TOPIC: Amendment and Revision – Distinction (See: Article XVII, 1987 Constitution)

C3 – Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 23, 2006

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 R.A. 6735. The Lambino Group alleged that the
petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals fulfilling what was provided by Article XVII
of the 1987 Constitution. The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987
Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department) and Sections
1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory
Provisions." These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to
a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack
of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago v. COMELEC ruling
that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.

ISSUE:

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. – NO.

RULING:

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 commit any 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 signers were informed at the
time of the signing and of the nature and effect of the initiative petition. 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 distinctions between revision and amendment, as follows: Revision broadly implies
a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks and balances. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution. On the other hand, amendment
broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the Constitution; while
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.

In determining whether the Lambino proposal involves an amendment or a revision, the

Court considered the two-part test. First, the quantitative test asks whether the proposed
change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the “substance entirety” of the
Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions. The court examines only
the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. Second,
the qualitative test, which inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far-reaching
changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision”.

The Lambino proposal constituted a revision, not simply an amendment, of the

Constitution, because it involved a change in the form of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and a shift from the present bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

Note that, the people’s initiative applies only to an amendment, not a revision, of the
Constitution. A people’s initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution,
inasmuch as the Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments, as shown by the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. The Lambino initiative constituted a revision
because it proposed to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary
and the bicameral to a unicameral legislature. Thus, the people’s initiative as a mode to
effect these proposed amendments was invalid.

3. A revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is not necessary.

Even assuming that R.A. 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present
petition violated Sec. 2 Art. XVII of the Constitution, to be a valid initiative it must first
comply with the Constitution before complying with R.A. 6735.

Petition is dismissed.