lambino v comelec, 505 SCRA 160 (2007) LORETTA ANN P.

ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA

HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,Intervenors.

x--------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Intervenor.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952
REGISTERED VOTERS,Petitioners,  x ------------------------------------------------------- x
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.

x--------------------------------------------------------x
x---------------------------------------------------------x

ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., Intervenor.

LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------ x
x ------------------------------------------------------- x

ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L.

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and CARLOS P.
ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
MEDINA, JR., Intervenors.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
GAT INCIONG, Intervenors.
x------------------------------------------------------ x
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, Intervenor.
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO
x--------------------------------------------------------x BAYA, Intervenors.

BAYAN represented by its Chairperson Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN x -------------------------------------------------------- x

MUNA represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO
UNO represented by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD represented
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
by its Secretary General Dr. Gene Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Intervenors.
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas, MIGRANTE represented by its
Chairperson Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA represented by its
Secretary General Emerenciana de Jesus, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY x -------------------------------------------------------- x
represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina Palabay, ANAKBAYAN represented by
Chairperson Eleanor de Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS represented
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR,
by Chair Vencer Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the League of
JR., Intervenor.
Concerned Professionals and Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO of the
Solidarity of Health Against Charter Change, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS of
Health Action for Human Rights,Intervenors. x ------------------------------------------------------- x

x--------------------------------------------------------x SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and RANDALL TABAYOYONG, Intervenors. Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") denying due course to an initiative petition to
amend the 1987 Constitution.
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
Antecedent Facts
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE
CHAPTERS, Intervenors. On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and
Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups1 and individuals,
commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
x --------------------------------------------------------x
Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b)
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and SENATORS and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act
SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. ("RA 6735").
LIM and PANFILO LACSON, Intervenors.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
x -----------------------------------------------------x constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered
voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, Intervenors. verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.

x -----------------------------------------------------x The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
G.R. No. 174299             October 25, 2006 (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory
Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A.V. prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the
SAGUISAG, Petitioners,  following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification:
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe,, Respondent. FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE
SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the
DECISION COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
Provisions) of their initiative.7

The Ruling of the COMELEC

On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the
CARPIO, J.:
Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to
amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v.
The Case Commission on Elections8 declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.9
In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari 3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course
and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to to the Lambino Group's petition.
compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition. The Lambino
Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
The Ruling of the Court
due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively,
the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and their
petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people." There is no merit to the petition.

In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require respondent The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the
COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt Constitution for conducting a people's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to
for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and for "entertaining" the Lambino revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the
Group's petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The Court treated the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the
Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in-intervention. Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion
is attributable to the Commision on Elections.
In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor General joined causes
with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling. 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its implementing Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
rules "as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative."
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or allows a people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section
opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting intervenors10 uniformly hold states:
the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying
on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors11 hold the contrary view
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which every
signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's compliance with
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition
registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;12 (4) the nature of the proposed
changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article
XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an
requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject. amendment "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,"
thus:
The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September 2006.
After receiving the parties' memoranda, the Court considered the case submitted for MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want
resolution. to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed
constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when they
are asked to sign?
The Issues

MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.

The petitions raise the following issues:

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's initiative;

MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.

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
 MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft [A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person
shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to propose supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is
this constitutional amendment. signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the
subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A person
permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition to a potential
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal
signer, without the signer having actually examined the petition, could easily
and pass it around for signature.13 (Emphasis supplied)
mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly
misrepresenting, portions of the petition that might not be to the signer's
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the proposed liking. This danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the
constitutional amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the people "before" person giving the description is the drafter of the petition, who
they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that "before they sign there is obviously has a vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite
already a draft shown to them." The framers also "envisioned" that the people signatures to qualify for the ballot.17 (Boldfacing and underscoring
should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must "prepare that supplied)
proposal and pass it around for signature."
Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,18 the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained:
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people.
The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to amendments by initiative
This means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author
commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose of the full
and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
text requirement is to provide sufficient information so that registered
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the initiative
petition."); x x x (publication of full text of amended constitutional provision
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments required because it is "essential for the elector to have x x x the section
is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete which is proposed to be added to or subtracted from. If he is to vote
proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly proposed by the people intelligently, he must have this knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he
through initiative upon a petition" only if the people sign on a petition that would be required to vote in the dark.") (Emphasis supplied)
contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the and effect of that which is proposed" and failure to do so is "deceptive and
petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such misleading" which renders the initiative void.19
attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories
to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that every
must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments. However, the deliberations of
one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the proposed amendments
the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt the
before signing.
relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. In particular, the deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal that the framers intended that the
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed14 the concept of people's initiative people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign,
from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative and that the people must sign on a petition containing such full text. Indeed,
clause. In almost all States15 which allow initiative petitions, the unbending Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the
requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that the people must sign the "petition x x
amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must x as signatories."
sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments.16
The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials.
The rationale for this requirement has been repeatedly explained in several decisions The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the
of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission, the Supreme advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The
Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, declared: proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the
arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those
who gather the signatures.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional 6          
requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving 7          
that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures 8          
- that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the
proposed amendments. 9          
10          

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 Barangay Official Witness
submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet20 after the oral arguments of 26 (Print Name and Sign) (Print Name and Sign) (Print
September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006. The
signature sheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the signature sheet
attached21 to the opposition in intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by intervenor There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group's
Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra. proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state
that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul
Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September
The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature sheet 2006.
attached to the Lambino Group's Memorandum are the same. We reproduce below
the signature sheet in full:
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from
the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of
Province: City/Municipality: No. of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
Legislative District: Barangay: proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the
Verified signature sheet is not the "petition" that the framers of the Constitution envisioned
when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Signatures:
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature-gathering from
February to August 2006, the Lambino Group circulated, together with the signature
PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group's draft petition which they later filed on
VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC. When asked if his group also circulated the draft
FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL- of their amended petition filed on 30 August 2006 with the COMELEC, Atty. Lambino
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE initially replied that they circulated both. However, Atty. Lambino changed his answer
GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT; AND and stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2006
PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 petition.
ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER?"

The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft of the
I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My signature 30 August 2006 amended petition almost seven months earlier in February
herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution 2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado's
signifies my support for the filing thereof. "Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30 August
2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states as follows:
Precinct Name Address Birthdate
Number I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in my
Last Name, First Name, MM/DD/YY personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of the Union of
M.I. Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP Resolution No.
2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of the mass of signatories
1        
hereto. (Emphasis supplied)
2        
3        
4        
5        
The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to the ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to prepare
present petition. However, the "Official Website of the Union of Local Authorities of the the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the
Philippines"22 has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, which provides: COMELEC. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 "support(s) the porposals (sic) of the
Consulatative (sic) Commission on Charter Change through people's initiative and
referendum as a mode of amending the 1987 Constitution." The proposals of the
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02
Consultative Commission24 are vastly different from the proposed changes of the
Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 petition or 30 August 2006 amended petition
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE'S filed with the COMELEC.
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH
PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING
For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the Transitory
Provisions. The proposed revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary and the
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the National Patrimony provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions that the Lambino
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to support Group's proposed changes do not touch. The Lambino Group's proposed changes
the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change; purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the existing Constitution, including the
introduction of new Transitory Provisions.
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her
Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms as The ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on 14 January 2006 or more than six
embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional Reforms signed months before the filing of the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August 2006
by the members of the ULAP and the majority coalition of the House of amended petition with the COMELEC. However, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does
Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in October 2005; not establish that ULAP or the Lambino Group caused the circulation of the draft
petition, together with the signature sheets, six months before the filing with the
COMELEC. On the contrary, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 casts grave doubt on
WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change the Lambino Group's claim that they circulated the draft petition together with
created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987 the signature sheets. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not refer at all to the
Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December 2005; draft petition or to the Lambino Group's proposed changes.

WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments in In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the COMELEC, the
Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of Lambino Group declared:
amending the 1987 Constitution;

After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the proposed
WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and the amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically, paragraph 3 of
failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent assembly, Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the Transitory Provisions were
ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional reform agenda inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their proposed
through People's Initiative and Referendum without prejudice to other amendments.
pragmatic means to pursue the same;

The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the petition because the
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, amended petition was what they had shown to the people during the February to
THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL August 2006 signature-gathering. Instead, the Lambino Group alleged that the petition
AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE of 25 August 2006 "inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their proposed
PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) amendments."
COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987
CONSTITUTION; The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August
2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the
draft petition together with the signature sheets. Likewise, the Lambino Group
DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting held on did not allege in their present petition before this Court that they circulated printed
14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel, Manila.23 (Underscoring copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. The signature sheets do
supplied)
not also contain any indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very
the signature sheets. limited copies of the petition.

It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that the During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed
Lambino Group first claimed that they circulated the "petition for initiative filed with the only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later
COMELEC," thus: with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other supporters to print
additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state with certainty how many
additional copies the other supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only assure this
[T]here is persuasive authority to the effect that "(w)here there is not (sic)
Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because he himself caused the printing
fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a referendum
of these 100,000 copies.
petition cannot question his signature on the ground that he did not
understand the nature of the act." [82 C.J.S. S128h. Mo. State v.
Sullivan, 224, S.W. 327, 283 Mo. 546.] Thus, the registered voters who Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the
signed the signature sheets circulated together with the petition for Lambino Group expressly admits that "petitioner Lambino initiated the printing
initiative filed with the COMELEC below, are presumed to have and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative x x x."25 This
understood the proposition contained in the petition. (Emphasis supplied) admission binds the Lambino Group and establishes beyond any doubt that the
Lambino Group failed to show the full text of the proposed changes to the great
majority of the people who signed the signature sheets.
The Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people "the petition for
initiative filed with the COMELEC" appears an afterthought, made after the
intervenors Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu City Chapter and Cebu Province Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have received with
Chapters) and Atty. Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not contain certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100 percent distribution with no
the text of the proposed changes. In their Consolidated Reply, the Lambino Group wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy of the petition to each
alleged that they circulated "the petition for initiative" but failed to mention signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with the petition.
the amended petition. This contradicts what Atty. Lambino finally stated during the Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed
oral arguments that what they circulated was the draft of the amended petition of 30 each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition, the maximum
August 2006. number of people who saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets would
not exceed 1,000,000.
The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a signer
who did not read the measure attached to a referendum petition cannot question With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible for
his signature on the ground that he did not understand the nature of the act." The all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before
Lambino Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed change attached to the they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino
petition signed by the people. Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed
requires that the proposed change must be attached to the petition. The same changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the petition before they
authority the Lambino Group quotes requires the people to sign on the petition itself. signed the signature sheets.

Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full text of the
incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people. In the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with
present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed changes were not incorporated with, an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino
or attached to, the signature sheets. The Lambino Group's citation of Corpus Juris admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino
Secundumpulls the rug from under their feet. Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet.
This omission is fatal. The failure to so include the text of the proposed changes in
the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-compliance with the
It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from
constitutional requirement that the amendment must be "directly proposed by the
February to August 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the petition
people through initiative upon a petition." The signature sheet is not the "petition"
or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC. The Lambino Group are less
envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution.
than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and circulated,
together with the signature sheets, the petition or amended petition. Nevertheless,
even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the amended petition during the
For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets Parliament to schedule the elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously
did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They could not have with any future local elections.
known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are:
Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the expiration of their own
1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus term of office. This allows incumbent members of the House of Representatives to
members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;26 hold office beyond their current three-year term of office, and possibly even beyond
the five-year term of office of regular members of the Parliament. Certainly, this is
contrary to the representations of Atty. Lambino and his group to the 6.3 million
2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its
people who signed the signature sheets. Atty. Lambino and his group deceived
members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide to
the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.
call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim
Parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office; 27
This lucidly shows the absolute need for the people to sign an initiative petition that
contains the full text of the proposed amendments to avoid fraud or misrepresentation.
3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim
In the present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely on the verbal
Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or revisions
representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because the signature sheets did not
to the Constitution.28
contain the full text of the proposed changes. The result is a grand deception on the
6.3 million signatories who were led to believe that the proposed changes would
These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously with
Group's signature sheets. The people who signed the signature sheets had no idea the local elections.
that they were proposing these amendments. These three proposed changes are
highly controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these proposed
The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the people who signed the
changes merely from a reading or rereading of the contents of the signature sheets.
signature sheets. The proposed changes mandate the interim Parliament to make
further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. The proposed Section 4(4),
During the oral arguments, petitioner Atty. Lambino stated that he and his Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, provides:
group assured the people during the signature-gathering that the elections for
the regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 local elections if the
Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments,
proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections. However, the text of
the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
the proposed changes belies this.
revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local
autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. (Emphasis supplied)
The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in the
amended petition, states:
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino stated that this provision is a "surplusage"
and the Court and the people should simply ignore it. Far from being a surplusage,
Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the this provision invalidates the Lambino Group's initiative.
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. x x x
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the Bicameral-
x (Emphasis supplied)
Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system. American jurisprudence on
initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - when the initiative petition incorporates an
Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be held unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma since
simultaneously with the 2007 local elections. This section merely requires that the they can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to sign a
elections for the regular Parliament shall be held simultaneously with the local petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they may find
elections without specifying the year. unacceptable.

Petitioner Atty. Lambino, who claims to be the principal drafter of the proposed Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire
changes, could have easily written the word "next" before the phrase "election of all proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine v.
local government officials." This would have insured that the elections for the regular Firestone,29 the Supreme Court of Florida declared:
Parliament would be held in the next local elections following the ratification of the
proposed changes. However, the absence of the word "next" allows the interim
 Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed
"logrolling," which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean anything, changes. Certainly, such an initiative is not "directly proposed by the people" because
we cannot permit. The very broadness of the proposed amendment the people do not even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes.
amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is voting
on - the amendment's proponents' simplistic explanation reveals only the tip
There is another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group's amended
of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must give the electorate fair notice of the
petition of 30 August 2006. The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory Provisions
proposed amendment being voted on. x x x x The ballot language in the
states:
instant case fails to do that. The very broadness of the proposal makes it
impossible to state what it will affect and effect and violates the requirement
that proposed amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied) Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members
of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v.
McAlpine,30 the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against "inadvertence, stealth and After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as member of
fraud" in logrolling: Parliament if the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular
Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no counterpart provision for the
present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of office will all
Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the problems that
end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Senators.
the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are exacerbated. There is a greater
Thus, all the present members of the House will remain members of the interim
danger of logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling of issues to increase the likelihood
Parliament after 30 June 2010.
of an initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for "inadvertence,
stealth and fraud" in the enactment-by-initiative process. The drafters of an
initiative operate independently of any structured or supervised process. They often The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010. Thereafter, the Prime
emphasize particular provisions of their proposition, while remaining silent on other Minister exercises all the powers of the President. If the interim Parliament does not
(more complex or less appealing) provisions, when communicating to the public. x x schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010, the Prime Minister will
x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use simplistic advertising to present their come only from the present members of the House of Representatives to
initiative to potential petition-signers and eventual voters. Many voters will never the exclusion of the present Senators.
read the full text of the initiative before the election. More importantly, there is no
process for amending or splitting the several provisions in an initiative proposal. These
The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators. The 6.3
difficulties clearly distinguish the initiative from the legislative process. (Emphasis
million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their
supplied)
signatures would be used to discriminate against the Senators. They could not
have known that their signatures would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the
Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further amendments interim Parliament's choice of Prime Minister only to members of the existing
or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a constituent assembly. House of Representatives.
The people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their
signatures would be used to propose an amendment mandating the interim
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the
Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can
operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. That is why the Constitution requires that
Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4(4) to compel the an initiative must be "directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition" - meaning
interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution within 45 days from that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
ratification of the proposed changes, or before the May 2007 elections. In the amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation's fundamental law, the
absence of the proposed Section 4(4), the interim Parliament has the discretion writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the
whether to amend or revise again the Constitution. With the proposed Section 4(4), people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and
the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament mandated to immediately amend unelected individuals.
or revise again the Constitution.
The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose amendments to
However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in amending or the Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom of the people even if the members of
revising again so soon the Constitution. The signature sheets do not also explain what this Court do not personally know the people who sign the petition. However, this
specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament trust emanates from a fundamental assumption: the full text of the proposed
to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or revisions. The
amendment is first shown to the people before they sign the petition, not after afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the
they have signed the petition. proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This is now covered by
Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the permission of the
Members, may I quote Section 2:
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally
fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that
the initiative must be "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held,
petition." directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition
of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing
Revision through Initiatives This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No.
7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative,
which came about because of the extraordinary developments this year, has
A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the
to be separated from the traditional modes of amending the Constitution as
Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional
embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of
convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Article
initiative should be limited to amendments to the Constitution and
XVII of the Constitution provides:
should not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we
removed it from the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on
ARTICLE XVII Amendment or Revision. x x x x
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
xxxx
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of
initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning
Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up
as another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
(2) A constitutional convention.

MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment
proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis supplied) and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total
overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. the Committee.
The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The
second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through a MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to
people's initiative. distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include
the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend,
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to "[A]ny which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII,
referring to the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to this Constitution." This MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the
distinction was intentional as shown by the following deliberations of the Committee.
Constitutional Commission:

MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.

xxxx
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission
that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we submitted this
 MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed constitution drafted by the 'Commission for Constitutional Revision'
amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the authorized by the 1961 Legislative Assembly, x x x and submitted to the
word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made 1963 Legislative Assembly. It failed to receive in the Assembly the two-
the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"? third's majority vote of both houses required by Article XVII, Section 2, and
hence failed of adoption, x x x.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision"
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, While differing from that document in material respects, the measure
it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision." sponsored by the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorough overhauling of the
present constitution x x x.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.31 (Emphasis supplied)
To call it an amendment is a misnomer.
There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended, and
wrote, a clear distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution. Whether it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a measure as
The framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional convention can be submitted to the people through the initiative. If a revision, it is
may propose revisions to the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that a subject to the requirements of Article XVII, Section 2(1); if a new
people's initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. Where the intent constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention called in the manner
and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from the people the power to provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x
propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as
they are empowered to propose amendments.
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative can only
propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to
This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the United States. amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes
Thus, in McFadden v. Jordan,32the Supreme Court of California ruled: of revising the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million
signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the
Constitution itself.
The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the
Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the adopting or
rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the Constitution' and does not As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In re Initiative Petition No. 364:34
purport to extend to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is thus clear that
a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only through ratification
It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised or
by the people of a revised constitution proposed by a convention called for
amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument itself, and that
that purpose as outlined hereinabove. Consequently if the scope of the
any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner other than the one
proposed initiative measure (hereinafter termed 'the measure') now before
provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as extra-
us is so broad that if such measure became law a substantial revision of our
constitutional and revolutionary. x x x x "While it is universally conceded
present state Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not
that the people are sovereign and that they have power to adopt a
properly be submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed
constitution and to change their own work at will, they must, in doing so, act
upon by a constitutional convention, and the writ sought by petitioner should
in an orderly manner and according to the settled principles of constitutional
issue. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
law. And where the people, in adopting a constitution, have prescribed the
method by which the people may alter or amend it, an attempt to change
Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v. Appling:33 the fundamental law in violation of the self-imposed restrictions, is
unconstitutional." x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in which
it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who favor This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, cannot
amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of one of the shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear command of
specified means. The constitution itself recognizes that there is a difference the Constitution ― that a people's initiative may only amend, never revise, the
between an amendment and a revision; and it is obvious from an Constitution.
examination of the measure here in question that it is not an amendment as
that term is generally understood and as it is used in Article IV, Section 1.
The document appears to be based in large part on the revision of the
The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment or changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on the
revision of the Constitution? If the Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a revision, Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.40Qualitatively,
then the present petition should be dismissed for being outside the scope of Section 2, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from
Article XVII of the Constitution. presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the
a constitution. One of the earliest cases that recognized the distinction described the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced
fundamental difference in this manner: into two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a
revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical
[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent and
change in the structure of government.
abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision
indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles upon
which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power
shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the other hand, the alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution.
significance of the term "amendment" implies such an addition or change Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the system of checks-
within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution.
better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.35 (Emphasis supplied)
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the
like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and- President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision,
balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group's proposed changes,
constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the it is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter the framework of
constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, government as set forth in the Constitution. Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision member of the Constitutional Commission, writes:
generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally
affects only the specific provision being amended.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable
provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to improve specific parts
In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress
constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous.
quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether the In revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplates a re-
proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the document which have
'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous over-all implications for the entire document, to determine how and to what extent they
existing provisions."36 The court examines only the number of provisions affected and should be altered. Thus, for instance a switch from the presidential system to a
does not consider the degree of the change. parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the
entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to a
unicameral system be because of its effect on other important provisions of the
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the
Constitution.41 (Emphasis supplied)
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."37 Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper In Adams v. Gunter,42 an initiative petition proposed the amendment of the Florida
subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan" State constitution to shift from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. The issue
includes "change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its turned on whether the initiative "was defective and unauthorized where [the] proposed
Branches."38 A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes amendment would x x x affect several other provisions of [the] Constitution." The
changes that "jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check Supreme Court of Florida, striking down the initiative as outside the scope of the
and balances."39 initiative clause, ruled as follows:

Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a The proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968 Constitution
revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only many other
 provisions of the Constitution but provides for a change in the form of full-time on the changes. However, the same substantive changes, when proposed
the legislative branch of government, which has been in existence in the through an initiative, are called "amendments" because the changes are made by
United States Congress and in all of the states of the nation, except one, ordinary people who do not make an "occupation, profession, or vocation" out
since the earliest days. It would be difficult to visualize a more of such endeavor.
revolutionary change. The concept of a House and a Senate is basic in
the American form of government. It would not only radically change the
Thus, the Lambino Group makes the following exposition of their theory in their
whole pattern of government in this state and tear apart the whole
Memorandum:
fabric of the Constitution, but would even affect the physical facilities
necessary to carry on government.
99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional provisions
expressly provide for both "amendment" and "revision" when it speaks of
xxxx
legislators and constitutional delegates, while the same provisions expressly
provide only for "amendment" when it speaks of the people. It would seem
We conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment were that the apparent distinction is based on the actual experience of the
adopted by the people at the General Election and if the Legislature at its people, that on one hand the common people in general are not expected to
next session should fail to submit further amendments to revise and clarify work full-time on the matter of correcting the constitution because that is not
the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts which would result, or if after their occupation, profession or vocation; while on the other hand, the
submission of appropriate amendments the people should refuse to adopt legislators and constitutional convention delegates are expected to work
them, simple chaos would prevail in the government of this State. The same full-time on the same matter because that is their occupation, profession or
result would obtain from an amendment, for instance, of Section 1 of Article vocation. Thus, the difference between the words "revision" and
V, to provide for only a Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and there could "amendment" pertain only to the process or procedure of coming up
be other examples too numerous to detail. These examples point unerringly with the corrections, for purposes of interpreting the constitutional
to the answer. provisions.

The purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men and 100. Stated otherwise, the difference between "amendment" and
women and many sessions of the Legislature in bringing about the "revision" cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the
Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate inconsistencies and conflicts and to correction. x x x x (Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied)
give the State a workable, accordant, homogenous and up-to-date
document. All of this could disappear very quickly if we were to hold that it
The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional convention
could be amended in the manner proposed in the initiative petition
had drafted the same proposed changes that the Lambino Group wrote in the present
here.43(Emphasis supplied)
initiative, the changes would constitute a revision of the Constitution. Thus, the
Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes in the present initiative
The rationale of the Adams decision applies with greater force to the present petition. constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the
The Lambino Group's initiative not only seeks a shift from a bicameral to a unicameral changes. However, since the Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the
legislature, it also seeks to merge the executive and legislative departments. The proposed changes, the changes are merely amendments to the Constitution. The
initiative in Adams did not even touch the executive department. Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental law of the
land.
In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of the Florida
Constitution that would be affected by the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the
legislature. In the Lambino Group's present initiative, no less than 105 provisions of Constitution contradict the Lambino Group's theory. Where the intent of the framers
the Constitution would be affected based on the count of Associate Justice Romeo and the language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not deviate
J. Callejo, Sr.44 There is no doubt that the Lambino Group's present initiative seeks far from such categorical intent and language.45 Any theory espousing a construction
more radical changes in the structure of government than the initiative in Adams. contrary to such intent and language deserves scant consideration. More so, if such
theory wreaks havoc by creating inconsistencies in the form of government
established in the Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of any jurisprudential mooring
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between "amendment" and "revision"
and inviting inconsistencies in the Constitution, only exposes the flimsiness of the
is only one of procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a
Lambino Group's position. Any theory advocating that a proposed change involving a
deliberative body drafts and proposes changes to the Constitution, substantive
radical structural change in government does not constitute a revision justly deserves
changes are called "revisions" because members of the deliberative body work
rejection.
The Lambino Group simply recycles a theory that initiative proponents in American We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green for
jurisdictions have attempted to advance without any success. In Lowe v. amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of the
Keisling,46 the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected this theory, thus: spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an
amendment or revision. The present initiative is indisputably located at the far end of
the red spectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks a radical
Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes to the
overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three co-equal departments
constitution proposed by initiative. His theory is that Article XVII, section
of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in several sections and articles of
2 merely provides a procedure by which the legislature can propose a
the Constitution.
revision of the constitution, but it does not affect proposed revisions
initiated by the people.
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution
without affecting any other section or article, the change may generally be considered
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a wholesale
an amendment and not a revision. For example, a change reducing the voting age
change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through the initiative
from 18 years to 15 years47 is an amendment and not a revision. Similarly, a change
process. They assert that the distinction between amendment and revision
reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100 percent to 60 percent
is determined by reviewing the scope and subject matter of the proposed
is an amendment and not a revision.48 Also, a change requiring a college degree as an
enactment, and that revisions are not limited to "a formal overhauling of the
additional qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a
constitution." They argue that this ballot measure proposes far reaching
revision.49
changes outside the lines of the original instrument, including profound
impacts on existing fundamental rights and radical restructuring of the
government's relationship with a defined group of citizens. Plaintiffs assert The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or articles of
that, because the proposed ballot measure "will refashion the most basic the Constitution other than the specific provision being amended. These changes do
principles of Oregon constitutional law," the trial court correctly held that it not also affect the structure of government or the system of checks-and-balances
violated Article XVII, section 2, and cannot appear on the ballot without the among or within the three branches. These three examples are located at the far
prior approval of the legislature. green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red end where the revision sought by the
present petition is located.
We first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2(1), does not
prohibit revisions instituted by initiative. In Holmes v. Appling, x x x, the However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a
Supreme Court concluded that a revision of the constitution may not be revision. A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a
accomplished by initiative, because of the provisions of Article XVII, section revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the word "republican"
2. After reviewing Article XVII, section1, relating to proposed with "monarchic" or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II50 of the Constitution radically
amendments, the court said: overhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental ideological basis of
the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will have to be examined case-by-case,
depending on how it affects other provisions, as well as how it affects the structure of
"From the foregoing it appears that Article IV, Section 1, authorizes the use
government, the carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the underlying
of the initiative as a means of amending the Oregon Constitution, but it
ideological basis of the existing Constitution.
contains no similar sanction for its use as a means of revising the
constitution." x x x x
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a
constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to
It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said: "It is
undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but
the only section of the constitution which provides the means for
also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions
constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an individual, through
normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional
the initiative, may place such a measure before the electorate." x x x x
conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people's
initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded
Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2, proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions.
does not apply to constitutional revisions proposed by initiative.
(Emphasis supplied)
In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed Section 2 of the Transitory
Provisions states:
Similarly, this Court must reject the Lambino Group's theory which negates the
express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution.
 Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision
Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article and not an amendment. Thus, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional
VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18 because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a
and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby people's initiative to "[A]mendments to this Constitution."
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to
26, unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
government, in which case, they shall be amended to conform with a
unicameral parliamentary form of government; x x x x (Emphasis
supplied) The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic
requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of
a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court's
The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably
ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
inconsistent with a prior law, the later law prevails. This rule also applies to
terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An
construction of constitutions. However, the Lambino Group's draft of Section 2 of the
affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition.
Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that in case
Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735
of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision "shall be amended to
does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative
conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government." The effect is to freeze
clause on amendments to the Constitution.
the two irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one "shall be amended," which
requires a future separate constitutional amendment.
This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the
case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a
Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment, petitioner Atty. Lambino
logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the
readily conceded during the oral arguments that the requirement of a future
constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other grounds.51
amendment is a "surplusage." In short, Atty. Lambino wants to reinstate the rule of
statutory construction so that the later provision automatically prevails in case of
irreconcilable inconsistency. However, it is not as simple as that. Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional
provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result here
because the present petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of the
a valid initiative, the present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of
Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
the Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.
and a provision in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is between a provision in
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the "Parliamentary system of government,"
and the inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a "unicameral parliamentary form Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires that
of government." the "petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per
centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories." Section 5(b) of
RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories."
Now, what "unicameral parliamentary form of government" do the Lambino
Group's proposed changes refer to ― the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New
Zealand models, which are among the few countries with unicameral parliaments? The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August 2006 or the amended
The proposed changes could not possibly refer to the traditional and well-known petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the COMELEC. Only Atty. Lambino, Atty.
parliamentary forms of government ― the British, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed the petition and
Canadian, Australian, or Malaysian models, which have all bicameral parliaments. amended petition as counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado,
Did the people who signed the signature sheets realize that they were adopting the Petitioners." In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group, claiming to act "together with"
Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand parliamentary form of the 6.3 million signatories, merely attached the signature sheets to the petition and
government? amended petition. Thus, the petition and amended petition filed with the COMELEC
did not even comply with the basic requirement of RA 6735 that the Lambino Group
claims as valid.
This drives home the point that the people's initiative is not meant for revisions of the
Constitution but only for amendments. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential
to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires harmonizing several provisions in The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735
many articles of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution through a people's stating, "No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to
initiative will only result in gross absurdities in the Constitution. the electorate; x x x." The proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions,
mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the
Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the form of government. alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means subverting the people's
Since the present initiative embraces more than one subject matter, RA 6735 prohibits sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. This is one act the Court cannot
submission of the initiative petition to the electorate. Thus, even if RA 6735 is valid, and should never do. As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn
the Lambino Group's initiative will still fail. to perform its solemn duty to defend and protect the Constitution, which embodies the
real sovereign will of the people.
4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the
Lambino Group's Initiative Incantations of "people's voice," "people's sovereign will," or "let the people decide"
cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as prescribed in the
Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people's fundamental covenant
In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc merely
that provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes easily susceptible to
followed this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's Initiative for Reform,
manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false promises.
Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.52 For following this Court's ruling,
Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation's stability.
no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC. On this ground alone,
the present petition warrants outright dismissal. Thus, this Court should reiterate
its unanimous ruling in PIRMA: The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice." However, the
Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, in the
verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that "ULAP maintains its unqualified
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
constitutional reforms." The Lambino Group thus admits that their "people's" initiative
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
is an "unqualified support to the agenda" of the incumbent President to change the
complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in G.R. No.
Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be wary of incantations of "people's voice" or
127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10,
"sovereign will" in the present initiative.
1997.

This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution.
5. Conclusion
The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign will, is the bible of this
Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this
The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter
obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize the Constitution by basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To
cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.
amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in
unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of the
SO ORDERED.
day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside the
constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the new dominant political group that
comes will demand its own set of changes in the same cavalier and unconstitutional Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-
fashion. A revolving-door constitution does not augur well for the rule of law in this Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia,
country. and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.

An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of the total ____________________
votes cast53 − approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on 11 February
1987. That approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the full expression
EN BANC
of the people's sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed modes for
amending or revising the Constitution.
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by the
Lambino Group, can change our Constitution contrary to the specific modes that the RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952
people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The REGISTERED VOTERS V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ET AL.
 SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION "While R.A. 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority openly
concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I respectfully submit, it
contains enough provisions to effectuate an initiative on the Constitution. I
PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
completely agree with the inspired and inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice
Reynato S. Puno and Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the
Roco law on initiative, sufficiently implements the right of the people to
Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty. initiate amendments to the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer
repeat nor elaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this Court's
Beverley McLachlin 1 unanimous en banc rulings in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs.
Chief Justice of Canada Commission on Elections, that "provisions for initiative . . . are (to be)
liberally construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not hamper
the exercise by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia vs.
After a deep reflection on the issues raised and a careful evaluation of the parties' Comelec, that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives
respective arguments -- both oral and written -- as well as the enlightened and ought to be rejected."
enlightening Opinions submitted by my esteemed colleagues, I am fully convinced that
the present Petition must be dismissed.
"No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. In
recognition of this, R.A. 6735 wisely empowered the Commission on
I write, however, to show that my present disposition is completely consistent with my Election "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
previous Opinions and votes on the two extant Supreme Court cases involving an carry out the purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto, the Comelec
initiative to change the Constitution. issued its Resolution 2300 on 16 January 1991. Such Resolution, by its very
words, was promulgated "to govern the conduct of initiative on the
In my Separate Opinion in Santiago v. Comelec,2 I opined "that taken together and Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local laws," not
interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), by the incumbent Commission on Elections but by one then composed of
Republic Act 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac, Comms. Alfredo

__________________ authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the
Constitution."

'SEC. 2. Amendments to 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 E. Abueg, Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama and
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed
years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we cannot
every five years thereafter.' ascribe any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and
exemplary effort to give life to a cherished right of our people.
"With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and all
too extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the "The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to national
rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. What Citizen Delfin laws and local legislations, it is void in reference to constitutional
wants the Comelec to do we should reject. But we should not thereby amendments. There is no basis for such differentiation. The source of and
preempt any future effort to exercise the right of initiative correctly and authority for the Resolution is the same law, R.A. 6735.
judiciously. The fact that the Delfin Petition proposes a misuse of initiative
does not justify a ban against its proper use. Indeed, there is a right way to
do the right thing at the right time and for the right reason. "I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and
liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and
Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to
Taken Together and Interpreted Properly,  implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the
the Constitution, R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution  Constitution.
2300 Are Sufficient to Implement Constitutional Initiatives
 Petitioner Delfin and the Pedrosa grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's
Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled supremacy as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies.

