt &ranted t!e Motions for Intervention. Iss$%s# (-) =!et!er or not +ec. ,, Art. )*II of t!e -./0 "onstitution is a self5e1ecutin& provision. (,) =!et!er or not "#M$%$" Resolution ;o. ,>?? re&ardin& t!e conduct of initiative on amendments to t!e "onstitution is valid, considerin& t!e a(sence in t!e la of specific provisions on t!e conduct of suc! initiative. (>) =!et!er t!e liftin& of term limits of elective officials ould constitute a revision or an amendment of t!e "onstitution. &%'(# +ec. ,, Art )*II of t!e "onstitution is not self e1ecutory, t!us, it!out implementin& le&islation t!e same cannot operate. Alt!ou&! t!e "onstitution !as reco&nized or &ranted t!e ri&!t, t!e people cannot e1ercise it if "on&ress does not provide for its implementation. 7!e portion of "#M$%$" Resolution ;o. ,>?? !ic! prescri(es rules and re&ulations on t!e conduct of initiative on amendments to t!e "onstitution, is void. It !as (een an esta(lis!ed rule t!at !at !as (een dele&ated, cannot (e dele&ated (potestas dele&ata non dele&ari potest). 7!e dele&ation of t!e po er to t!e "#M$%$" (ein& invalid, t!e latter cannot validly promul&ate rules and re&ulations to implement t!e e1ercise of t!e ri&!t to peoples initiative. 7!e liftin& of t!e term limits as !eld to (e t!at of a revision, as it ould affect ot!er provisions of t!e "onstitution suc! as t!e sync!ronization of elections, t!e constitutional &uarantee of e2ual access to opportunities for pu(lic service, and pro!i(itin& political dynasties. A revision cannot (e done (y initiative. 'o ever, considerin& t!e "ourts decision in t!e a(ove Issue, t!e issue of !et!er or not t!e petition is a revision or amendment !as (ecome academic.

,. LAM)INO vs. COMELEC G.R. No. 17*153 Oc". 25 2++, (CAR-IO ..!

Re2uirements for Initiative Petition "onstitutional Amendment vs. "onstitutional Revision 7ests to determine revision !et!er amendment or

FACTS: 7!e %am(ino @roup commenced &at!erin& si&natures for an initiative petition to c!an&e t!e -./0 "onstitution and t!en filed a petition it! "#M$%$" to !old a ple(iscite for ratification under +ec. 9(() and (c) and +ec. 0 of RA 80>9. 7!e proposed c!an&es under t!e petition ill s!ift t!e present 3icameral5Presidential system to a Anicameral5Parliamentary form of &overnment. "#M$%$" did not &ive it due course for lac4 of an ena(lin& la &overnin& initiative petitions to amend t!e "onstitution, pursuant to +antia&o v. "omelec rulin&. ISSUES: /h%"h%r or 0o" "h% 1ro1os%( cha02%s co0s"3"$"% a0 a4%0(4%0" or r%v3s3o0 /h%"h%r or 0o" "h% 303"3a"3v% 1%"3"3o0 3s s$553c3%0" co41'3a0c% 63"h "h% co0s"3"$"3o0a' r%7$3r%4%0" o0 (3r%c" 1ro1osa' 89 "h% 1%o1'%

RULING:

Initiative petition does not comply on direct proposal

it! +ec. ,, Art. )*II (y people

+ec. ,, Art. )*II...is t!e &overnin& provision t!at allo s a peoples initiative to propose amendments to t!e "onstitution. =!ile t!is provision does not e1pressly state t!at t!e petition must set fort! t!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments, t!e deli(erations of t!e framers of our "onstitution clearly s!o t!at: (a) t!e framers intended to adopt relevant American Burisprudence on peoples initiative< and (() in particular, t!e people must first see t!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments (efore t!ey si&n, and t!at t!e people must si&n on a petition containin& suc! full te1t. 7!e essence of amendments Cdirectly proposed (y t!e people t!rou&! initiative upon a petitionD is t!at t!e entire proposal on its face is a petition (y t!e people. 7!is means t o essential elements must (e present. , elements of initiative -. ,. Eirst, t!e people must aut!or and t!us si&n t!e entire proposal. ;o a&ent or representative can si&n on t!eir (e!alf. +econd, as an initiative upon a petition, t!e proposal must (e em(odied in a petition.

