Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1. Whether 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 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; and
F. Degamo (2019)
II. The requirement to write or attach the petition on the signature sheets is
not expressly stated in the Constitution. However the framers in their
deliberation intended that the full text be shown to the people before they
sign. This is the spirit behind the clause “directly proposed by the people
through an initiative upon a petition”.
III. The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court
a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The
Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet after
the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their
Memorandum on 11 October 2006.
a.
Even if the Lambino Group did attach the full text of the proposed
amendments, they only printed very limited copies which would not
justify the 6.3M signatories.
b. Grand deception because important provisions in the proposed
amendment were even shown to the people. Verbal representation is
not enough.
a. Lifting of term limits
b. Interim Parliament shall decide on the expiration of their term
c. Interim Parliament can convene to further propose amendments
or revision to the Constitution.
2. The People’s Initiative is not meant for revisions of the Constitution but only for
amendments. The proposal to shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to Unicameral-
Partliamentary system requires harmonizing of many provisions in the Constitution.
An amendment through an initiative is there void and unconstitutional.
F. Degamo (2019)