"I am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary Second Issue:
restraining order issued by this Court on 18 December 1996 insofar as it Sufficiency of RA 6735
prohibited Petitioner Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from exercising their
right of initiative. In fact, I believe that such restraining order as against
"I repeat my firm legal position that RA 6735 is adequate to cover
private respondents should not have been issued, in the first place. While I
initiatives on the Constitution, and that whatever administrative details
agree that the Comelec should be stopped from using public funds and
may have been omitted in said law are satisfactorily provided by
government resources to help them gather signatures, I firmly believe that
Comelec Resolution 2300. The promulgation of Resolution 2300 is
this Court has no power to restrain them from exercising their right of
sanctioned by Section 2, Article IX-C of the Constitution, which vests upon
initiative. The right to propose amendments to the Constitution is really a
the Comelec the power to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations
species of the right of free speech and free assembly. And certainly, it would
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and
be tyrannical and despotic to stop anyone from speaking freely and
recall." The Omnibus Election Code likewise empowers the electoral body
persuading others to conform to his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire
to "promulgate rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this
once said, 'I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
Code or other laws which the Commission is required to enforce and
your right to say it.' After all, freedom is not really for the thought we agree
administer x x x." Finally and most relevantly, Section 20 of Ra 6735
with, but as Justice Holmes wrote, 'freedom for the thought that we hate.'
specifically authorizes Comelec "to promulgate rules and regulations as
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
Epilogue
"In my dissent in Santiago, I wrote that "there is a right way to do the right
"By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate Opinion. thing at the right time and for the right reason." Let me explain further.
Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the
Filipino constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the
The Right Thing
world-admired EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are
hallowed expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic
rights of our people to be used as "A people's initiative is direct democracy in action. It is the right thing that
citizens may avail themselves of to articulate their will. It is a new and
treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. Even the majority
Six months after, in my Separate Opinion in People's Initiative for Reform,
implicitly conceded its value and worth in our legal firmament when it
Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. Comelec,3 I joined the rest of the members of
implored Congress "not to tarry any longer in complying with the
the Court in ruling "by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could be
constitutional mandate to provide for implementation of the right (of
attributed to the Comelec in dismissing the petition filed by
initiative) of the people x x x." Hence, in the en banc case of Subic Bay
Metropolitan Authority vs. Comelec, [G.R. No. 125416, September 26,
__________________ 1996], this Court unanimously held that "(l)ike elections, initiative and
referendum are powerful and valuable modes of expressing popular
Constitution x x x." While concededly, petitioners in this case were not direct
parties in Santiago, nonetheless the Court's injunction against the Comelec PIRMA therein," since the Commission had "only complied" with
covered ANY petition, not just the Delfin petition which was the immediate the Santiago Decision.
subject of said case. As a dissenter in Santiago, I believed, and still do,
that the majority gravely erred in rendering such a sweeping
__________________
injunction, but I cannot fault the Comelec for complying with the ruling
even if it, too, disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi.
Respondent Comelec was directly enjoined by the highest Court of the sovereignty. And this Court as a matter of policy and doctrine will exert
land. It had no choice but to obey. Its obedience cannot constitute every effort to nurture, protect and promote their legitimate exercise."
grave abuse of discretion. Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the
only recourse open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have
The Right Way
constituted defiance of the Court and would have been struck down as
"From the outset, I have already maintained the view that "taken together I added "that my position upholding the adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of
and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Comelec Resolution 2300 will not ipso
Sec. 2), RA 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than
sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power
__________________
to amend the Constitution." Let me now demonstrate the adequacy of RA
6735 by outlining, in concrete terms, the steps to be taken – the right way –
to amend the Constitution through a people's initiative. "Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, and after the
determination of its sufficiency, the Comelec shall publish the same in
Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local
"Pursuant to Section 3(f) of the law, the Comelec shall prescribe the form of
circulation, and set the date of the plebiscite. The conduct of the plebiscite
the petition which shall contain the proposition and the required number of
should not be earlier than sixty (60) days, but not later than ninety (90) days
signatories. Under Sec. 5(c) thereof, the petition shall state the following:
after certification by the Comelec of the sufficiency of the petition. The
proposition, if approved by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite,
'c.1 contents or text of the [provision or provisions] sought to be x becomes effective as of the day of the plebiscite.
x x amended, x x x;
"From the foregoing, it should be clear that my position upholding the
c.2 the proposition [in full text]; adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 will
not ipso facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a
plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Far from it. Among others, PIRMA
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor [fully and clearly explained];
must still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issues:

c.4 that it is not one of exceptions provided herein;

1. Does the proposed change – the lifting of the term limits of elective
officials -- constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and Constitution?

c.6 an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one 2. Which registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the
hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at petition? This question is relevant considering that under RA 8189, the old
the top of every page of the petition.' registry of voters used in the 1995 national elections was voided after the
barangay elections on May 12, 1997, while the new list may be used
starting only in the elections of May 1998.
"Section 8(f) of Comelec Resolution 2300 additionally requires that the
petition include a formal designation of the duly authorized representatives
of the signatories. 3. Does the clamor for the proposed change in the Constitution really
emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiative? Or it is the
beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such move to
"Being a constitutional requirement, the number of signatures becomes a advance their own political self-interest?
condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is jurisdictional. Without
such requisite signatures, the Commission shall motu proprio reject the
petition. 4. Are the six million signatures genuine and verifiable? Do they really
belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at least 12% of the registered
voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is represented by at
"Where the initiators have substantially complied with the above least 3% of the registered voters therein?
requirements, they may thence file the petition with the Comelec which is
tasked to determine the sufficiency thereof and to verify the signatures on
the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters' "I shall expound on the third question in the next section, The Right Reason.
identification cards. In deciding whether the petition is sufficient, the Question Nos. 1 and 2 above, while important, are basically legal in
Comelec shall also determine if the proposition is proper for an character and can be determined by argumentation and memoranda.
initiative, i.e., if it consists of an amendment, not a revision, of the However, Question No. 4 involves not only legal issues but gargantuan
Constitution. Any decision of the electoral body may be appealed to the hurdles of factual determination. This to my mind is the crucible, the litmus
Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice. test, of a people's petition for initiative. If herein petitioners, led by PIRMA,
 succeed in proving -- not just alleging -- that six million voters of this country "[Initiative is] a reserve power of the sovereign people, when they are
indeed want to amend the Constitution, what power on earth can stop dissatisfied with the National Assembly x x x [and] precisely a fallback
them? Not this Court, not the Comelec, not even the President or Congress. position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied." --
Commissioner Ople
facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a plebiscite to amend the
Constitution. Far from it." I stressed that PIRMA must show the following, among "[Initiative is] a check on a legislative that is not responsive [and resorted to]
others: only if the legislature is not as responsive to the vital and urgent needs of
people." -- Commissioner Gascon
__________________
(1) The proposed change -- the lifting of term limits of elective officials -- "constitute[s]
a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution."
"It took only one million people to stage a peaceful revolution at EDSA, and
the very rafters and foundations of the martial law society trembled, quaked
and crumbled. On the other hand, PIRMA and its co-petitioners are claiming _________________
that they have gathered six million signatures. If, as claimed by many, these
six million signatures are fraudulent, then let them be exposed and damned
"[Initiative is an] extraordinary power given to the people [and] reserved for
for all history in a signature-verification process conducted under our open
the people [which] should not be frivolously resorted to." -- Commissioner
system of legal advocacy.
Romulo

"More than anything else, it is the truth that I, as a member of this Court and
"Indeed, if the powers-that-be desire to amend the Constitution, or even to
as a citizen of this country, would like to seek: Are these six million
revise it, our Charter itself provides them other ways of doing so, namely, by
signatures real? By insisting on an entirely new doctrine of statutory
calling a constitutional convention or constituting Congress into a
inadequacy, the majority effectively suppressed the quest for that truth.
constituent assembly. These are officialdom's weapons. But initiative
belongs to the people.
The Right Reason
"In the present case, are PIRMA and its co-petitioners legitimate people's
"As mentioned, the third question that must be answered, even if the organizations or are they merely fronts for incumbents who want to extend
adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 were their terms? This is a factual question which, unfortunately, cannot
upheld by the majority is: Does the clamor for the proposed change to the be judicially answered anymore, because the Supreme Court majority ruled
Constitution really emanate from the people who signed the petition for that the law that implements it, RA 6735, is inadequate or insufficient insofar
initiative? Or is it the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact as initiatives to the Constitutions are concerned. With such ruling, the
orchestrating such move to advance their own political self-interests? In majority effectively abrogated a constitutional right of our people. That is
other words, is PIRMA's exercise of the right to initiative being done in why in my Separate Opinion in Santiago, I exclaimed that such precipitate
accordance with our Constitution and our laws? Is such attempted exercise action "is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and
legitimate? to killing the patient to relieve him of pain." I firmly maintain that to defeat
PIRMA's effort, there is no need to "burn" the constitutional right to initiative.
If PIRMA's exercise is not "legitimate," it can be exposed as such in the
"In Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, we described initiative, along with
ways I have discussed – short of abrogating the right itself. On the other
referendum, as the 'ultimate weapon of the people to negate government
hand, if PIRMA's position is proven to be legitimate – if it hurdles the four
malfeasance and misfeasance.' In Subic Bay, we specified that 'initiative is
issues I outlined earlier – by all means, we should allow and encourage it.
entirely the work of the electorate x x x a process of lawmaking by the
But the majority's theory of statutory inadequacy has pre-empted –
people themselves without the participation and against the wishes of their
unnecessarily and invalidly, in my view – any judicial determination of such
elected representatives.' As ponente of Subic Bay, I stand foursquare on
legitimacy or illegitimacy. It has silenced the quest for truth into the
this principle: The right to amend through initiative belongs only to the
interstices of the PIRMA petition.
people – not to the government and its minions. This principle finds
clear support from utterances of many constitutional commissioners like
those quoted below: The Right Time
 "The Constitution itself sets a time limitation on when changes thereto may 1998, while the campaign period for other elective officials, on March 17,
be proposed. Section 2 of Article XVII precludes amendments "within five 1998. This means, by the time PIRMA's proposition is ready – if ever – for
years following [its] ratification x x x nor oftener than once every five years submission directly to the voters at large, it will have been overcome by the
thereafter." Since its ratification, the 1987 Constitution has never been elections. Time will simply run out on PIRMA, if the intention is to lift term
amended. Hence, the five-year prohibition is now inoperative and limits in time for the 1998 elections.
amendments may theoretically be proposed at any time.
"That term limits may no longer be lifted prior to the 1998 elections via a
"Be that as it may, I believe – given the present circumstances – that there people's initiative does not detract one whit from (1) my firm conviction that
is no more time to lift term limits to enable incumbents to seek reelection in RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate to implement this constitutional right
the May 11, 1998 polls. Between today and the next national and, more important, (2) my faith in the power of the people to initiate
changes in local and national laws and the Constitution. In fact, I think the
Court can deliberate on these two items even more serenely and wisely now
(2) The "six million signatures are genuine and verifiable"; and they "really belong to
that the debates will be free from the din and distraction of the 1998
qualified warm bodies comprising at
elections. After all, jurisprudence is not merely for the here and now but,
more so, for the hereafter and the morrow. Let me therefore stress, by way
__________________ of epilogue, my unbending credo in favor of our people's right to initiative.

elections, less than eight (8) months remain. Santiago, where the single least 12% of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is
issue of the sufficiency of RA 6735 was resolved, took this Court three (3) represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein."
months, and another two (2) months to decide the motion for
reconsideration. The instant case, where the same issue is also raised by
__________________
the petitioners, took two months, not counting a possible motion for
reconsideration. These time spans could not be abbreviated any further,
because due process requires that all parties be given sufficient time to file Epilogue
their pleadings.
"I believe in democracy – in our people's natural right to determine our own
"Thus, even if the Court were to rule now in favor of the adequacy of RA destiny.
6735 – as I believe it should – and allow the Comelec to act on the PIRMA
petition, such eight-month period will not be enough to tackle the four
"I believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of enabling our
weighty issues I mentioned earlier, considering that two of them involve
people to express their will and chart their history. Initiative is an alternative
tedious factual questions. The Comelec's decision on any of these issues
to bloody revolution, internal chaos and civil strife. It is an inherent right of
can still be elevated to this Court for review, and reconsiderations on our
the people – as basic as the right to elect, the right to self-determination and
decisions on each of those issues may again be sought.
the right to individual liberties. I believe that Filipinos have the ability and the
capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and
"Comelec's herculean task alone of verifying each of the six million maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity.
signatures is enormously time-consuming, considering that any person may
question the authenticity of each and every signature, initially before the
"Such beliefs, however, should not be equated with a desire to perpetuate a
election registrar, then before the Comelec on appeal and finally, before this
particular official or group of officials in power. Far from it. Such
Court in a separate proceeding. Moreover, the plebiscite itself – assuming
perpetuation is anathema to democracy. My firm conviction that there is an
such stage can be reached – may be scheduled only after sixty (60) but not
adequate law implementing the constitutional right of initiative does not ipso
more than ninety (90) days, from the time the Comelec and this Court, on
facto result in the victory of the PIRMA petition or of any proposed
appeal, finally declare the petition to be sufficient.
constitutional change. There are, after all, sufficient safeguards to
guarantee the proper use of such constitutional right and to forestall its
"Meanwhile, under Comelec Resolution 2946, political parties, groups misuse and abuse. First, initiative cannot be used to revise the Constitution,
organizations or coalitions may start selecting their official candidates for only to amend it. Second, the petitioners' signatures must be validated
President, Vice President and Senators on November 27, 1997; the period against an existing list of voters and/or voters' identification
for filing certificates of candidacy is from January 11 to February 9, 1998; cards. Third, initiative is a reverse power of and by the people, not of
the election period and campaign for national officials start on February 10, incumbent officials and their machinators. Fourth and most important of all,
 the signatures must be verified as real and genuine; not concocted, fictitious enjoining the poll body "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for
or fabricated. The only legal way to do this is to enable the Commission on initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been
Elections to conduct a nationwide verification process as mandated by the validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system."
Constitution and the law. Such verification, it bears stressing, is subject to
review by this Court.
Indeed, the Comelec did not violate the Constitution, the laws or any
jurisprudence.4 Neither can whim, caprice, arbitrariness or personal bias be
"There were, by the most generous estimate, only a million people who attributed to the Commission.5 Quite the contrary, it prudently followed this Court's
gathered at EDSA in 1986, and yet they changed the history of our country. jurisprudence in Santiago and PIRMA. Even assuming arguendo that Comelec erred
PIRMA claims six times that number, not just from the National Capital in ruling on a very difficult and unsettled question of law, this Court still cannot
Region but from all over the country. Is this claim through the invention of its attribute grave abuse of discretion to the poll body with respect to that action.6
novel theory of statutory insufficiency, the Court's majority has stifled the
only legal method of determining whether PIRMA is real or not, whether
The present Lambino Petition is in exactly the same situation as that of PIRMA in
there is indeed a popular clamor to lift term limits of elected officials, and
1997. The differences pointed out by Justice Reynato S. Puno are, with due respect,
whether six million voters want to initiate amendments to their most basic
superficial. It is argued that, unlike the present Lambino Petition, PIRMA did not
law. In suppressing a judicial answer to such questions, the Court may have
contain verified signatures. These are distinctions that do not make a difference.
unwittingly yielded to PIRMA the benefit of the legal presumption of legality
Precisely, Justice Puno is urging a remand, because the verification issue is
and regularity. In its misplaced zeal to exterminate the rats, it burned down
"contentious" and remains unproven by petitioners. Clearly, both the PIRMA and the
the whole house. It unceremoniously divested the people of a basic
Lambino Petitions contain unverified signatures. Therefore, they both deserve
constitutional right.
the same treatment: DISMISSAL.

In both Opinions, I concluded that we must implement "the right thing [initiative] in the
Besides, the only reason given in the unanimous Resolution on PIRMA v.
right way at the right time and for the right reason."
Comelec was that the Commission had "only complied" with this Court's Decision
in Santiago, the same reason given by Comelec in this case. The Separate Opinions
In the present case, I steadfastly stand by my foregoing Opinions in PIRMA gave no other reason. No one argued, even remotely, that the PIRMA
in Santiago and PIRMA. Tested against them, the present Petition of Raul Lambino Petition should have been dismissed because the signatures were unverified.
and Erico Aumentado must be DISMISSED. Unfortunately, the right thing is being
rushed in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. Let me explain.
To stress, I adhere to my Opinion in PIRMA that, "[b]eing a constitutional requirement,
the number of signatures becomes a condition precedent to the filing of the petition,
No Grave Abuse and is jurisdictional.7 Without those signatures, the Comelec shall motu proprio reject
the petition."
of Discretion by Comelec
So, until and unless Santiago is revisited and changed by this Court or the legal
moorings of the exercise of the right are substantially changed, the Comelec cannot
As in PIRMA, I find no grave abuse of discretion in Comelec's dismissal of the
be faulted for acting in accord with this Court's pronouncements. Respondent
Lambino Petition. After all, the Commission merely followed the holding
Commission has no discretion, under any guise, to refuse enforcement of any
in Santiago permanently
final decision of this Court.8 The refusal of the poll body to act on the Lambino
Petition was its only recourse. Any other mode of action would appear not only
____________________ presumptuous, but also contemptuous. It would have constituted defiance of the Court
and would have surely been struck down as grave abuse of discretion and
contumacious disregard of the supremacy of this Court as the final arbiter of
"In the ultimate, the mission of the judiciary is to discover truth and to make justiciable controversies.
it prevail. This mission is undertaken not only to resolve the vagaries of
present events but also to build the pathways of tomorrow. The sum total of
the entire process of adversarial litigation is the verity of facts and the Even assuming further that this Court rules, as I believe it should (for the reasons
application of law thereto. By the majority cop-out in this mission of given in my Opinions in Santiago and PIRMA), that Republic Act 6735 is indeed
discovery, our country and our people have been deprived not only of a sufficient to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution, still, no grave abuse of
basic constitutional right, as earlier noted, but also of the judicial opportunity discretion can be attributed to the Comelec for merely following prevailing
to verify the truth." jurisprudence extant at the time it rendered its ruling in question.
Only Amendments, fact. So, why should a revision be rammed down our people's throats without the
benefit of intelligent discussion in a deliberative assembly?
Not Revisions
Added to the constitutional mandate barring revisions is the provision of RA 6735
expressly prohibiting petitions for initiative from "embracing more than one subject
I reiterate that only amendments, not revisions, may be the proper subject of an
matter."10 The present initiative covers at least two subjects: (1) the shift from a
initiative to change the Constitution. This principle is crystal clear from even a
presidential to a parliamentary form of government; and (2) the change from a
layperson's reading of the basic law.9
bicameral to a unicameral legislature.11 Thus, even under Republic Act 6735 -- the law
that Justice Puno and I hold to be sufficient and valid -- the Lambino Petition deserves
I submit that changing the system of government from presidential to parliamentary dismissal.
and the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral contemplates an
overhaul of the structure of government. The ponencia has amply demonstrated
12 Percent and 3 Percent Thresholds
that the merger of the legislative and the executive branches under a unicameral-
Not Proven by Petitioners
parliamentary system, "[b]y any legal test and under any jurisdiction," will "radically
alter the framework of government as set forth in the Constitution." Indeed, the
proposed changes have an overall implication on the entire Constitution; they The litmus test of a people's petition for initiative is its ability to muster the
effectively rewrite its most important and basic provisions. The prolixity and complexity constitutional requirement that it be supported by at least 12 percent of the registered
of the changes cannot be categorized, even by semantic generosity, as voters nationwide, of which at least 3 percent of the registered voters in every
"amendments." legislative district must be represented. As pointed out by Intervenors One Voice, Inc.,
et al., however, records show that there was a failure to meet the minimum
percentages required.12
In addition, may I say that of the three modes of changing the Constitution, revisions
(or amendments) may be proposed only through the first two: by Congress or by a
constitutional convention. Under the third mode -- people's initiative -- only Even Justice Puno concedes that the 12 percent and 3 percent constitutional
amendments are allowed. Many of the justices' Opinions have cited the historical, requirements involve "contentious facts," which have not been proven by the Lambino
philosophical and jurisprudential bases of their respective positions. I will not add to Petition. Thus, he is urging a remand to the Comelec.
the woes of the reader by reiterating them here.
But a remand is both imprudent and futile. It is imprudent because the Constitution
Suffice it to say that, to me, the practical test to differentiate an amendment from a itself mandates the said requisites of an initiative petition. In other words, a petition
revision is found in the Constitution itself: a revision may be done only when the that does not show the required percentages is fatally defective and must be
proposed change can be drafted, defined, articulated, discussed and agreed dismissed, as the Delfin Petition was, in Santiago.
upon after a mature and democratic debate in a deliberative body like Congress
or a Convention. The changes proposed must necessarily be scrutinized, as their
Furthermore, as the ponencia had discussed extensively, the present Petition is void
adoption or non-adoption must result from an informed judgment.
and unconstitutional. It points out that the Petition dismally fails to comply with the
constitutional requirement that an initiative must be directly proposed by the people.
Indeed, the constitutional bodies that drafted the 1935, the 1972 and the 1987 Specifically, the ponencia has amply established that petitioners were unable to show
Constitutions had to spend many months of purposeful discussions, democratic that the Lambino Petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the
debates and rounds of voting before they could agree on the wordings covering the proposed changes.
philosophy, the underlying principles, and the structure of government of our Republic.
So, too, a remand is futile. Even if the required percentages are proven before the
Verily, even bills creating or changing the administrative structure of local Commission, the Petition must still be dismissed for proposing a revision, not
governments take several weeks or even months of drafting, reading, and debating an amendment, in gross violation of the Constitution. At the very least, it proposes
before Congress can approve them. How much more when it comes to constitutional more than one subject, in violation of Republic Act 6735.
changes?
Summation
A change in the form of government of our country from presidential-bicameral to
parliamentary-unicameral is monumental. Even the initiative proponents admit this
Petitioners plead with this Court to hear the voice of the people because, in the words
of Justice Puno who supports them, the "people's voice is sovereign in a democracy."
I, too, believe in heeding the people's voice. I reiterate my Separate Opinion in Upon assuming office, each of the justices of the Supreme Court took a solemn oath
PIRMA that "initiative is a democratic method of enabling our people to express their to uphold the Constitution. Being the protectors of the fundamental law as the highest
will and chart their history. x x x. I believe that Filipinos have the ability and the expression of the sovereign will, they must subject to the strictest scrutiny any
capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and maturely, attempt to change it, lest it be trivialized and degraded by the assaults of the
and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity." mob and of ill-conceived designs. The Court must single-mindedly defend the
Constitution from bogus efforts falsely attributed to the sovereign people.
This belief will not, however, automatically and blindly result in an initiative to change
the Constitution, because the present Petition violates the following: The judiciary may be the weakest branch of government. Nonetheless, when ranged
against incessant voices from the more powerful branches of government, it should
never cower in submission. On the other hand, I daresay that the same weakness of
· The Constitution (specifically Article XVII, which allows only amendments, not
the Court becomes its strength when it speaks independently through decisions that
revisions, and requires definite percentages of verified signatures)
rightfully uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The
strength of the judiciary lies not in its lack of brute power, but in its moral courage to
· The law (specifically, Republic Act 6735, which prohibits petitions containing more perform its constitutional duty at all times against all odds. Its might is in its being
than one subject) right.15

· Jurisprudence (specifically, PIRMA v. Comelec, which dismissed the Petition then During the past weeks, media outfits have been ablaze with reports and innuendoes
under consideration on the ground that, by following the Santiago ruling, the Comelec about alleged carrots offered and sticks drawn by those interested in the outcome of
had not gravely abused its discretion). this case.16 There being no judicial proof of these allegations, I shall not comment on
them for the nonce, except to quote the Good Book, which says, "There is nothing
hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to
I submit further that a remand of the Lambino Petition is both imprudent and futile. light."17
More tellingly, it is a cop-out, a hand-washing already discredited 2000 years
ago. Instead of finger-pointing, I believe we must confront the issues head on,
because the people expect no less from this august and venerable institution of Verily, the Supreme Court is now on the crossroads of history. By its decision, the
supreme justice. Court and each of its members shall be judged by posterity. Ten years, fifty years, a
hundred years -- or even a thousand years -- from now, what the Court did here, and
how each justice opined and voted, will still be talked about, either in shame or in
Epilogue pride. Indeed, the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate, the abomination of Dred Scott, and
the loathing of Javellana still linger and haunt to this day.
At bottom, the issue in this case is simply the Rule of Law.13 Initiative, like
referendum and recall, is a treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. It Let not this case fall into the same damnation. Rather, let this Court be known
was born out of our world-admired and often-imitated People Power, but its misuse throughout the nation and the world for its independence, integrity, industry and
and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Democracy must be cherished, but mob intelligence.
rule vanquished.

WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition.

The Constitution is a sacred social compact, forged between the government and
the people, between each individual and the rest of the citizenry. Through it, the
people have solemnly expressed their will that all of them shall be governed by laws,
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
and their rights limited by agreed-upon covenants to promote the common good. If we
Chief Justice
are to uphold the Rule of Law and reject the rule of the mob, we must faithfully
abide by the processes the Constitution has ordained in order to bring about
a peaceful, just and humane society. Assuming arguendo that six million people
allegedly gave their assent to the proposed changes in the Constitution, they are ____________________
nevertheless still bound by the social covenant -- the present Constitution -- which
was ratified by a far greater majority almost twenty years ago.14 I do not denigrate the EN BANC
majesty of the sovereign will; rather, I elevate our society to the loftiest perch,
because our government must remain as one of laws and not of men.
G.R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 signature sheets which were distributed for signing, he said that he merely
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners,  assumed that they were. In other words, he could not tell the Court for certain
vs. whether their representatives complied with this requirement.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents.
The petition filed with the COMELEC, as well as that which was shown to this Court,
G.R. No. 174299             October 25, 2006 indubitably establish that the full text of the proposed changes was not attached to the
signature sheets. All that the signature sheets contained was the general proposition
and abstract, which falls short of the full text requirement of R.A. 6735.
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A. Q.
SAGUISAG, Petitioners,
vs. The necessity of setting forth the text of the proposed constitutional changes in the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. petition for initiative to be signed by the people cannot be seriously disputed. To begin
ABALOS, JR. and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. with, Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution unequivocally states that
TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe and "[a]mendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people
Peter Doe, Respondents. 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." Evidently, for the people to propose
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
amendments to the Constitution, they must, in the first instance, know exactly what
they are proposing. It is not enough that they merely possess a general idea of the
SEPARATE OPINION proposed changes, as the Constitution speaks of a "direct" proposal by the people.

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Although the framers of the Constitution left the matter of implementing the
constitutional right of initiative to Congress, it might be noted that they themselves
reasonably assumed that the draft of the proposed constitutional amendments would
I agree with the opinion of our esteemed colleague, Justice Reynato Puno, that the be shown to the people during the process of signature gathering. Thus –
Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC1 is not a binding precedent. However, it is my
position that even if Santiago were reversed and Republic Act No. 6735 (R.A. 6735)
be held as sufficient law for the purpose of people's initiative to amend the MR. RODRIGO. Section 2 of the complete committee report provides: "upon
Constitution, the petition for initiative in this case must nonetheless be dismissed. petition of at least 10 percent of the registered voters." How will we
determine that 10 percent has been achieved? How will the voters manifest
their desire, is it by signature?
There is absolutely no showing here that petitioners complied with R.A. 6735, even as
they blindly invoke the said law to justify their alleged people's initiative. Section 5(b)
of R.A. 6735 requires that "[a] petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must MR. SUAREZ. Yes, by signatures.
have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
MR. RODRIGO. Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want
three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." On the other hand, Section
to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed
5(c)2 of the same law requires that the petition should state, among others, the
constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when they are
proposition3 or the "contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
asked to sign?
approved or rejected, amended or repealed." If we were to apply Section 5(c) to an
initiative to amend the Constitution, as petitioners submit, the petition for initiative
signed by the required number of voters should incorporate therein a text of the MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
proposed changes to the Constitution. However, such requirement was not followed in
the case at bar.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
During the oral arguments, petitioner Lambino admitted that they printed a mere
100,000 copies of the text of the proposed changes to the Constitution. According to
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.4
him, these were subsequently distributed to their agents all over the country, for
attachment to the sheets of paper on which the signatures were to be affixed. Upon
being asked, however, if he in fact knew whether the text was actually attached to the
It may thus be logically assumed that even without Section 5(c) of R.A. 6735, the full thereto.8An examination of the text of the proposed changes reveals, however, that
text of the proposed changes must necessarily be stated in or attached to the initiative this is not the case.
petition. The signatories to the petition must be given an opportunity to fully
comprehend the meaning and effect of the proposed changes to enable them to make
The proposed changes to the Constitution cover other subjects that are beyond the
a free, intelligent and well-informed choice on the matter.
main proposal espoused by the petitioners. Apart from a shift from the presidential to
a parliamentary form of government, the proposed changes include the abolition of
Needless to say, the requirement of setting forth the complete text of the proposed one House of Congress,9 and the convening of a constituent assembly to propose
changes in the petition for initiative is a safeguard against fraud and deception. If the additional amendments to the Constitution.10 Also included within its terms is an
whole text of the proposed changes is contained in or attached to the petition, omnibus declaration that those constitutional provisions under Articles VI and VII,
intercalations and riders may be duly avoided. Only then can we be assured that the which are inconsistent with the unicameral-parliamentary form of government, shall be
proposed changes are truly of the people and that the signatories have been fully deemed amended to conform thereto.
apprised of its implications.
It is not difficult to see that while the proposed changes appear to relate only to a shift
If a statutory provision is essential to guard against fraud, corruption or deception in in the form of government, it actually seeks to affect other subjects that are not
the initiative and referendum process, such provision must be viewed as an reasonably germane to the constitutional alteration that is purportedly sought. For one,
indispensable requirement and failure to substantially comply therewith is fatal.5 The a shift to a parliamentary system of government does not necessarily result in the
failure of petitioners in this case to comply with the full text requirement resultantly adoption of a unicameral legislature. A parliamentary system can exist in many
rendered their petition for initiative fatally defective. different "hybrid" forms of government, which may or may not embrace
unicameralism.11 In other words, the shift from presidential to parliamentary structure
and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature is neither the cause nor effect of the
The petition for initiative is likewise irretrievably infirm because it violates the one
other.
subject rule under Section 10(a) of R.A. 6735:

I also fail to see the relation of convening a constituent assembly with the proposed
SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures.— The following cannot be the subject of an
change in our system of government. As a subject matter, the convening of a
initiative or referendum petition:
constituent assembly to amend the Constitution presents a range of issues that is far
removed from the subject of a shift in government. Besides, the constituent assembly
(a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the is supposed to convene and propose amendments to the Constitution after the
electorate; x x x proposed change in the system of government has already taken place. This only
goes to show that the convening of the constituent assembly is not necessary to
effectuate a change to a parliamentary system of government.
The one subject rule, as relating to an initiative to amend the Constitution, has the
same object and purpose as the one subject-one bill rule embodied in Article VI,
Section 26(1)6 of the Constitution.7 To elaborate, the one subject-one bill rule was The omnibus statement that all provisions under Articles VI and VII which are
designed to do away with the practice of inserting two or more unrelated provisions in inconsistent with a unicameral-parliamentary system of government shall be deemed
one bill, so that those favoring one provision would be compelled to adopt the others. amended is equally bothersome. The statement does not specify what these
By this process of log-rolling, the adoption of both provisions could be accomplished inconsistencies and amendments may be, such that everyone is left to guess the
and ensured, when neither, if standing alone, could succeed on its own merits. provisions that could eventually be affected by the proposed changes. The subject
and scope of these automatic amendments cannot even be spelled out with certainty.
There is thus no reasonable measure of its impact on the other constitutional
As applied to the initiative process, the one subject rule is essentially designed to provisions.
prevent surprise and fraud on the electorate. It is meant to safeguard the integrity of
the initiative process by ensuring that no unrelated riders are concealed within the
terms of the proposed amendment. This in turn guarantees that the signatories are The foregoing proposed changes cannot be the subject of a people's initiative under
fully aware of the nature, scope and purpose of the proposed amendment. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Taken together, the proposed changes
indicate that the intendment is not simply to effect substantial amendments to the
Constitution, but a revision thereof. The distinction between an amendment and
Petitioners insist that the proposed changes embodied in their petition for initiative revision was explained by Dean Vicente G. Sinco, as follows:
relate only to one subject matter, that is – the shift from presidential to a parliamentary
system of government. According to petitioners, all of the other proposed changes are
merely incidental to this main proposal and are reasonably germane and necessary
 "Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations of In this regard, it should be noted that the distinction laid down by Justice Felix Q.
different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting either Antonio in Javellana v. Executive Secretary13 related to the procedure to be followed
of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only some in ratifying a completely new charter proposed by a constitutional convention. The
of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce, authority or right of the constitutional convention itself to effect such a revision was not
the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention put in issue in that case. As far as determining what constitutes "amendments" for the
and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must purpose of a people's initiative, therefore, we have neither relevant precedent nor prior
contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the constitution to experience. We must thus confine ourselves to Dean Sinco's basic articulation of the
determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole two terms.
document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
It is clear from Dean Sinco's explanation that a revision may either be of the whole or
The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change only part of the Constitution. The part need not be a substantial part as a change may
of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to qualify as a revision even if it only involves some of the important provisions. For as
consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering long as the intention and plan to be carried out contemplate a consideration of all the
that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the provisions of the Constitution "to determine which should be altered or suppressed, or
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one," the
of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or proposed change may be deemed a revision and not merely an amendment.
dangerous, or misleading in their effect."12
Thus, it is not by the sheer number alone of the proposed changes that the same may
The foregoing traditional exposition of the difference between amendment and be considered as either an amendment or revision. In so determining, another
revision has indeed guided us throughout our constitutional history. However, the overriding factor is the "original intention and plan authorized to be carried out" by the
distinction between the two terms is not, to my mind, as significant in the context of proposed changes. If the same relates to a re-examination of the entire document to
our past constitutions, as it should be now under the 1987 Constitution. The reason for see which provisions remain relevant or if it has far-reaching effects on the entire
this is apparent. Under our past constitutions, it was Congress alone, acting either as document, then the same constitutes a revision and not a mere amendment of the
a constituent assembly or by calling out a constitutional convention, that exercised Constitution.
authority to either amend or revise the Constitution through the procedures therein
described. Although the distinction between the two terms was theoretically
From the foregoing, it is readily apparent that a combination of the quantitative and
recognized under both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the need to highlight the
qualitative test is necessary in assessing what may be considered as an amendment
difference was not as material because it was only Congress that could effect
or revision. It is not enough that we focus simply on the physical scope of the
constitutional changes by choosing between the two modalities.
proposed changes, but also consider what it means in relation to the entire document.
No clear demarcation line can be drawn to distinguish the two terms and each
However, it is different now under the 1987 Constitution. Apart from providing for the circumstance must be judged on the basis of its own peculiar conditions. The
two modes of either Congress constituting itself as a constituent assembly or calling determination lies in assessing the impact that the proposed changes may have on
out for a constitutional convention, a third mode was introduced for proposing changes the entire instrument, and not simply on an arithmetical appraisal of the specific
to the Constitution. This mode refers to the people's right to propose amendments to provisions which it seeks to affect.
the fundamental law through the filing of a petition for initiative.
In McFadden v. Jordan,14 the California Supreme Court laid down the groundwork for
Otherwise stated, our experience of what constitutes amendment or revision under the the combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment of proposed constitutional
past constitutions is not determinative of what the two terms mean now, as related to changes, in order to determine whether the same is revisory or merely amendatory. In
the exercise of the right to propose either amendments or revision. The changes that case, the McFadden court found the proposed changes extensive since at least
introduced to both the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 could have indeed been 15 of the 25 articles contained in the California Constitution would either be repealed
deemed an amendment or revision, but the authority for effecting either would in their entirety or substantially altered, and four new topics would be introduced.
never have been questioned since the same belonged solely to Congress. In However, it went on to consider the qualitative effects that the proposed initiative
contrast, the 1987 Constitution clearly limits the right of the people to directly propose measure would have on California's basic plan of government. It observed that the
constitutional changes to amendments only. We must consequently not be swayed by proposal would alter the checks and balances inherent in such plan, by delegating
examples of constitutional changes effected prior to the present fundamental law, in far-reaching and mixed powers to an independent commission created under the
determining whether such changes are revisory or amendatory in nature. proposed measure. Consequently, the proposal in McFadden was not only deemed as
broad and numerous in physical scope, but was also held as having a substantive
effect on the fundamental governmental plan of the State of California.
The dual aspect of the amendment/revision analysis was reiterated by the California It may thus be conceded that, quantitatively, the changes espoused by the
Supreme Court in Raven v. Deukmeijan.15 Proposition 115, as the initiative in that proponents in this case will affect only two (2) out of the eighteen (18) articles of the
case was called, would vest in the United States Supreme Court all judicial 1987 Constitution, namely, Article VI (Legislative Department) and Article VII
interpretative powers of the California courts over fundamental criminal defense rights (Executive Department), as well as provisions that will ensure the smooth transition
in that state. It was observed that although quantitatively, the proposition did "not from a presidential-bicameral system to a parliamentary-unicameral structure of
seem so extensive as to change directly the substantial entirety of the Constitution by government. The quantitative effect of the proposed changes is neither broad nor
the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions," the same, nonetheless, extensive and will not affect the substantial entirety of the 1987 Constitution.
"would substantially alter the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a
document of independent force and effect." Quoting Amador Valley Joint Union
However, it is my opinion that the proposed changes will have
High School District v. State Board of Equalization,16 the Raven court said:
serious qualitative consequences on the Constitution. The initiative petition, if
successful, will undoubtedly alter, not only our basic governmental plan, but also
". . . apart from a measure effecting widespread deletions, additions and redefine our rights as citizens in relation to government. The proposed changes will
amendments involving many constitutional articles, 'even a relatively simple set into motion a ripple effect that will strike at the very foundation of our basic
enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our constitutional plan. It is therefore an impermissible constitutional revision that may not
basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision also…[A]n enactment be effected through a people's initiative.
which purported to vest all judicial power in the Legislature would amount to
a revision without regard either to the length or complexity of the measure or
Petitioners' main proposal pertains to the shifting of our form of government from the
the number of existing articles or sections affected by such change.'"
presidential to the parliamentary system. An examination of their proposal reveals that
(Underscoring supplied and citations omitted)
there will be a fusion of the executive and legislative departments into one parliament
that will be elected on the basis of proportional representation. No term limits are set
Thus, in resolving the amendment/revision issue, the California Court examines both for the members of parliament except for those elected under the party-list system
the quantitative and qualitative effects of a proposed measure on its constitutional whose terms and number shall be provided by law. There will be a President who shall
scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a revision.17 be the head of state, but the head of government is the Prime Minister. The latter and
his cabinet shall be elected from among the members of parliament and shall be
responsible to parliament for the program of government.
I am persuaded that we can approach the present issue in the same manner. The
experience of the courts in California is not far removed from the standards
expounded on by Dean Sinco when he set out to differentiate between amendment The preceding proposal indicates that, under the proposed system, the executive and
and revision. It is actually consistent, not only with our traditional concept of the two legislature shall be one and the same, such that parliament will be the paramount
terms, but also with the mindset of our constitutional framers when they referred to the governing institution. What this implies is that there will be no separation between the
disquisition of Justice Antonio in Javellana.18 We must thus consider whether the law-making and enforcement powers of the state, that are traditionally delineated
proposed changes in this case affect our Constitution in both its substantial physical between the executive and legislature in a presidential form of government.
entirety and in its basic plan of government. Necessarily, the checks and balances inherent in the fundamental plan of our U.S.-
style presidential system will be eliminated. The workings of government shall instead
be controlled by the internal political dynamics prevailing in the parliament.
The question posed is: do the proposed changes, regardless of whether these
are simple or substantial, amount to a revision as to be excluded from the
people's right to directly propose amendments to the fundamental law? Our present governmental system is built on the separation of powers among the
three branches of government. The legislature is generally limited to the enactment of
laws, the executive to the enforcement of laws and the judiciary to the application of
As indicated earlier, we may apply the quantitative/qualitative test in determining the
laws. This separation is intended to prevent a concentration of authority in one person
nature of the proposed changes. These tests are consistent with Dean Sinco's
or group that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the
traditional concept of amendment and revision when he explains that, quantitatively,
detriment of our republican institutions. In the words of Justice Laurel, the doctrine of
revision "may result in the rewriting either of the whole constitution, or the greater part
separation of powers is intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent
of it, or perhaps only some of its provisions." In any case, he continues, "the factor that
despotism and obtain efficiency.19
characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be
carried out." Unmistakably, the latter statement refers to the qualitative effect of the
proposed changes. In the proposed parliamentary system, there is an obvious lack of formal institutional
checks on the legislative and executive powers of the state, since both the Prime
Minister and the members of his cabinet are drawn from parliament. There are no
effective limits to what the Prime Minister and parliament can do, except the will of the
parliamentary majority. This goes against the central principle of our present indubitably establish the intent and plan of the proponents to possibly affect even the
constitutional scheme that distributes the powers of government and provides for constitutions of liberty and sovereignty. Indeed, no valid reason exists for authorizing
counteraction among the three branches. Although both the presidential and further amendments or revisions to the Constitution if the intention of the proposed
parliamentary systems are theoretically consistent with constitutional democracy, the changes is truly what it purports to be.
underlying tenets and resulting governmental framework are nonetheless radically
different.
There is no question here that only amendments to the Constitution may be
undertaken through a people's initiative and not a revision, as textually reflected in the
Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government cannot Constitution itself. This conclusion is inevitable especially from a comparative
be regarded as anything but a drastic change. It will require a total overhaul of our examination of Section 2 in relation to Sections 1 and 4 of Article XVII, which state:
governmental structure and involve a re-orientation in the cardinal doctrines that
govern our constitutional set-up. As explained by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a switch
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
from the presidential system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of
proposed by:
its over-all impact on the entire constitutional structure.20 It cannot, by any standard,
be deemed as a mere constitutional amendment.
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members;
or
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to
improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet (2) A constitutional convention.
new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become
obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision, however, the
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
guiding original intention and plan contemplates a re-examination of the
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
entire document, or of provisions of the document which have over-all
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
implications for the entire document, to determine how and to what extent
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
they should be altered.21 (Underscoring supplied)
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
The inclusion of a proposal to convene a constituent assembly likewise shows the oftener than once every five years thereafter.
intention of the proponents to effect even more far-reaching changes in our
fundamental law. If the original intent were to simply shift the form of government to
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
the parliamentary system, then there would have been no need for the calling out of a
right.
constituent assembly to propose further amendments to the Constitution. It should be
noted that, once convened, a constituent assembly can do away and replace any
constitutional provision which may not even have a bearing on the shift to a xxxx
parliamentary system of government. The inclusion of such a proposal reveals the
proponents' plan to consider all provisions of the constitution, either to determine
which of its provisions should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
document should be replaced with an entirely new one. Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Consequently, it is not true that only Articles VI and VII are covered by the alleged
people's initiative. The proposal to convene a constituent assembly, which by its
terms is mandatory, will practically jeopardize the future of the entire Constitution Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
and place it on shaky grounds. The plan of the proponents, as reflected in their majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than
proposed changes, goes beyond the shifting of government from the presidential to sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
the parliamentary system. Indeed, it could even extend to the "fundamental nature of Commission of Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. (Underscoring
our state as a democratic and republican state." supplied)