An initiative t!at &at!ers si&natures from t!e people it!out first s!o in& to t!e people t!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments is most li4ely a deception, and can operate as a &i&antic fraud on t!e people. 7!ats !y t!e "onstitutionre2uires t!at an initiative must (e Cdirectly proposed (y t!e people 1 1 1 in a petitionD 5 meanin& t!at t!e people must si&n on a petition t!at contains t!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments. #n so vital an issue as amendin& t!e nations fundamental la , t!e ritin& of t!e te1t of t!e proposed amendments cannot (e !idden from t!e people under a &eneral or special po er of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals. 7!e initiative violates +ection ,, Article )*II of t!e "onstitution disallo in& revision t!rou&! initiatives Article )*II of t!e "onstitution spea4s of t!ree modes of amendin& t!e "onstitution. 7!e first mode is t!rou&! "on&ress upon t!ree5fourt!s vote of all its Mem(ers. 7!e second mode is t!rou&! a constitutional convention. 7!e t!ird mode is t!rou&! a peoples initiative. +ection - of Article )*II, referrin& to t!e first and second modes, applies to Cany amendment to, or revision of, t!is "onstitution.D In contrast, +ection , of Article )*II, referrin& to t!e t!ird mode, applies only to Camendments to t!is "onstitution.D 7!is distinction as intentional as s!o n (y t!e deli(erations of t!e "onstitutional "ommission. A peoplesinitiative to c!an&e t!e "onstitution applies only to an amendment of t!e "onstitution and not to its revision. In contrast, "on&ress or a constitutional convention can propose (ot! amendments and revisions to t!e "onstitution. Does t!e revision %am(ino @roups initiative constitute a of t!e "onstitutionG

7!ese essential elements are present only if t!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments is first s!o n to t!e people !o e1press t!eir assent (y si&nin& suc! complete proposal in a petition. 7!e full te1t of t!e proposed amendments may (e eit!er ritten on t!e face of t!e petition, or attac!ed to it. If so attac!ed, t!e petition must stated t!e fact of suc! attac!ment. 7!is is an assurance t!at everyone of t!e several millions of si&natories to t!e petition !ad seen t!e full te1tof t!e proposed amendments (efore F not after F si&nin&. Moreover, Can initiative si&ner must (e informed at t!e time of si&nin& of t!e nature and effect of t!at !ic! is proposedD and failure to do so is Cdeceptive and misleadin&D !ic! renders t!e initiative void. In t!e case of t!e %am(ino @roups petition, t!eres not a sin&le ord, p!rase, or sentence of te1t of t!e proposedc!an&es in t!e si&nature s!eet. ;eit!er does t!e si&nature s!eet state t!at t!e te1t of t!e proposed c!an&es is attac!ed to it. 7!e si&nature s!eet merely as4s a 2uestion !et!er t!e people approve a s!ift from t!e 3icameral5Presidential to t!e Anicameral5 Parliamentary system of &overnment. 7!e si&nature s!eet does not s!o to t!e people t!e draft of t!e proposed c!an&es (efore t!ey are as4ed to si&n t!e si&nature s!eet. 7!is omission is fatal.

Hes. 3y any le&al test and under any Burisdiction, a s!ift from a 3icameral5Presidential to a Anicameral5 Parliamentary system, involvin& t!e a(olition of t!e #ffice of t!e President and t!e a(olition of one c!am(er of "on&ress, is (eyond dou(t a revision, not a mere amendment. Amendment vs. Revision

"ourts !ave lon& reco&nized t!e distinction (et een an amendment and a revision of a constitution. Revision (roadly implies a c!an&e t!at alters a (asic principle in t!e constitution, li4e alterin& t!e principle of separation of po ers or t!e system of c!ec4s5and5 (alances. 7!ere is also revision if t!e c!an&e alters t!e su(stantial entirety of t!e constitution, as !en t!e c!an&e affects su(stantial provisions of t!e

constitution. #n t!e ot!er !and, amendment (roadly refers to a c!an&e t!at adds, reduces, or deletes it!out alterin& t!e (asic principle involved. Revision &enerally affects several provisions of t!e constitution, !ile amendment &enerally affects only t!e specific provision (ein& amended. =!ere t!e proposed c!an&e applies only to a specific provision of t!e "onstitution it!out affectin& any ot!er section or article, t!e c!an&e may &enerally (e considered an amendment and not a revision. Eor e1ample, a c!an&e reducin& t!e votin& a&e from -/ years to -9 years is an amendment and not a revision. +imilarly, a c!an&e reducin& Eilipino o ners!ip of mass media companies from -??I to 8?I is an amendment and not a revision. Also, a c!an&e re2uirin& a colle&e de&ree as an additional 2ualification for election to t!e Presidency is an amendment and not a revision. 7!e c!an&es in t!ese e1amples do not entail any modification of sections or articles of t!e "onstitution ot!er t!an t!e specific provision (ein& amended. 7!ese c!an&es do not also affect t!e structure of &overnment or t!e system of c!ec4s5and5 (alances amon& or it!in t!e t!ree (ranc!es. 'o ever, t!ere can (e no fi1ed rule on !et!er a c!an&e is an amendment or a revision. A c!an&e in a sin&le ord of one sentence of t!e "onstitution may (e a revision and not an amendment. Eor e1ample, t!e su(stitution of t!e ord Crepu(licanD it! Cmonarc!icD or Ct!eocraticD in +ection -, Article II of t!e "onstitution radically over!auls t!e entire structure of &overnment and t!e fundamental ideolo&ical (asis of t!e "onstitution. 7!us, eac! specific c!an&e ill !ave to (e e1amined case5(y5case, dependin& on !o it affects ot!er provisions, as ell as !o it affects t!e structure of&overnment, t!e carefully crafted system of c!ec4s5and5(alances, and t!e underlyin& ideolo&ical (asis of t!e e1istin& "onstitution. +ince a revision of a constitution affects (asic principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a deli(erative (ody it! recorded proceedin&s is (est suited to underta4e a revision. A revision re2uires !armonizin& not only several provisions, (ut also t!e altered principles it! t!ose t!at remain unaltered. 7!us, constitutions normally aut!orize deli(erative (odies li4e constituent assem(lies or constitutional conventions to underta4e revisions. #n t!e ot!er !and, constitutions allo peoples initiatives, !ic! do not !ave fi1ed and identifia(le deli(erative (odies or recorded proceedin&s, to underta4e only amendments and not revisions.

