G.R. No.

174153, October 25, 2006

Lambino, petitioner vs. Commission on Elections, respondent.
Carpio, J., ponente.
Facts

On Feb. 15, 2006, the Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for
an initiative petition to change the 1987 constitution.
On Aug. 25, 2006, the Lambino Group petitioned COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite to ratify the petition, following R.A. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum
Act).
Lambino Group alleged that their petition meets the requirements of having
the support of 12% of all registered voters, with each legislative district
represented by at least 3% of its registered voters. They also claimed that
COMELEC election registrars have confirmed the signatures of the 6.3 million
individuals.
Lambino Groups petition modifies Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Departmet), and adds
Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions). This will change the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form.
On Aug. 30, 2006, Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition modifying Article
XVIII.
COMELEC issued its resolution denying due course to the Lambino petition
because of the lack of an enabling law, invoking the SCs resolution in
Santiago v. COMELEC declaring R.A. 6735 inadequate in implementing the
initiative clause of the 1987 Constitution.

Issue
1. Whether Lambinos initiative petition complies with Sec. 2 Art. XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative.
2. Whether the court must revisit ruling in Santiago, declaring RA 6735 incomplete,
inadequate or wanting to essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative
clause on proposal to amend the Constitution.
3. Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to
the Lambino petition

Rule
There is no merit in the petition.

Application
1. Sec. 2 Art. XVII says: Amendments of 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.
The framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed
amendments must be ready and shown to the people before they signed such
proposal. It is a peoples initiative if petition contained the full text of the
proposed amendment whether written on its face or attached to it. This
concept of peoples initiative was borrowed from the U.S. and it was the fixed
requirement that full text of proposed amendments must be shown to the people
first.
The Lambino Group only submitted to the Court a copy of the signatory
sheet. There was no word, text or sentence of the proposed changes in the
signature sheet. After oppositor-intervenor pointed this out, they said that they
circulated to the people the petition for initiative and not the amended petition,
contradicting Lambinos words at the oral arguments which said that they circulated
the latter. The group invoked the doctrine of Corpus Juris Secundum stating a
signer who didnt read the measure attached to a referendum petition cannot
question his signature on the ground that he didnt understand the nature if the
act. The group pulled the rug under their feet.
The group also admitted circulating limited number of copies up to
100,000 copies only by the petitioner himself which shows the failure of the
group to circulate the full text of the proposed changes to the majority of the 6.3
million signatories, relying through verbal representations only. The group
committed an act of logrolling, which included multiple propositions rolled
into one proposal.
2. The proposal violates Sec. 2 Art. XVII of the Constitution disallowing revisions
through initiative.
The framers of the Constitution intended and wrote that only Congress or a
Constitutional Convention can revise the Constitution. A peoples initiative
may propose amendments. A revision alters a basic principle in the Constitution
while an amendment adds, reduces or deletes WITHOUT altering the basic principle
involved. A two part test must be taken to classify the change: Quality if the
changes are far reaching like change in powers of the Branches. Or Quantity
examines number of provisions affected.

The Lambino petition is considered a revision which spans 105

provisions from Art VI-VII. Qualitatively, it changes the bicameral legislature and
presidential government into a unicameral legislature with a parliamentary, altering
the separation of powers and merging the executive and legislative departments.
For the petitioners the difference between revision and amendment is procedural
where the former is proposed by members of the body which works full time on the
changes while ordinary people make the amendments. There should be no fixed
rule to judge amendments or revisions because a change in single word may be a
revision and not an amendment. The deliberative bodies (Constitutional
Conventions or Assemblies) are best suited to undertake this because it
affects several provisions in the constitution without altering basic
principles.
3. Revisit of Santiago V. COMELEC is Not Necessary
There is no need to revisit Court ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions. Affirmation
or reversal will not change the outcome of the present petition. The peoples
initiative must first comply with Sec. 2 Art. XVII before complying with RA
6735. The Lambino petition violated Sec. 10 of RA 6735 which prohibits
having more than one subject in the petition.
4. COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion
The Court followed Court ruling in Santiago.

Conclusion
The Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. It must not let anyone
disrespect it with changes by the ruling political group.

Dissent (Puno, J.)

In Santiago v COMELEC (G.R. 127325), Senator Miriam Santiago, on Dec. 18, 1996,
sought to restrain COMELEC from further considering the Delfin Petition. The Court
ruled

GRANTING the instant petition ;

DECLARING R.A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
amendments to the constitution, and have failed to provide sufficient
standard for subordinate legislation;

DECLARING void those parts of Resolution 2300 of COMELEC prescribing rules

and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the
Constitution; and
ORDERING the COMELEC to forthwith DISMISS the Delfin Petition

Eight (8) members of the Court fully concurred with the majority opinion, while 5
members held that R.A. 6735 was sufficient and adequate to implement the
peoples right to amend the Constitution through initiative, and that COMELEC
Resolution 2300 validly provided the details for the exercise of that right.
COMELEC, Delfin, and the Pedrosas filed separate motions for reconsideration. After
deliberation, 6 of the 8 majority members maintained their position that R.A. 6735
was inadequate to implement the provision on initiatives and amendments in the
Constitution, and 6 members held that R.A. 6735 was adequate.
1. Petitioners Lambino Group 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.
It is unnecessary that each of the more than 6 million signatories
execute separate documents to authorize the petitioners, nor was it
necessary at all to allow Lambino and Aumentado to file petition for
certiorari and mandamus as Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65 of the Rules of
Court allows for any person aggrieved by the act or inaction ay file for
certiorari or mandamus. Lambino and Aumentado thus have standing
to file the petition at bar.
2. The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of Santiago.
3. A reexamination of R.A. 6735 will show that it is sufficient to implement the
peoples initiative.
4. The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are mere
amendments and can be undertaken through peoples initiative.
5. 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 R.A. 6735 involves contentious
issues of fact which should first be resolved by COMELEC.
7. COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to the
Lambino petition.
8. Finally, let the people speak.