To say that the proposed changes will affect only the constitution of government is It is clear that the right of the people to directly propose changes to the Constitution is
therefore a fallacy. To repeat, the combined effect of the proposed changes to Articles limited to amendments and does not include a revision thereof. Otherwise, it would
VI and VII and those pertaining to the Transitory Provisions under Article XVIII have been unnecessary to provide for Section 2 to distinguish its scope from the rights
vested in Congress under Section 1. The latter lucidly states that Congress may Article XVII on amendments and revisions is called a "constitution of sovereignty"
propose both amendments and a revision of the Constitution by either convening a because it defines the constitutional meaning of "sovereignty of the people." It is
constituent assembly or calling for a constitutional convention. Section 2, on the other through these provisions that the sovereign people have allowed the expression of
hand, textually commits to the people the right to propose only amendments by their sovereign will and have canalized their powers which would otherwise be
direct action. plenary. By approving these provisions, the sovereign people have decided to limit
themselves and future generations in the exercise of their sovereign power.23 They are
thus bound by the constitution and are powerless, whatever their numbers, to change
To hold, therefore, that Section 2 allows substantial amendments amounting to
or thwart its mandates, except through the means prescribed by the Constitution
revision obliterates the clear distinction in scope between Sections 1 and 2. The
itself.24
intention, as may be seen from a cursory perusal of the above provisions, is to provide
differing fields of application for the three modes of effecting changes to the
Constitution. We need not even delve into the intent of the constitutional framers to It is thus misplaced to argue that the people may propose revisions to the Constitution
see that the distinction in scope is definitely marked. We should thus apply these through people's initiative because their representatives, whose power is merely
provisions with a discerning regard for this distinction. Again, McFadden22 is delegated, may do so. While Section 1 of Article XVII may be considered as a
instructive: provision delegating the sovereign powers of amendment and revision to
Congress, Section 2, in contrast, is a self-limitation on that sovereign power. In
the words of Cooley:
". . . The differentiation required is not merely between two words; more
accurately it is between two procedures and between their respective fields
of application. Each procedure, if we follow elementary principles of x x x Although by their constitutions the people have delegated the exercise
statutory construction, must be understood to have a substantial field of of sovereign powers to the several departments, they have not thereby
application, not to be x x x a mere alternative procedure in the same field. divested themselves of the sovereignty. They retain in their own hands, so
Each of the two words, then, must be understood to denote, respectively, far as they have thought it needful to do so, a power to control the
not only a procedure but also a field of application appropriate to its governments they create, and the three departments are responsible to and
procedure. The people of this state have spoken; they made it clear when subject to be ordered, directed, changed or abolished by them. But this
they adopted article XVIII and made amendment relatively simple but control and direction must be exercised in the legitimate mode previously
provided the formidable bulwark of a constitutional convention as a agreed upon. The voice of the people, acting in their sovereign capacity,
protection against improvident or hasty (or any other) revision, that they can be of legal force only when expressed at the times and under the
understood that there was a real difference between amendment and conditions which they themselves have prescribed and pointed out by the
revision. We find nothing whatsoever in the language of the initiative Constitution, or which, consistently with the Constitution, have been
amendment of 1911 (art. IV, § 1) to effect a breaking down of that prescribed and pointed out for them by statute; and if by any portion of the
difference. On the contrary, the distinction appears to be x x x scrupulously people, however large, an attempt should be made to interfere with the
preserved by the express declaration in the amendment x x x that the power regular working of the agencies of government at any other time or in any
to propose and vote on "amendments to the Constitution" is reserved other mode than as allowed by existing law, either constitutional or
directly to the people in initiative proceedings, while leaving unmentioned statutory, it would be revolutionary in character, and must be resisted and
the power and the procedure relative to constitutional revision, which repressed by the officers who, for the time being, represent legitimate
revisional power and procedure, it will be remembered, had already been government.25 (Underscoring supplied)
specifically treated in section 2 of article XVIII. Intervenors' contention--that
any change less than a total one is but amendatory--would reduce to the
Consequently, there is here no case of "the spring rising above its source." Nor is it
rubble of absurdity the bulwark so carefully erected and preserved. Each
one where the people's sovereign power has been relegated to a lesser plane than
situation involving the question of amendment, as contrasted with revision,
that of Congress. In choosing to exercise self-limitation, there is no absence or lack of
of the Constitution must, we think, be resolved upon its own facts."
even a fraction of the sovereign power of the people since self-limitation itself is an
expression of that sovereign power. The people have chosen to delegate and limit
Thus, our people too have spoken when they overwhelmingly ratified the 1987 their sovereign power by virtue of the Constitution and are bound by the parameters
Constitution, with the provisions on amendments and revisions under Article XVII. The that they themselves have ordained. Otherwise, if the people choose to defy their self-
voice and will of our people cannot be any clearer when they limited people's initiative imposed constitutional restraints, we will be faced with a revolutionary situation.26
to mere amendments of the fundamental law and excluded revisions in its scope. In
this regard, the task of the Court is to give effect to the people's voice, as expressed
It has repeatedly been emphasized that ours is a democratic and republican
unequivocally through the Constitution.
state.27 Even as we affirm, however, that aspect of direct democracy, we should not
forget that, first and foremost, we are a constitutional democracy. To uphold direct
democracy at the expense of the fundamental law is to sanction, not a constitutional, intervenors,
but an extra-constitutional recourse. This is clearly beyond the powers of the Court INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY AND CEBU
who, by sovereign mandate, is the guardian and keeper of the Constitution. CHAPTER, oppositors-intervenors,
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR AND RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, oppostors-
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
intervenors,
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MANUEL
VILLAR, JR., oppositor-intervenor;
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
G.R. NO. 174299

____________________ MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. AND RENE A. Q.

SAGUISAG, petitioners, 
EN BANC vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN S.
ABALOS, SR. AND COMMISSIONERS RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA,
G.R. NO. 174153 FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR. ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO
AND JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, respondents.
RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ENRICO B. AUMENTADO TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners,  x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), petitioners-intervenors,  CONCURRING OPINION
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, petitioners-
intervenors, SANDOVAL–GUTIERREZ, J.:
SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner-intervenor,
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
AND VICTORINO F. BALAIS,petitioners-intervenors, Vox populi vox Dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God. Caution should be
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. exercised in choosing one's battlecry, lest it does more harm than good to one's
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE AND CARLOS P. cause. In its original context, the complete version of this Latin phrase means exactly
MEDINA, JR., oppositors-intervenors, the opposite of what it is frequently taken to mean. It originated from a holy man, the
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., oppositor-intervenor, monk Alcuin, who advised Charlemagne, "nec audiendi qui solent dicere vox populi
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, oppositor-intervenor, vox Dei quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit," meaning, "And
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS those people should not be listened to who keep on saying, 'The voice of the
FROUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, people is the voice of God,' since the riotousness of the crowd is always very
LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS,LEONARDO SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. close to madness."1 Perhaps, it is by providence that the true meaning of the Latin
DARBY SANTIAGO, AND DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, oppositors-intervenors, phrase is revealed upon petitioners and their allies – that they may reflect upon
LORETA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESA the sincerity and authenticity of their "people's initiative."
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, oppositors-intervenors,
LUWALHATI ANTONINO, oppositor-intervenor, History has been a witness to countless iniquities committed in the name of God.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO Wars were waged, despotism tolerated and oppressions justified – all these transpired
F.ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. as man boasted of God's imprimatur. Today, petitioners and their allies hum the same
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS AND AMADO rallying call, convincing this Court that the people's initiative is the "voice of the
GAT INCION, oppositors-intervenors, people" and, therefore, the "voice of God." After a thorough consideration of the
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR. AND SENATORS petitions, I have come to realize that man, with his ingenuity and arrogance, has
SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCIRO- perfected the craft of imitating the voice of God. It is against this kind of genius that
ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM, AND PANFILO M. the Court must guard itself.
LACSON, oppositors-intervenors,
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, oppositors-
The facts of the case are undisputed. This time, another group known as Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with the Union of
Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), have gathered signatures in support of the
proposed amendments to the Constitution, which entail a change in the form of
In 1996, the Movement for People's Initiative sought to exercise the power of initiative
government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary, thus:
under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution which reads:

A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
as follows:
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 Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members as
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces,
oftener than once every five years thereafter, representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants per
district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. Each district
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent
this right.
territory, and each province must have at least one member.

The exercise was thwarted by a petition for prohibition filed with this Court by Senator
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
Miriam Defensor Santiago, et al., entitled "Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander
Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin, petitioners, v. Commission on Elections
resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be elected
(COMELEC), Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa, in their capacities
by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years without limitation
as founding members of the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action
as to the number thereof, except those under the party-list system which
(PIRMA), respondents."2 The case was docketed as G.R. No. 127325. On March 19,
shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be equal to twenty per
1997, this Court rendered its Decision in favor of petitioners, holding that Republic Act
centum of the total membership coming from the parliamentary districts.
No. 6735 (R.A. No. 6735), An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum
and Appropriating Funds Therefor, is "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are
Constitution is concerned." A majority of eight (8) Justices fully concurred with this hereby amended to read, as follows:
ruling, while five (5) subscribed to the opposite view. One (1) opined that there is no
need to rule on the adequacy of R.A. No. 6735.
Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The
executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the assistance
On motion for reconsideration, two (2) of the eight (8) Justices reconsidered their of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the
positions. One (1) filed an inhibition and the other one (1) joined the minority opinion. Members of Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible to
As a consequence, of the thirteen (13) Justices who participated in the deliberation, the Parliament for the program of government.
six (6) voted in favor of the majority opinion, while the other six (6) voted in favor of the
minority opinion.3
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the
bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of
A few months thereafter, or on September 23, 1997, the Court dismissed a similar government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory
case, entitled People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. Provisions," which shall read, as follows:
Commission on Elections4 on the ground that the COMELEC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it dismissed PIRMA's Petition for Initiative to Propose
Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve until
Amendments to the Constitution "it appearing that that it only complied with the
the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 and
dispositions in the Decision of the Court in G.R. no. 127325 (Santiago v.
shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution unless
COMELEC) promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10,
impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim
1997." Seven (7) Justices voted that there was no need to re-examine its ruling, as
parliament.
regards the issue of the sufficiency of R.A. No. 6735. Another Justice concurred, but
on the different premise that the case at bar is not the proper vehicle for such re-
examination. Five (5) Justice opined otherwise.
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among
of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall succeed as themselves.
President. In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal
from office of both the incumbent President and Vice President, the interim
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of
Prime Minister shall assume all the powers and responsibilities of Prime
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
Minister under Article VII as amended.

(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and
Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this
Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article
Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy,
VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18
decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatium up to 26,
unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of government, Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive, shall
in which case, they shall be amended to conform with a unicameral nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an interim
parliamentary form of government; provided, however, that any and all Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the members
references therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and
"Houses of Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to him
all references therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or by the incumbent President."
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the "President"
and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of
Parliament which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and election of all local government officials. The duty elected Prime Minister
Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and
the 1987 Constitution which are hereby be amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term
10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII of the incumbent President and Vice President.
shall be retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up
to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which case
Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, and written on its upper right hand
they shall be deemed amended so as to conform to a unicameral
portion is the abstract of the proposed amendments, quoted as follows:
Parliamentary System of government; provided, however, that any and all
references therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and
"Houses of Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Article VI and VII of the
all references therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present
"Member(s) of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read as bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government,
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in
and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister." government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the
orderly shift from one system to another?
Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these amendments,
an interim Parliament which shall continue until the Members of the regular On August 25, 2006, Raul L. Lambino and Enrico B. Aumentado, herein petitioners,
Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified. It shall be filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Constitution.5 Five (5)
composed of the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of days thereafter, they filed an Amended Petition alleging that they are filing the
Representatives and the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads petition in their own behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered voters
of executive departments. who have affixed their signatures on the signature sheets attached thereto. They
claimed that the signatures of registered voters appearing on the signature sheets,
constituting at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered voters in the country,
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of
wherein each legislative district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be a
registered voters, were verified by their respective city or municipal election officers.
member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially convene
the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for the election of
the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by Several organizations opposed the petition. 6
In a Resolution dated August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the be characterized as "capricious or whimsical," "patent and gross," or "arbitrary
petition, citing as basis this Court's ruling in Santiago, permanently enjoining it "from and despotic." On the contrary, it was the most prudent course to take. It must be
entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to stressed that in Santiago, this Court permanently enjoins respondent COMELEC
the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
for the implementation of the system." amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
enacted." It being a fact that Congress has not enacted a sufficient law, respondent
COMELEC has no alternative but to adhere to Santiago. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to
Hence, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus praying that this Court set
a citation for contempt. As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
aside the COMELEC Resolution and direct the latter tocomply with Section 4, Article
(then Associate Justice) in his Separate Opinion in the subsequent case of PIRMA vs.
XVII of the Constitution, which provides:
COMELEC:9

Sec. 4 x x x
x x x I cannot fault the Comelec for complying with the ruling even if it, too,
disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec was
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a directly enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice but to
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of discretion. Refusal to
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse open to the Comelec. Any
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. other mode of action would have constituted defiance of the Court and
would have been struck down as grave abuse of discretion and
contumacious disregard of this Court's supremacy as the final arbiter of
I vote to dismiss the petition of Lambino, et al. in G.R. No. 174153 and grant the justiciable controversies.
petition of Mar-len Abigail Binay, et al. in G.R. No. 174299. Here, petitioners pray that
the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners be required to show why they should
not be punished for contempt7 of court for disregarding the permanent injunction It need not be emphasized that in our judicial hierarchy, this Court reigns supreme. All
issued by this Court in Santiago. courts, tribunals and administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions are
obliged to conform to its pronouncements. It has the last word on what the law is; it
is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. In other words, there is only
I one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts should take their
Respondent COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion bearings.10 As a warning to lower court judges who would not adhere to its rulings,
this Court, in People v. Santos,11 held:
Without necessarily brushing aside the other important issues, I believe the resolution
of the present petition hinges on this singular issue -- did the COMELEC commit Now, if a judge of a lower Court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission of
grave abuse of discretion when it denied Lambino, et al.'s petition for initiative to deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by this
amend the Constitution on the basis of this Court's Decision in Santiago v. Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, he
COMELEC? may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the case in
accordance with his personal views he must first think that it is his duty to
In other words, regardless of how the other remaining issues are resolved, still, the apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the Land, and that any
ultimate yardstick is the attendance of "grave abuse of discretion" on the part of the deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would unavoidably cause,
COMELEC. as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays and expenses to the
litigants. And if despite of what is here said, a Judge still believes that he
cannot follow Our rulings, then he has no other alternative than to place
Jurisprudence teaches that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered as himself in the position that he could properly avoid the duty of having to
committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in render judgment on the case concerned (Art. 9, C.C.), and he has only one
a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be legal way to do that.
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law,
as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason Clearly, respondent COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing the
of passion or personal hostility.8 petition of Lambino, et al. for it merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago.

The Resolution of respondent COMELEC denying due course to the petition for
initiative on the basis of a case (Santiago) decided by this Court cannot, in any way,
Significantly, in PIRMA vs. COMELEC,12 a unanimous Court implicitly recognized involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It would
that its ruling in Santiago is the established doctrine and that the COMELEC did not be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. If
commit grave abuse of discretion in invoking it, thus: a case was decided against me yesterday when I was a defendant, I
shall look for the same judgment today if I am plaintiff. To decide
differently would raise a feeling of resentment and wrong in my breast;
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
it would be an infringement, material and moral, of my
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
rights." Adherence to precedent must then be the rule rather than the
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-handed administration of
complied with the dispositions of this Court in G.R. No. 127325 promulgated
justice in the courts.17
on March 19, 1997, and its resolution on June 10, 1997.

That the doctrine of stare decisis is related to justice and fairness may be appreciated
Indeed, I cannot characterize as a "grave abuse of discretion" the COMELEC's
by considering the observation of American philosopher William K. Frankena as to
obedience and respect to the pronouncement of this Court in Santiago.
what constitutes injustice:

II
The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two similar
The doctrine of stare decisis 
individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is treated better
bars the re-examination of Santiago
or worse than the other. In this case, the cry of injustice rightly goes up
against the responsible agent or group; and unless that agent or group can
It cannot be denied that in Santiago, a majority of the members of this Court or eight establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity after all between the
(8) Justices (as against five (5) Justices) concurred in declaring R.A. No. 6735 an individuals concerned and their circumstances, he or they will be guilty as
insufficient law. When the motion for reconsideration was denied via an equally- charged.18
divided Court or a 6-6 vote, it does not mean that the Decision was overturned. It only
shows that the opposite view fails to muster enough votes to modify or reverse the
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent re-examining and, if need be,
majority ruling. Therefore, the original Decision was upheld.13 In Ortigas and Company
overruling prior decisions, "It is x x x a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior
Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,14 this Court ruled that the denial of a motion or
applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered
reconsideration signifies that the ground relied upon have been found, upon
anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy x x x 'is based
due deliberation, to be without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant
on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the
a modification of the judgment or final order.
major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate
their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the
With Santiago being the only impediment to the instant petition for initiative, petitioners governing rules of law.19 Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a
persistently stress that the doctrine of stare decisis does not bar its re-examination. rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of
factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and
private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of
I am not convinced. The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere translates "stand law. Here, petitioners failed to discharge their task.
by the decisions and disturb not what is settled."15 As used in our jurisprudence, it
means that "once this Court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it would adhere to that principle and apply it to all future Santiago v. COMELEC was decided by this Court on March 19, 1997 or more than
cases in which the facts are substantially the same as in the earlier nine (9) years ago. During that span of time, the Filipino people, specifically the law
controversy."16 practitioners, law professors, law students, the entire judiciary and litigants have
recognized this Court's Decision as a precedent. In fact, the Santiago doctrine was
applied by this Court in the subsequent case of PIRMA. Even the legislature has relied
There is considerable literature about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is a good on said Decision, thus, several bills have been introduced in both Houses of Congress
or bad one, but the doctrine is usually justified by arguments which focus on the to cure the deficiency. I cannot fathom why it should be overturned or set aside merely
desirability of stability and certainty in the law and also by notions of justice and on the basis of the petition of Lambino, et al. Indeed, this Court's conclusion
fairness. Justice Benjamin Cardozo in his treatise, The Nature of the Judicial in Santiago that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms
Process stated: and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
remains a precedent and must be upheld.
It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of
litigants and the opposite way between another. 'If a group of cases
 III The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held,
The proposed constitutional changes constitute revisions and not mere directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition
amendments of at least ten percent of the registered voters.

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution lays down the means for its amendment and This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No.
revision. Thus: 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative
which came about because of the extraordinary developments this year, has
to be separated from the traditional modes of amending the Constitution as
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of
proposed by:
initiative should be limited to amendments to the Constitution and
should not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; removed it from the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on
or Amendment or Revision.

(2) A Constitutional Convention. xxx xxx xxx

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished proponent of the
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least amendment yield to a few questions?
twelve per centum of the total number of registered votes, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
MR. DAVIDE: With pleasure, Madam President.
registered voters therein. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

MR. MAAMBONG: My first question, Commissioner Davide's proposed

At the outset, it must be underscored that initiative and referendum, as means by
amendment on line I refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the
which the people can directly propose changes to the Constitution, were not provided
word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made
for in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Thus, under these two (2) Constitutions, there
the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision?"
was no demand to draw the distinction between an amendment and a revision, both
being governed by a uniform process. This is not so under our present Constitution.
The distinction between an amendment and a revision becomes crucial because only MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should
amendments are allowed under the system of people's initiative. Revisions are within be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can
the exclusive domain of Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, or only relate to "amendments" not "revision"
of a Constitutional Convention.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.20
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission is explicit that Section 2,
Article XVII covers only amendments, thus:
Considering that the initiative on the Constitution only permits amendments, it is
imperative to examine whether petitioners' proposed changes partake of the nature of
The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized. amendments, not revisions.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President. The petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC by Lambino, et al. sought to amend
the following provisions of the 1987 Constitution: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of
Article VI (The Legislative Department); Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII (The
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission
Executive Department). It further includes Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) for the
that pursuant to the mandate given us last night, we submitted this
purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-presidential to a
afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the
unicameral-parliamentary form of government.
proposed provision governing initiative. This is now covered by Section 2 of
the complete committee report. With the permission of the Members, may I
quote Section 2: Succinctly, the proposals envision a change in the form of government, from
bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary; conversion of the present
Congress of the Philippines to an Interim National Assembly; change in the terms of distinguishes between "charter amendment" and "charter revision," it has been held
Members of Parliament; and the election of a Prime Minister who shall be vested with that "(a) change in the form of government of a home rule city may be made only
executive power. by revision of the city charter, not by its amendment."24

Petitioners contend that the proposed changes are in the nature of amendments, In summary, it would seem that any major change in governmental form and scheme
hence, within the coverage of a "people's initiative." would probably be interpreted as a "revision" and should be achieved through the
more thorough process of deliberation.
I disagree.
Although, at first glance, petitioners' proposed changes appear to cover isolated and
specific provisions only, however, upon careful scrutiny, it becomes clear that the
The noted constitutionalist, Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., who was also a member
proposed changes will alter the very structure of our government and create
of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, characterized an amendment and a revision
multifarious ramifications. In other words, the proposed changes will have a
to the Constitution as follows:
"domino effect" or, more appropriately, "ripple effect" on other provisions of the
Constitution.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to
At this juncture, it must be emphasized that the power reserved to the people to effect
improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet
changes in the Constitution includes the power to amend anysection in such a manner
new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become
that the proposed change, if approved, would "be complete within itself, relate to
obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision however, the
one subject and not substantially affect any other section or article of the
guiding original intention and plan contemplates a re-examination of
Constitution or require further amendments to the Constitution to accomplish
the entire document, or of provisions of the document which have
its purpose."25 This is clearly not the case here.
over-all implications for the document to determine how and to what
extent they should be altered.21
Firstly, a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government affects the
well-enshrined doctrine of separation of powers of government, embodied in our
Obviously, both "revision" and amendment" connote change; any distinction between
Constitution, by providing for an Executive, Legislative and Judiciary Branches. In a
the two must be based upon the degree of change contemplated. In Kelly v.
Parliamentary form of government, the Executive Branch is to a certain degree,
Laing,22 the Supreme Court of Michigan made the following comparison of the two
dependent on the direct or indirect support of the Parliament, as expressed through a
terms:
"vote of confidence." To my mind, this doctrine of separation of powers is so
interwoven in the fabric of our Constitution, that any change affecting such
"Revision" and "amendment" have the common characteristics of working doctrine must necessarily be a revision.
changes in the charter, and are sometimes used in exactly the same sense
but there is an essential difference between them.
In McFadden vs. Jordan,26 the California Supreme Court ruled as follows:

"Revision" implies a reexamination of the whole law and a redraft

It is thus clear that that a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished
without obligation to maintain the form, scheme, or structure of the
only through ratification by the people of a revised constitution proposed by
old. As applied to fundamental law, such as a constitution or charter, it
a convention called for that purpose x x x. Consequently, if the scope of
suggests a convention to examine the whole subject and to prepare and
the proposed initiative measure now before us is so broad that if such
submit a new instrument whether the desired changes from the old are few
measure became law a substantial revision of our present state
or many. Amendment implies continuance of the general plan and
Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not properly be
purpose of the law, with corrections to better accomplish its purpose.
submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a
Basically, revision suggests fundamental change, while amendment is a
constitutional convention. x x x.
correction of detail.

Secondly, the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral form of government is not a mere
Although there are some authorities which indicate that a change in a city's form of
amendment, but is in actuality a revision, as set forth in Adams v. Gunter27:
government may be accomplished by a process of "amendment," the cases which so
hold seem to involve statutes which only distinguish between amendment and totally
new charters.23 However, as in Maine law, where the statute authorizing the changes
 The proposal here to amend Section I of Article III of the 1968 revision, necessitating a constitutional convention. I quote the pertinent portion of
Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only its ruling, thus:
many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a change in
the form of the legislative branch of government, which has been in
There is in the measure itself, no attempt to enumerate the various and
existence in the United States Congress and in all of the states of the
many articles and sections of our present Constitution which would be
nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be difficult to
affected, replaced or repealed. It purports only to add one new article but its
visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of a House and a
framers found it necessary to include the omnibus provision (subdivision (7)
Senate is basic in the American form of government. It would not only
of section XII) that "If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
radically change the whole pattern of the government in this state and
the constitution is in conflict with any of the provisions of this article, such
tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution, but would even affect
section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase is to the extent of such
the physical facilities necessary to carry on government.
conflict hereby repealed. x x x Consequently, if the scope of the proposed
intitiative measure now before us is so broad that if such measure become
Thirdly, the proposed changes, on their face, signify revisions rather than law a substantial revision of our present state Constitution would be be
amendments, especially, with the inclusion of the following "omnibus provision": effected, then the measure may not properly be submitted to the electorate
until and unless it is first agreed upon by a constitutional convention.28
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-
Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamnetary form of government, there shall Undoubtedly, the changes proposed by the petitioners are not mere amendments
be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions" which shall read, as which will only affect the Articles or Sections sought to be changed. Rather, they are
follows: in the nature of revisions which will affect considerable portions of the Constitution
resulting in the alteration of our form of government. The proposed changes cannot be
taken in isolation since these are connected or "interlocked" with the other provisions
xxxxxxxxx
of our Constitution. Accordingly, it has been held that: "If the changes attempted are
so sweeping that it is necessary to include the provisions interlocking them,
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and then it is plain that the plan would constitute a recasting of the whole
Vice-President, with the exceptions of Section 1,2,3 and 4 of Article VII of Constitution and this, we think, it was intended to be accomplished only by a
the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended x x x x x x and all other convention under Section 2 which has not yet been disturbed."29
Sections of Article VII shall be retained and numbered sequentially as
Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14,unless they shall be inconsistent with
I therefore conclude that since the proposed changes partake of the nature of a
Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended so as
revision of the Constitution, then they cannot be the subject of an initiative. On this
to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary system of government x x x
matter, Father Bernas expressed this insight:
xxx.

But why limit initiative and referendum to simple amendments? The answer,
xxxxxxxxx
which one can easily glean from the rather long deliberation on initiative and
referendum in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, is practicality. In other
Section 4. (1) x x x words, who is to formulate the revision or how is it to be formulated?
Revision, as concretely being proposed now, is nothing less than a
rebuilding of the Philippine constitutional structure. Who were involved
(3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the Interim in formulating the structure? What debates ensued? What records are there
Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this for future use in interpreting the provisions which may be found to be
Constitution, consistent with the principles of local autonomy, unclear?
decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.

In a deliberative body like Congress or a Constitutional Convention,

The above provisions will necessarily result in a "ripple effect" on the other provisions decisions are reached after much purifying debate. And while the
of the Constitution to make them conform to the qualities of unicameral-parliamentary deliberations proceed, the public has the opportunity to get involved. It is
form of government. With one sweeping stroke, these proposed only after the work of an authorized body has been completed that it is
provisions automatically revise some provisions of the Constitution. In McFadden, presented to the electorate for final judgment. Careful debate is important
the same practice was considered by the Court to be in the nature of substantial because the electorate tends to accept what is presented to it even
sight unseen.30
 IV local legislation, where R.A. No. 6735 provides a detailed, logical, and exhaustive
R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the People's initiative enumeration on their implementation,31 however, as regards initiative on the
Constitution, the law merely:
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution reads:
(a) mentions the word "Constitution" in Section 2;32
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every of the three systems of initiative in Section 3;33
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
(c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the people;34
oftener than once every five years thereafter,

(d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
should sign the petition;35 and
this right.

(e) provides the date for the effectivity of the approved proposition.36
On its face, Section 2 is not a self-executory provision. This means that an enabling
law is imperative for its implementation. Thus, Congress enacted R.A. No. 6735 in
order to breathe life into this constitutional provision. However, as previously narrated, In other words, R.A. No. 6735 does not specify the procedure how initiative on the
this Court struck the law in Santiago for being incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in Constitution may be accomplished. This is not the enabling law contemplated by the
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution. As pointed out by oppositor-intervenor Alternative Law Groups Inc., since
Constitution is concerned. the promulgation of the Decision in Santiago, various bills have been introduced in
both Houses of Congress providing for a complete and adequate process for
people's initiative, such as:
The passage of time has done nothing to change the applicability of R.A. No. 6735.
Congress neither amended it nor passed a new law to supply its deficiencies.
· Names, signatures and addresses of petitioners who shall be registered
voters;
Notwithstanding so, this Court is being persuaded to take a 360-degree turn,
enumerating three (3) justifications why R.A. No. 6735 must be considered a sufficient
law, thus: · A statement of the provision of the Constitution or any part thereof sought
to be amended and the proposed amendment;
1) The text of R.A. No. 6735 is replete with references to the right of
people to initiate changes to the Constitution; · The manner of initiation - in a congressional district through a petition by
any individual, group, political party or coalition with members in the
congressional district;
2) The legislative history of R.A. No. 6735 reveals the clear intent of the
lawmakers to use it as instrument to implement the people's initiative; and
· The language used: the petition should be printed in English and
translated in the local language;
3) The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. No. 6735
demonstrate the legislative intent to use it as instrument to implement
people's initiative. · Signature stations to be provided for;

I regret to say that the foregoing justifications are wanting. · Provisions pertaining to the need and manner of posting, that is, after the
signatures shall have been verified by the Commission, the verified
signatures shall be posted for at least thirty days in the respective municipal
A thorough reading of R.A. No. 6735 leads to the conclusion that it covers only
and city halls where the signatures were obtained;
initiatives on national and local legislation. Its references to initiatives on the
Constitution are few, isolated and misplaced. Unlike in the initiatives on national and
 · Provisions pertaining to protests allowed any protest as to the authenticity 3. The required minimum of 12% of the total number of registered voters
of the signatures to be filed with the COMELEC and decided within sixty "must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
(60) days from the filing of said protest. voters" of "every legislative district."

None of the above necessary details is provided by R.A. No. 6735, thus, In this case, however, the above requisites are not present.
demonstrating its incompleteness and inadequacy.
The petition for initiative was filed with the COMELEC by petitioners Lambino and
V Aumentado, two registered voters. As shown in the "Verification/Certification with
Petitioners are not Proper Parties to Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping" contained in their petition, they alleged under oath
File the Petition for Initiative that they have caused the preparation of the petition in their personal capacity as
registered voters "and as representatives" of the supposed 6.3 million registered
voters. This goes to show that the questioned petition was not initiated directly by the
VI
6.3 million people who allegedly comprised at least 12% of the total number of
The Petition for Initiative Filed with the COMELEC Does not Comply with
registered voters, as required by Section 2. Moreover, nowhere in the petition itself
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735
could be found the signatures of the 6.3 million registered voters. Only the
signatures of petitioners Lambino and Aumentado were affixed therein "as
I shall discuss the above issues together since they are interrelated and inseparable. representatives" of those 6.3 million people. Certainly, that is not the petition for
The determination of whether petitioners are proper parties to file the petition for people's initiative contemplated by the Constitution.
initiative in behalf of the alleged 6.3 million voters will require an examination of
whether they have complied with the provisions of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no authority whatsoever to file the petition
Constitution.
"as representatives" of the alleged 6.3 million registered voters. Such act of
representation is constitutionally proscribed. To repeat, Section 2 strictly requires
To reiterate, Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides: that amendments to the Constitution shall be "directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters." Obviously, the phrase "directly proposed by the
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly people" excludes any person acting as representative or agent of the 12% of the total
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least number of registered voters. The Constitution has bestowed upon the people the right
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Such right cannot be usurped by
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of anyone under the guise of being the people's representative. Simply put, Section 2
the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be does not recognize acts of representation. For it is only "the people" (comprising the
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor minimum of 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
oftener than once every five years thereafter. district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
therein) who are the proper parties to initiate a petition proposing amendments to the
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this Constitution. Verily, the petition filed with the COMELEC by herein petitioners Lambino
right. (Underscoring supplied) and Aumentado is not a people's initiative. Necessarily, it must fail.

The mandate of the above constitutional provisions is definite and categorical. For Cororarilly, the plea that this Court should "hear" and "heed" "the people's voice" is
a people's initiative to prosper, the following requisites must be present: baseless and misleading. There is no people's voice to be heard and heeded as
this petition for initiative is not truly theirs, but only of petitioners Lambino and
Aumentado and their allies.
1. It is "the people" themselves who must "directly propose"
"amendments" to the Constitution;
VII
The issues at bar are not political questions.
2. The proposed amendments must be contained in "a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters;" and
Lambino and Aumentado, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, vehemently argue that: (1)
"the validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign people to amend the
Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that over six million registered
voters indicated their support of the Petition for initiative is a purely political While this Court has adopted the use of Frankfurter's "political thicket," nonetheless, it
question;" and (2) "[t]he power to propose amendments to the Constitution is a right has sought to come up with a definition of the term "political question." Thus, in Vera
explicitly bestowed upon the sovereign people. Hence, the determination by the v. Avelino,39 this Court ruled that properly, political questions are "those questions
people to exercise their right to propose amendments under the system of initiative is which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their sovereign
a sovereign act and falls squarely within the ambit of a political question." capacity or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been delegated to
the legislative or executive branch of the government." In Tañada and Macapagal
v. Cuenco,40 the Court held that the term political question connotes, in legal parlance,
The "political question doctrine" was first enunciated by the US Supreme Court
what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It is concerned
in Luther v. Borden.37 Faced with the difficult question of whether the Supreme Court
with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
was the appropriate institution to define the substantive content of republicanism, the
US Supreme Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Roger B. Taney, concluded that "the
sovereignty in every State resides in the people, as to how and whether they In Aquino v. Enrile,41 this Court adopted the following guidelines laid down in Baker v.
exercised it, was under the circumstances of the case, a political question to be Carr42 in determining whether a question before it is political, rather than judicial in
settled by the political power." In other words, the responsibility of settling certain nature, to wit:
constitutional questions was left to the legislative and executive branches of the
government.
1) there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue
to a coordinate political department; or
The Luther case arose from the so-called "Dorr Rebellion" in the State of Rhode
Island. Due to increased migration brought about by the Industrial Revolution, the
2) there is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
urban population of Rhode Island increased. However, under the 1663 Royal Charter
resolving it; or
which served as the State Constitution, voting rights were largely limited to residents
of the rural districts. This severe mal-apportionment of suffrage rights led to the "Dorr
Rebellion." Despairing of obtaining remedies for their disenfranchisement from the 3) there is the sheer impossibility of deciding the matter without an initial
state government, suffrage reformers invoked their rights under the American policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or
Declaration of Independence to "alter or abolish" the government and to institute a
new one. The reformers proceeded to call for and hold an extralegal constitutional
4) there is the sheer impossibility of the Court's undertaking an independent
convention, drafted a new State Constitution, submitted the document for popular
resolution without expressing lack of respect due the coordinate branches of
ratification, and held elections under it. The State government, however, refused to
government; or
cede power, leading to an anomalous situation in that for a few months in 1842, there
were two opposing state governments contending for legitimacy and possession of
state of offices. 5) there is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
decision already made; or
The Rhode Island militia, under the authority of martial law, entered and searched the
house of Martin Luther, a Dorr supporter. He brought suit against Luther Borden, a 6) there exists the potentiality of embarrassment arising from multifarious
militiaman. Before the US Supreme Court, Luther's counsel argued that since the pronouncements by various departments on one question.
State's archaic Constitution prevented a fair and peaceful address of grievances
through democratic processes, the people of Rhode Island had instead chosen to
exercise their inherent right in popular sovereignty of replacing what they saw as an None of the foregoing standards is present in the issues raised before this Court.
oppressive government. The US Supreme Court deemed the controversy as non- Accordingly, the issues are justiciable. What is at stake here is the legality and
justiciable and inappropriate for judicial resolution. not the wisdom of the act complained of.

In Colgrove v. Green,38 Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter, coined the phrase "political Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the issues raised before this Court are
thicket" to describe situations where Federal courts should not intervene in political political in nature, it is not precluded from resolving them under its expanded
questions which they have neither the competence nor the commission to decide. jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution,
In Colgrove, the US Supreme Court, with a narrow 4-3 vote branded the following Daza v. Singson.43 As pointed out in Marcos v. Manglapus,44 the present
apportionment of legislative districts in Illinois "as a political question and that the Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope of
invalidation of the districts might, in requiring statewide elections, create an evil judicial power which the Court, under previous charters, would have normally and
greater than that sought to be remedied." ordinarily left to the political departments to decide.
 CONCLUSION Amending the Constitution involving a change of government system or structure is a
herculean task affecting the entire Filipino people and the future generations. Let us,
therefore, entrust this duty to more knowledgeable people elected as members of a
In fine, considering the political scenario in our country today, it is my view that the so-
Constitutional Convention.
called people's initiative to amend our Constitution from bicameral-presidential to
unicameral-parliamentary is actually not an initiative of the people, but an initiative of
some of our politicians. It has not been shown by petitioners, during the oral Yes, the voice of the people is the voice of God. But under the circumstances in
arguments in this case, that the 6.3 million registered voters who affixed their this case, the voice of God is not audible.
signatures understood what they signed. In fact, petitioners admitted that the
Constitutional provisions sought to be amended and the proposed amendments were
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and to GRANT the
not explained to all those registered voters. Indeed, there will be no means of
petition in G.R. No. 174299.
knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether they really understood what
petitioners and their group asked them to sign.
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Let us not repeat the mistake committed by this Court in Javellana v. The Executive Associate Justice
Secretary.45 The Court then ruled that "This being the vote of the majority, there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect,"
although it had notice that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional ____________________
Convention was not validly ratified by the people in accordance with the 1935
Constitution. The Court concluded, among others, that the viva voce voting in the
Citizens' Assemblies "was and is null and void ab initio." That was during martial law EN BANC
when perhaps majority of the justices were scared of the dictator. Luckily at present,
we are not under a martial law regime. There is, therefore, no reason why this Court G.R. No. 174153
should allow itself to be used as a legitimizing authority by the so-called people's
initiative for those who want to perpetuate themselves in power.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, 
At this point, I can say without fear that there is nothing wrong with our present vs.
government structure. Consequent1y, we must not change it. America has a THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
presidential type of government. Yet, it thrives ideally and has become a super
power. It is then safe to conclude that what we should change are some of the
people running the government, NOT the SYSTEM. G.R. No. 174299

According to petitioners, the proposed amendment would effect a more efficient, more MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q.
economical and more responsive government. SAGUISAG, petitioners, 
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
Is there hope that a new breed of politicians, more qualified and capable, may be ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO
elected as members and leaders of the unicameral-parliament? Or will the present A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and JOHN DOE
members of the Lower House continue to hold their respective positions with limitless and PETER DOE, respondents.
terms?

x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Will the new government be more responsive to the needs of the poor and the
marginalized? Will it be able to provide homes for the homeless, food for the hungry,
jobs for the jobless and protection for the weak? SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

This is a defining moment in our history. The issue posed before us is crucial with CALLEJO, SR., J.:
transcendental significance. And history will judge us on how we resolve this issue –
shall we allow the revision of our Constitution, of which we are duty bound to guard
and revere, on the basis of a doubtful people's initiative?
I am convinced beyond cavil that the respondent Commission on Elections (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least
(COMELEC) did not commit an abuse of its discretion in dismissing the amended twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
petition before it. The proposals of petitioners incorporated in said amended petition signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
are for the revision of the 1987 Constitution. Further, the amended petition before the least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the
respondent COMELEC is insufficient in substance. Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
The Antecedents
(c) The petition shall state the following:
On August 25, 2006, petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado filed with
the COMELEC a petition entitled "IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSING AMENDMENTS c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION THROUGH A PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE: A SHIFT approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
FROM A BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY
GOVERNMENT BY AMENDING ARTICLES VI AND VII; AND PROVIDING
c.2. the proposition;
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM THE
PRESIDENTIAL TO THE PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM." The case was docketed as
EM (LD)-06-01. On August 30, 2006, petitioners filed an amended petition. For c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
brevity, it is referred to as the petition for initiative.
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
Petitioners alleged therein, inter alia, that they filed their petition in their own behalf
and together with those who have affixed their signatures to the signature sheets
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
appended thereto who are Filipino citizens, residents and registered voters of the
Philippines, and they constitute at least twelve percent (12%) of all the registered
voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is represented by at least three c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100)
percent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every
page of the petition.
Petitioners further alleged therein that the filing of the petition for initiative is based on
their constitutional right to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution by way of xxxx
people's initiative, as recognized in Section 2, Article XVII thereof, which provides:
Sec. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify the
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and
by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.
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. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within They also alleged that the COMELEC has the authority, mandate and obligation to
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once give due course to the petition for initiative, in compliance with the constitutional
every five years thereafter. directive for the COMELEC to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative
to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall."2

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right." Petitioners incorporated in their petition for initiative the changes they proposed to be
incorporated in the 1987 Constitution and prayed that the COMELEC issue an order:

According to petitioners, while the above provision states that "(T)he Congress shall
provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right," the provisions of Section 1. Finding the Petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII of
5(b) and (c), along with Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) 6735,1are sufficient enabling the 1987 Constitution;
details for the people's exercise of the power. The said sections of RA 6735 state:
2. Directing the publication of the Petition in Filipino and English at least
Sec. 5. Requirements. – (a) To exercise the power x x x twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
days after the Certification by this Honorable Commission of the sufficiency have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
of this Petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on
the proposition.
Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet the
required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
Petitioners pray for such other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the which every legislative district is represented by at least three per centum of
premises. the registered voters therein, still the Petition cannot be given due course
since the Supreme Court categorically declared RA 6735 as inadequate to
cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
The Ruling of the respondent COMELEC

This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of the

On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC promulgated the assailed Resolution denying
right of the people under a system of initiative. However, neither can we turn
due course and dismissing the petition for initiative. The COMELEC ruled that:
a blind eye to the pronouncement of the High Court that in the absence of a
valid enabling law, this right of the people remains nothing but an "empty
We agree with the petitioners that this Commission has the solemn right," and that this Commission is permanently enjoined from entertaining
Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws and regulations or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the
relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative. Constitution. (Citations omitted.)