7ests to determine

!et!er amendment or revision

In "alifornia !ere t!e initiative clause allo s amendments (ut not revisions to t!e constitution Bust li4e in our "onstitution, courts !ave developed a t o5 part test: t!e 2uantitative test and t!e 2ualitative test. 7!e 2uantitative test as4s !et!er t!e proposed c!an&e is so e1tensive in its provisions as to c!an&e directly t!e su(stantial entirety of t!e constitution (y t!e deletion or alteration of numerous e1istin& provisions. 7!e court e1amines only t!e num(er of provisions affected and does not consider t!e de&ree of t!e c!an&e. 7!e 2ualitative test in2uires into t!e 2ualitative effects of t!e proposed c!an&e in t!e constitution. 7!e main in2uiry is !et!er t!e c!an&e ill accomplis! suc! far reac!in& c!an&es in t!e nature of our (asic &overnmental plan as to amount to a revision. =!et!er t!ere is an alteration in t!e structure of &overnment is a proper su(Bect of in2uiry. 7!us, a c!an&e in t!e nature of Jt!eK (asic &overnmental plan includes c!an&e in its fundamental frame or4 or t!e fundamental po ers of its 3ranc!es. A c!an&e in t!e nature of t!e (asic &overnmental plan also includes c!an&es t!at Beopardize t!e traditional form of &overnment and t!e system of c!ec4 and (alances. Ander (ot! t!e 2uantitative and 2ualitative tests, t!e %am(ino @roups initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Luantitatively, t!e %am(ino @roups proposed c!an&es over!aul t o articles 5 Article *I on t!e %e&islature and Article *II on t!e $1ecutive 5 affectin& a total of -?9 provisions in t!e entire "onstitution. Lualitatively, t!e proposed c!an&es alter su(stantially t!e (asic plan of &overnment, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a (icameral to a unicameral le&islature. A c!an&e in t!e structure of &overnment is a revision A c!an&e in t!e structure of &overnment is a revision of t!e "onstitution, as !en t!e t!ree &reat co5e2ual (ranc!es of &overnment in t!e present "onstitution are reduced into t o. 7!is alters t!e separation of po ers in t!e "onstitution. A s!ift from t!e present 3icameral5Presidential system to a Anicameral5 Parliamentary system is a revision of t!e "onstitution. Mer&in& t!e le&islative and e1ecutive (ranc!es is a radical c!an&e in t!e structure of &overnment. 7!e a(olition alone of t!e #ffice of t!e President as t!e locus of $1ecutive Po er alters t!e separation of po ers and t!us constitutes a revision of t!e "onstitution. %i4e ise, t!e a(olition alone of one c!am(er of "on&ress alters t!e system of c!ec4s5and5 (alances it!in t!e le&islature and constitutes a

>

revision

of

t!e

"onstitution.

7!e %am(ino @roup t!eorizes t!at t!e difference (et een amendment and revision is only one of procedure, not of su(stance. 7!e %am(ino @roup posits t!at !en a deli(erative (ody drafts and proposes c!an&es to t!e "onstitution, su(stantive c!an&es are called revisions (ecause mem(ers of t!e deli(erative (ody or4 full5time on t!e c!an&es. 7!e same su(stantive c!an&es, !en proposed t!rou&! an initiative, are called amendments (ecause t!e c!an&es are made (y ordinary people !o do not ma4e an occupation, profession, or vocation out of suc! endeavor. 7!e +", !o ever, ruled t!at t!e e1press intent of t!e framers and t!e plain lan&ua&e of t!e "onstitution contradict t!e %am(ino @roups t!eory. =!ere t!e intent of t!e framers and t!e lan&ua&e of t!e "onstitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not deviate from suc! cate&orical intent and lan&ua&e.