This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other provisions of Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to this Court on a petition
the Constitution particularly on initiative. for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides: The Petitioners' Case

"Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may, likewise, be In support of their petition, petitioners alleged, inter alia, that:
directly proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition
of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
I.
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by
at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x.
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise
OF, AND TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE,
of this right."
BECAUSE THE CITED SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE MAJORITY OPINION OF THE
The aforequoted provision of the Constitution being a non-self-executory SUPREME COURT EN BANC, CONSIDERING THAT UPON ITS
provision needed an enabling law for its implementation. Thus, in order to RECONSIDERATION AND FINAL VOTING ON 10 JUNE 1997, NO
breathe life into the constitutional right of the people under a system of MAJORITY VOTE WAS SECURED TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO.
initiative to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the 6735 AS INADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENT IN
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolution, Congress enacted RA 6735. STANDARD.

However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Santiago v. II.

Commission on Elections struck down the said law for being incomplete,
inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735, REPUBLIC ACT
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
NO. 8189 AND EXISTING APPROPRIATION OF THE COMELEC
PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT DETAILS AND AUTHORITY FOR THE
The Supreme Court, likewise, declared that this Commission should be EXERCISE OF PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE, THUS, EXISTING LAWS TAKEN
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition TOGETHER ARE ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE.
 III. B.

THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO TAKE COGNIZANCE APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR INITIATIVE
OF, AND IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR FILED BY THE PETITIONERS
INITIATIVE, THEREBY VIOLATING AN EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL
MANDATE AND DISREGARDING AND CONTRAVENING THE WILL OF
C.
THE PEOPLE.

THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED IN SANTIAGO V.

A.
COMELEC ONLY APPLIES TO THE DELFIN PETITION.

THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT

1.
APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR INITIATIVE
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
IT IS THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE
DECISION AND NOT OTHER STATEMENTS IN THE
1.
BODY OF THE DECISION THAT GOVERNS THE
RIGHTS IN CONTROVERSY.
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED
TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE POWER TO PROPOSE
IV.
AMENDMENTS AND THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES
ARE NOW GIVING VIBRANT LIFE TO THIS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FAILED OR NEGLECTED TO
ACT OR PERFORM A DUTY MANDATED BY LAW.
2.
A.
PRIOR TO THE QUESTIONED SANTIAGO RULING
OF 19 MARCH 1997, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE COMELEC IS TO SET THE
TO EXERCISE THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF INITIATIVE FOR PLEBISCITE.3
INITIATIVE AND RECALL HAS BEEN INVARIABLY
UPHELD
Petitioners Failed to Allege and Demonstrate All the Essential
Facts To Establish the Right to a Writ of Certiorari
3.
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court reads:
THE EXERCISE OF THE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE
AMENDMENTS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION WHICH
Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer
SHALL BE DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess
SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.
of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and
4. adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
BY SIGNING THE SIGNATURE SHEETS ATTACHED
proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer, and granting such incidental
TO THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE DULY VERIFIED
reliefs as law and justice may require.
BY THE ELECTION OFFICERS, THE PEOPLE HAVE
CHOSEN TO PERFORM THIS SACRED EXERCISE
OF THEIR SOVEREIGN POWER.
 The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, It is a travesty for the Court to declare the act of the COMELEC in denying due course
order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents to the petition for initiative as "capricious, despotic, oppressive or whimsical exercise
relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." In fact, in so doing, the COMELEC
shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. merely followed or applied, as it ought to do, the Court's ruling in Santiago to the effect
that Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the system of initiative is a non self-
executory provision and requires an enabling law for its implementation. In relation
A writ for certiorari may issue only when the following requirements are set out in the
thereto, RA 6735 was found by the Court to be "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in
petition and established:
essential terms and conditions" to implement the constitutional provision on initiative.
Consequently, the COMELEC was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer exercising cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
judicial or quasi-judicial functions; sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
system." The decision of the Court En Banc interpreting RA 6735 forms part of the
legal system of the Philippines.10 And no doctrine or principle laid down by the Court
(2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of En Banc may be modified or reversed except by the Court En Banc,11 certainly not by
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of the COMELEC. Until the Court En Banc modifies or reverses its decision, the
jurisdiction; and COMELEC is bound to follow the same.12 As succinctly held in Fulkerson v.
Thompson:13
(3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
ordinary course of law. x x x4 Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as finally
settled. The inferior court is bound by the judgment or decree as the law of
The Court has invariably defined "grave abuse of discretion," thus: the case, and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. The
inferior court cannot vary it, or judicially examine it for any other purpose
than execution. It can give no other or further relief as to any matter decided
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical by the Supreme Court even where there is error apparent; or in any manner
exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must be intermeddle with it further than to execute the mandate and settle such
shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically. For matters as have been remanded, not adjudicated by the Supreme Court….
certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical exercise
of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in accordance with
centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.5 The principles above stated are, we think, conclusively established by the
authority of adjudged cases. And any further departure from them would
inevitably mar the harmony of the whole judiciary system, bring its parts into
There is thus grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it acts in a conflict, and produce therein disorganization, disorder, and incalculable
capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its judgment mischief and confusion. Besides, any rule allowing the inferior courts to
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not enough.6 The only disregard the adjudications of the Supreme Court, or to refuse or omit to
question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess thereof, and abuse of carry them into execution would be repugnant to the principles established
discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary remedy of certiorari only when by the constitution, and therefore void.14
the same is grave, as when the power is exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner
by reason of passion, prejudice or personal hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy
designed for the correction of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.7 An At this point, it is well to recall the factual context of Santiago as well as the
error of judgment is one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its pronouncement made by the Court therein. Like petitioners in the instant case,
jurisdiction, which error is reversible only by an appeal.8 in Santiago, Atty. Jesus Delfin, the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and
Action (PIRMA), et al., invoked Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution as they filed
with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of
In the present case, it appears from the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC that it Elective Officials, By People's Initiative" (the Delfin petition). They asked the
denied the petition for initiative solely in obedience to the mandate of this Court COMELEC to issue an order fixing the time and date for signature gathering all over
in Santiago v. Commission on Elections.9 In said case, the Court En the country; causing the necessary publications of said order and their petition in
Banc permanently enjoined the COMELEC from entertaining or taking cognizance of newspapers of general and local circulation and instructing municipal election
any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall registrars in all regions all over the country and to assist petitioners in establishing
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. When the signing stations. Acting thereon, the COMELEC issued the order prayed for.
COMELEC denied the petition for initiative, there was as yet no valid law enacted by
Congress to provide for the implementation of the system.
Senator Miriam Santiago, et al. forthwith filed with this Court a petition for prohibition verify all the signatures collected in behalf of the petition and, after due hearing, that it
to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing its order. The Court, speaking through (COMELEC) declare the petition sufficient for the purpose of scheduling a plebiscite to
Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice), granted the petition as it declared: amend the Constitution. Like the Delfin petition in Santiago, the PIRMA petition
proposed to submit to the people in a plebiscite the amendment to the Constitution on
the lifting of the term limits of elected officials.
1. RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned";
The opinion of the minority that there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court in
15 PIRMA has no basis. The COMELEC, in its Resolution dated July 8, 1997, dismissed
2. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300  invalid insofar as it prescribed rules and
the PIRMA petition citing the permanent restraining order issued against it by the
regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution because
Court in Santiago. PIRMA and the spouses Pedrosa forthwith elevated the matter to
the COMELEC is without authority to promulgate the rules and regulations to
the Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC in refusing
implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to
to exercise jurisdiction over, and thereby dismissing, their petition for initiative to
the Constitution through the system of initiative; and
amend the Constitution.

3. The Delfin petition insufficient as it did not contain the required number of
The Court dismissed outright, by a unanimous vote, the petition filed by PIRMA and
signatures of registered voters.
the spouses Albert Pedrosa. The Court declared that the COMELEC merely complied
with the dispositions in the decision of the Court in Santiago and, hence, cannot be
The Court concluded in Santiago that "the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined held to have committed a grave abuse of its discretion in dismissing the petition before
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to it:
the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
implementation of the system." The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No.
127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10,
a) GRANTING the instant petition; 1997.

b) DECLARING RA 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to
amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the Court
standard for subordinate legislation; re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the Chief Justice
and six (6) other members of the Court, namely, Regalado, Davide,
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted that there was no need
on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was no need for re-examination of
amendments to the Constitution; and said second issue since the case a bar is not the proper vehicle for that
purpose. Five (5) other members of the Court, namely, Melo, Puno,
Francisco, Hermosisima and Panganiban, JJ., opined that there was need
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the for such a re-examination. x x x
Delfin petition (UND-96-037).

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.18 (Underscoring supplied.)

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 18, 1996 is made
permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as
against private respondents.16 In the present case, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) takes the side of
petitioners and argues that the COMELEC should not have applied the ruling
in Santiago to the petition for initiative because the permanent injunction therein
The Court reiterated its ruling in Santiago in another petition which was filed with the referred only to the Delfin petition. The OSG buttresses this argument by pointing out
Court by PIRMA and the spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (who were parties that the Temporary Restraining Order dated December 18, 1996 that was made
in Santiago) docketed as PIRMA v. Commission on Elections.17 The said petitioners, permanent in the dispositive portion referred only to the Delfin petition.
undaunted by Santiago and claiming to have gathered 5,793,213 signatures, filed a
petition with the COMELEC praying, inter alia, that COMELEC officers be ordered to
The OSG's attempt to isolate the dispositive portion from the body of the Court's Santiago was concurred in, without any reservation, by eight Justices,22 or the majority
decision in Santiago is futile. It bears stressing that the dispositive portion must not be of the members of the Court, who actually took part in the deliberations thereon. On
read separately but in connection with the other portions of the decision of which it the other hand, five Justices,23 while voting for the dismissal of the Delfin petition on
forms a part. To get to the true intent and meaning of a decision, no specific portion the ground of insufficiency, dissented from the majority opinion as they maintained the
thereof should be resorted to but the same must be considered in its entirety. Hence, view that RA 6735 was sufficient to implement the system of initiative.
a resolution or ruling may and does appear in other parts of the decision and not
merely in the fallo thereof.19
Given that a clear majority of the members of the Court, eight Justices, concurred in
the decision in Santiago, the pronouncement therein that RA 6735 is "incomplete,
The pronouncement in the body of the decision in Santiago permanently enjoining the inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned" constitutes a definitive ruling on the
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted matter.
to provide for the implementation of the system" is thus as much a part of the Court's
decision as its dispositive portion. The ruling of this Court is of the nature of an in
In the Resolution dated June 10, 1997, the motions for reconsideration of
rem judgment barring any and all Filipinos from filing a petition for initiative on
the Santiago decision were denied with finality as only six Justices, or less than the
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
majority, voted to grant the same. The Resolution expressly stated that the motion for
enacted. Clearly, the COMELEC, in denying due course to the present petition for
reconsideration failed "to persuade the requisite majority of the Court to modify or
initiative on amendments to the Constitution conformably with the Court's ruling in
reverse the Decision of 19 March 1977."24 In fine, the pronouncement in Santiago as
Santiago did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the contrary, its actuation is in
embodied in the Decision of March 19, 1997 remains the definitive ruling on the
keeping with the salutary principle of hierarchy of courts. For the Court to find the
matter.
COMELEC to have abused its discretion when it dismissed the amended petition
based on the ruling of this Court in Santiago would be sheer judicial apostasy.
It bears stressing that in PIRMA, petitioners prayed for the Court to resolve the issue
posed by them and to re-examine its ruling as regards RA 6735. By a vote of seven
As eloquently put by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, "there is only one Supreme Court from
members of the Court, including Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. and Justice Jose C. Vitug,
whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings."20 This truism applies with
the Court voted that there was no need to resolve the issue. Five members of the
equal force to the COMELEC as a quasi-judicial body for, after all, judicial decisions
Court opined that there was a need for the re-examination of said ruling. Thus, the
applying or interpreting laws or the Constitution "assume the same authority as the
pronouncement of the Court in Santiago remains the law of the case and binding on
statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily become, to the extent
petitioners.
that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the actuations not only of
those called upon to abide thereby but also of those duty bound to enforce obedience
thereto."21 If, as now claimed by the minorty, there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court
in Santiago, the Court should have resolved to set aside its original resolution
dismissing the petition and to grant the motion for reconsideration and the petition. But
Petitioners Cannot Ascribe
the Court did not. The Court positively and unequivocally declared that the COMELEC
Grave Abuse of Discretion on
merely followed the ruling of the Court in Santiago in dismissing the petition before it.
the COMELEC Based on the
No less than Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno concurred with the resolution of the
Minority Opinion in Santiago
Court. It behooved Justice Puno to dissent from the ruling of the Court on the motion
for reconsideration of petitioners precisely on the ground that there was no doctrine
It is elementary that the opinion of the majority of the members of the Court, not the enunciated by the Court in Santiago. He did not. Neither did Chief Justice Artemio V.
opinion of the minority, prevails. As a corollary, the decision of the majority cannot be Panganiban, who was a member of the Court.
modified or reversed by the minority of the members of the Court.
That RA 6735 has failed to validly implement the people's right to directly propose
However, to eschew the binding effect of Santiago, petitioners argue, albeit constitutional amendments through the system of initiative had already been
unconvincingly, that the Court's declaration therein on the inadequacy, conclusively settled in Santiago as well as in PIRMA. Heeding these decisions,
incompleteness and insufficiency of RA 6735 to implement the system of initiative to several lawmakers, including no less than Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo Nachura
propose constitutional amendments did not constitute the majority opinion. This when he was then a member of the House of Representatives,25 have filed separate
contention is utterly baseless. bills to implement the system of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution.
In the present Thirteenth (13th) Congress, at least seven (7) bills are pending. In the implement the system of initiative, still, the amended petition for initiative cannot
Senate, the three (3) pending bills are: Senate Bill No. 119 entitled An Act Providing prosper. Despite the denomination of their petition, the proposals of petitioners to
for People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution introduced by Senator Luisa "Loi" P. change the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a
Ejercito Estrada; Senate Bill No. 2189 entitled An Act Providing for People's Initiative unicameral-parliamentary system of government are actually for the revision of the
to Amend the Constitution introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago; and Constitution.
Senate Bill No. 2247 entitled An Act Providing for a System of People's Initiative to
Propose Amendments to the Constitution introduced by Senator Richard Gordon.
Petitioners propose to "amend" Articles VI and VII of the Constitution in this manner:

In the House of Representatives, there are at least four (4) pending bills: House Bill
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read as
No. 05281 filed by Representative Carmen Cari, House Bill No. 05017 filed by
follows:
Representative Imee Marcos, House Bill No. 05025 filed by Representative Roberto
Cajes, and House Bill No. 05026 filed by Representative Edgardo Chatto. These
House bills are similarly entitled An Act Providing for People's Initiative to Amend the "Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a
Constitution. unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members as
may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces,
representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of their
The respective explanatory notes of the said Senate and House bills uniformly
respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants per
recognize that there is, to date, no law to govern the process by which constitutional
district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. Each district
amendments are introduced by the people directly through the system of initiative.
shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent
Ten (10) years after Santiago and absent the occurrence of any compelling
territory, and each province must have at least one member.
supervening event, i.e., passage of a law to implement the system of initiative under
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, that would warrant the re-examination of the
ruling therein, it behooves the Court to apply to the present case the salutary and well- "(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
recognized doctrine of stare decisis. As earlier shown, Congress and other Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
government agencies have, in fact, abided by Santiago. The Court can do no less with resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be elected
respect to its own ruling. by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years without limitation
as to the number thereof, except those under the party-list system which
shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be equal to twenty per
Contrary to the stance taken by petitioners, the validity or constitutionality of a law
centum of the total membership coming from the parliamentary districts."
cannot be made to depend on the individual opinions of the members who compose it
– the Supreme Court, as an institution, has already determined RA 6735 to be
"incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are hereby
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned" and therefore the same amended to read, as follows:
remains to be so regardless of any change in the Court's composition.26 Indeed, it is
vital that there be stability in the courts in adhering to decisions deliberately made
"Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The
after ample consideration. Parties should not be encouraged to seek re-examination
executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the assistance
of determined principles and speculate on fluctuation of the law with every change in
of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the
the expounders of it.27
Members of Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible to
the Parliament for the program of government.
Proposals to Revise the Constitution,
As in the Case of the Petitioners'
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-
Proposal to Change the Form of
Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, there shall be a
Government, Cannot be Effected
new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions," which shall read as follows:
Through the System of Initiative,
Which by Express Provision of
Section 2, Article XVII of the Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve until
Constitution, is Limited to Amendments the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 and
shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution unless
impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim
Even granting arguendo the Court, in the present case, abandons its pronouncement
parliament.,
in Santiago and declares RA 6735, taken together with other extant laws, sufficient to
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by
of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall succeed as a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from among
President. In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal themselves.
from office of both the incumbent President and Vice President, the interim
Prime Minister shall assume all the powers and responsibilities of Prime
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of
Minister under Article VII as amended.
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.

Section 2. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and
(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim
Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article
Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this
VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18
Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy,
and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby
decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26,
unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of government,
in which case, they shall be amended to conform with a unicameral "Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive, shall
parliamentary form of government; provided, however, that any and all nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an interim
references therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the members
"House of Congress," "Senator[s] or "Member[s] of the House of thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and
Representatives" and "House of Congress" shall be changed to read shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to him
"Parliament"; that any and all references therein to "Member[s] of the House by the incumbent President."
of Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member[s] of Parliament"
and any and all references to the "President" and or "Acting President" shall
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of
be changed to read "Prime Minister."
Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the
election of all local government officials. [Thereafter, the Vice-President, as
Section 3. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Member of Parliament, shall immediately convene the Parliament and shall
Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of initially preside over its session for the purpose of electing the Prime
the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of all its members, from
11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be among themselves.] The duly-elected Prime Minister shall continue to
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim
unless they shall be inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which case they Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
shall be deemed amended so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary and Vice President.28
System of government; provided, however, that any and all references
therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of
Petitioners claim that the required number of signatures of registered voters have
Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all
been complied with, i.e., the signatories to the petition constitute twelve percent (12%)
references therein to "Member[s] of Congress," "Senator[s]" or "Member[s]
of all the registered voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is
of the House of Parliament" and any and all references to the "President"
represented by at least three percent (3%) of all the registered voters therein.
and of "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
Certifications allegedly executed by the respective COMELEC Election Registrars of
each municipality and city verifying these signatures were attached to the petition for
Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these amendments, initiative. The verification was allegedly done on the basis of the list of registered
an interim Parliament which shall continue until the Members of the regular voters contained in the official COMELEC list used in the immediately preceding
Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified. It shall be election.
composed of the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives and the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads
The proposition, as formulated by petitioners, to be submitted to the Filipino people in
of executive departments.
a plebiscite to be called for the said purpose reads:

(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be a
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially convene
FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-
the interim Parliament and shall preside over its session for the election of
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS
 TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE The framers of the Constitution deliberately adopted the terms "amendment" and
SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?29 "revision" and provided for their respective modes and procedures for effecting
changes of the Constitution fully cognizant of the distinction between the two
concepts. Commissioner Jose E. Suarez, the Chairman of the Committee on
According to petitioners, the proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII would effect a
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, explained:
more efficient, more economical and more responsive government. The parliamentary
system would allegedly ensure harmony between the legislative and executive
branches of government, promote greater consensus, and provide faster and more MR. SUAREZ. One more point, and we will be through.
decisive governmental action.
We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, "amendment."
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XVII pertinently read: However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms – "amendment" or
"revision" when our attention was called by the honorable Vice-President to
the substantial difference in the connotation and significance between the
Article XVII
said terms. As a result of our research, we came up with the observations
made in the famous – or notorious – Javellana doctrine, particularly the
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be decision rendered by Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the
proposed by: following distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of an existing
Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution.
On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or of specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the
change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts
(2) A constitutional convention. or the addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new
conditions or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or
unresponsive to the needs of the times.
SECTION 2. Amendments to 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 The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying new political, social
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be and economic concepts.
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter. So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two terms
should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing amendments
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. or revisions to the new Constitution.30

It can be readily gleaned that the above provisions set forth different modes and Further, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted the term "revision" in
procedures for proposals for the amendment and revision of the Constitution: Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution because it was their intention to reserve the
power to propose a revision of the Constitution to Congress or the constitutional
convention. Stated in another manner, it was their manifest intent that revision thereof
1. Under Section 1, Article XVII, any amendment to, or revision of, the shall not be undertaken through the system of initiative. Instead, the revision of the
Constitution may be proposed by – Constitution shall be done either by Congress or by a constitutional convention.

a. Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or It is significant to note that, originally, the provision on the system of initiative was
included in Section 1 of the draft Article on Amendment or Revision proposed by the
b. A constitutional convention. Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. The original draft provided:

2. Under Section 2, Article XVII, amendments to the Constitution may be SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
likewise directly proposed by the people through initiative. proposed:
 (a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; MS. AQUINO. Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative mode of
or proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further require the
process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not self-executing.
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
MR. SUAREZ. No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off period.
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article
__ Section __ of the Constitution.31 MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this
process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment.
Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of
However, after deliberations and interpellations, the members of the Commission
realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of
agreed to remove the provision on the system of initiative from Section 1 and, instead,
setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing
put it under a separate provision, Section 2. It was explained that the removal of the
provision?
provision on initiative from the other "traditional modes" of changing the Constitution
was precisely to limit the former (system of initiative) to amendments to the
Constitution. It was emphasized that the system of initiative should not extend to MR SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while
revision. ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and
should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total overhaul of the
Constitution. That was the sense conveyed by the Committee.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.

MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish

May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission
the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of
that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we submitted this
revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend, which is given to the
afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the
public, would only apply to amendments?
proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This is now covered by
Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the permission of the
Members, may I quote Section 2: MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned by the
Committee.33
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held,
directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition Then Commissioner Hilario P. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice) also made the
of at least ten percent of the registered voters. clarification with respect to the observation of Commissioner Regalado Maambong:

This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No. MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed
7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative, amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the word
which came about because of the extraordinary developments this "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction
year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending the between the words "amendments" and "revision"?
Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that
this system of initiative should be limited to amendments to the Constitution
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should
and should not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we
be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only
removed it from the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on
relate to "amendments" not "revision."34
Amendment or Revision. x x x32

After several amendments, the Commission voted in favor of the following wording of
The intention to exclude "revision" of the Constitution as a mode that may be
Section 2:
undertaken through the system of initiative was reiterated and made clear by
Commissioner Suarez in response to a suggestion of Commissioner Felicitas Aquino:
AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY
PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION
MR. SUAREZ. Section 2 must be interpreted together with the provisions of
OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF
Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently drafted, there is no
REGISTERED VOTERS OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
take-off date for the 60-day and 90-day periods.
 MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE constitution. The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand,
REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS envisages a change of only specific provisions. The intention of an act to
SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING amend is not the change of the entire constitution, but only the improvement
THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN of specific parts of the existing constitution of the addition of provisions
ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER. deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of
parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the
times. The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE
Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental charter embodying new
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT.
political, social and economic concepts.36

Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII as eventually worded read:

Other elucidation on the distinction between "amendment" and "revision" is
enlightening. For example, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, an eminent authority on political
Article XVII law, distinguished the two terms in this manner:

SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations of
proposed by: different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting either
of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only some
of its important provisions. But whatever results the revisions may produce,
(3) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention
and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must
(4) A constitutional convention. contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the constitution to
determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole
document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
SEC. 2. Amendments to 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 The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change
district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once that possibility. The intention rather is to improve the specific parts of the
every five years thereafter. existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account
of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or
dangerous, or misleading in their effect.37
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

In the United States, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Wheeler v. Board of

The final text of Article XVII on Amendments or Revisions clearly makes a substantial Trustees38 had the occasion to make the distinction between the two terms with
differentiation not only between the two terms but also between two procedures and respect to Ga.L. 1945, an instrument which "amended" the 1877 Constitution of
their respective fields of application. Ineluctably, the system of initiative under Section Georgia. It explained the term "amendment:"
2, Article XVII as a mode of effecting changes in the Constitution is strictly limited to
amendments – not to a revision – thereof.
"Amendment" of a statute implies its survival and not destruction. It repeals
or changes some provision, or adds something thereto. A law is amended
As opined earlier, the framers of the Constitution, in providing for "amendment" and when it is in whole or in part permitted to remain, and something is added to
"revision" as different modes of changing the fundamental law, were cognizant of the or taken from it, or it is in some way changed or altered to make it more
distinction between the two terms. They particularly relied on the distinction made by complete or perfect, or to fit it the better to accomplish the object or purpose
Justice Felix Antonio in his concurring opinion in Javellana v. Executive for which it was made, or some other object or purpose.39
Secretary,35 the controversial decision which gave imprimatur to the 1973 Constitution
of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, as follows:
On the other hand, the term "revision" was explained by the said US appellate court:
There is clearly a distinction between revision and amendment of an
existing constitution. Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole
 x x x When a house is completely demolished and another is erected on the The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state, containing the principles upon
same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered house, or do which the government is founded, and regulating the division of sovereign powers,
you have a new house? Some of the materials contained in the old house directing to what persons each of those powers is to be confided and the manner in
may be used again, some of the rooms may be constructed the same, but which it is to be exercised.43 The Philippines has followed the American constitutional
this does not alter the fact that you have altogether another or a new house. legal system in the sense that the term constitution is given a more restricted
We conclude that the instrument as contained in Ga.L. 1945, pp. 8 to 89, meaning, i.e., as a written organic instrument, under which governmental powers are
inclusive, is not an amendment to the constitution of 1877; but on the both conferred and circumscribed.44
contrary it is a completely revised or new constitution.40
The Constitution received its force from the express will of the people. An
Fairly recently, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a member of the Constitutional Commission, overwhelming 16,622,111, out of 21,785,216 votes cast during the plebiscite, or
expounded on the distinction between the two terms thus: 76.30% ratified the present Constitution on February 2, 1987.45 In expressing that
will, the Filipino people have incorporated therein the method and manner by which
the same can be amended and revised, and when the electorate have incorporated
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
into the fundamental law the particular manner in which the same may be altered or
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to
changed, then any course which disregards that express will is a direct violation of the
improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet
fundamental law.46
new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become
obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision, however, the
guiding original intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the Further, these provisions having been incorporated in the Constitution, where the
entire document – or of provisions of the document (which have overall validity of a constitutional amendment or revision depends upon whether such
implications for the entire document or for the fundamental philosophical provisions have been complied with, such question presents for consideration and
underpinnings of the document) – to determine how and to what extent it determination a judicial question, and the courts are the only tribunals vested with
should be altered. Thus, for instance, a switch from the presidential system power under the Constitution to determine such question.47
to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its overall impact
on the entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral
Earlier, it was mentioned that Article XVII, by the use of the terms "amendment" and
system to a unicameral system because of its effect on other important
"revision," clearly makes a differentiation not only between the two terms but also
provisions of the Constitution.
between two procedures and their respective fields of application. On this point, the
case of McFadden v. Jordan48 is instructive. In that case, a "purported initiative
It is thus clear that what distinguishes revision from amendment is not the amendment" (referred to as the proposed measure) to the State Constitution of
quantum of change in the document. Rather, it is the fundamental California, then being proposed to be submitted to the electors for ratification, was
qualitative alteration that effects revision. Hence, I must reject the puerile sought to be enjoined. The proposed measure, denominated as "California Bill of
argument that the use of the plural form of "amendments" means that a Rights," comprised a single new article with some 208 subsections which would repeal
revision can be achieved by the introduction of a multiplicity of amendments! or substantially alter at least 15 of the 25 articles of the California State Constitution
41
and add at least four new topics. Among the likely effects of the proposed measure
were to curtail legislative and judicial functions, legalize gaming, completely revise the
taxation system and reduce the powers of cities, counties and courts. The proposed
Given that revision necessarily entails a more complex, substantial and far-reaching
measure also included diverse matters as ministers, mines, civic centers, liquor
effects on the Constitution, the framers thereof wisely withheld the said mode from the
control and naturopaths.
system of initiative. It should be recalled that it took the framers of the present
Constitution four months from June 2, 1986 until October 15, 1986 to come up with
the draft Constitution which, as described by the venerable Justice Cecilia Muñoz The Supreme Court of California enjoined the submission of the proposed measure to
Palma, the President of the Constitutional Commission of 1986, "gradually and the electors for ratification because it was not an "amendment" but a "revision" which
painstakingly took shape through the crucible of sustained sometimes passionate and could only be proposed by a convention. It held that from an examination of the
often exhilarating debates that intersected all dimensions of the national life."42 proposed measure itself, considered in relation to the terms of the California State
Constitution, it was clear that the proposed initiative enactment amounted
substantially to an attempted revision, rather than amendment, thereof; and that
Evidently, the framers of the Constitution believed that a revision thereof should, in
inasmuch as the California State Constitution specifies (Article XVIII §2 thereof) that it
like manner, be a product of the same extensive and intensive study and debates.
may be revised by means of constitutional convention but does not provide for
Consequently, while providing for a system of initiative where the people would
revision by initiative measure, the submission of the proposed measure to the
directly propose amendments to the Constitution, they entrusted the formidable task of
electorate for ratification must be enjoined.
its revision to a deliberative body, the Congress or Constituent Assembly.
As piercingly enunciated by the California State Supreme Court in McFadden, the - Section 8 on the composition of Judicial Bar Council (JBC)
differentiation required (between amendment and revision) is not merely between two which includes representatives of Congress as ex officio
words; more accurately it is between two procedures and between their respective members and on the power of the President to appoint the regular
fields of application. Each procedure, if we follow elementary principles of statutory members of the JBC;
construction, must be understood to have a substantial field of application, not to be a
mere alternative procedure in the same field. Each of the two words, then, must be
- Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the members
understood to denote, respectively, not only a procedure but also a field of application
of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts;
appropriate to its procedure.49

- Section 16 on duty of Supreme Court to make annual report to

Provisions regulating the time and mode of effecting organic changes are in the nature
the President and Congress.
of safety-valves – they must not be so adjusted as to discharge their peculiar function
with too great facility, lest they become the ordinary escape-pipes of party passion;
nor, on the other hand, must they discharge it with such difficulty that the force needed 6. The following Sections of Article IX (Constitutional Commissions);
to induce action is sufficient also to explode the machine. Hence, the problem of the
Constitution maker is, in this particular, one of the most difficult in our whole system, to
- (B) Section 3 on duty of Civil Service Commission to make
reconcile the requisites for progress with the requisites for safety.50
annual report to the President and Congress;

Like in McFadden, the present petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution
- (B) Section 5 on power of Congress to provide by law for the
is, despite its denomination, one for its revision. It purports to seek the amendment
standardization of compensation of government officials;
only of Articles VI and VII of the Constitution as well as to provide transitory
provisions. However, as will be shown shortly, the amendment of these two provisions
will necessarily affect other numerous provisions of the Constitution particularly those - (B) Section 8 which provides in part that "no public officer shall
pertaining to the specific powers of Congress and the President. These powers would accept, without the consent of Congress, any present,
have to be transferred to the Parliament and the Prime Minister and/or President, as emolument, etc. x x x"
the case may be. More than one hundred (100) sections will be affected or altered
thereby:
- (C) Section 1 on the power of the President to appoint the
Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Elections
1. Section 19 of Article III (Bill of Rights) on the power of Congress to with the consent of the Commission on Appointments;
impose the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes;
- (C) Section 2 (7) on the power of the COMELEC to recommend
2. Section 2 of Article V (Suffrage) on the power of Congress to provide for to Congress measures to minimize election spending x x x;
securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for
absentee voting;
- (C) Section 2 (8) on the duty of the COMELEC to recommend to
the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
3. All 32 Sections of Article VI on the Legislative Department; deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action x x x;

4. All 23 Sections of Article VII on the Executive Department; - (C) Section 2 (9) on the duty of the COMELEC to submit to the
President and Congress a report on the conduct of election,
plebiscite, etc.;
5. The following Sections of Article VIII (Judicial Department):

- (C) Section 5 on the power of the President, with the favorable

- Section 2 on power of Congress to define, prescribe and
recommendation of the COMELEC, to grant pardon, amnesty,
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts;
parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of election laws,
rules and regulations;
- Section 7 on the power of Congress to prescribe the
qualifications of judges of lower courts;
 - (C) Section 7 which recognizes as valid votes cast in favor of - Section 2 on the impeachable officers (President, Vice-
organization registered under party-list system; President, etc.);

- (C) Section 8 on political parties, organizations or coalitions - Section 3 on impeachment proceedings (exclusive power of the
under the party-list system; House to initiate complaint and sole power of the Senate to try
and decide impeachment cases);
- (D) Section 1 (2) on the power of the President to appoint the
Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Audit (COA) - Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the
with the consent of the Commission of Appointments; Ombudsman and his deputies;

- Section 4 on duty of the COA to make annual report to the - Section 16 which provides in part that "x x x no loans or
President and Congress. guaranty shall be granted to the President, Vice-President, etc.

7. The following Sections of Article X (Local Government): - Section 17 on mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities by
public officials including the President, Vice-President, etc.
- Section 3 on the power of Congress to enact a local government
code; 9. The following Sections of Article XII (National Economy and Patrimony):

- Section 4 on the power of the President to exercise general - Section 2 on the power of Congress to allow, by law, small-scale
supervision over local government units (LGUs); utilization of natural resources and power of the President to enter
into agreements with foreign-owned corporations and duty to
notify Congress of every contract;
- Section 5 on the power of LGUs to create their own sources of
income x x x, subject to such guidelines as Congress may
provide; - Section 3 on the power of Congress to determine size of lands
of public domain;
- Section 11 on the power of Congress to create special
metropolitan political subdivisions; - Section 4 on the power of Congress to determine specific limits
of forest lands;
- Section 14 on the power of the President to provide for regional
development councils x x x; - Section 5 on the power of Congress to provide for applicability of
customary laws;
- Section 16 on the power of the President to exercise general
supervision over autonomous regions; - Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish an independent
economic and planning agency to be headed by the President;
- Section 18 on the power of Congress to enact organic act for
each autonomous region as well as the power of the President to - Section 10 on the power of Congress to reserve to Filipino
appoint the representatives to the regional consultative citizens or domestic corporations(at least 60% Filipino-owned)
commission; certain areas of investment;

- Section 19 on the duty of the first Congress elected under the - Section 11 on the sole power of Congress to grant franchise for
Constitution to pass the organic act for autonomous regions in public utilities;
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
- Section 15 on the power of Congress to create an agency to
8. The following Sections of Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers): promote viability of cooperatives;
 - Section 16 which provides that Congress shall not, except by - Section 2 on the power of Congress to adopt new name for the
general law, form private corporations; country, new national anthem, etc.;

- Section 17 on the salaries of the President, Vice-President, etc. - Section 5 (7) on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff which may
and the power of Congress to adjust the same; be extended by the President in times of war or national
emergency declared by Congress;
- Section 20 on the power of Congress to establish central
monetary authority. - Section 11 on the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit
monopolies in mass media;
10. The following Sections of Article XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights):
- Section 12 on the power of Congress to create consultative body
to advise the President on indigenous cultural communities.
- Section 1 on the mandate of Congress to give highest priority to
enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right of
people x x x 13. The following Sections of Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions):

- Section 4 on the power of Congress to prescribe retention limits - Section 1 on the amendment or revision of Constitution by
in agrarian reform; Congress;

- Section 18 (6) on the duty of the Commission on Human Rights - Section 2 on the duty of Congress to provide for the
to recommend to Congress effective measures to promote human implementation of the system of initiative;
rights;
- Section 3 on the power of Congress to call constitutional
- Section 19 on the power of Congress to provide for other cases convention to amend or revise the Constitution.
to fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission on Human Rights.
14. All 27 Sections of Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions).
11. The following Sections of Article XIV (Education, Science and
Technology, etc.):
The foregoing enumeration negates the claim that "the big bulk of the 1987
Constitution will not be affected."51Petitioners' proposition, while purportedly seeking to
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to increase Filipino equity amend only Articles VI and VII of the Constitution and providing transitory provisions,
participation in educational institutions; will, in fact, affect, alter, replace or repeal other numerous articles and sections
thereof. More than the quantitative effects, however, the revisory character of
petitioners' proposition is apparent from the qualitative effects it will have on the
- Section 6 which provides that subject to law and as Congress
fundamental law.
may provide, the Government shall sustain the use of Filipino as
medium of official communication;
I am not impervious to the commentary of Dean Vicente G. Sinco that the revision of a
constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of the entire constitution and
- Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish a national
the procedure for effecting such change; while amendment refers only to particular
language commission;
provisions to be added to or to be altered in a constitution.52

- Section 11 on the power of Congress to provide for incentives to

For clarity and accuracy, however, it is necessary to reiterate below Dean Sinco's
promote scientific research.
more comprehensive differentiation of the terms:

12. The following Sections of Article XVI (General Provisions):

Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations of
different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting either
 of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only some system of government and the principle of separation of powers underlying the same
of its important provisions. But whatever results the revisions may produce, would be altered, if not entirely destroyed, there can be no other conclusion than that
the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention the proposition of petitioners Lambino, et al. would constitute a revision of the
and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must Constitution rather than an amendment or "such an addition or change within the lines
contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the constitution to of the original instrument as will effect an improvement or better carry out the purpose
determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole for which it was framed."54 As has been shown, the effect of the adoption of the
document should be replaced with an entirely new one. petitioners' proposition, rather than to "within the lines of the original instrument"
constitute "an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed," is
to "substantially alter the purpose and to attain objectives clearly beyond the lines of
The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change
the Constitution as now cast."55
of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to
consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering
that possibility. The intention rather is to improve the specific parts of the To paraphrase McFadden, petitioners' contention that any change less than a total
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account one is amendatory would reduce to the rubble of absurdity the bulwark so carefully
of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or erected and preserved. A case might, conceivably, be presented where the question
dangerous, or misleading in their effect.53 would be occasion to undertake to define with nicety the line of demarcation; but we
have no case or occasion here.
A change in the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-
parliamentary, following the above distinction, entails a revision of the Constitution as As succinctly by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, "a switch from the presidential system to a
it will involve "alteration of different portions of the entire document" and "may result in parliamentary system would be a revision because of its overall impact on the entire
the rewriting of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to a unicameral
some of its important provisions." system because of its effect on other important provisions of the Constitution. It is thus
clear that what distinguishes revision from amendment is not the quantum of change
in the document. Rather, it is the fundamental qualitative alteration that effects
More importantly, such shift in the form of government will, without doubt,
revision."56
fundamentally change the basic plan and substance of the present Constitution. The
tripartite system ordained by our fundamental law divides governmental powers into
three distinct but co-equal branches: the legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative The petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution filed by petitioners
power, vested in Congress which is a bicameral body consisting of the House of Lambino, et al., being in truth and in fact a proposal for the revision thereof, is barred
Representatives and the Senate, is the power to make laws and to alter them at from the system of initiative upon any legally permissible construction of Section 2,
discretion. Executive power, vested in the President who is directly elected by the Article XVII of the Constitution.
people, is the power to see that the laws are duly executed and enforced. Judicial
power, vested in the Supreme Court and the lower courts, is the power to construe
The Petition for Initiative on 
and apply the law when controversies arise concerning what has been done or
Amendments to the Constitution
omitted under it. This separation of powers furnishes a system of checks and
is, on its Face, Insufficient in
balances which guards against the establishment of an arbitrary or tyrannical
Form and Substance
government.

Again, even granting arguendo RA 6735 is declared sufficient to implement the

Under a unicameral-parliamentary system, however, the tripartite separation of power
system of initiative and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, as it prescribed rules
is dissolved as there is a fusion between the executive and legislative powers.
and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is
Essentially, the President becomes a mere "symbolic head of State" while the Prime
valid, still, the petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution must be
Minister becomes the head of government who is elected, not by direct vote of the
dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance.
people, but by the members of the Parliament. The Parliament is a unicameral body
whose members are elected by legislative districts. The Prime Minister, as head of
government, does not have a fixed term of office and may only be removed by a vote Section 5 of RA 6735 requires that a petition for initiative on the Constitution must
of confidence of the Parliament. Under this form of government, the system of checks state the following:
and balances is emasculated.
1. Contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or
Considering the encompassing scope and depth of the changes that would be rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
effected, not to mention that the Constitution's basic plan and substance of a tripartite
 2. The proposition; April 2, 2006

3. The reason or reasons therefor; IBRAHIM M. MACADATO

Election Officer
4. That it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
(Underscoring supplied)
5. Signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
The ineffective verification in almost all the legislative districts in the Autonomous
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) alone is shown by the certifications, similarly
6. An abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred (100)
worded as above-quoted, of the election registrars of Buldon,
words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the
Maguindanao;58 Cotabato City (Special Province);59 Datu Odin Sinsuat,
petition.
Maguindanao;60 Matanog, Maguindanao;61 Parang, Maguindanao;62 Kabantalan,
Maguindanao;63 Upi, Maguinadano;64 Barira, Maguindanao;65 Sultan,
Section 7 thereof requires that the signatures be verified in this wise: Mastura;66 Ampatuan, Maguindanao;67 Buluan, Maguindanao;68 Datu Paglas,
Maguindanao;69 Datu Piang, Maguindanao;70 Shariff Aguak,
Maguindanao;71 Pagalungan, Maguindanao;72Talayan, Maguindanao;73 Gen. S.K.
SEC. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify the Pendatun, Maguindanao;74 Mamasapano, Maguindanao;75 Talitay,
signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and Maguindanao;76 Guindulungan, Maguindanao;77 Datu Saudi Ampatuan,
voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding election. Maguindanao;78 Datu Unsay, Maguindanao;79 Pagagawan, Maguindanao;80 Rajah
Buayan, Maguindanao;81 Indanan, Sulu;82 Jolo, Sulu;83Maimbung, Sulu;84 Hadji
The law mandates upon the election registrar to personally verify the signatures. This Panglima, Sulu;85 Pangutaran, Sulu;86 Parang, Sulu;87 Kalingalan Caluang,
is a solemn and important duty imposed on the election registrar which he cannot Sulu;88 Luuk, Sulu;89 Panamao, Sulu;90 Pata, Sulu;91 Siasi, Sulu;92 Tapul,
delegate to any other person, even to barangay officials. Hence, a verification of Sulu;93 Panglima Estino, Sulu;94 Lugus, Sulu;95 and Pandami, Sulu. 96
signatures made by persons other than the election registrars has no legal effect.
Section 7 of RA 6735 is clear that the verification of signatures shall be done by the
In patent violation of the law, several certifications submitted by petitioners showed election registrar, and by no one else, including the barangay officials. The foregoing
that the verification of signatures was made, not by the election registrars, but certifications submitted by petitioners, instead of aiding their cause, justify the outright
by barangay officials. For example, the certification of the election officer in Lumbatan, dismissal of their petition for initiative. Because of the illegal verifications made
Lanao del Sur reads in full: by barangay officials in the above-mentioned legislative districts, it necessarily follows
that the petition for initiative has failed to comply with the requisite number of
signatures, i.e., at least twelve percent (12%) of the total number of registered voters,
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION57 of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent (3%) of
the registered voters therein.
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that based on the verifications made by the Barangay
Officials in this City/Municipality, as attested to by two (2) witnesses from Petitioners cannot disclaim the veracity of these damaging certifications because they
the same Barangays, which is part of the 2nd Legislative District of the themselves submitted the same to the COMELEC and to the Court in the present
Province of Lanao del Sur, the names appearing on the attached signature case to support their contention that the requirements of RA 6735 had been complied
sheets relative to the proposed initiative on Amendments to the 1987 with and that their petition for initiative is on its face sufficient in form and substance.
Constitution, are those of bonafide resident of the said Barangays and They are in the nature of judicial admissions which are conclusive and binding on
correspond to the names found in the official list of registered voters of the petitioners.97 This being the case, the Court must forthwith order the dismissal of the
Commission on Elections and/or voters' affidavit and/or voters' identification petition for initiative for being, on its face, insufficient in form and substance. The
cards. Court should make the adjudication entailed by the facts here and now, without further
proceedings, as it has done in other cases.98
It is further certified that the total number of signatures of the registered
voters for the City/Municipality of LUMBATAN, LANAO DEL SUR as It is argued by petitioners that, assuming arguendo that the COMELEC is correct in
appearing in the affixed signatures sheets is ONE THOUSAND ONE relying on Santiago that RA 6735 is inadequate to cover initiative to the Constitution,
HUNDRED EIGHTY (1,180). this cannot be used to legitimize its refusal to heed the people's will. The fact that
there is no enabling law should not prejudice the right of the sovereign people to To my mind, the remand of the case to the COMELEC is not warranted. There is
propose amendments to the Constitution, which right has already been exercised by nothing in RA 6735, as well as in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, granting that it is
6,327,952 voters. The collective and resounding act of the particles of sovereignty valid to implement the former statute, that authorizes the COMELEC to conduct any
must not be set aside. Hence, the COMELEC should be ordered to comply with kind of hearing, whether full-blown or trial-type hearing, summary hearing or
Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution via a writ of mandamus. The administrative hearing, on a petition for initiative.
submission of petitioners, however, is unpersuasive.
Section 41 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 provides that "[a]n initiative shall be
Mandamus is a proper recourse for citizens who act to enforce a public right and to conducted under the control and supervision of the Commission in accordance with
compel the persons of a public duty most especially when mandated by the Article III hereof." Pertinently, Sections 30, 31 and 32 of Article III of the said
Constitution.99 However, under Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, for a implementing rules provide as follows:
petition for mandamus to prosper, it must be shown that the subject of the petition is a
ministerial act or duty and not purely discretionary on the part of the board, officer or
Sec. 30. Verification of signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify the
person, and that petitioner has a well-defined, clear and certain right to warrant the
signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and
grant thereof. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal
voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment
upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a Sec. 31. Determination by the Commission. – The Commission shall act on
public official and gives him the right to decide how or when the duty should be the findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only referendum.
when the discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of an official discretion
nor judgment.100
If it should appear that the required number of signatures has not been
obtained, the petition shall be deemed defeated and the Commission shall
To stress, in a petition for mandamus, petitioner must show a well defined, clear and issue a declaration to that effect.
certain right to warrant the grant thereof.101 In this case, petitioners failed to establish
their right to a writ of mandamus as shown by the foregoing disquisitions.
If it should appear that the required number of signatures has been
obtained, the Commission shall set the initiative or referendum in
Remand of the Case to the accordance with the succeeding sections.
COMELEC is Not Authorized by
RA 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
Sec. 32. Appeal. – The decision of the Commission on the findings of the
sufficiency and insufficiency of the petition for initiative or referendum may
The dissenting opinion posits that the issue of whether or not the petition for initiative be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice hereof.
has complied with the requisite number of signatures of at least twelve percent (12%)
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
Clearly, following the foregoing procedural rules, the COMELEC is not authorized to
represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters therein,
conduct any kind of hearing to receive any evidence for or against the sufficiency of
involves contentious facts. The dissenting opinion cites the petitioners' claim that
the petition for initiative. Rather, the foregoing rules require of the COMELEC to
they have complied with the same while the oppositors-intervenors have vigorously
determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative on its face. And it
refuted this claim by alleging, inter alia, that the signatures were not properly verified
has already been shown, by the annexes submitted by the petitioners themselves,
or were not verified at all. Other oppositors-intervenors have alleged that the
their petition is, on its face, insufficient in form and substance. The remand of the case
signatories did not fully understand what they have signed as they were misled into
to the COMELEC for reception of evidence of the parties on the contentious factual
signing the signature sheets.
issues is, in effect, an amendment of the abovequoted rules of the COMELEC by this
Court which the Court is not empowered to do.
According to the dissenting opinion, the sufficiency of the petition for initiative and its
compliance with the requirements of RA 6735 on initiative and its implementing rules
The Present Petition Presents a
is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at the first instance. It thus
Justiciable Controversy; Hence,
remands the case to the COMELEC for further proceedings.
a Non-Political Question. Further,
the People, Acting in their Sovereign
Capacity, Have Bound Themselves controversy, hence, a non-political question. There is no doubt that the Constitution,
to Abide by the Constitution under Article XVII, has explicitly provided for the manner or method to effect
amendments thereto, or revision thereof. The question, therefore, of whether there
has been compliance with the terms of the Constitution is for the Court to pass
Political questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
upon.105
decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch of
government.102 A political question has two aspects: (1) those matters that are to be In the United States, in In re McConaughy,106 the State Supreme Court of Minnesota
exercised by the people in their primary political capacity; and (2) matters which have exercised jurisdiction over the petition questioning the result of the general election
been specifically designated to some other department or particular office of the holding that "an examination of the decisions shows that the courts have almost
government, with discretionary power to act.103 uniformly exercised the authority to determine the validity of the proposal, submission,
or ratification of constitutional amendments." The cases cited were Dayton v. St.
Paul,107 Rice v. Palmer,108 Bott v. Wurtz,109 State v. Powell,110 among other cases.
In his concurring and dissenting opinion in Arroyo v. De Venecia,104 Senior Associate
Justice Reynato S. Puno explained the doctrine of political question vis-à-vis the
express mandate of the present Constitution for the courts to determine whether or There is no denying that "the Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
instrumentality of the Government: them."111 However, I find to be tenuous the asseveration that "the argument that the
people through initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to change the
Constitution turns sovereignty in its head. At the very least, the submission constricts
In the Philippine setting, there is more compelling reason for courts to
the democratic space for the exercise of the direct sovereignty of the people."112 In
categorically reject the political question defense when its interposition will
effect, it is theorized that despite the unambiguous text of Section 2, Article XVII of the
cover up abuse of power. For Section 1, Article VIII of our Constitution
Constitution withholding the power to revise it from the system of initiative, the people,
was intentionally cobbled to empower courts "... to determine whether or not
in their sovereign capacity, can conveniently disregard the said provision.
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government."
This power is new and was not granted to our courts in the 1935 and 1972 I strongly take exception to the view that the people, in their sovereign capacity, can
Constitutions. It was also not xeroxed from the US Constitution or any disregard the Constitution altogether. Such a view directly contravenes the
foreign state constitution. The CONCOM [Constitutional Commission] fundamental constitutional theory that while indeed "the ultimate sovereignty is in the
granted this enormous power to our courts in view of our experience under people, from whom springs all legitimate authority"; nonetheless, "by the Constitution
martial law where abusive exercises of state power were shielded from which they establish, they not only tie up the hands of their official agencies, but their
judicial scrutiny by the misuse of the political question doctrine. Led by the own hands as well; and neither the officers of the state, nor the whole people as an
eminent former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, the CONCOM expanded aggregate body, are at liberty to take action in opposition to this fundamental
and sharpened the checking powers of the judiciary vis-à-vis the Executive law."113 The Constitution, it should be remembered, "is the protector of the people,
and the Legislative departments of government. In cases involving the placed on guard by them to save the rights of the people against injury by the
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of habeas people."114 This is the essence of constitutionalism:
corpus, it is now beyond dubiety that the government can no longer invoke
the political question defense.
Through constitutionalism we placed limits on both our political institutions
and ourselves, hoping that democracies, historically always turbulent,
xxxx chaotic and even despotic, might now become restrained, principled,
thoughtful and just. So we bound ourselves over to a law that we made and
promised to keep. And though a government of laws did not displace
To a great degree, it diminished its [political question doctrine] use as a
governance by men, it did mean that now men, democratic men, would try
shield to protect other abuses of government by allowing courts to penetrate
to live by their word.115
the shield with new power to review acts of any branch or instrumentality of
the government ". . . to determine whether or not there has been grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction." Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the system of initiative is limited only to
proposals to amend to the Constitution, and does not extend to its revision. The
Filipino people have bound themselves to observe the manner and method to effect
Even if the present petition involves the act, not of a governmental body, but of
the changes of the Constitution. They opted to limit the exercise of the right to directly
purportedly more than six million registered voters who have signified their assent to
propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, but did not extend the
the proposal to amend the Constitution, the same still constitutes a justiciable
same to the revision thereof. The petition for initiative, as it proposes to effect the
revision thereof, contravenes the Constitution. The fundamental law of the state The young men coming forward upon the stage of political action must be educated to
prescribes the limitations under which the electors of the state may change the same, venerate it; those already upon the stage must be taught to obey it. Whatever interest
and, unless such course is pursued, the mere fact that a majority of the electors are in may be advanced or may suffer, whoever or whatever may be 'voted up or voted
favor of a change and have so expressed themselves, does not work a change. Such down,' no sacrilegious hand must be laid upon the constitution."120
a course would be revolutionary, and the Constitution of the state would become a
mere matter of form.116
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and to GRANT the
petition in G.R. No. 174299.
The very term Constitution implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding nature,
and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicated the will of the people that
the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature.117 Associate Justice

The Filipino people have incorporated the safety valves of amendment and revision in
Article XVII of the Constitution. The Court is mandated to ensure that these safety ____________________
valves embodied in the Constitution to guard against improvident and hasty changes
thereof are not easily trifled with. To be sure, by having overwhelmingly ratified the EN BANC
Constitution, the Filipino people believed that it is "a good Constitution" and in the
words of the learned Judge Cooley:
G.R. No. 174153 (RAUL LAMBINO, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET
AL.) and
x x x should be beyond the reach of temporary excitement and popular
caprice or passion. It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield to
the thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the thought G.R. No. 174299 (MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON
evolved in excitement or hot blood, but the sober second thought, which ELECTIONS, ET AL.).
alone, if the government is to be safe, can be allowed efficiency. Changes in
government are to be feared unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
says: "All great mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not
necessarily succeed evil; another evil may succeed and worse.118
SEPARATE OPINION

Indisputably, the issues posed in the present case are of transcendental importance.
Accordingly, I have approached and grappled with them with full appreciation of the AZCUNA, J.:
responsibilities involved in the present case, and have given to its consideration the
earnest attention which its importance demands. I have sought to maintain the "Why, friends, you go to do you know not what."
supremacy of the Constitution at whatever hazard. I share the concern of Chief
Justice Day in Koehler v. Hill:119 "it is for the protection of minorities that constitutions
are framed. Sometimes constitutions must be interposed for the protection of -- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2.
majorities even against themselves. Constitutions are adopted in times of public
repose, when sober reason holds her citadel, and are designed to check the surging Article XVII of the Constitution states:
passions in times of popular excitement. But if courts could be coerced by popular
majorities into a disregard of their provisions, constitutions would become mere 'ropes
of sand,' and there would be an end of social security and of constitutional freedom. AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
The cause of temperance can sustain no injury from the loss of this amendment which
would be at all comparable to the injury to republican institutions which a violation of Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
the constitution would inflict. That large and respectable class of moral reformers proposed by:
which so justly demands the observance and enforcement of law, cannot afford to
take its first reformatory step by a violation of the constitution. How can it consistently
demand of others obedience to a constitution which it violates itself? The people can (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
in a short time re-enact the amendment. In the manner of a great moral reform, the
loss of a few years is nothing. The constitution is the palladium of republican freedom. (2) A constitutional convention.
 Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed As a result, Republic Act No. 6735, the act that provides for the exercise of the people
by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the right to propose a law or amendments to the Constitution is, with respect to the
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district right to propose amendments to the Constitution, a constituent measure, not a mere
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes legislative one.
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five
years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once
The consequence of this special character of the enactment, insofar as it relates to
every five years thereafter.
proposing amendments to the Constitution, is that the requirements for statutory
enactments, such as sufficiency of standards and the like, do not and should not
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this strictly apply. As long as there is a sufficient and clear intent to provide for the
right. implementation of the exercise of the right, it should be sustained, as it is simply a
compliance of the mandate placed on Congress by the Constitution.
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a
constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to Seen in this light, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 relating to the procedure for
the electorate the question of calling such a convention. proposing amendments to the Constitution, can and should be upheld, despite
shortcomings perhaps in legislative headings and standards.
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under Section 1
hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a For this reason, I concur in the view that Santiago v. Comelec1 should be re-examined
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety and, after doing so, that the pronouncement therein regarding the insufficiency or
days after the approval of such amendment or revision. inadequacy of the measure to sustain a people's initiative to amend the Constitution
should be reconsidered in favor of allowing the exercise of this sovereign right.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than And applying the doctrine stated in Senarillos v. Hermosisima,2 penned by Justice
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the J.B.L. Reyes, in relation to Article 8 of the Civil Code, that a decision of this Court
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. interpreting a law forms part of the law interpreted as of the time of its enactment,
Republic Act No. 6735 should be deemed sufficient and adequate from the start.
This Article states the procedure for changing the Constitution.
This next point to address, there being a sufficient law, is whether the petition for
initiative herein involved complies with the requirements of that law as well as those
Constitutions have three parts – the Constitution of Liberty, which states the
stated in Article XVII of the Constitution.
fundamental rights of the people; the Constitution of Government, which establishes
the structure of government, its branches and their operation; and the Constitution of
Sovereignty, which provides how the Constitution may be changed. True it is that ours is a democratic state, as explicitated in the Declaration of
Principles, to emphasize precisely that there are instances recognized and provided
for in the Constitution where our people directly exercise their sovereign powers, new
Article XVII is the Constitution of Sovereignty.
features set forth in this People Power Charter, namely, the powers of recall, initiative
and referendum.
As a result, the powers therein provided are called constituent powers. So when
Congress acts under this provision, it acts not as a legislature exercising legislative
Nevertheless, this democratic nature of our polity is that of a democracy under the rule
powers. It acts as a constituent body exercising constituent powers.
of law. This equally important point is emphasized in the very Preamble to the
Constitution, which states:
The rules, therefore, governing the exercise of legislative powers do not apply, or do
not apply strictly, to the actions taken under Article XVII.
". . . the blessings of . . . democracy under the rule of law . . . ."

Accordingly, since Article XVII states that Congress shall provide for the
Such is the case with respect to the power to initiate changes in the Constitution. The
implementation of the exercise of the people's right directly to propose amendments to
power is subject to limitations under the Constitution itself, thus: The power could not
the Constitution through initiative, the act of Congress pursuant thereto is not strictly a
be exercised for the first five years after the Constitution took effect and thereafter can
legislative action but partakes of a constituent act.
only be exercised once every five years; the power only extends to proposing
amendments but not revisions; and the power needs an act of Congress providing for Constitution. The petition herein would propose at the very least two subjects – a
its implementation, which act is directed and mandated. unicameral legislature and a parliamentary form of government. Again, for this clear
and patent violation of the very act that provides for the exercise of the power, the
proposed initiative cannot lie.
The question, therefore, arises whether the proposed changes in the Constitution set
forth in the petition for initiative herein involved are mere amendments or rather are
revisions. This does not mean, however, that all is lost for petitioners.

Revisions are changes that affect the entire Constitution and not mere parts of it. For the proposed changes can be separated and are, in my view, separable in nature
– a unicameral legislature is one; a parliamentary form of government is another. The
first is a mere amendment and contains only one subject matter. The second is clearly
The reason why revisions are not allowed through direct proposals by the people
a revision that affects every article and every provision in the Constitution to an extent
through initiative is a practical one, namely, there is no one to draft such extensive
not even the proponents could at present fully articulate. Petitioners Lambino, et al.
changes, since 6.3 million people cannot conceivably come up with a single extensive
thus go about proposing changes the nature and extent of which they do not as yet
document through a direct proposal from each of them. Someone would have to draft
know exactly what.
it and that is not authorized as it would not be a direct proposal from the people.
Such indirect proposals can only take the form of proposals from Congress as a
Constituent Assembly under Article XVII, or a Constitutional Convention created under The proposal, therefore, contained in the petition for initiative, regarding a change in
the same provision. Furthermore, there is a need for such deliberative bodies for the legislature from a bicameral or two-chamber body to that of a unicameral or one-
revisions because their proceedings and debates are duly and officially recorded, so chamber body, is sustainable. The text of the changes needed to carry it out are
that future cases of interpretations can be properly aided by resort to the record of perfunctory and ministerial in nature. Once it is limited to this proposal, the changes
their proceedings. are simply one of deletion and insertions, the wordings of which are practically
automatic and non-discretionary.
Even a cursory reading of the proposed changes contained in the petition for initiative
herein involved will show on its face that the proposed changes constitute a revision of As an example, I attach to this opinion an Appendix "A" showing how the Constitution
the Constitution. The proposal is to change the system of government from that which would read if we were to change Congress from one consisting of the Senate and the
is bicameral-presidential to one that is unicameral-parliamentary. House of Representatives to one consisting only of the House of Representatives. It
only affects Article VI on the Legislative Department, some provisions on Article VII on
the Executive Department, as well as Article XI on the Accountability of Public
While purportedly only Articles VI, VII, and XVIII are involved, the fact is, as the
Officers, and Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions. These are mere amendments,
petition and text of the proposed changes themselves state, every provision of the
substantial ones indeed but still only amendments, and they address only one subject
Constitution will have to be examined to see if they conform to the nature of a
matter.
unicameral-parliamentary form of government and changed accordingly if they do not
so conform to it. For example, Article VIII on Judicial Department cannot stand as is, in
a parliamentary system, for under such a system, the Parliament is supreme, and thus Such proposal, moreover, complies with the intention and rationale behind the present
the Court's power to declare its act a grave abuse of discretion and thus void would be initiative, which is to provide for simplicity and economy in government and reduce the
an anomaly. stalemates that often prevent needed legislation.

Now, who is to do such examination and who is to do such changes and how should For the nonce, therefore, I vote to DISMISS the petition, without prejudice to the filing
the changes be worded? The proposed initiative does not say who nor how. of an appropriate initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution to change
Congress into a unicameral body. This is not say that I favor such a change. Rather,
such a proposal would come within the purview of an initiative allowed under Article
Not only, therefore, is the proposed initiative, on this score, a prohibited revision but it
XVII of the Constitution and its implementing Republic Act, and should, therefore, be
also suffers from being incomplete and insufficient on its very face.
submitted to our people in a plebiscite for them to decide in their sovereign capacity.
After all is said and done, this is what democracy under the rule of law is about.
It, therefore, in that form, cannot pass muster the very limits contained in providing for
the power under the Constitution.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
Neither does it comply with Republic Act No. 6735, which states in Section 10 that not
more than one subject shall be proposed as an amendment or amendments to the
____________________ for the ratification of the proposed amendments to the Constitution in accordance with
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
EN BANC
First, a flashback of the proceedings of yesteryears. In 1996, the Movement for
People's Initiative sought to exercise the sovereign people's power to directly propose
G. R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006
amendments to the Constitution through initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the
1987 Constitution. Its founding member, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, filed with the
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 COMELEC on December 6, 1996, a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term
REGISTERED VOTERS  Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (Delfin Petition). It proposed to
vs. amend Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS X of the 1987 Constitution by deleting the provisions on the term limits for all elective
officials.
G.R. No. 174299             October 25, 2006
The Delfin Petition stated that the Petition for Initiative would first be submitted to the
people and would be formally filed with the COMELEC after it is signed by at least
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters in the country. It thus
SAGUISAG  sought the assistance of the COMELEC in gathering the required signatures by
vs. fixing the dates and time therefor and setting up signature stations on the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. assigned dates and time. The petition prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order (1)
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO fixing the dates and time for signature gathering all over the country; (2) causing the
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and NICODEMO publication of said Order and the petition for initiative in newspapers of general and
T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe local circulation; and, (3) instructing the municipal election registrars in all the regions
of the Philippines to assist petitioner and the volunteers in establishing signing
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x stations on the dates and time designated for the purpose.

"It is a Constitution we are expounding…"1 The COMELEC conducted a hearing on the Delfin Petition.

– Chief Justice John Marshall On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla and
Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition before this Court, seeking
to restrain the COMELEC from further considering the Delfin Petition. They impleaded
DISSENTING OPINION as respondents the COMELEC, Delfin, and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (Pedrosas)
in their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative for Reforms,
PUNO, J.: Modernization and Action (PIRMA) which was likewise engaged in signature gathering
to support an initiative to amend the Constitution. They argued that the constitutional
provision on people's initiative may only be implemented by a law passed by
The petition at bar is not a fight over molehills. At the crux of the controversy is the Congress; that no such law has yet been enacted by Congress; that Republic Act No.
critical understanding of the first and foremost of our constitutional principles — "the 6735 relied upon by Delfin does not cover the initiative to amend the Constitution; and
Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, the implementing rules adopted by the
and all government authority emanates from them."2 Constitutionalism dictates that COMELEC on the conduct of initiative, was ultra vires insofar as the initiative to
this creed must be respected with deeds; our belief in its validity must be backed by amend the Constitution was concerned. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 127325,
behavior. entitled Santiago v. Commission on Elections.3

This is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to set aside the resolution of Pending resolution of the case, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated August 31, 2006, denying enjoining the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and the Pedrosas
due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
B. Aumentado in their own behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered
voters who have affixed their signatures thereon, and praying for the issuance of a
writ of mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to set the date of the plebiscite
On March 19, 1997, the Court rendered its decision on the petition for The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made
prohibition. The Court ruled that the constitutional provision granting the people the permanent against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as against
power to directly amend the Constitution through initiative is not self-executory. An private respondents.5
enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the people's right. Examining
the provisions of R.A. 6735, a majority of eight (8) members of the Court held that
Eight (8) members of the Court, namely, then Associate Justice Hilario G. Davide,
said law was "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
Jr. (ponente), Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, and Associate Justices Florenz D.
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan, Regino
concerned,"4 and thus voided portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing
C. Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres, fully concurred in the majority opinion.
rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. It
was also held that even if R.A. 6735 sufficiently covered the initiative to amend the
Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was valid, the Delfin While all the members of the Court who participated in the deliberation6 agreed that
Petition should still be dismissed as it was not the proper initiatory pleading the Delfin Petition should be dismissed for lack of the required signatures, five (5)
contemplated by law. Under Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and members, namely, Associate Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V.
Section 5(b) of R.A. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by Mendoza, Ricardo J. Francisco and Artemio V. Panganiban, held that R.A. 6735 was
at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every sufficient and adequate to implement the people's right to amend the Constitution
legislative district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered through initiative, and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 validly provided the details
voters therein. The Delfin Petition did not contain signatures of the required for the actual exercise of such right. Justice Jose C. Vitug, on the other hand, opined
number of voters. The decision stated: that the Court should confine itself to resolving the issue of whether the Delfin Petition
sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law on initiative, and there was no
need to rule on the adequacy of R.A. 6735.
CONCLUSION

The COMELEC, Delfin and the Pedrosas filed separate motions for reconsideration of
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
the Court's decision.
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. After deliberating on the motions for reconsideration, six (6)7 of the eight (8)
majority members maintained their position that R.A. 6735 was inadequate to
implement the provision on the initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Justice
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to
Torres filed an inhibition, while Justice Hermosisima submitted a Separate Opinion
the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given
adopting the position of the minority that R.A. 6735 sufficiently covers the initiative to
flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer
amend the Constitution. Hence, of the thirteen (13) members of the Court who
in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the
participated in the deliberation, six (6) members, namely, Chief Justice Narvasa and
implementation of the right of the people under that system.
Associate Justices Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo and Kapunan voted to deny
the motions for lack of merit; and six (6) members, namely, Associate Justices Melo,
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered Puno, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima and Panganiban voted to grant the same.
Justice Vitug maintained his opinion that the matter was not ripe for judicial
adjudication. The motions for reconsideration were therefore denied for lack of
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
sufficient votes to modify or reverse the decision of March 19, 1997.8

b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of

On June 23, 1997, PIRMA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Propose
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to
Amendments to the Constitution (PIRMA Petition). The PIRMA Petition was supported
provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
by around five (5) million signatures in compliance with R.A. 6735 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300, and prayed that the COMELEC, among others: (1) cause the
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the general and local circulation; (2) order all election officers to verify the signatures
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and collected in support of the petition and submit these to the Commission; and (3) set
the holding of a plebiscite where the following proposition would be submitted to the
people for ratification:
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith
DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
 Do you approve amendments to the 1987 Constitution giving the President Let us look at the facts of the petition at bar with clear eyes.
the chance to be reelected for another term, similarly with the Vice-
President, so that both the highest officials of the land can serve for two
On February 15, 2006, Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with Union of Local
consecutive terms of six years each, and also to lift the term limits for all
Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), embarked on a nationwide drive to gather
other elective government officials, thus giving Filipino voters the freedom of
signatures to support the move to adopt the parliamentary form of government in the
choice, amending for that purpose, Section 4 of Article VII, Sections 4 and 7
country through charter change. They proposed to amend the Constitution as follows:
of Article VI and Section 8 of Article X, respectively?

A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read

The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA Petition in view of the permanent restraining
as follows:
order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC.

Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be

PIRMA filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari seeking to set
vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as
aside the COMELEC Resolution dismissing its petition for initiative. PIRMA argued
many members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned
that the Court's decision on the Delfin Petition did not bar the COMELEC from acting
among the provinces, representative districts, and cities in
on the PIRMA Petition as said ruling was not definitive based on the deadlocked
accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, with
voting on the motions for reconsideration, and because there was no identity of parties
at least three hundred thousand inhabitants per district, and on
and subject matter between the two petitions. PIRMA also urged the Court to
the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. Each district shall
reexamine its ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC.
comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and
adjacent territory, and each province must have at least one
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and certiorari in its resolution dated member.
September 23, 1997. It explained:
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in election, a resident of his district for at least one year prior
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only thereto, and shall be elected by the qualified voters of his district
complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. for a term of five years without limitation as to the number thereof,
127325 promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, except those under the party-list system which shall be provided
1997. for by law and whose number shall be equal to twenty per centum
of the total membership coming from the parliamentary districts.
The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to
resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the Court B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are
re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the Chief Justice hereby amended to read, as follows:
and six (6) other members of the Court, namely, Regalado, Davide,
Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted that there was no need
Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of
to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was no need for re-examination of
State. The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime
said second issue since the case at bar is not the proper vehicle for that
Minister, with the assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister
purpose. Five (5) other members of the Court, namely, Melo, Puno,
shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of Parliament
Francisco, Hermosisima, and Panganiban, JJ., opined that there was a
from among themselves. He shall be responsible to the
need for such a re-examination x x x x9
Parliament for the program of government.

In their Separate Opinions, Justice (later Chief Justice) Davide and Justice Bellosillo
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the
stated that the PIRMA petition was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.
bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory
Now, almost a decade later, another group, Sigaw ng Bayan, seeks to utilize anew Provisions," which shall read, as follows:
the system of initiative to amend the Constitution, this time to change the form of
government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary system.
Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
serve until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
of June 2010 and shall continue to exercise their powers under Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and
the 1987 Constitution unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of shall have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent
all the members of the interim parliament. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of
executive departments.
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal
from office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice
President shall succeed as President. In case of death, (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a
permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of both Member of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
the incumbent President and Vice President, the interim Prime He shall also be a member of the cabinet and shall head a
Minister shall assume all the powers and responsibilities of Prime ministry. He shall initially convene the interim Parliament and shall
Minister under Article VII as amended. preside over its sessions for the election of the interim Prime
Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected by a
majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament from
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
among themselves.
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall
hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be (3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members
deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby retained and of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26,
unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of
(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments,
government, in which case, they shall be amended to conform
the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to,
with a unicameral parliamentary form of government; provided,
or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of
however, that any and all references therein to "Congress,"
local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
"Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress"
shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all references
therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or "Member(s) Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief
of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read as Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the interim Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be
"President" and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read elected by a majority vote of the members thereof. The interim
"Prime Minister." Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and shall
perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to
him by the incumbent President."
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2,
3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be retained and simultaneously with the election of all local government officials.
renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and
unless they shall be inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim
case they shall be deemed amended so as to conform to a Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent
unicameral Parliamentary System of government; provided, President and Vice President.10
however, that any all references therein to "Congress," "Senate,"
"House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall be
Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, on the upper portions of which were
changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all references therein
written the abstract of the proposed amendments, to wit:
to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or "Member(s) of the
House of Representatives" shall be changed to read as
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the
"President" and or "Acting President" shall be changed to read 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present
"Prime Minister." bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government,
 in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety
government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the
orderly shift from one system to another? petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the
proposition.
The signature sheets were distributed nationwide to affiliated non-government
organizations and volunteers of Sigaw ng Bayan, as well as to the local officials. Several groups filed with the COMELEC their respective oppositions to the
Copies of the draft petition for initiative containing the proposition were also circulated petition for initiative, among them ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B.
to the local officials and multi-sectoral groups. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P.
Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc., Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q.
Pimentel, Jr., Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim,
Sigaw ng Bayan alleged that it also held barangay assemblies which culminated on
Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada; Representatives
March 24, 25 and 26, 2006, to inform the people and explain to them the proposed
Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel;
amendments to the Constitution. Thereafter, they circulated the signature sheets for
Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela
signing.
Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo
Pineda, Drs. Darby Santiago and Reginald Pamugas; Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra,
The signature sheets were then submitted to the local election officers for Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador,
verification based on the voters' registration record. Upon completion of the and Randall C. Tabayoyong.
verification process, the respective local election officers issued certifications to
attest that the signature sheets have been verified. The verified signature sheets were
On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the Petition for Initiative. It
subsequently transmitted to the office of Sigaw ng Bayan for the counting of the
cited this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC11 permanently enjoining the
signatures.
Commission from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted
On August 25, 2006, herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado to provide for the implementation of the system.
filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Constitution entitled "In
the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution through a People's
Forthwith, petitioners filed with this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and
Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral Presidential to a Unicameral Parliamentary
Mandamus praying that the Court set aside the August 31, 2006 resolution of the
Government by Amending Articles VI and VII; and Providing Transitory Provisions for
COMELEC, direct respondent COMELEC to comply with Section 4, Article XVII of the
the Orderly Shift from the Presidential to the Parliamentary System." They filed an
Constitution, and set the date of the plebiscite. They state the following grounds in
Amended Petition on August 30, 2006 to reflect the text of the proposed amendment
support of the petition:
that was actually presented to the people. They alleged that they were filing the
petition in their own behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered voters who
have affixed their signatures on the signature sheets attached thereto. Petitioners I.
appended to the petition signature sheets bearing the signatures of registered voters
which they claimed to have been verified by the respective city or municipal election
The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of
officers, and allegedly constituting at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered
discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and to give due course to the
voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is represented by at least three
petition for initiative, because the cited Santiago ruling of 19 March 1997
per cent (3%) of all the registered voters therein.
cannot be considered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court en banc,
considering that upon its reconsideration and final voting on 10 June 1997,
As basis for the filing of their petition for initiative, petitioners averred that no majority vote was secured to declare Republic Act No. 6735 as
Section 5 (b) and (c), together with Section 7 of R.A. 6735, provide sufficient inadequate, incomplete and insufficient in standard.
enabling details for the people's exercise of the power. Hence, petitioners
prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order:
II.

1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII of

The 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 6735, Republic Act No. 8189 and
the 1987 Constitution;
existing appropriation of the COMELEC provide for sufficient details and
authority for the exercise of people's initiative, thus, existing laws taken
2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least together are adequate and complete.
twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
 III. C.

The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse of The permanent injunction issued in Santiago vs. COMELEC only
discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and in refusing to give due applies to the Delfin petition.
course to the petition for initiative, thereby violating an express constitutional
mandate and disregarding and contravening the will of the people.
1.

A.
It is the dispositive portion of the decision and not other
statements in the body of the decision that governs the
Assuming in arguendo that there is no enabling law, respondent rights in controversy.
COMELEC cannot ignore the will of the sovereign people and
must accordingly act on the petition for initiative.
IV.

1.
The Honorable public respondent failed or neglected to
act or perform a duty mandated by law.
The framers of the Constitution intended to give the
people the power to propose amendments and the
A.
people themselves are now giving vibrant life to this
constitutional provision.
The ministerial duty of the COMELEC is to
set the initiative for plebiscite.12
2.

The oppositors-intervenors, ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin,

Prior to the questioned Santiago ruling of 19 March
Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina,
1997, the right of the people to exercise the sovereign
Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops
power of initiative and recall has been invariably
Forum, Migrante Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino
upheld.
Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda, Dr. Darby Santiago, and Dr. Reginald
Pamugas; Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio
3. Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-
Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada; Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo
Aguja, and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel; and Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose
The exercise of the initiative to propose amendments is
Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and
a political question which shall be determined solely by
Randall C. Tabayoyong moved to intervene in this case and filed their respective
the sovereign people.
Oppositions/Comments-in-Intervention.

4.
The Philippine Constitution Association, Conrado F. Estrella, Tomas C. Toledo,
Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., Fortunato P. Aguas,
By signing the signature sheets attached to the petition and Amado Gat Inciong; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City and Cebu
for initiative duly verified by the election officers, the Province Chapters; former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang
people have chosen to perform this sacred exercise of Pilipino; and the Senate of the Philippines, represented by Senate President Manuel
their sovereign power. Villar, Jr., also filed their respective motions for intervention and Comments-in-
Intervention.
B.
The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Sulongbayan Movement Foundation,
Inc., Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo Baya, Philippine Transport
The Santiago ruling of 19 March 1997 is not applicable to the and General Workers Organization, and Victorino F. Balais likewise moved to
instant petition for initiative filed by the petitioners.
intervene and submitted to the Court a Petition-in-Intervention. All interventions and 2. Whether the Petitions for Initiative filed before the Commission on
oppositions were granted by the Court. Elections complied with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

The oppositors-intervenors essentially submit that the COMELEC did not commit 3. Whether the Court's decision in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No.
grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the petition for initiative as it 127325, March 19, 1997) bars the present petition.
merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC as affirmed in the case
of PIRMA v. COMELEC, based on the principle of stare decisis; that there is no
4. Whether the Court should re-examine the ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC
sufficient law providing for the authority and the details for the exercise of people's
that there is no sufficient law implementing or authorizing the exercise of
initiative to amend the Constitution; that the proposed changes to the Constitution are
people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
actually revisions, not mere amendments; that the petition for initiative does not meet
the required number of signatories under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987
Constitution; that it was not shown that the people have been informed of the 5. Assuming R.A. 6735 is sufficient, whether the Petitions for Initiative filed
proposed amendments as there was disparity between the proposal presented to with the COMELEC have complied with its provisions.
them and the proposed amendments attached to the petition for initiative, if indeed
there was; that the verification process was done ex parte, thus rendering dubious the
5.1 Whether the said petitions are sufficient in form and
signatures attached to the petition for initiative; and that petitioners Lambino and
substance.
Aumentado have no legal capacity to represent the signatories in the petition for
initiative.
5.2 Whether the proposed changes embrace more than one
subject matter.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance with the Court's resolution
of September 5, 2006, filed its Comment to the petition. Affirming the position of the
petitioners, the OSG prayed that the Court grant the petition at bar and render 6. Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision of
judgment: (1) declaring R.A. 6735 as adequate to cover or as reasonably sufficient to the Constitution.
implement the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and as having
provided sufficient standards for subordinate legislation; (2) declaring as valid the
provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 on the conduct of initiative or 6.1 Whether the proposed changes are the proper subject of an
amendments to the Constitution; (3) setting aside the assailed resolution of the initiative.
COMELEC for having been rendered with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
or excess of jurisdiction; and, (4) directing the COMELEC to grant the petition for 7. Whether the exercise of an initiative to propose amendments to the
initiative and set the corresponding plebiscite pursuant to R.A. 6735, COMELEC Constitution is a political question to be determined solely by the sovereign
Resolution No. 2300, and other pertinent election laws and regulations. people.

The COMELEC filed its own Comment stating that its resolution denying the petition 8. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of
for initiative is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it merely adhered to the discretion in dismissing the Petitions for Initiative filed before it.
ruling of this Court in Santiago v. COMELEC which declared that R.A. 6735 does not
adequately implement the constitutional provision on initiative to amend the
Constitution. It invoked the permanent injunction issued by the Court against the With humility, I offer the following views to these issues as profiled:
COMELEC from taking cognizance of petitions for initiative on amendments to the
Constitution until a valid enabling law shall have been passed by Congress. It I
asserted that the permanent injunction covers not only the Delfin Petition, but also all
other petitions involving constitutional initiatives.
Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the
present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who
On September 26, 2006, the Court heard the case. The parties were required to allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution.
argue on the following issues:13
Oppositors-intervenors contend that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are not the
1. Whether petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file proper parties to file the instant petition as they were not authorized by the signatories
the present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who in the petition for initiative.
allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution.
The argument deserves scant attention. The Constitution requires that the petition for established rule to abide by former precedents where the same points come again in
initiative should be filed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered voters, of litigation."16 As the rule evolved, early limits to its application were recognized: (1)
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of it would not be followed if it were "plainly unreasonable;" (2) where courts of equal
all the registered voters therein. The petition for initiative filed by Lambino and authority developed conflicting decisions; and, (3) the binding force of the decision
Aumentado before the COMELEC was accompanied by voluminous signature sheets was the "actual principle or principles necessary for the decision; not the words or
which prima facie show the intent of the signatories to support the filing of said reasoning used to reach the decision."17
petition. Stated above their signatures in the signature sheets is the following:
The doctrine migrated to the United States. It was recognized by the framers of the
x x x My signature herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to U.S. Constitution.18 According to Hamilton, "strict rules and precedents" are
amend the Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.14 necessary to prevent "arbitrary discretion in the courts."19 Madison agreed but
stressed that "x x x once the precedent ventures into the realm of altering or
repealing the law, it should be rejected."20 Prof. Consovoy well noted that Hamilton
There is thus no need for the more than six (6) million signatories to execute separate
and Madison "disagree about the countervailing policy considerations that would
documents to authorize petitioners to file the petition for initiative in their behalf.
allow a judge to abandon a precedent."21 He added that their ideas "reveal a deep
internal conflict between the concreteness required by the rule of law and the flexibility
Neither is it necessary for said signatories to authorize Lambino and Aumentado to file demanded in error correction. It is this internal conflict that the Supreme Court
the petition for certiorari and mandamus before this Court. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules has attempted to deal with for over two centuries."22
of Civil Procedure provides who may file a petition for certiorari and mandamus.
Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65 read:
Indeed, two centuries of American case law will confirm Prof. Consovoy's observation
although stare decisisdeveloped its own life in the United States. Two strains of stare
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or officer decisis have been isolated by legal scholars.23 The first, known as vertical stare
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess decisis deals with the duty of lower courts to apply the decisions of the higher
of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or courts to cases involving the same facts. The second, known as horizontal stare
excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and decisis requires that high courts must follow its own precedents. Prof. Consovoy
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person correctly observes that vertical stare decisis has been viewed as
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x x. an obligation, while horizontal stare decisis, has been viewed as a policy, imposing
choice but not a command.24 Indeed, stare decisis is not one of the precepts set in
stone in our Constitution.
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation, board,
officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the
law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station x x It is also instructive to distinguish the two kinds of horizontal stare
x and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary decisis — constitutional stare decisis and statutory stare
course of law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in decisis.25 Constitutional stare decisis involves judicial interpretations of the
the proper court x x x x. Constitution while statutory stare decisis involves interpretations of statutes.
The distinction is important for courts enjoy more flexibility in refusing to
apply stare decisis in constitutional litigations. Justice Brandeis' view on the binding
Thus, any person aggrieved by the act or inaction of the respondent tribunal, board effect of the doctrine in constitutional litigations still holds sway today. In soothing
or officer may file a petition for certiorari or mandamus before the appropriate court. prose, Brandeis stated: "Stare decisis is not . . . a universal and inexorable
Certainly, Lambino and Aumentado, as among the proponents of the petition for command. The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible. Whether it shall be followed or
initiative dismissed by the COMELEC, have the standing to file the petition at bar. departed from, is a question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is
again called upon to consider a question once decided."26 In the same vein, the
II venerable Justice Frankfurter opined: "the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is
the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it."27 In contrast, the
application of stare decisis on judicial interpretation of statutes is more inflexible.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of As Justice Stevens explains: "after a statute has been construed, either by this Court
Santiago. or by a consistent course of decision by other federal judges and agencies, it acquires
a meaning that should be as clear as if the judicial gloss had been drafted by the
The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means "stand by the thing and Congress itself."28 This stance reflects both respect for Congress' role and the need to
do not disturb the calm." The doctrine started with the English preserve the courts' limited resources.
Courts.15 Blackstone observed that at the beginning of the 18th century, "it is an
In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of reasons,29 viz: (1) it laws implementing constitutional mandates should be crafted. It is elementary that
legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it promotes judicial economy; and, (3) it allows for courts cannot dictate on Congress the style of writing good laws, anymore than
predictability. Contrariwise, courts refuse to be bound by the stare decisis rule Congress can tell courts how to write literate decisions. The doctrine of separation of
where30 (1) its application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings; (2) it powers forbids this Court to invade the exclusive lawmaking domain of Congress
cannot accommodate changing social and political understandings; (3) it leaves the for courts can construe laws but cannot construct them. The end result of the
power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and, (4) ruling of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 is insufficient is intolerable for it rendered
activist judges can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare lifeless the sovereign right of the people to amend the Constitution via an initiative.
decisis are stuck agreeing with them.
On the factor of reliance, the ruling of the six (6) justices in Santiago did not induce
In its 200-year history, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to follow the stare any expectation from the people. On the contrary, the ruling smothered the hope of
decisis rule and reversed its decisions in 192 cases.31 The most famous of these the people that they could amend the Constitution by direct action. Moreover, reliance
reversals is Brown v. Board of Education32 which junked Plessy v. is a non-factor in the case at bar for it is more appropriate to consider in decisions
Ferguson's33 "separate but equal doctrine." Plessy upheld as constitutional a state involving contracts where private rights are adjudicated. The case at bar involves no
law requirement that races be segregated on public transportation. In Brown, the U.S. private rights but the sovereignty of the people.
Supreme Court, unanimously held that "separate . . . is inherently unequal." Thus,
by freeing itself from the shackles of stare decisis, the U.S. Supreme Court freed the
On the factor of changes in law and in facts, certain realities on ground cannot be
colored Americans from the chains of inequality. In the Philippine setting, this Court
blinked away. The urgent need to adjust certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution to
has likewise refused to be straitjacketed by the stare decisis rule in order to promote
enable the country to compete in the new millennium is given. The only point of
public welfare. In La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos,34 we reversed our
contention is the mode to effect the change - - - whether through constituent
original ruling that certain provisions of the Mining Law are unconstitutional. Similarly,
assembly, constitutional convention or people's initiative. Petitioners claim that they
in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,35 we overturned our first ruling and held, on
have gathered over six (6) million registered voters who want to amend the
motion for reconsideration, that a private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and
Constitution through people's initiative and that their signatures have been verified by
hearing during the evaluation stage of the extradition process.
registrars of the COMELEC. The six (6) justices who ruled that R.A. 6735 is
insufficient to implement the direct right of the people to amend the
An examination of decisions on stare decisis in major countries will show that Constitution through an initiative cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people
courts are agreed on the factors that should be considered before overturning who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from whom all government authority
prior rulings. These are workability, reliance, intervening developments in the emanates. New developments in our internal and external social, economic, and
law and changes in fact. In addition, courts put in the balance the following political settings demand the reexamination of the Santiago case. The stare
determinants: closeness of the voting, age of the prior decision and its merits.36 decisis rule is no reason for this Court to allow the people to step into the future
with a blindfold.
The leading case in deciding whether a court should follow the stare decisis rule in
constitutional litigations is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.37 It established a 4- III
pronged test. The court should (1) determine whether the rule has proved to
be intolerable simply in defying practical workability; (2) consider whether the rule is
A reexamination of R.A. 6735 will show that it is sufficient to
subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences
implement the people's initiative.
of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation; (3) determine
whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have the old rule no
more than a remnant of an abandoned doctrine; and, (4) find out whether facts have Let us reexamine the validity of the view of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 is
so changed or come to be seen differently, as to have robbed the old rule of insufficient to implement Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution allowing
significant application or justification. amendments to the Constitution to be directly proposed by the people through
initiative.
Following these guidelines, I submit that the stare decisis rule should not bar
the reexamination of Santiago. On the factor of intolerability, the six (6) justices When laws are challenged as unconstitutional, courts are counseled to give life to the
in Santiago held R.A. 6735 to be insufficient as it provided no standard to guide intent of legislators. In enacting R.A. 6735, it is daylight luminous that Congress
COMELEC in issuing its implementing rules. The Santiago ruling that R.A. 6735 is intended the said law to implement the right of the people, thru initiative, to propose
insufficient but without striking it down as unconstitutional is an intolerable amendments to the Constitution by direct action. This all-important intent is palpable
aberration, the only one of its kind in our planet. It improperly assails the ability of from the following:
legislators to write laws. It usurps the exclusive right of legislators to determine how far
First. The text of R.A. 6735 is replete with references to the right of the people to Roco (then a Member of the House of Representatives) emphasized the intent to
initiate changes to the Constitution: make initiative as a mode whereby the people can propose amendments to the
Constitution. We quote his relevant remarks:41
The policy statement declares:
SPONSORSHIP REMAKRS OF REP. ROCO
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. -- The power of the people under a system of
initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in MR. ROCO. Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the committee, we wish to
whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed speak in support of House Bill No. 497, entitled: INITIATIVE AND
by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is REFERENDUM ACT OF 1987, which later on may be called Initiative and
hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (emphasis supplied) Referendum Act of 1989.

It defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose amendments to the As a background, we want to point out the constitutional basis of this
Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the particular bill. The grant of plenary legislative power upon the Philippine
purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which an initiative on the Congress by the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, Mr. Speaker, was
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people." based on the principle that any power deemed to be legislative by usage
and tradition is necessarily possessed by the Philippine Congress unless
the Organic Act has lodged it elsewhere. This was a citation from Vera vs.
It provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the Constitution, viz:
Avelino (1946).

(1) That "(a) petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at
The presidential system introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the
least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
application of the principle of separation of powers. While under the
signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
parliamentary system of the 1973 Constitution the principle remained
least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein;"38 and
applicable, Amendment 6 or the 1981 amendments to the 1973 Constitution
ensured presidential dominance over the Batasang Pambansa.
(2) That "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5)
years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five
Our constitutional history saw the shifting and sharing of legislative power
(5) years thereafter."39
between the legislature and the executive.

It fixes the effectivity date of the amendment under Section 9(b) which provides that
Transcending such changes in the exercise of legislative power is the
"(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a majority of the
declaration in the Philippine Constitution that he Philippines is a Republican
votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite."
State where sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority
emanates from them.
Second. The legislative history of R.A. 6735 also reveals the clear intent of the
lawmakers to use it as the instrument to implement people's initiative. No less than
In a Republic, Mr. Speaker, the power to govern is vested in its citizens
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the ponente in Santiago, concedes:40
participating through the right of suffrage and indicating thereby their choice
of lawmakers.
We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is a
Under the 1987 Constitution, lawmaking power is still preserved in
consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17 x x x x The
Congress. However, to institutionalize direct action of the people as
Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and
exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, there is a practical recognition of what
House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently approved on
we refer to as people's sovereign power. This is the recognition of a system
8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of Representatives. This
of initiative and referendum.
approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.

Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, and I quote:

Third. The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. 6735 similarly demonstrate
beyond doubt this intent. In his sponsorship remarks, the late Senator Raul
 The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the House Bill No. 21505, as reported out by the Committee on Suffrage and
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and House of Electoral Reforms last December 14, 1988, Mr. Speaker, is the response to
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by such a constitutional duty.
the provision on initiative and referendum.
Mr. Speaker, if only to allay apprehensions, allow me to show where
In other words, Mr. Speaker, under the 1987 Constitution, Congress does initiative and referendum under Philippine law has occurred.
not have plenary powers. There is a reserved legislative power given to the
people expressly.
Mr. Speaker, the system of initiative and referendum is not new. In a very
limited extent, the system is provided for in our Local Government Code
Section 32, the implementing provision of the same article of the today. On initiative, for instance, Section 99 of the said code vests in the
Constitution provides, and I quote: barangay assembly the power to initiate legislative processes, to hold
plebiscites and to hear reports of the sangguniang barangay. There are
variations of initiative and referendum. The barangay assembly is composed
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system of
of all persons who have been actual residents of the barangay for at least
initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby
six months, who are at least 15 years of age and citizens of the Philippines.
the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or
The holding of barangay plebiscites and referendum is also provided in
reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or
Sections 100 and 101 of the same Code.
local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor
signed by at least ten per centum of the total number of
registered voters, or which every legislative district must be Mr. Speaker, for brevity I will not read the pertinent quotations but will just
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters submit the same to the Secretary to be incorporated as part of my speech.
thereof.
To continue, Mr. Speaker these same principles are extensively applied by
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in Section 1 of Article VI which describes the Local Government Code as it is now mandated by the 1987
legislative power, there are reserved powers given to the people. In Section Constitution.
32, we are specifically told to pass at the soonest possible time a bill on
referendum and initiative. We are specifically mandated to share the
In other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, we have ample examples of initiative and
legislative powers of Congress with the people.
referendum similar to what is now contained in House Bill No. 21505. As in
the 1987 Constitutions and House Bill No. 21505, the various constitutions
Of course, another applicable provision in the Constitution is Section 2, of the states in the United States recognize the right of registered voters to
Article XVII, Mr. Speaker. Under the provision on amending the Constitution, initiate the enactment of any statute or to reject any existing law or parts
the section reads, and I quote: thereof in a referendum. These states are Alaska, Alabama, Montana,
Massachusetts, Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and practically all other states.
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at In certain American states, the kind of laws to which initiative and
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, referendum applies is also without ay limitation, except for emergency
of which every legislative district must be represented by at least measures, which is likewise incorporated in Section 7(b) of House Bill No.
three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment 21505.
under this section shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
The procedure provided by the House bill – from the filing of the petition, the
years thereafter.
requirement of a certain percentage of supporters to present a proposition
to submission to electors – is substantially similar to those of many
We in Congress therefore, Mr. Speaker, are charged with the duty to American laws. Mr. Speaker, those among us who may have been in the
implement the exercise by the people of the right of initiative and United States, particularly in California, during election time or last
referendum. November during the election would have noticed different propositions
posted in the city walls. They were propositions submitted by the people for
incorporation during the voting. These were in the nature of initiative, Mr.
Speaker.
Although an infant then in Philippine political structure, initiative and For instance, Mr. Speaker, when we divide the municipalities or the
referendum is a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and House Bill barangays into two or three, we must first get the consent of the people
No. 21505 through the various consolidated bills is patterned after American affected through plebiscite or referendum.
experience in a great respect.
Referendum is a mode of plebiscite, Mr. Speaker. However, referendum can
What does the bill essentially say, Mr. Speaker? Allow me to try to bring our also be petitioned by the people if, for instance, they do not life the bill on
colleagues slowly through the bill. The bill has basically only 12 sections. direct elections and it is approved subsequently by the Senate. If this bill
The constitutional Commissioners, Mr. Speaker, saw this system of initiative had already become a law, then the people could petition that a referendum
and referendum as an instrument which can be used should the legislature be conducted so that the acts of Congress can be appropriately approved or
show itself indifferent to the needs of the people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, rebuffed.
it may be timely, since we seem to be amply criticized, as regards our
responsiveness, to pass this bill on referendum and initiative now. While
The initial stage, Mr. Speaker, is what we call the petition. As envisioned in
indifference would not be an appropriate term to use at this time, and surely
the bill, the initiative comes from the people, from registered voters of the
it is not the case although we are so criticized, one must note that it is a felt
country, by presenting a proposition so that the people can then submit a
necessity of our times that laws need to be proposed and adopted at the
petition, which is a piece of paper that contains the proposition. The
soonest possible time to spur economic development, safeguard individual
proposition in the example I have been citing is whether there should be
rights and liberties, and share governmental power with the people.
direct elections during the barangay elections. So the petition must be filed
in the appropriate agency and the proposition must be clear stated. It can
With the legislative powers of the President gone, we alone, together with be tedious but that is how an effort to have direct democracy operates.
the Senators when they are minded to agree with us, are left with the
burden of enacting the needed legislation.
Section 4 of the bill gives requirements, Mr. Speaker. It will not be all that
easy to have referendum or initiative petitioned by the people. Under
Let me now bring our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to the process advocated by Section 4 of the committee report, we are given certain limitations. For
the bill. instance, to exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least 10
percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district is represented by at least 3 percent of the registered voters thereof,
First, initiative and referendum, Mr. Speaker, is defined. Initiative essentially
shall sign a petition. These numbers, Mr. Speaker, are not taken from the
is what the term connotes. It means that the people, on their own political
air. They are mandated by the Constitution. There must be a requirement of
judgment, submit fore the consideration and voting of the general electorate
10 percent for ordinary laws and 3 percent representing all districts. The
a bill or a piece of legislation.
same requirement is mutatis mutandis or appropriately modified and applied
to the different sections. So if it is, for instance, a petition on initiative or
Under House Bill No. 21505, there are three kinds of initiative. One is an referendum for a barangay, there is a 10 percent or a certain number
initiative to amend the Constitution. This can occur once every five years. required of the voters of the barangay. If it is for a district, there is also a
Another is an initiative to amend statutes that we may have approved. Had certain number required of all towns of the district that must seek the
this bill been an existing law, Mr. Speaker, it is most likely that an petition. If it is for a province then again a certain percentage of the
overwhelming majority of the barangays in the Philippines would have provincial electors is required. All these are based with reference to the
approved by initiative the matter of direct voting. constitutional mandate.

The third mode of initiative, Mr. Speaker, refers to a petition proposing to The conduct of the initiative and referendum shall be supervised and shall
enact regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay laws or ordinances. It be upon the call of the Commission on Elections. However, within a period
comes from the people and it must be submitted directly to the electorate. of 30 days from receipt of the petition, the COMELEC shall determine the
The bill gives a definite procedure and allows the COMELEC to define rules sufficiency of the petition, publish the same and set the date of the
and regulations to give teeth to the power of initiative. referendum which shall not be earlier than 45 days but not later than 90
days from the determination by the commission of the sufficiency of the
petition. Why is this so, Mr. Speaker? The petition must first be determined
On the other hand, referendum, Mr. Speaker, is the power of the people to
by the commission as to its sufficiency because our Constitution requires
approve or reject something that Congress has already approved. that no bill can be approved unless it contains one subject matter. It is
conceivable that in the fervor of an initiative or referendum, Mr. Speaker,
 there may be more than two topics sought to be approved and that cannot Section 312; Article X, Section 3; and Article XVII, Section 2. May I request
be allowed. In fact, that is one of the prohibitions under this referendum and that he explicit provisions of these three articles and four sections be made
initiative bill. When a matter under initiative or referendum is approved by part of my sponsorship speech, Mr. Speaker.
the required number of votes, Mr. Speaker, it shall become effective 15
days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette.
These constitutional provisions are, however, not self-executory. There is a
Effectively then, Mr. Speaker, all the bill seeks to do is to enlarge and
need for an implementing law that will give meaning and substance to the
recognize the legislative powers of the Filipino people.
process of initiative and referendum which are considered valuable adjuncts
to representative democracy. It is needless to state that this bill when
Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress, particularly this House, cannot ignore or enacted into law will probably open the door to strong competition of the
cannot be insensitive to the call for initiative and referendum. We should people, like pressure groups, vested interests, farmers' group, labor groups,
have done it in 1987 but that is past. Maybe we should have done it in 1988 urban dwellers, the urban poor and the like, with Congress in the field of
but that too had already passed, but it is only February 1989, Mr. Speaker, legislation.
and we have enough time this year at least to respond to the need of our
people to participate directly in the work of legislation.
Such probability, however, pales in significance when we consider that
through this bill we can hasten the politization of the Filipino which in turn
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge and implore our colleagues to will aid government in forming an enlightened public opinion, and hopefully
approve House Bill No. 21505 as incorporated in Committee Report No. 423 produce better and more responsive and acceptable legislations.
of the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this would give the parliamentarians of the
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I also request that the prepared text of my speech, streets and cause-oriented groups an opportunity to articulate their ideas in
together with the footnotes since they contain many references to statutory a truly democratic forum, thus, the competition which they will offer to
history and foreign jurisdiction, be reproduced as part of the Record for Congress will hopefully be a healthy one. Anyway, in an atmosphere of
future purposes. competition there are common interests dear to all Filipinos, and the pursuit
of each side's competitive goals can still take place in an atmosphere of
reason and moderation.
Equally unequivocal on the intent of R.A. 6735 is the sponsorship speech of former
Representative Salvador Escudero III, viz:42
Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues, when the distinguished Gentleman
from Camarines Sur and this Representation filed our respective versions of
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF REP. ESCUDERO
the bill in 1987, we were hoping that the bill would be approved early
enough so that our people could immediately use the agrarian reform bill as
MR. ESCUDERO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. an initial subject matter or as a take-off point.

Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues: Events in recent years highlighted the However, in view of the very heavy agenda of the Committee on Local
need to heed the clamor of the people for a truly popular democracy. One Government, it took sometime before the committee could act on these. But
recalls the impatience of those who actively participated in the parliament of as they say in Tagalog, huli man daw at magaling ay naihahabol din. The
the streets, some of whom are now distinguished Members of this Chamber. passage of this bill therefore, my dear colleagues, could be one of our finest
A substantial segment of the population feel increasingly that under the hours when we can set aside our personal and political consideration for the
system, the people have the form but not the reality or substance of greater good of our people. I therefore respectfully urge and plead that this
democracy because of the increasingly elitist approach of their chosen bill be immediately approved.
Representatives to many questions vitally affecting their lives. There have
been complaints, not altogether unfounded, that many candidates easily
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
forge their campaign promises to the people once elected to office. The
1986 Constitutional Commission deemed it wise and proper to provide for a
means whereby the people can exercise the reserve power to legislate or We cannot dodge the duty to give effect to this intent for the "[c]ourts have the
propose amendments to the Constitution directly in case their chose duty to interpret the law as legislated and when possible, to honor the clear meaning
Representatives fail to live up to their expectations. That reserve power of statutes as revealed by its language, purpose and history."43
known as initiative is explicitly recognized in three articles and four sections
of the 1987 Constitution, namely: Article VI Section 1; the same article,
The tragedy is that while conceding this intent, the six (6) justices, nevertheless, xxxxxxxxxxxx
ruled that "x x x R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this
concerned" for the following reasons: (1) Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an
process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment.
initiative on amendments to the Constitution; (2) the Act does not provide for the
Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of
contents of the petition for initiative on the Constitution; and (3) while the Act provides
realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of
subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and
setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing
Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution.
provision?

To say the least, these alleged omissions are too weak a reason to throttle the right
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while
of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution through initiative. R.A. 6735 clearly
ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and
expressed the legislative policy for the people to propose amendments to the
should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total overhaul of the
Constitution by direct action. The fact that the legislature may have omitted certain
Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
details in implementing the people's initiative in R.A. 6735, does not justify the
conclusion that, ergo, the law is insufficient. What were omitted were mere
details and not fundamental policies which Congress alone can and has MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish
determined. Implementing details of a law can be delegated to the COMELEC and the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of
can be the subject of its rule-making power. Under Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the revision; whereas the process of initiation to amend, which is given to the
Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to enforce and administer all laws and public, would only apply to amendments?
regulations relative to the conduct of initiatives. Its rule-making power has long been
recognized by this Court. In ruling R.A. 6735 insufficient but without striking it down as
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the
unconstitutional, the six (6) justices failed to give due recognition to the indefeasible
Committee.
right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution.

Commissioner (later Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., espoused the same view:45
IV

MR. DAVIDE. x x x x We are limiting the right of the people, by initiative, to

The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are mere
submit a proposal for amendment only, not for revision, only once every five
amendments and can be undertaken through people's initiative.
years x x x x

Oppositors-intervenors contend that Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII of the 1987

MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed
Constitution, only allow the use of people's initiative to amend and not to revise the
amendment on line 1 refers to "amendment." Does it cover the word
Constitution. They theorize that the changes proposed by petitioners
"revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction
are substantial and thus constitute a revision which cannot be done through people's
between the words "amendments" and "revision?"
initiative.

MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should
In support of the thesis that the Constitution bars the people from
be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only
proposing substantial amendments amounting to revision, the oppositors-
relate to "amendments" not "revision."
intervenors cite the following deliberations during the Constitutional Commission, viz:44

Commissioner (now a distinguished Associate Justice of this Court) Adolfo S. Azcuna

MR. SUAREZ: x x x x This proposal was suggested on the theory that this
also clarified this point46 -
matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of
amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The Committee MR. OPLE. To more closely reflect the intent of Section 2, may I suggest
members felt that this system of initiative should not extend to the revision that we add to "Amendments" "OR REVISIONS OF" to read: "Amendments
of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section 1 OR REVISION OF this Constitution."
of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision.
 MR. AZCUNA. I think it was not allowed to revise the Constitution by Nor can this Court be surefooted if it applies the qualitative test to determine
initiative. whether the said changes are "simple" or "substantial" as to amount to a revision of
the Constitution. The well-regarded political scientist, Garner, says that a good
constitution should contain at least three (3) sets of provisions: the constitution of
MR. OPLE. How is that again?
liberty which sets forth the fundamental rights of the people and imposes certain
limitations on the powers of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of
MR. AZCUNA. It was not our intention to allow a revision of the Constitution these rights; the constitution of government which deals with the framework of
by initiative but merely by amendments. government and its powers, laying down certain rules for its administration and
defining the electorate; and, the constitution of sovereignty which prescribes the
mode or procedure for amending or revising the constitution.49 It is plain that the
MR. BENGZON. Only by amendments. proposed changes will basically affect only the constitution of government. The
constitutions of liberty and sovereignty remain unaffected. Indeed, the proposed
MR. AZCUNA. I remember that was taken on the floor. changes will not change the fundamental nature of our state as "x x x a
democratic and republican state."50 It is self-evident that a unicameral-
parliamentary form of government will not make our State any less democratic or any
MR. RODRIGO. Yes, just amendments. less republican in character. Hence, neither will the use of the qualitative test
resolve the issue of whether the proposed changes are "simple" or
The oppositors-intervenors then point out that by their proposals, petitioners will "substantial."
"change the very system of government from presidential to parliamentary, and the
form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral," among others. They allegedly For this reason and more, our Constitutions did not adopt any quantitative or
seek other major revisions like the inclusion of a minimum number of inhabitants per qualitative test to determine whether an "amendment" is
district, a change in the period for a term of a Member of Parliament, the removal of "simple" or "substantial." Nor did they provide that "substantial" amendments
the limits on the number of terms, the election of a Prime Minister who shall exercise are beyond the power of the people to propose to change the Constitution.
the executive power, and so on and so forth.47 In sum, oppositors-intervenors submit Instead, our Constitutions carried the traditional distinction between "amendment"
that "the proposed changes to the Constitution effect major changes in the political and "revision," i.e., "amendment" means change, including complex changes while
structure and system, the fundamental powers and duties of the branches of the "revision" means complete change, including the adoption of an entirely new
government, the political rights of the people, and the modes by which political rights covenant. The legal dictionaries express this traditional difference between
may be exercised."48 They conclude that they are substantial amendments which "amendment" and "revision." Black's Law Dictionary defines "amendment" as "[a]
cannot be done through people's initiative. In other words, they posit the thesis that formal revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, pleading, order,
only simple but not substantial amendments can be done through people's or other instrument; specifically, a change made by addition, deletion, or
initiative. correction."51 Black's also refers to "amendment" as "the process of making such a
revision."52 Revision, on the other hand, is defined as "[a] reexamination or careful
With due respect, I disagree. To start with, the words "simple" and "substantial" review for correction or improvement."53 In parliamentary law, it is described as "[a]
are not subject to any accurate quantitative or qualitative test. Obviously, relying on general and thorough rewriting of a governing document, in which the entire
the quantitative test, oppositors-intervenors assert that the amendments will result in document is open to amendment."54 Similarly, Ballentine's Law Dictionary
some one hundred (100) changes in the Constitution. Using the same test, defines "amendment" – as "[a] correction or revision of a writing to correct errors or
however, it is also arguable that petitioners seek to change basically only two (2) out better to state its intended purpose"55 and "amendment of constitution" as "[a] process
of the eighteen (18) articles of the 1987 Constitution, i.e. Article VI (Legislative of proposing, passing, and ratifying amendments to the x x x constitution."56 In
Department) and Article VII (Executive Department), together with the complementary contrast, "revision," when applied to a statute (or constitution), "contemplates the re-
provisions for a smooth transition from a presidential bicameral system to a examination of the same subject matter contained in the statute (or constitution), and
parliamentary unicameral structure. The big bulk of the 1987 Constitution will not the substitution of a new, and what is believed to be, a still more perfect rule."57
be affected including Articles I (National Territory), II (Declaration of Principles and
State Policies), III (Bill of Rights), IV (Citizenship), V (Suffrage), VIII (Judicial One of the most authoritative constitutionalists of his time to whom we owe a lot of
Department), IX (Constitutional Commissions), X (Local Government), XI intellectual debt, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, of the University of the Philippines College
(Accountability of Public Officers), XII (National Economy and Patrimony), XIII (Social of Law, (later President of the U.P. and delegate to the Constitutional Convention of
Justice and Human Rights), XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, 1971) similarly spelled out the difference between "amendment" and "revision." He
and Sports), XV (The Family), XVI (General Provisions), and even XVII (Amendments opined: "the revision of a constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of
or Revisions). In fine, we stand on unsafe ground if we use simple arithmetic to the entire constitution and the procedure for effecting such change;
determine whether the proposed changes are "simple" or "substantial."
while amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added to or to be altered in In 1986, Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency, and repudiated the 1973
a constitution."58 Constitution. She governed under Proclamation No. 3, known as the Freedom
Constitution.
Our people were guided by this traditional distinction when they effected
changes in our 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. In 1940, the changes to the 1935 In February 1987, the new constitution was ratified by the people in a plebiscite and
Constitution which included the conversion from a unicameral system to a superseded the Provisional or Freedom Constitution. Retired Justice Isagani Cruz
bicameral structure, the shortening of the tenure of the President and Vice-President underscored the outstanding features of the 1987 Constitution which consists of
from a six-year term without reelection to a four-year term with one reelection, and the eighteen articles and is excessively long compared to the Constitutions of 1935 and
establishment of the COMELEC, together with the complementary constitutional 1973, on which it was largely based. Many of the original provisions of the 1935
provisions to effect the changes, were considered amendments only, not a Constitution, particularly those pertaining to the legislative and executive departments,
revision. have been restored because of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the
Philippines and the strictly presidential system. The independence of the judiciary has
been strengthened, with new provisions for appointment thereto and an increase in its
The replacement of the 1935 Constitution by the 1973 Constitution was,
authority, which now covers even political questions formerly beyond its jurisdiction.
however, considered a revision since the 1973 Constitution was "a completely
While many provisions of the 1973 Constitution were retained, like those on the
new fundamental charter embodying new political, social and economic
Constitutional Commissions and local governments, still the new 1987 Constitution
concepts."59 Among those adopted under the 1973 Constitution were: the
was deemed as a revision of the 1973 Constitution.
parliamentary system in place of the presidential system, with the leadership in
legislation and administration vested with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet; the
reversion to a single-chambered lawmaking body instead of the two-chambered, It is now contended that this traditional distinction between amendment and revision
which would be more suitable to a parliamentary system of government; the was abrogated by the 1987 Constitution. It is urged that Section 1 of Article XVII gives
enfranchisement of the youth beginning eighteen (18) years of age instead of twenty- the power to amend or revise to Congress acting as a constituent assembly, and to a
one (21), and the abolition of literacy, property, and other substantial requirements to Constitutional Convention duly called by Congress for the purpose. Section 2 of the
widen the basis for the electorate and expand democracy; the strengthening of the same Article, it is said, limited the people's right to change the
judiciary, the civil service system, and the Commission on Elections; the complete Constitution via initiative through simple amendments. In other words, the people
nationalization of the ownership and management of mass media; the giving of control cannot propose substantial amendments amounting to revision.
to Philippine citizens of all telecommunications; the prohibition against alien individuals
to own educational institutions, and the strengthening of the government as a whole to
With due respect, I do not agree. As aforestated, the oppositors-intervenors who
improve the conditions of the masses.60
peddle the above proposition rely on the opinions of some Commissioners expressed
in the course of the debate on how to frame the amendment/revision provisions of the
The 1973 Constitution in turn underwent a series of significant changes in 1976, 1987 Constitution. It is familiar learning, however, that opinions in a constitutional
1980, 1981, and 1984. The two significant innovations introduced in 1976 were (1) convention, especially if inconclusive of an issue, are of very limited value as
the creation of an interim Batasang Pambansa, in place of the interim National explaining doubtful phrases, and are an unsafe guide (to the intent of the people)
Assembly, and (2) Amendment No. 6 which conferred on the President the power to since the constitution derives its force as a fundamental law, not from the action of the
issue decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, whenever the Batasang Pambansa fails convention but from the powers (of the people) who have ratified and adopted
to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires it.62 "Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the views of the
immediate action, or there is grave emergency or threat or imminence thereof, with individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give us no
such decrees, or letters of instruction to form part of the law of the land. In 1980, the light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much less of the
retirement age of seventy (70) for justices and judges was restored. In 1981, the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of
presidential system with parliamentary features was installed. The transfer of private fundamental law.'"63 Indeed, a careful perusal of the debates of the Constitutional
land for use as residence to natural-born citizens who had lost their citizenship was Commissioners can likewise lead to the conclusion that there was no
also allowed. Then, in 1984, the membership of the Batasang Pambansa was abandonment of the traditional distinction between "amendment" and
reapportioned by provinces, cities, or districts in Metro Manila instead of by regions; "revision." For during the debates, some of the commissioners referred to the
the Office of the Vice-President was created while the executive committee was concurring opinion of former Justice Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. The Executive
abolished; and, urban land reform and social housing programs were Secretary,64 that stressed the traditional distinction between amendment and
strengthened.61 These substantial changes were simply considered as mere revision, thus:65
amendments.
MR. SUAREZ: We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is,
"amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms –
 "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the honorable x x x the constitution does not derive its force from the convention which
Vice-President to the substantial difference in the connotation and framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is that
significance between the said terms. As a result of our research, we came of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked for any
up with the observations made in the famous – or notorious – Javellana dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that they have
doctrine, particularly the decision rendered by Honorable Justice accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common understanding,
Makasiar,66 wherein he made the following distinction between and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the sense designed to
"amendment" and "revision" of an existing Constitution: "Revision" may be conveyed. These proceedings therefore are less conclusive of the proper
involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On the other hand, the act of construction of the instrument than are legislative proceedings of the proper
amending a constitution envisages a change of specific provisions only. The construction of a statute; since in the latter case it is the intent of the
intention of an act to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but legislature we seek, while in the former we are endeavoring to arrive at the
only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed intent of the people through the discussion and deliberations of their
essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts representatives. The history of the calling of the convention, the causes
already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times. which led to it, and the discussions and issues before the people at the time
of the election of the delegates, will sometimes be quite as instructive and
satisfactory as anything to be gathered form the proceedings of the
The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It
convention.
is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying new political, social
and economic concepts.
Corollarily, a constitution is not to be interpreted on narrow or technical principles,
but liberally and on broad general lines, to accomplish the object of its
So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two terms
establishment and carry out the great principles of government – not to defeat
should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing amendments
them.69 One of these great principles is the sovereignty of the people.
or revisions to the new Constitution.

Let us now determine the intent of the people when they adopted initiative as a

To further explain "revision," former Justice Antonio, in his concurring opinion, used an
mode to amend the 1987 Constitution. We start with the Declaration of Principles and
analogy – "When a house is completely demolished and another is erected on the
State Policies which Sinco describes as "the basic political creed of the nation"70 as it
same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered house, or do you have a
"lays down the policies that government is bound to observe."71 Section 1, Article II of
new house? Some of the material contained in the old house may be used again,
the 1935 Constitution and Section 1, Article II of the 1973 Constitution, similarly
some of the rooms may be constructed the same, but this does not alter the fact that
provide that "the Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people
you have altogether another or a new house."67
and all government authority emanates from them." In a republican state, the power
of the sovereign people is exercised and delegated to their
Hence, it is arguable that when the framers of the 1987 Constitution used the word representatives. Thus in Metropolitan Transportation Service v. Paredes, this Court
"revision," they had in mind the "rewriting of the whole Constitution," or the "total held that "a republican state, like the Philippines x x x (is) derived from the will of the
overhaul of the Constitution." Anything less is an "amendment" or just "a change people themselves in freely creating a government 'of the people, by the people, and
of specific provisions only," the intention being "not the change of the entire for the people' – a representative government through which they have agreed to
Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions exercise the powers and discharge the duties of their sovereignty for the common
deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts good and general welfare."72
already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times." Under this
view, "substantial" amendments are still "amendments" and thus can be proposed by
In both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the sovereign people delegated to
the people via an initiative.
Congress or to a convention, the power to amend or revise our fundamental
law. History informs us how this delegated power to amend or revise the
As we cannot be guided with certainty by the inconclusive opinions of the Constitution was abused particularly during the Marcos regime. The Constitution
Commissioners on the difference between "simple" and "substantial" amendments or was changed several times to satisfy the power requirements of the regime.
whether "substantial" amendments amounting to revision are covered by people's Indeed, Amendment No. 6 was passed giving unprecedented legislative powers to
initiative, it behooves us to follow the cardinal rule in interpreting then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. A conspiracy of circumstances from above and
Constitutions, i.e., construe them to give effect to the intention of the people who below, however, brought down the Marcos regime through an extra constitutional
adopted it. The illustrious Cooley explains its rationale well, viz:68 revolution, albeit a peaceful one by the people. A main reason for the people's
revolution was the failure of the representatives of the people to effectuate
timely changes in the Constitution either by acting as a constituent assembly or
by calling a constitutional convention. When the representatives of the
people defaulted in using this last peaceful process of constitutional change, MR. SARMIENTO. When we speak of republican democratic state, are we
the sovereign people themselves took matters in their own hands. They revolted referring to representative democracy?
and replaced the 1973 Constitution with the 1987 Constitution.
MR. AZCUNA. That is right.
It is significant to note that the people modified the ideology of the 1987
Constitution as it stressed the power of the people to act directly in their
MR. SARMIENTO. So, why do we not retain the old formulation under the
capacity as sovereign people. Correspondingly, the power of the legislators to
1973 and 1935 Constitutions which used the words "republican state"
act as representatives of the people in the matter of amending or revising the
because "republican state" would refer to a democratic state where people
Constitution was diminished for the spring cannot rise above its source. To
choose their representatives?
reflect this significant shift, Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution
was reworded. It now reads: "the Philippines is a democratic and republican state.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." MR. AZCUNA. We wanted to emphasize the participation of the people in
The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained the addition of government.
the word "democratic," in our first Declaration of Principles, viz:
MR. SARMIENTO. But even in the concept "republican state," we are
MR. NOLLEDO. I am putting the word "democratic" because of the provisions that we stressing the participation of the people x x x x So the word "republican" will
are now adopting which are covering consultations with the people. For example, we suffice to cover popular representation.
have provisions on recall, initiative, the right of the people even to participate in
lawmaking and other instances that recognize the validity of interference by the
MR. AZCUNA. Yes, the Commissioner is right. However, the committee felt
people through people's organizations x x x x73
that in view of the introduction of the aspects of direct democracy such as
initiative, referendum or recall, it was necessary to emphasize the
MR. OPLE. x x x x The Committee added the word "democratic" to democratic portion of republicanism, of representative democracy as
"republican," and, therefore, the first sentence states: "The Philippines is a well. So, we want to add the word "democratic" to emphasize that in
republican and democratic state x x x x this new Constitution there are instances where the people would act
directly, and not through their representatives. (emphasis supplied)
May I know from the committee the reason for adding the word "democratic"
to "republican"? The constitutional framers of the 1935 and 1973 Consistent with the stress on direct democracy, the systems of initiative,
Constitutions were content with "republican." Was this done merely for the referendum, and recall were enthroned as polestars in the 1987 Constitution.
sake of emphasis? Thus, Commissioner Blas F. Ople who introduced the provision on people's initiative
said:76
MR. NOLLEDO. x x x x "democratic" was added because of the need to
emphasize people power and the many provisions in the Constitution MR. OPLE. x x x x I think this is just the correct time in history when we
that we have approved related to recall, people's organizations, should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to the
initiative and the like, which recognize the participation of the people Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the right to
in policy-making in certain circumstances x x x x formulate and propose their own amendments and revisions of the
Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the government. It is not
that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for amending a
MR. OPLE. I thank the Commissioner. That is a very clear answer and I
constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good to know
think it does meet a need x x x x
that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon the people
and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments
MR. NOLLEDO. According to Commissioner Rosario Braid, "democracy" or revision to the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)
here is understood as participatory democracy. 74 (emphasis supplied)
Commissioner Jose E. Suarez also explained the people's initiative as a safety
The following exchange between Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento and Adolfo valve, as a peaceful way for the people to change their Constitution, by citing our
S. Azcuna is of the same import:75 experiences under the Marcos government, viz:77
 MR. SUAREZ. We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular to Sinco, the concept of sovereignty should be strictly understood in its legal meaning
provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the as it was originally developed in law.79 Legal sovereignty, he explained, is "the
sovereign will of the people through this initiative system. possession of unlimited power to make laws. Its possessor is the legal sovereign. It
implies the absence of any other party endowed with legally superior powers and
privileges. It is not subject to law 'for it is the author and source of law.' Legal
MR. BENGZON. Is Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), not sufficient channel
sovereignty is thus the equivalent of legal omnipotence."80
for expression of the will of the people, particularly in the amendment or
revision of the Constitution?
To be sure, sovereignty or popular sovereignty, emphasizes the supremacy of the
people's will over the state which they themselves have created. The state is created
MR. SUAREZ. Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what
by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political power.
happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. So, if
Rightly, we have ruled that "the sovereignty of our people is not a kabalistic principle
the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating under the
whose dimensions are buried in mysticism. Its metes and bounds are familiar to the
thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case may be, and the
framers of our Constitutions. They knew that in its broadest sense, sovereignty is
required number of votes could not be obtained, we would have to provide
meant to be supreme, the jus summi imperu, the absolute right to govern."81
for a safety valve in order that the people could ventilate in a very peaceful
way their desire for amendment to the Constitution.
James Wilson, regarded by many as the most brilliant, scholarly, and visionary
lawyer in the United States in the 1780s, laid down the first principles of popular
It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the
sovereignty during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention of the 1787 Constitution of
National Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to
the United States:82
call a constitutional convention, the members thereof would not heed
the people's desire and clamor. So this is a third avenue that we are
providing for the implementation of what is now popularly known as people's There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which there is
power. (emphasis supplied) no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme, absolute,
and uncontrollable.
Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong opined that the people's initiative could
avert a revolution, viz:78 x x x x Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient
accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments, the
supreme power was vested in the constitutions x x x x This opinion
MR. MAAMBONG. x x x x the amending process of the Constitution could
approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth is,
actually avert a revolution by providing a safety valve in bringing about
that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable
changes in the Constitution through pacific means. This, in effect,
power remains in the people. As our constitutions are superior to our
operationalizes what political law authors call the "prescription of
legislatures, so the people are superior to our constitutions. Indeed the
sovereignty." (emphasis supplied)
superiority, in this last instance, is much greater; for the people possess
over our constitution, control in act, as well as right. (emphasis supplied)
The end result is Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution which expressed the
right of the sovereign people to propose amendments to the Constitution by direct
I wish to reiterate that in a democratic and republican state, only the people is
action or through initiative. To that extent, the delegated power of Congress to
sovereign - - - not the elected President, not the elected Congress, not this unelected
amend or revise the Constitution has to be adjusted downward. Thus, Section 1,
Court. Indeed, the sovereignty of the people which is indivisible cannot be reposed in
Article VI of the 1987 Constitution has to be reminted and now provides: "The
any organ of government. Only its exercise may be delegated to any of them. In
legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist
our case, the people delegated to Congress the exercise of the sovereign power
of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the
to amend or revise the Constitution. If Congress, as delegate, can exercise this
people by the provision on initiative and referendum."
power to amend or revise the Constitution, can it be argued that the sovereign people
who delegated the power has no power to substantially amend the Constitution by
Prescinding from these baseline premises, the argument that the people through direct action? If the sovereign people do not have this power to make substantial
initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to change the Constitution amendments to the Constitution, what did it delegate to Congress? How can the
turns sovereignty on its head. At the very least, the submission constricts the people lack this fraction of a power to substantially amend the Constitution when by
democratic space for the exercise of the direct sovereignty of the people. It also their sovereignty, all power emanates from them? It will take some mumbo jumbo to
denigrates the sovereign people who they claim can only be trusted with the power to argue that the whole is lesser than its part. Let Sinco clinch the point:83
propose "simple" but not "substantial" amendments to the Constitution. According
 But although possession may not be delegated, the exercise of sovereignty The petitioners cannot be sustained. This issue has long been interred by Sanidad v.
often is. It is delegated to the organs and agents of the state which Commission on Elections, viz:89
constitute its government, for it is only through this instrumentality that the
state ordinarily functions. However ample and complete this delegation
Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the legality of
may be, it is nevertheless subject to withdrawal at any time by the
a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or
state. On this point Willoughby says:
validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely justiciable or non-
political. What is in the heels of the Court is not the wisdom of the act of the
Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete autonomy incumbent President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his
of government and reserve to themselves a right to control of so constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a
slight and so negative a character as to make its exercise a rare constituent assembly. Whether the amending process confers on the
and improbable occurrence; yet so long as such right of control is President that power to propose amendments is therefore a downright
recognized to exist, and the autonomy of the colonies is conceded justiciable question. Should the contrary be found, the actuation of the
to be founded upon a grant and continuing consent of the mother President would merely be a brutum fulmen. If the Constitution provides
countries the sovereignty of those mother countries over them is how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution,
complete and they are to be considered as possessing only can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was
administrative autonomy and not political independence. valid or not.

At the very least, the power to propose substantial amendments to the We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his theory of
Constitution is shared with the people. We should accord the most benign non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority to propose
treatment to the sovereign power of the people to propose substantial amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for submission of
amendments to the Constitution especially when the proposed amendments will the proposals to the people ultimately lie in the judgment of the latter. A
adversely affect the interest of some members of Congress. A contrary clear Descartes fallacy of vicious cycle. Is it not that the people themselves,
approach will suborn the public weal to private interest and worse, will enable by their sovereign act, provided for the authority and procedure for the
Congress (the delegate) to frustrate the power of the people to determine their amending process when they ratified the present Constitution in 1973?
destiny (the principal). Whether, therefore, that constitutional provision has been followed or not is
indisputably a proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves – of
course – who exercise no power of judicial review, but by the Supreme
All told, the teaching of the ages is that constitutional clauses acknowledging the
Court in whom the people themselves vested that power, a power which
right of the people to exercise initiative and referendum are liberally and generously
includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional norms for
construed in favor of the people.84 Initiative and referendum powers must be
amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a
broadly construed to maintain maximum power in the people.85 We followed this
priori not a posteriori, i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the
orientation in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission on Elections.86 There is
people.
not an iota of reason to depart from it.

In the instant case, the Constitution sets in black and white the requirements for the
V
exercise of the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The amendments must be
proposed by the people "upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
The issues at bar are not political questions. number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by
at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this
Petitioners submit that "[t]he validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter."90Compliance with these
people to amend the Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that over six requirements is clearly a justiciable and not a political question. Be that as it may, how
million registered voters indicated their support of the Petition for Initiative, is a purely the issue will be resolved by the people is addressed to them and to them alone.
political question which is beyond even the very long arm of this Honorable Court's
power of judicial review. Whether or not the 1987 Constitution should be amended is a
matter which the people and the people alone must resolve in their sovereign VI
capacity."87 They argue that "[t]he power to propose amendments to the Constitution is
a right explicitly bestowed upon the sovereign people. Hence, the determination by the
Whether the Petition for Initiative filed before the COMELEC complied with
people to exercise their right to propose amendments under the system of initiative is
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. 6735 involves contentious
a sovereign act and falls squarely within the ambit of a 'political question.'"88
issues of fact which should first be resolved by the COMELEC.
Oppositors-intervenors impugn the Petition for Initiative as it allegedly lacks the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino likewise
required number of signatures under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Said submitted to this Court a certification issued by Atty. Stalin A. Baguio, City Election
provision requires that the petition for initiative be supported by at least twelve per Officer IV, Cagayan de Oro City, stating that the list of names appearing on the
cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district signature sheets corresponds to the names of registered voters in the city, thereby
must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters therein. implying that they have not actually verified the signatures.94
Oppositors-intervenors contend that no proper verification of signatures was done
in several legislative districts. They assert that mere verification of the names listed on
The argument against the sufficiency of the signatures is further bolstered by
the signature sheets without verifying the signatures reduces the signatures submitted
Alternative Law Groups, Inc., which submitted copies of similarly worded certifications
for their respective legislative districts to mere scribbles on a piece of paper.
from the election officers from Zamboanga del Sur95 and from Compostela
Valley.96 Alternative Law Groups, Inc., further assails the regularity of the verification
Oppositor-intervenor ONEVOICE, Inc., submitted to this Court a certification dated process as it alleged that verification in some areas were conducted by Barangay
August 23, 2006 issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, Election Officer IV, Third District officials and not by COMELEC election officers. It filed with this Court copies of
and OIC, First and Second District, Davao City, stating that his office has not verified certifications from Sulu and Sultan Kudarat showing that the verification was
the signatures submitted by the proponents of the people's initiative. The certification conducted by local officials instead of COMELEC personnel.97
reads:
Petitioners, on the other hand, maintain that the verification conducted by the
This is to CERTIFY that this office (First, Second and Third District, Davao election officers sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Constitution and the
City) HAS NOT VERIFIED the signatures of registered voters as per law on initiative.
documents submitted in this office by the proponents of the People's
Initiative. Consequently, NO ELECTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR ORDER
Contravening the allegations of oppositors-intervenors on the lack of verification in
ISSUED BY HIGHER SUPERIORSused as basis for such verification of
Davao City and in Polomolok, South Cotabato, petitioner Aumentado claimed that the
signatures.91
same election officers cited by the oppositors-intervenors also issued certifications
showing that they have verified the signatures submitted by the proponents of the
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., among others, further clarified that people's initiative. He presented copies of the certifications issued by Atty. Marlon S.
although Atty. Casquejo and Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Acting Election Officer IV, First Casquejo for the Second and Third Legislative Districts of Davao City stating that he
District, Davao City, later issued certifications stating that the Office of the City verified the signatures of the proponents of the people's initiative. His certification for
Election Officer has examined the list of individuals appearing in the signature the Second District states:
sheets,92 the certifications reveal that the office had verified only the names of the
signatories, but not their signatures. Oppositors-intervenors submit that not only the
This is to CERTIFY that this Office has examined the list of individuals as
names of the signatories should be verified, but also their signatures to ensure the
appearing in the Signature Sheets of the Registered Voters of District II,
identities of the persons affixing their signatures on the signature sheets.
Davao City, submitted on April 7, 2006 by MR. NONATO BOLOS, Punong
Barangay, Centro, Davao City for verification which consists of THIRTY
Oppositor-intervenor Luwalhati Antonino also alleged that petitioners failed to obtain THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (30,662) signatures.
the signatures of at least three per cent (3%) of the total number of registered voters
in the First Legislative District of South Cotabato. For the First District of South
Anent thereto, it appears that of the THIRTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
Cotabato, petitioners submitted 3,182 signatures for General Santos City, 2,186
SIXTY-TWO (30,662) individuals, only TWENTY-TWO THOUSAND SIX
signatures for Tupi, 3,308 signatures for Tampakan and 10,301 signatures for
HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT (22,668) individuals were found to be
Polomolok, or 18,977 signatures out of 359,488 registered voters of said district.
REGISTERED VOTERS, in the Computerized List of Voters of SECOND
Antonino, however, submitted to this Court a copy of the certification by Glory D.
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DAVAO CITY.98
Rubio, Election Officer III, Polomolok, dated May 8, 2006, showing that the signatures
from Polomolok were not verified because the Book of Voters for the whole
municipality was in the custody of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, It was also shown that Atty. Casquejo had issued a clarificatory certification regarding
Branch 38, Polomolok, South Cotabato.93 Excluding the signatures from Polomolok the verification process conducted in Davao City. It reads:
from the total number of signatures from the First District of South Cotabato would
yield only a total of 8,676 signatures which falls short of the three per cent (3%)
Regarding the verification of the signatures of registered voters, this Office
requirement for the district.
has previously issued two (2) separate certifications for the 2nd and
3rd Districts of Davao City on April 20, 2006 and April 26, 2006, respectively,
specifically relating to the voters who supported the people's initiative. It was
 stated therein that the names submitted, comprising 22,668 individual voters (3) In District 2, 29,411 signatures were submitted for verification. 23,521
in the 2nd District and 18,469 individual voters in the 3rd District, were found alleged voters' signatures (80% of those submitted) were rejected outright.
[to] be registered voters of the respective districts mentioned as verified by Of the 5,890 signatures which allegedly passed the COMELEC's initial
this Office based on the Computerized List of Voters. scrutiny, some more will surely fail upon closer examination;

It must be clarified that the August 23, 2006 Certification was issued in error (4) In the absence of clear, transparent, and uniform rules the COMELEC
and by mistake for the reason that the signature verification has not been personnel did not know how to treat the objections and other observations
fully completed as of that date. coming from the camp of Mayor Binay. The oppositors too did not know
where to go for their remedy when the COMELEC personnel merely
"listened" to their objections and other observations. As mentioned earlier,
I hereby CERTIFY that this Office has examined the signatures of the voters
the COMELEC personnel did not even know what to do with the many
as appearing in the signature sheets and has compared these with the
"letters of signature withdrawal" submitted to it;
signatures appearing in the book of voters and computerized list of voters x
x x 99
(5) Signatures of people long dead, in prison, abroad, and other forgeries
appear on the Sigaw ng Bayan Signature Sheets. There is even a 15-year
Petitioner Aumentado also submitted a copy of the certification dated May 8, 2006
old alleged signatory;
issued by Polomolok Election Officer Glory D. Rubio to support their claim that said
officer had conducted a verification of signatures in said area. The certification states:
(6) There are Signature Sheets obviously signed by one person;
This is to certify further, that the total 68,359 registered voters of this
municipality, as of the May 10, 2004 elections, 10,804 names with (7) A Calara M. Roberto and a Roberto M. Calara both allegedly signed the
signatures were submitted for verification and out of which 10,301 were Signature Sheets.101
found to be legitimate voters as per official list of registered voters, which is
equivalent to 15.07% of the total number of registered voters of this
Also, there are allegations that many of the signatories did not understand what they
Municipality.100
have signed as they were merely misled into signing the signature sheets. Opposed to
these allegations are rulings that a person who affixes his signature on a document
In addition to the lack of proper verification of the signatures in numerous legislative raises the presumption that the person so signing has knowledge of what the
districts, allegations of fraud and irregularities in the collection of signatures in Makati document contains. Courts have recognized that there is great value in the stability of
City were cited by Senator Pimentel, among others, to wit: records, so to speak, that no one should commit herself or himself to something in
writing unless she or he is fully aware and cognizant of the effect it may have upon her
on him.102 In the same vein, we have held that a person is presumed to have
(1) No notice was given to the public, for the benefit of those who may be
knowledge of the contents of a document he has signed.103 But as this Court is not a
concerned, by the Makati COMELEC Office that signature sheets have
trier of facts, it cannot resolve the issue.
already been submitted to it for "verification." The camp of Mayor Binay was
able to witness the "verification process" only because of their pro-active
stance; In sum, the issue of whether the petitioners have complied with the constitutional
requirement that the petition for initiative be signed by at least twelve per cent (12%)
of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
(2) In District 1, the proponents of charter change submitted 43,405
represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters therein, involves
signatures for verification. 36,219 alleged voters' signatures (83% of the
contentious facts. Its resolution will require presentation of evidence and their
number of signatures submitted) were rejected outright. 7,186 signatures
calibration by the COMELEC according to its rules. During the oral argument on
allegedly "passed" COMELEC's initial scrutiny. However, upon examination
this case, the COMELEC, through Director Alioden Dalaig of its Law
of the signature sheets by Atty. Mar-len Abigail Binay, the said 7,186
Department, admitted that it has not examined the documents submitted by the
signatures could not be accounted for. Atty. Binay manually counted 2,793
petitioners in support of the petition for initiative, as well as the documents filed by the
signatures marked with the word "OK" and 3,443 signatures marked with a
oppositors to buttress their claim that the required number of signatures has not been
check, giving only 6,236 "apparently verified signatures." Before the
met. The exchanges during the oral argument likewise clearly show the need for
COMELEC officer issued the Certification, Atty. Binay already submitted to
further clarification and presentation of evidence to prove certain material facts.104
the said office not less than 55 letters of "signature withdrawal," but no
action was ever taken thereon;
The only basis used by the COMELEC to dismiss the petition for initiative was this have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation" and
Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC that R.A. 6735 was insufficient. It has yet to now to interpose my dissent thereto.
rule on the sufficiency of the form and substance of the petition. I respectfully
submit that this issue should be properly litigated before the COMELEC where
xxx
both parties will be given full opportunity to prove their allegations.

WHEREFORE, I vote to dismiss the Delfin petition.

For the same reasons, the sufficiency of the Petition for Initiative and its
compliance with the requirements of R.A. 6735 on initiative and its implementing
rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at the first instance, as it I vote, however, to declare R.A. No. 6735 as adequately providing the
is the body that is mandated by the Constitution to administer all laws and regulations legal basis for the exercise by the people of their right to amend the
relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.105 Constitution through initiative proceedings and to uphold the validity of
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 insofar as it does not sanction the filing of
the initiatory petition for initiative proceedings to amend the Constitution
VII
without the required names and/or signatures of at least 12% of all the
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due course to at least 3% of the registered voters therein. (emphasis supplied)
the Lambino and Aumentado petition.
Justice Vitug remained steadfast in refusing to rule on the sufficiency of R.A. 6735. In
In denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition, COMELEC relied on fine, the final vote on whether R.A. 6735 is a sufficient law was 6-6 with one (1)
this Court's ruling in Santiagopermanently enjoining it from entertaining or taking justice inhibiting himself and another justice refusing to rule on the ground that the
cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a issue was not ripe for adjudication.
sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
system.
It ought to be beyond debate that the six (6) justices who voted that R.A. 6735 is an
insufficient law failed to establish a doctrine that could serve as a precedent. Under
Again, I respectfully submit that COMELEC's reliance on Santiago constitutes grave any alchemy of law, a deadlocked vote of six (6) is not a majority and a non-majority
abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Santiago case did not cannot write a rule with precedential value. The opinion of the late Justice Ricardo J.
establish the firm doctrine that R.A. 6735 is not a sufficient law to implement the Francisco is instructive, viz:
constitutional provision allowing people's initiative to amend the Constitution. To
recapitulate, the records show that in the original decision, eight (8)
As it stands, of the thirteen justices who took part in the deliberations on the
justices106 voted that R.A. 6735 was not a sufficient law; five (5) justices107 voted that
issue of whether the motion for reconsideration of the March 19, 1997
said law was sufficient; and one (1) justice108 abstained from voting on the issue
decision should be granted or not, only the following justices sided with Mr.
holding that unless and until a proper initiatory pleading is filed, the said issue is not
Justice Davide, namely: Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Regalado,
ripe for adjudication.109
Romero, Bellosillo and Kapunan. Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza,
Hermosisima, Panganiban and the undersigned voted to grant the motion;
Within the reglementary period, the respondents filed their motion for reconsideration. while Justice Vitug "maintained his opinion that the matter was not ripe for
On June 10, 1997, the Court denied the motion. Only thirteen (13) justices resolved judicial adjudication." In other words, only five, out of the other twelve
the motion for Justice Torres inhibited himself.110 Of the original majority of eight (8) justices, joined Mr. Justice Davide's June 10, 1997 ponencia finding R.A.
justices, only six (6) reiterated their ruling that R.A. 6735 was an insufficient law. No. 6735 unconstitutional for its failure to pass the so called "completeness
Justice Hermosisima, originally part of the majority of eight (8) justices, changed his and sufficiency standards" tests. The "concurrence of a majority of the
vote and joined the minority of five (5) justices. He opined without any equivocation members who actually took part in the deliberations" which Article VII,
that R.A. 6735 was a sufficient law, thus: Section 4(2) of the Constitution requires to declare a law unconstitutional
was, beyond dispute, not complied with. And even assuming, for the sake of
argument, that the constitutional requirement on the concurrence of the
It is one thing to utter a happy phrase from a protected cluster; another to
"majority" was initially reached in the March 19, 1997 ponencia, the same is
think under fire – to think for action upon which great interests depend." So
inconclusive as it was still open for review by way of a motion for
said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and so I am guided as I reconsider my
reconsideration. It was only on June 10, 1997 that the constitutionality of
concurrence to the holding of the majority that "R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate
R.A. No. 6735 was settled with finality, sans the constitutionally required
to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and to
"majority." The Court's declaration, therefore, is manifestly grafted with
 infirmity and wanting in force necessitating, in my view, the reexamination of such as the putative father's would be governed by the state's one-year statute of
the Court's decision in G.R. No. 127325. It behooves the Court "not to tarry limitations, was not entitled to stare decisis effect. In T.N.F., a majority of the
any longer" nor waste this opportunity accorded by this new petition (G.R. justices sitting did not agree on a common rationale, as two of four participating
No. 129754) to relieve the Court's pronouncement from constitutional justices agreed that the state's one-year statute of limitations applied, one justice
infirmity. concurred in the result only, and one justice dissented. There was no "narrower"
reasoning agreed upon by all three affirming justices. The concurring justice
expressed no opinion on the statute of limitations issue, and in agreeing with the
The jurisprudence that an equally divided Court can never set a precedent is well-
result, he reasoned that ICWA did not give the plaintiff standing to sue.115 The two-
settled. Thus, in the United States, an affirmance in the Federal Supreme Court upon
justice plurality, though agreeing that the state's one-year statute of limitations applied,
equal division of opinion is not an authority for the determination of other cases, either
specifically disagreed with the concurring justice on the standing issue.116 Because a
in that Court or in the inferior federal courts. In Neil v. Biggers,111 which was
majority of the participating justices in T.N.F. did not agree on any one ground for
a habeas corpusstate proceeding by a state prisoner, the U.S. Supreme Court held
affirmance, it was not accorded stare decisis effect by the state Supreme Court.
that its equally divided affirmance of petitioner's state court conviction was not an
"actual adjudication" barring subsequent consideration by the district court on habeas
corpus. In discussing the non-binding effect of an equal division ruling, the Court The Supreme Court of Michigan likewise ruled that the doctrine of stare decisis does
reviewed the history of cases explicating the disposition "affirmed by an equally not apply to plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices participating
divided Court:" agree to the reasoning and as such are not authoritative interpretations binding on the
Supreme Court.117
In this light, we review our cases explicating the disposition "affirmed by an
equally divided Court." On what was apparently the first occasion of an In State ex rel. Landis v. Williams,118 the Supreme Court of Florida, in an equally
equal division, The Antelope, 10 Wheat, 66, 6 L. Ed. 268 (1825), the Court divided opinion on the matter,119 held that chapter 15938, Acts of 1933 must be
simply affirmed on the point of division without much discussion. Id., at 126- allowed to stand, dismissing a quo warranto suit without prejudice. The Court held:
127. Faced with a similar division during the next Term, the Court again
affirmed, Chief Justice Marshall explaining that "the principles of law which
In a cause of original jurisdiction in this court a statute cannot be declared
have been argued, cannot be settled; but the judgment is affirmed, the court
unconstitutional nor its enforcement nor operation judicially interfered with,
being divided in opinion upon it." Etting v. Bank of United States, 11
except by the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Supreme
Wheat. 59, 78, 6 L. Ed. 419 (1826). As was later elaborated in such cases,
Court sitting in the cause wherein the constitutionality of the statute is
it is the appellant or petitioner who asks the Court to overturn a lower court's
brought in question or judicial relief sought against its enforcement. Section
decree. "If the judges are divided, the reversal cannot be had, for no order
4 of Article 5, state Constitution.
can be made. The judgment of the court below, therefore, stands in full
force. It is indeed, the settled practice in such case to enter a judgment of
affirmance; but this is only the most convenient mode of expressing the fact Therefore in this case the concurrence of a majority of the members of this
that the cause is finally disposed of in conformity with the action of the court court in holding unconstitutional said chapter 15938, supra, not having been
below, and that that court can proceed to enforce its judgment. The legal had, it follows that the statute in controversy must be allowed to stand and
effect would be the same if the appeal, or writ of error, were accordingly be permitted to be enforced as a presumptively valid act of the
dismissed." Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 112, 19 L. Ed. 154 Legislature, and that this proceeding in quo warranto must be dismissed
(1869). Nor is an affirmance by an equally divided Court entitled to without prejudice. Spencer v. Hunt (Fla.) 147 So. 282. This decision is not
precedential weight. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 264, 80 S. to be regarded as a judicial precedent on the question of constitutional law
Ct. 1463, 1464, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1708 (1960).xxx" involved concerning the constitutionality vel non of chapter 15938. State ex
rel. Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51.
This doctrine established in Neil has not been overturned and has been cited with
approval in a number of subsequent cases,112 and has been applied in various state Quo warranto proceeding dismissed without prejudice by equal division of
jurisdictions. the court on question of constitutionality of statute involved.

In the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Erin G., a Minor Child,113 wherein a In U.S. v. Pink,120 the Court held that the affirmance by the U.S. Supreme Court by
putative father sought to set aside a decree granting petition for adoption of an Indian an equally divided vote of a decision of the New York Court of Appeals that property
child on grounds of noncompliance with the requirements of Indian Child Welfare Act of a New York branch of a Russian insurance company was outside the scope of the
(ICWA), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that its decision in In re Adoption of Russian Soviet government's decrees terminating existence of insurance companies
T.N.F. (T.N.F.),114 which lacked majority opinion supporting holding that an action in Russia and seizing their assets, while conclusive and binding upon the parties as
respects the controversy in that action, did not constitute an authoritative under the Constitution: the requirement that twelve per cent (12%) of all the registered
"precedent." voters in the country wherein each legislative district is represented by at least three
per cent (3%) of all the registered voters therein was not complied with. For this
reason, we ruled unanimously that it was not the initiatory petition which the
In Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.,121 the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit, in
COMELEC could properly take cognizance of. In contrast, the present petition
holding that printed lyrics which had the same meter as plaintiffs' lyrics, but which
appears to be accompanied by the signatures of the required number of registered
were in form a parody of the latter, did not constitute infringement of plaintiffs'
voters. Thus, while the Delfin Petition prayed that an Order be issued fixing the time
copyrights, ruled that the prior case of Benny v. Loew's, Inc.,122 which was affirmed
and dates for signature gathering all over the country, the Lambino and Aumentado
by an equally divided court, was not binding upon it, viz:
petition, prayed for the calling of a plebiscite to allow the Filipino people to express
their sovereign will on the proposition. COMELEC cannot close its eyes to these
Under the precedents of this court, and, as seems justified by reason as material differences.
well as by authority, an affirmance by an equally divided court is as between
the parties, a conclusive determination and adjudication of the matter
Plainly, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
adjudged; but the principles of law involved not having been agreed upon by
jurisdiction in denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition on the basis
a majority of the court sitting prevents the case from becoming an authority
of its mistaken notion that Santiago established the doctrine that R.A. 6735 was an
for the determination of other cases, either in this or in inferior courts.123
insufficient law. As aforestressed, that ruling of six (6) justices who do not represent
the majority lacks precedential status and is non-binding on the present petitioners.
In Perlman v. First National Bank of Chicago,124 the Supreme Court of Illinois
dismissed the appeal as it was unable to reach a decision because two judges
The Court's dismissal of the PIRMA petition is of no moment. Suffice it to say that we
recused themselves and the remaining members of the Court were so divided, it was
dismissed the PIRMA petition on the principle of res judicata. This was stressed by
impossible to secure the concurrence of four judges as is constitutionally required.
former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., viz:
The Court followed the procedure employed by the U.S. Supreme Court when the
Justices of that Court are equally divided, i.e. affirm the judgment of the court that was
before it for review. The affirmance is a conclusive determination and adjudication as The following are my reasons as to why this petition must be summarily dismissed:
between the parties to the immediate case, it is not authority for the determination of
other cases, either in the Supreme Court or in any other court. It is not "entitled to
First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed here
precedential weight." The legal effect of such an affirmance is the same as if the
and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997) may
appeal was dismissed.125
plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially identical to the
latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the principal parties and
The same rule is settled in the English Courts. Under English precedents,126 an inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable, parties in the present petition.
affirmance by an equally divided Court is, as between the parties, a conclusive But plainly, the same issues and reliefs are raised and prayed for in both
determination and adjudication of the matter adjudged; but the principles of law cases.
involved not having been agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting prevents the
case from becoming an authority for the determination of other cases, either in that or
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR REFORM,
in inferior courts.
MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and spouses ALBERTO
PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self-described as "a non-
After a tour of these cases, we can safely conclude that the prevailing doctrine is that, stock, non-profit organization duly organized and existing under Philippine
the affirmance by an equally divided court merely disposes of the present controversy laws with office address at Suite 403, Fedman Suites, 199 Salcedo Street,
as between the parties and settles no issue of law; the affirmance leaves unsettled the Legaspi Village, Makati City," with "ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN
principle of law presented by the case and is not entitled to precedential weight or PEDROSA" as among its "officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were
value. In other words, the decision only has res judicata and not stare decisis effect. It made respondents as founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the
is not conclusive and binding upon other parties as respects the controversies in other body of the petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a
actions. people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the
PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of PIRMA.
Let us now examine the patent differences between the petition at bar and the Delfin
Petition in the Santiago case which will prevent the Santiago ruling from binding the The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly
present petitioners. To start with, the parties are different. More importantly, the Delfin represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In short,
Petition did not contain the signatures of the required number of registered voters PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his petition that
 he was a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, and A party may not evade the application of the rule of res judicata
under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that said movement was by simply including additional parties in the subsequent case or
"[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and by not including as parties in the later case persons who were
Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their Comment to the petition in Santiago, parties in the previous suit. The joining of new parties does not
the PEDROSAS did not deny that they were founding members of PIRMA, remove the case from the operation of the rule on res judicata if
and by their arguments, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that the party against whom the judgment is offered in evidence was a
they had joined Delfin or his cause. party in the first action; otherwise, the parties might renew the
litigation by simply joining new parties.
No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA and the
PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the operation of the The fact that some persons or entities joined as parties in the PIRMA
principle of res judicata, which needs no further elaboration. (emphasis petition but were not parties in Santiago v. COMELEC does not affect the
supplied) operation of the prior judgment against those parties to the PIRMA Petition
who were likewise parties in Santiago v. COMELEC, as they are bound by
such prior judgment.
Justice Josue N. Bellosillo adds:

Needless to state, the dismissal of the PIRMA petition which was based on res
The essential requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment must be
judicata binds only PIRMA but not the petitioners.
final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and
(4) there must be between the first and second actions identity of parties, VIII
identity of subject matter, and identity of causes of action.127
Finally, let the people speak.
Applying these principles in the instant case, we hold that all the elements of
res judicata are present. For sure, our Decision in Santiago v. COMELEC,
"It is a Constitution we are expounding" solemnly intoned the great Chief Justice
which was promulgated on 19 March 1997, and the motions for
John Marshall of the United States in the 1819 case of M'cCulloch v.
reconsideration thereof denied with finality on 10 June 1997, is undoubtedly
Maryland.129 Our Constitution is not a mere collection of slogans. Every syllable of our
final. The said Decision was rendered by this Court which had jurisdiction
Constitution is suffused with significance and requires our full fealty. Indeed, the rule
over the petition for prohibition under Rule 65. Our judgment therein was on
of law will wither if we allow the commands of our Constitution to underrule us.
the merits, i.e., rendered only after considering the evidence presented by
the parties as well as their arguments in support of their respective claims
and defenses. And, as between Santiago v. COMELEC case and The first principle enthroned by blood in our Constitution is the sovereignty of the
COMELEC Special Matter No. 97-001 subject of the present petition, there people. We ought to be concerned with this first principle, i.e., the inherent right of the
is identity of parties, subject matter and causes of action. sovereign people to decide whether to amend the Constitution. Stripped of its
abstractions, democracy is all about who has the sovereign right to make decisions
for the people and our Constitution clearly and categorically says it is no other than
Petitioners contend that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC are not
the people themselves from whom all government authority emanates. This right of
identical to the parties in the instant case as some of the petitioners in the
the people to make decisions is the essence of sovereignty, and it cannot
latter case were not parties to the former case. However, a perusal of the
receive any minimalist interpretation from this Court. If there is any principle in the
records reveals that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC included the
Constitution that cannot be diluted and is non-negotiable, it is this sovereign right of
COMELEC, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa, in
the people to decide.
their capacities as founding members of PIRMA, as well as Atty. Pete
Quirino-Quadra, another founding member of PIRMA, representing PIRMA,
as respondents. In the instant case, Atty. Delfin was never removed, and This Court should always be in lockstep with the people in the exercise of their
the spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa were joined by several others sovereignty. Let them who will diminish or destroy the sovereign right of the people to
who were made parties to the petition. In other words, what petitioners did decide be warned. Let not their sovereignty be diminished by those who belittle their
was to make it appear that the PIRMA Petition was filed by an entirely brains to comprehend changes in the Constitution as if the people themselves are not
separate and distinct group by removing some of the parties involved in the source and author of our Constitution. Let not their sovereignty be destroyed by
Santiago v. COMELEC and adding new parties. But as we said in Geralde the masters of manipulation who misrepresent themselves as the spokesmen of the
v. Sabido128- people.
Be it remembered that a petition for people's initiative that complies with the GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
requirement that it "must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and
voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA,
voters therein" is but the first step in a long journey towards the amendment of the ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO,
Constitution. Lest it be missed, the case at bar involves but a proposal to amend the PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
Constitution. The proposal will still be debated by the people and at this time, there ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
is yet no fail-safe method of telling what will be the result of the debate. There will still BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
be a last step to the process of amendment which is the ratification of the proposal by GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR., and
a majority of the people in a plebiscite called for the purpose. Only when the SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P.
proposal is approved by a majority of the people in the plebiscite will it become EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M.
an amendment to the Constitution. All the way, we cannot tie the tongues of the LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO,
people. It is the people who decide for the people are not an obscure footnote in INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU
our Constitution. CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA
A. LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR,
The people's voice is sovereign in a democracy. Let us hear them. Let us heed
JR., Oppositors-Intervenors;
them. Let us not only sing paens to the people's sovereignty. Yes, it is neither
too soon nor too late to let the people speak.
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006
IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the resolution of the
Commission on Elections dated August 31, 2006, denying due course to the Petition MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
for Initiative filed by Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in their own behalf and SAGUISAG, Petitioners 
together with some 6.3 million registered voters who affixed their signatures thereon vs. 
and to REMAND the petition at bar to the Commission on Elections for further COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
proceedings. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe
and Peter Doe, Respondents.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

____________________ SEPARATE OPINION

EN BANC QUISUMBING, J.:

G. R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006 1. With due respect to the main opinion written by J. Antonio T. Carpio, and the
dissent of J. Reynato S. Puno, I view the matter before us in this petition as one
mainly involving a complex political question.1 While admittedly the present
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 Constitution lays down certain numerical requirements for the conduct of a People's
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners  Initiative, such as the percentages of signatures – being 12% of the total number of
vs. registered voters, provided each legislative district is represented by at least 3% –
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent; TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF they are not the main points of controversy. Stated in simple terms, what this Court
THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, must decide is whether the Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion
RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE when it denied the petition to submit the proposed changes to the Constitution directly
TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and to the vote of the sovereign people in a plebiscite. Technical questions, e.g. whether
VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. petitioners should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration before coming to us, are of
MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, no moment in the face of the transcendental issue at hand. What deserve our full
JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., ALTERNATIVE LAW attention are the issues concerning the applicable rules as well as statutory and
GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, constitutional limitations on the conduct of the People's Initiative.
KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE,
2. It must be stressed that no less than the present Constitution itself empowers the
people to "directly" propose amendments through their own "initiative." The subject of LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
the instant petition is by way of exercising that initiative in order to change our form of Associate Justice
government from presidential to parliamentary. Much has been written about the
fulsome powers of the people in a democracy. But the most basic concerns the idea
that sovereignty resides in the people and that all government authority emanates ____________________
from them. Clearly, by the power of popular initiative, the people have the sovereign
right to change the present Constitution. Whether the initial moves are done by a EN BANC
Constitutional Convention, a Constitutional Assembly, or a People's Initiative, in the
end every amendment -- however insubstantial or radical -- must be submitted to a
plebiscite. Thus, it is the ultimate will of the people expressed in the ballot, that G. R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006
matters.2
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
3. I cannot fault the COMELEC, frankly, for turning down the petition of Messrs. REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners,
Lambino, et al. For the COMELEC was just relying on precedents, with the common vs. 
understanding that, pursuant to the cases of Santiago v. COMELEC3 and PIRMA v. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
COMELEC,4 the COMELEC had been permanently enjoined from entertaining any
petition for a people's initiative to amend the Constitution by no less than this Court. In G. R. No. 174299             October 25, 2006
denying due course below to Messrs. Lambino and Aumentado's petition, I could not
hold the COMELEC liable for grave abuse of discretion when they merely relied on
this Court's unequivocal rulings. Of course, the Santiago and the PIRMA decisions MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q.
could be reviewed and reversed by this Court, as J. Reynato S. Puno submits now. SAGUISAG, petitioners,
But until the Court does so, the COMELEC was duty bound to respect and obey this vs. 
Court's mandate, for the rule of law to prevail. HE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe
4. Lastly, I see no objection to the remand to the COMELEC of the petition of Messrs. and Peter Doe, respondents.
Lambino and Aumentado and 6.327 million voters, for further examination of the
factual requisites before a plebiscite is conducted. On page 4 of the assailed
Resolution of the respondent dated August 31, 2006, the COMELEC tentatively x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
expressed its view that "even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet
the required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters", the DISSENTING OPINION
COMELEC could not give the Petition due course because of our view that R.A. No.
6735 was inadequate. That, however, is now refuted by Mr. Justice Puno's scholarly
ponencia. Now that we have revisited the Santiago v. COMELEC decision, there is CORONA, J.:
only one clear task for COMELEC. In my view, the only doable option left for the
COMELEC, once factual issues are heard and resolved, is to give due course to the The life of the law is not logic but experience.1 Our collective experience as a nation
petition for the initiative to amend our Constitution so that the sovereign people can breathes life to our system of laws, especially to the Constitution. These cases
vote on whether a parliamentary system of government should replace the present promise to significantly contribute to our collective experience as a nation. Fealty to
presidential system. the primary constitutional principle that the Philippines is not merely a republican State
but a democratic one as well behooves this Court to affirm the right of the people to
5. I am therefore in favor of letting the sovereign people speak on their choice of the participate directly in the process of introducing changes to their fundamental law.
form of government as a political question soonest. (This I say without fear of media These petitions present such an opportunity. Thus, this is an opportune time for this
opinion that our judicial independence has been tainted or imperiled, for it is not.) Court to uphold the sovereign rights of the people.
Thus I vote for the remand of the petition. Thereafter, as prayed for, COMELEC
should forthwith certify the Petition as sufficient in form and substance and call for the I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato Puno who has sufficiently explained
holding of a plebiscite within the period mandated by the basic law, not earlier than the rationale for upholding the people's initiative. However, I wish to share my own
sixty nor later than ninety days from said certification. Only a credible plebiscite itself, thoughts on certain matters I deem material and significant.
conducted peacefully and honestly, can bring closure to the instant political
controversy.
Santiago Does Not Apply to This Case But Only to the 1997 Delfin Petition People's Initiative Should Not 
Be Subjected to Conditions
The COMELEC denied the petition for initiative filed by petitioners purportedly on the
basis of this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC2 that: (1) RA 6753 was People's initiative is an option reserved by the people for themselves exclusively.
inadequate to cover the system of initiative regarding amendments to the Constitution Neither Congress nor the COMELEC has the power to curtail or defeat this exclusive
and (2) the COMELEC was permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking power of the people to change the Constitution. Neither should the exercise of this
cognizance of any petition for initiative regarding amendments to the Constitution until power be made subject to any conditions, as some would have us accept.
a sufficient law was validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the initiative
provision.
Oppositors to the people's initiative point out that this Court ruled in Santiago that RA
6735 was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
However, Santiago should not apply to this case but only to the petition of Delfin in Constitution and, thus, no law existed to enable the people to directly propose
1997. It would be unreasonable to make it apply to all petitions which were yet changes to the Constitution. This reasoning is seriously objectionable.
unforeseen in 1997. The fact is that Santiago was focused on the Delfin petition alone.
The pronouncement on the insufficiency of RA 6735 was, to my mind, out of place. It
Those who oppose the exercise of the people's right to initiate changes to the was unprecedented and dangerously transgressed the domain reserved to the
Constitution via initiative claim that Santiago barred any and all future petitions for legislature.
initiative by virtue of the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata. The argument is
flawed.
While the legislature is authorized to establish procedures for determining the validity
and sufficiency of a petition to amend the constitution,5 that procedure cannot
The ponencia of Mr. Justice Puno has amply discussed the arguments relating unnecessarily restrict the initiative privilege.6 In the same vein, this Court cannot
to stare decisis. Hence, I will address the argument from the viewpoint of res judicata. unnecessarily and unreasonably restrain the people's right to directly propose
changes to the Constitution by declaring a law inadequate simply for lack of a sub-
heading and other grammatical but insignificant omissions. Otherwise, the
Res judicata is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent
constitutional intent to empower the people will be severely emasculated, if not
jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their privies
rendered illusory.
and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action involving the
same claim, demand or cause of action.3 It has the following requisites: (1) the former
judgment or order must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having People's Right and Power to Propose Changes to the Constitution Directly
jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; (3) it must be a judgment or order Should not be Unreasonably Curtailed
on the merits and (4) there must be identity of parties, of subject matter, and of cause
of action between the first and second actions.4
If Congress and a constitutional convention, both of which are
mere representative bodies, can propose changes to the Constitution, there is no
There is no identity of parties in Santiago and the instant case. While the COMELEC reason why the supreme body politic itself – the people – may not do so directly.
was also the respondent in Santiago, the petitioners in that case and those in this
case are different. More significantly, there is no identity of causes of action in the two
Resort to initiative to amend the constitution or enact a statute is an exercise of "direct
cases. Santiago involved amendments to Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of
democracy" as opposed to "representative democracy." The system of initiative allows
Article VII and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution while the present petition
citizens to directly propose constitutional amendments for the general electorate to
seeks to amend Sections 1to 7 of Article VI and Sections 1 to 4 of the 1987
adopt or reject at the polls, particularly in a plebiscite. While representative
Constitution. Clearly, therefore, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
government was envisioned to "refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them
when it ruled that the present petition for initiative was barred by Santiago and, on that
through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the
ground, dismissed the petition.
true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least
likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations,"7 the exercise of "direct
The present petition and that in Santiago are materially different from each other. democracy" through initiative reserves direct lawmaking power to the people by
They are not based on the same facts. There is thus no cogent reason to frustrate and providing them a method to make new laws via the constitution, or alternatively by
defeat the present direct action of the people to exercise their sovereignty by enacting statutes.8 Efforts of the represented to control their representatives through
proposing changes to their fundamental law. initiative have been described as curing the problems of democracy with more
democracy.9
The Constitution celebrates the sovereign right of the people and declares that D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANOTNIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL
"sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President,
them."10 Unless the present petition is granted, this constitutional principle will be MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,Oppositors-Intervenors;
nothing but empty rhetoric, devoid of substance for those whom it seeks to empower.
G.R. No. 174299 entitled
The right of the people to pass legislation and to introduce changes to the Constitution
is a fundamental right and must be jealously guarded.11 The people should be allowed
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
to directly seek redress of the problems of society and representative democracy with
SAGUISAG, Petitioners 
the constitutional tools they have reserved for their use alone.
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174513. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe
and Peter Doe, Respondents.
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

____________________ SEPARATE OPINION

EN BANC TINGA, J:

G. R. No. 174153 I join in full the opinion of Senior Associate Justice Puno. Its enviable sang-froid,
inimitable lucidity, and luminous scholarship are all so characteristic of the author that
it is hardly a waste of pen and ink to write separately if only to express my deep
RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 admiration for his disquisition. It is compelling because it derives from the fundamental
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners  democratic ordinance that sovereignty resides in the people, and it seeks to effectuate
vs. that principle through the actual empowerment of the sovereign people. Justice Puno's
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent;  opinion will in the short term engender reactions on its impact on present attempts to
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. ADAMAT, amend the Constitution, but once the political passion of the times have been shorn, it
ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT will endure as an unequivocal message to the taongbayan that they are to be trusted
FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS to chart the course of their future.
ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors;
ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L.
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. Nothing that I inscribe will improve on Justice Puno's opinion. I only write separately to
MEDINA, JR., ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO- highlight a few other points which also inform my vote to grant the petitions.
QUADRA, BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL
BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, I.
ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, JOJO
PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, LORETTA
ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS- I agree with Justice Puno that Santiago v. COMELEC1 and PIRMA v. COMELEC2 had
BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION not acquired value as precedent and should be reversed in any case. I add that the
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, Court has long been mindful of the rule that it necessitates a majority, and not merely
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., a plurality, in order that a decision can stand as precedent. That principle has
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY informed the members of this Court as they deliberated and voted upon contentious
LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, petitions, even if this consideration is not ultimately reflected on the final draft released
JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, for promulgation.
ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and
PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON
The curious twist to Santiago and PIRMA is that for all the denigration heaped upon The Court has consistently held in cases such as Abes v. COMELEC12, Sanchez v.
Rep. Act No. 6735 in those cases, the Court did not invalidate any provision of the COMELEC13, and Sambarani v. COMELEC14 that "the functions of the COMELEC
statute. All the Court said then was that the law was "inadequate". Since this under the Constitution are essentially executive and administrative in nature".15 More
"inadequate" law was not annulled by the Court, or repealed by Congress, it remained pertinently, in Buac v. COMELEC16, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the
part of the statute books.3 COMELEC relative to the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a
plebiscite fell under the jurisdiction of the poll body under its constitutional mandate "to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a xxx
I maintain that even if Rep. Act No. 6735 is truly "inadequate", the Court
plebiscite".17
in Santiago should not have simply let the insufficiency stand given that it was not
minded to invalidate the law itself. Article 9 of the Civil Code provides that "[n]o judge
or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or Rep. Act No. 6735 is a law relative to the conduct of a plebiscite. The primary task of
insufficiency of the laws."4As explained by the Court recently in Reyes v. Lim,5 "[Article the COMELEC under Rep. Act No. 6735 is to enforce and administer the said law,
9] calls for the application of equity, which[, in the revered Justice Cardozo's words,] functions that are essentially executive and administrative in nature. Even the
'fills the open spaces in the law.'"6 Certainly, any court that refuses to rule on an action subsequent duty of the COMELEC of determining the sufficiency of the petitions after
premised on Rep. Act No. 6735 on the ground that the law is "inadequate" would have they have been filed is administrative in character. By any measure, the COMELEC's
been found in grave abuse of discretion. The previous failure by the Court to "fill the failure to perform its executive and administrative functions under Rep. Act No. 6735
open spaces" in Santiago further highlights that decision's status as an unfortunate constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
aberration.
III.
I am mindful of the need to respect stare decisis, to the point of having recently
decried a majority ruling that was clearly minded to reverse several precedents but
It has been argued that the subject petitions for initiative are barred under Republic
refused to explicitly say so.7 Yet the principle is not immutable.8The passionate words
Act No. 6735 as they allegedly embrace more than one subject. Section 10 of Rep.
of Chief Justice Panganiban in Osmeña v. COMELEC9 bear quoting:
Act No. 6735 classifies as a "prohibited measure," a petition submitted to the
electorate that embraces more than one subject.18 On this point, reliance is apparently
Before I close, a word about stare decisis. In the present case, the Court is placed on the array of provisions which are to be affected by the amendments
maintaining the ad ban to be consistent with its previous holding in NPC vs. proposed in the initiative petition.
Comelec. Thus, respondent urges reverence for the stability of judicial
doctrines. I submit, however, that more important than consistency and
Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is a reflection of the long-enshrined constitutional
stability are the verity, integrity and correctness of jurisprudence. As Dean
principle that the laws passed by Congress "shall embrace only one subject which
Roscoe Pound explains, "Law must be stable but it cannot stand still."
shall be expressed in the title thereof".19 The one-subject requirement under the
Verily, it must correct itself and move in cadence with the march of the
Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane to
electronic age. Error and illogic should not be perpetuated. After all, the
the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent with or
Supreme Court, in many cases, has deviated from stare decisis and
foreign to the general subject and title.20 An act having a single general subject,
reversed previous doctrines and decisions.10 It should do no less in the
indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter how diverse
present case.11
they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general
subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the
Santiago established a tenet that the Supreme Court may affirm a law as method and means of carrying out the general object.21
constitutional, yet declare its provisions as inadequate to accomplish the legislative
purpose, then barred the enforcement of the law. That ruling is erroneous, illogical,
The precedents governing the one-subject, one-title rule under the Constitution should
and should not be perpetuated.
apply as well in the interpretation of Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735. For as long as it
can be established that an initiative petition embraces a single general subject, the
II. petition may be allowed no matter the number of constitutional provisions proposed for
amendment if the amendments are germane to the subject of the petition.
Following Justice Puno's clear demonstration why Santiago should not be respected
as precedent, I agree that the COMELEC's failure to take cognizance of the petitions Both the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Lambino initiative petitions expressly propose the
as mandated by Rep. Act No. 6735 constitutes grave abuse of discretion correctible changing of the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-
through the petitions before this Court. parliamentary. Such a proposal may strike as comprehensive, necessitating as it will
the reorganization of the executive and legislative branches of government, liberal interpretation of the one-subject, one-title rule.22 There is no cause to adopt a
nevertheless it ineluctably encompasses only a single general subject still. stricter interpretative rule with regard to the one-subject rule under Section 10 of Rep.
Act No. 6735.
The 1987 Constitution (or any constitution for that matter) is susceptible to division
into several general spheres. To cite the broadest of these spheres by way of IV.
example, Article III enumerates the guaranteed rights of the people under the Bill of
Rights; Articles VI, VII and VIII provide for the organizational structure of government;
During the hearing on the petitions, the argument was raised that provisions of the
while Articles II, XII, XIII & XIV, XV and XVI enunciate policy principles of the State.
Constitution amended through initiative would not have the benefit of a reference
What would clearly be prohibited under Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is an initiative
source from the record of a deliberative body such as Congress or a constitutional
petition that seeks to amend provisions which do not belong to the same sphere. For
convention. It was submitted that this consideration influenced the Constitutional
example, had a single initiative petition sought not only to change the form of
Commission as it drafted Section 2, Article XVII, which expressly provided that only
government from presidential to parliamentary but also to amend the Bill of Rights,
amendments, and not revisions, may be the subject of initiative petitions.
said petition would arguably have been barred under Section 10, as that petition
ostensibly embraces more than one subject, with each subject bearing no functional
relation to the other. But that is not the case with the present initiative petitions. This argument clearly proceeds from a premise that accords supreme value to the
record of deliberations of a constitutional convention or commission in the
interpretation of the charter. Yet if the absence of a record of deliberations stands as
Neither can it be argued that the initiative petitions embrace more than one subject
so serious a flaw as to invalidate or constrict processes which change a constitution or
since the proposed amendments seek to affect two separate branches of government.
its provisions, then the entire initiative process authorized by the Constitution should
The very purpose of the initiative petitions is to fuse the powers of the executive and
be scarlet-marked as well.
legislative branches of government; hence, the amendments intended to effect such
general intent necessarily affects the two branches. If it required that to propose a shift
in government from presidential to parliamentary, the amendments to Article VII Even if this position can be given any weight in the consideration of these petitions, I
(Executive Branch) have to be segregated to a different petition from that which would would like to point out that resort to the records of deliberations is only one of many
propose amendments to Article VI (Legislative Branch), then the result would be two aids to constitutional construction. For one, it should be abhorred if the provision
initiative petitions ─ both subject to separate authentications, consideration and even under study is itself clear, plain, and free from ambiguity. As the Court held in Civil
plebiscites, all to effect one general proposition. This scenario, which entertains the Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary:23
possibility that one petition would ultimately fail while the other succeeds, could thus
allow for the risk that the executive branch could be abolished without transferring
While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and
executive power to the legislative branch. An absurd result, indeed.
proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason
and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only
I am not even entirely comfortable with the theoretical underpinnings of Section 10. when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms
The Constitution indubitably grants the people the right to seek amendment of the of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional
charter through initiative, and mandates Congress to "provide for the implementation convention "are of value as showing the views of the individual members,
of the exercise of this right." In doing so, Congress may not restrict the right to and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as to
initiative on grounds that are not provided for in the Constitution. If for example the the views of the large majority who did not talk . . . We think it safer to
implementing law also provides that certain provisions of the Constitution may not be construe the constitution from what appears upon its face."24
amended through initiative, that prohibition should not be sustained. Congress is
tasked with the implementation, and not the restriction of the right to initiative.
Even if there is need to refer to extrinsic sources in aid of constitutional interpretation,
the constitutional record does not provide the exclusive or definitive answer on how to
The one-subject requirement under Section 10 is not provided for as a bar to interpret the provision. The intent of a constitutional convention is not controlling by
amendment under the Constitution. Arguments can be supplied for the merit of such a itself, and while the historical discussion on the floor of the constitutional convention is
requirement, since it would afford a measure of orderliness when the vital question of valuable, it is not necessarily decisive. The Court has even held in Vera v.
amending the Constitution arises. The one-subject requirement does allow the voters Avelino25 that "the proceedings of the [constitutional] convention are less conclusive of
focus when deliberating whether or not to vote for the amendments. These factors of the proper construction of the fundamental law than are legislative proceedings of the
desirability nonetheless fail to detract from the fact that the one-subject requirement proper construction of a statute, since in the latter case it is the intent of the legislature
imposes an additional restriction on the right to initiative not contemplated by the that courts seek, while in the former courts are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of
Constitution. Short of invalidating the requirement, a better course of action would be the people through the discussions and deliberations of their representatives."26 The
to insist upon its liberal interpretation. After all, the Court has consistently adhered to a
proper interpretation of a constitution depends more on how it was understood by the The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be raised
people adopting it than the framers' understanding thereof.27 for the first time on appeal, and documents forming no part of the proofs
before the appellate court will not be considered in disposing of the issues
of an action. This is true whether the decision elevated for review originated
If there is fear in the absence of a constitutional record as guide for interpretation of
from a regular court or an administrative agency or quasi-judicial body, and
any amendments adopted via initiative, such absence would not preclude the courts
whether it was rendered in a civil case, a special proceeding, or a criminal
from interpreting such amendments in a manner consistent with how courts generally
case. Piecemeal presentation of evidence is simply not in accord with
construe the Constitution. For example, reliance will be placed on the other provisions
orderly justice.30
of the Constitution to arrive at a harmonized and holistic constitutional framework. The
constitutional record is hardly the Rosetta Stone that unlocks the meaning of the
Constitution. Any present determination by the Court on the sufficiency of the petitions constitutes
in effect a trial de novo, the Justices of the Supreme Court virtually descending to the
level of trial court judges. This is an unbecoming recourse, and it simply is not done.
V.

VI.
I fully agree with Justice Puno that all issues relating to the sufficiency of the initiative
petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC. Rep. Act No. 6735 clearly reposes
on the COMELEC the task of determining the sufficiency of the petitions, including the The worst position this Court could find itself in is to acquiesce to a plea that it make
ascertainment of whether twelve percent (12%) of all registered voters, including three the choice whether to amend the Constitution or not. This is a matter which should not
percent (3%) of registered voters in every legislative district have indeed signed the be left to fifteen magistrates who have not been elected by the people to make the
initiative petitions.28 It should be remembered that the COMELEC had dismissed the choice for them.
initiative petitions outright, and had yet to undertake the determination of sufficiency
as required by law.
A vote to grant the petitions is not a vote to amend the 1987 Constitution. It is merely
a vote to allow the people to directly exercise that option. In fact, the position of
It has been suggested to the end of leading the Court to stifle the initiative petitions Justice Puno which I share would not even guarantee that the Lambino and Sigaw ng
that the Court may at this juncture pronounce the initiative petitions as insufficient. The Bayan initiative petitions would be submitted to the people in a referendum. The
derivation of the factual predicates leading to the suggestion is uncertain, considering COMELEC will still have to determine the sufficiency of the petition. Among the
that the trier of facts, the COMELEC in this instance, has yet to undertake the questions which still have to be determined by the poll body in considering the
necessary determination. Still, the premise has been floated that petitioners have sufficiency of the petitions is whether twelve percent (12%) of all registered voters
made sufficient admissions before this Court that purportedly established the petitions nationwide, including three percent (3%) of registered voters in every legislative
are insufficient. district, have indeed signed the initiative petitions.31

That premise is highly dubitable. Yet the more fundamental question that we should And even should the COMELEC find the initiative petitions sufficient, the matter of
ask, I submit, is whether it serves well on the Court to usurp trier of facts even before whether the Constitution should be amended would still depend on the choice of the
the latter exercises its functions? If the Court, at this stage, were to declare the electorate. The oppositors are clearly queasy about some of the amendments
petitions as insufficient, it would be akin to the Court pronouncing an accused as guilty proposed, or the imputed motives behind the amendments. A referendum, should the
even before the lower court trial had began. COMELEC find the petitions as sufficient, would allow them to convey their
uneasiness to the public at large, as well as for the proponents of the amendment to
defend their proposal. The campaign period alone would allow the public to be
Matugas v. COMELEC29 inveighs against the propriety of the Court
involved in the significant deliberation on the course our nation should take, with the
uncharacteristically assuming the role of trier of facts, and resolving factual questions
ensuing net benefit of a more informed, more politically aware populace. And of
not previously adjudicated by the lower courts or tribunals:
course, the choice on whether the Constitution should be amended would lie directly
with the people. The initiative process involves participatory democracy at its most
[P]etitioner in this case cannot "enervate" the COMELEC's findings by elemental; wherein the consequential debate would not be confined to the august
introducing new evidence before this Court, which in any case is not a halls of Congress or the hallowed chambers of this Court, as it would spill over to the
trier of facts, and then ask it to substitute its own judgment and public squares and town halls, the academic yards and the Internet blogosphere, the
discretion for that of the COMELEC. dining areas in the homes of the affluent and the impoverished alike.
The prospect of informed and widespread discussion on constitutional change for a means by which the people have a direct choice in determining their country's
engaged in by a people who are actually empowered in having a say whether these direction. Initiative as a mode of amending a constitution may seem incompatible with
changes should be enacted, gives fruition to the original vision of pure democracy, as representative democracy, yet it embodies an even purer form of democracy.
formulated in Athens two and a half millennia ago. The great hero of Athenian Initiative, which our 1987 Constitution saw fit to grant to the people, is a progressive
democracy, Pericles, was recorded as saying in his famed Funeral Oration, "We differ measure that is but a continuation of the line of evolution of the democratic ideal.
from other states in regarding the man who keeps aloof from public life not as 'private'
but as useless; we decide or debate, carefully and in person all matters of policy,
By allowing the sovereign people to directly propose and enact constitutional
and we hold, not that words and deeds go ill together, but that acts are
amendments, the initiative process should be acknowledged as the purest implement
foredoomed to failure when undertaken undiscussed."32
of democratic rule under law. This right granted to over sixty million Filipinos cannot be
denied by the votes of less than eight magistrates for reasons that bear no cogitation
Unfortunately, given the highly politicized charge of the times, it has been peddled that on the Constitution.
an act or vote that assists the initiative process is one for the willful extinction of
democracy or democratic institutions. Such a consideration should of course properly
I VOTE to GRANT the petitions.
play its course in the public debates and deliberations attendant to the initiative
process. Yet as a result of the harum-scarum, the temptation lies heavy for a member
of this Court perturbed with the prospect of constitutional change to relieve those
anxieties by simply voting to enjoin any legal procedure that initiates the amendment DANTE O. TINGA
or revision of the fundamental law, even at the expense of the people's will or what the Associate Justice
Constitution allows. A vote so oriented takes the conservative path of least resistance,
even as it may gain the admiration of those who do not want to see the Constitution
amended. ____________________

Still, the biases we should enforce as magistrates are those of the Constitution and EN BANC
the elements of democracy on which our rule of law is founded. Direct democracy, as
embodied in the initiative process, is but a culmination of the evolution over the G. R. No. 174153
centuries of democratic rights of choice and self-governance. The reemergence of the
Athenian democratic ideal after centuries of tyrannical rules arrived very slowly, the
benefits parceled out at first only to favored classes. The Magna Carta granted limited RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
rights to self-determination and self-governance only to a few English nobles; the REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners 
American Constitution was originally intended to give a meaningful voice only to free vs.
men, mostly Caucasian, who met the property-holding requirements set by the states THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent; 
for voting. Yet even the very idea of popular voting, limited as it may have already TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. ADAMAT,
been within the first few years of the American Union, met resistance from no less a ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT
revered figure as Alexander Hamilton, to whom the progressive historian Howard Zinn FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS
attributes these disconcerting words: ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors;
ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L.
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P.
The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however MEDINA, JR., ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-
generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The QUADRA, BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL
people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY,
Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share in the ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, JOJO
government… Can a democratic assembly who annually revolve in the PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, LORETTA
mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the public good? ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-
Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy…33 BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
This utterly paternalistic and bigoted view has not survived into the present age of MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
modern democracy where a person's poverty, color, or gender no longer impedes the FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY
exercise of full democratic rights. Yet a democracy that merely guarantees its citizens LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III,
the right to live their lives freely is incomplete if there is no corresponding allowance JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and
PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES If the Constitution is the expression of the will of the sovereign people, then, in the
CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON event that the people change their will, so must the Constitution be revised or
D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANOTNIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL amended to reflect such change. Resultantly, the right to revise or amend the
C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, Constitution inherently resides in the sovereign people whose will it is supposed to
MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,Oppositors-Intervenors; express and embody. The Constitution itself, under Article XVII, provides for the
means by which the revision or amendment of the Constitution may be proposed and
ratified.
G.R. No. 174299

Under Section 1 of the said Article, proposals to amend or revise the Constitution may
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
be made (a) by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or (b) by
SAGUISAG, Petitioners 
constitutional convention. The Congress and the constitutional convention possess
vs.
the power to propose amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution not simply
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
because the Constitution so provides, but because the sovereign people had chosen
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO
to delegate their inherent right to make such proposals to their representatives either
A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe
through Congress or through a constitutional convention.
and Peter Doe, Respondents.

On the other hand, the sovereign people, well-inspired and greatly empowered by the
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
People Power Revolution of 1986, reserved to themselves the right to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through initiative, to wit –
DISSENTING OPINION
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: 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
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature of therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five
their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once
or unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any subdivision of every five years thereafter.
them."

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
-- Marshall, C.J., Cohens v. Virginia (1821, US) 6 Wheat 264, 389, 5 L ed. 257, 287. right.2

I express my concurrence in the discussions and conclusions presented in the The afore-quoted section does not confer on the Filipino people the right to amend the
persuasive and erudite dissent of Justice Reynato S. Puno. However, I make some Constitution because, as previously discussed, such right is inherent in them. The
additional observations in connection with my concurrence. section only reduces into writing this right to initiate amendments to the Constitution
where they collectively and willfully agreed in the manner by which they shall exercise
While it is but proper to accord great respect and reverence to the Philippine this right: (a) through the filing of a petition; (b) supported by at least twelve percent
Constitution of 1987 for being the supreme law of the land, we should not lose sight of (12%) of the total number of registered voters nationwide; (c) with each legislative
the truth that there is an ultimate authority to which the Constitution is also district represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters therein; (d)
subordinate – the will of the people. No less than its very first paragraph, the subject to the limitation that no such petition may be filed within five years after the
Preamble,1expressly recognizes that the Constitution came to be because it was ratification of the Constitution, and not oftener than once every five years thereafter;
ordained and promulgated by the sovereign Filipino people. It is a principle reiterated and (e) a delegation to Congress of the authority to provide the formal requirements
yet again in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, which explicitly declares that "[t]he and other details for the implementation of the right.
Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people
and all government authority emanates from them." Thus, the resolution of the issues It is my earnest opinion that the right of the sovereign people to directly propose
and controversies raised by the instant Petition should be guided accordingly by the amendments to the Constitution through initiative is more superior than the power they
foregoing principle. delegated to Congress or to a constitutional convention to amend or revise the
Constitution. The initiative process gives the sovereign people the voice to express
their collective will, and when the people speak, we must be ready to listen. Article We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to
XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution recognizes and guarantees the sovereign people's the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given
right to initiative, rather than limits it. The enabling law which Congress has been flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer
tasked to enact must give life to the said provision and make the exercise of the right in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the
to initiative possible, not regulate, limit, or restrict it in any way that would render the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
people's option of resorting to initiative to amend the Constitution more stringent,
difficult, and less feasible, as compared to the other constitutional means to amend or
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
revise the Constitution. In fact, it is worth recalling that under Article VI, Section 1
of the Constitution, the legislative power of Congress is limited to the extent
reserved to the people by the provisions on initiative and referendum. a) GRANTING the instant petition;

It is with this frame of mind that I review the issues raised in the instant Petitions, and b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative
which has led me to the conclusions, in support of the dissent of Justice Puno, that (a) on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient
The Commission on Election (COMELEC) had indeed committed grave abuse of standard for subordinate legislation;
discretion in summarily dismissing the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution
filed by herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado; (b) The Court
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission
should revisit the pronouncements it made in Santiago v. Commission on
on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or
Elections;3 (c) It is the sovereign people's inherent right to propose changes to the
amendments to the Constitution; and
Constitution, regardless of whether they constitute merely amendments or a total
revision thereof; and (d) The COMELEC should take cognizance of Lambino and
Aumentado's petition for initiative and, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, determine the d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
factual issues raised by the oppositors before this Court. DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).

I The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made

permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as
against private respondents.
The COMELEC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when it summarily
dismissed Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative entirely on the basis of
the Santiago case which, allegedly, permanently enjoined it from entertaining or taking Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
cognizance of any petition for initiative to amend the Constitution in the absence of a
sufficient law.
It is clear from the fallo, as it is reproduced above, that the Court made permanent the
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) it issued on 18 December 1996 against the
After a careful reading, however, of the Santiago case, I believe in earnest that the COMELEC. The said TRO enjoined the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin
permanent injunction actually issued by this Court against the COMELEC pertains Petition, and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a signature drive for
only to the petition for initiative filed by Jesus S. Delfin, and not to all subsequent people's initiative.5 It was this restraining order, more particularly the portion thereof
petitions for initiative to amend the Constitution. referring to the Delfin Petition, which was expressly made permanent by the Court. It
would seem to me that the COMELEC and all other oppositors to Lambino and
Aumentado's petition for initiative gave unwarranted significance and weight to the first
The Conclusion4 in the majority opinion in the Santiago case reads –
paragraph of the Conclusion in the Santiago case. The first and second paragraphs
of the Conclusion, preceding the dispositive portion, merely express the
CONCLUSION opinion of the ponente; while the definite orders of the Court for implementation
are found in the dispositive portion.
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition We have previously held that –
for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
The dispositive portion or the fallo is what actually constitutes the resolution
of the court and which is the subject of execution, although the other parts
of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi
 for such a resolution. Where there is conflict between the dispositive part people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the
and the opinion of the court contained in the text of the decision, the former PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of PIRMA.
must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the
final order while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing. Hence
The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly
execution must conform more particularly to that ordained or decreed in the
represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In short,
dispositive portion of the decision.6
PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his petition that
he was a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, and
Is there a conflict between the first paragraph of the Conclusion and the dispositive under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that said movement was
portion of the Santiago case? Apparently, there is. The first paragraph of the "[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and
Conclusion states that the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their Comment to the petition in Santiago,
entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the the PEDROSA'S did not deny that they were founding members of PIRMA,
Constitution until the enactment of a valid law. On the other hand, the fallo only makes and by their arguments, demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that
permanent the TRO7 against COMELEC enjoining it from proceeding with the Delfin they had joined Delfin or his cause.
Petition. While the permanent injunction contemplated in the Conclusion
encompasses all petitions for initiative on amendments to the Constitution, the fallo is
No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA and the
expressly limited to the Delfin Petition. To resolve the conflict, the final order of the
PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the operation of the
Court as it is stated in the dispositive portion or the fallo should be controlling.
principle of res judicata, which needs no further elaboration.9

Neither can the COMELEC dismiss Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative on
While the Santiago case bars the PIRMA case because of res judicata, the same
the basis of this Court's Resolution, dated 23 September 1997, in the case of People's
cannot be said to the Petition at bar. Res judicata is an absolute bar to a subsequent
Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. The Commission on
action for the same cause; and its requisites are: (a) the former judgment or order
Elections, et al.8 The Court therein found that the COMELEC did not commit grave
must be final; (b) the judgment or order must be one on the merits; (c) it must have
abuse of discretion in dismissing the PIRMA Petition for initiative to amend the
been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties; and
Constitution for it only complied with the Decision in the Santiago case.
(d) there must be between the first and second actions, identity of parties, of subject
matter and of causes of action.10
It is only proper that the Santiago case should also bar the PIRMA Petition on the
basis of res judicata because PIRMA participated in the proceedings of the said case,
Even though it is conceded that the first three requisites are present herein, the last
and had knowledge of and, thus, must be bound by the judgment of the Court therein.
has not been complied with. Undoubtedly, the Santiago case and the present Petition
As explained by former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his separate opinion to
involve different parties, subject matter, and causes of action, and the former should
the Resolution in the PIRMA case –
not bar the latter.

First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed here
In the Santiago case, the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution was filed by
and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997) may
Delfin alone. His petition does not qualify as the initiatory pleading over which the
plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially identical to the
COMELEC can acquire jurisdiction, being unsupported by the required number of
latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the principal parties and
registered voters, and actually imposing upon the COMELEC the task of gathering the
inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable, parties in the present petition.
voters' signatures. In the case before us, the petition for initiative to amend the
But plainly, the same issues and reliefs are raised and prayed for in both
Constitution was filed by Lambino and Aumentado, on behalf of the 6.3 million
cases.
registered voters who affixed their signatures on the signature sheets attached
thereto. Their petition prays that the COMELEC issue an Order –
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR REFORM,
MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and Spouses ALBERTO
1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII of
PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self-described as "a non-
the 1987 Constitution;
stock, non-profit organization duly organized and existing under Philippine
laws with office address at Suite 403, Fedman Suites, 199 Salcedo Street,
Legaspi Village, Makati City," with "ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN 2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least
PEDROSA" as among its "officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
made respondents as founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the
body of the petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a
 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety Aumentado, when such petition is supported by 6.3 million signatures of registered
days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the voters. Should all of these signatures be authentic and representative of the required
petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the percentages of registered voters for every legislative district and the whole nation,
proposition. then the initiative is a true and legitimate expression of the will of the people to amend
the Constitution, and COMELEC had caused them grave injustice by silencing their
voice based on a patently inapplicable permanent injunction.
Although both cases involve the right of the people to initiate amendments to the
Constitution, the personalities concerned and the other factual circumstances
attendant in the two cases differ. Also dissimilar are the particular prayer and reliefs II
sought by the parties from the COMELEC, as well as from this Court. For these
reasons, I find that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
We should likewise take the opportunity to revisit the pronouncements made by the
summarily dismissed the petition for initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado. It
Court in its Decision in the Santiago case, especially as regards the supposed
behooves the COMELEC to accord due course to a petition which on its face complies
insufficiency or inadequacy of Republic Act No. 6735 as the enabling law for the
with the rudiments of the law. COMELEC was openly negligent in summarily
implementation of the people's right to initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
dismissing the Lambino and Aumentado petition. The haste by which the instant
Petition was struck down is characteristic of bad faith, which, to my mind, is a patent
and gross evasion of COMELEC's positive duty. It has so obviously copped out of its The declaration of the Court that Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient or inadequate
duty and responsibility to determine the sufficiency thereof and sought protection and actually gave rise to more questions rather than answers, due to the fact that there
justification for its craven decision in the supposed permanent injunction issued has never been a judicial precedent wherein the Court invalidated a law for
against it by the Court in the Santiago case. The COMELEC had seemingly expanded insufficiency or inadequacy. The confusion over such a declaration thereby impelled
the scope and application of the said permanent injunction, reading into it more than former Chief Justice Davide, Jr., the ponente in the Santiago case, to provide the
what it actually states, which is surprising, considering that the Chairman and majority following clarification in his separate opinion to the Resolution in the PIRMA case,
of the members of COMELEC are lawyers who should be able to understand and thus –
appreciate, more than a lay person, the legal consequences and intricacies of the
pronouncements made by the Court in the Santiago case and the permanent
Simply put, Santiago did, in reality, declare as unconstitutional that portion
injunction issued therein.
of R.A. No. 6735 relating to Constitutional initiatives for failure to comply
with the "completeness and sufficient standard tests" with respect to
No less than the Constitution itself, under the second paragraph of Article XVII, permissible delegation of legislative power or subordinate legislation.
Section 4, imposes upon the COMELEC the mandate to set a date for plebiscite after However petitioners attempt to twist the language in Santiago, the
a positive determination of the sufficiency of a petition for initiative on amendments to conclusion is inevitable; the portion of R.A. No. 6735 was held to be
the Constitution, viz – unconstitutional.

SEC. 4. x x x It is important to note, however, that while the Decision in the Santiago case

pronounced repeatedly that Republic Act No. 6735 was insufficient and inadequate,
there is no categorical declaration therein that the said statute was unconstitutional.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
The express finding that Republic Act No. 6735 is unconstitutional can only be found
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than
in the separate opinion of former Chief Justice Davide to the Resolution in the PIRMA
sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
case, which was not concurred in by the other members of the Court.
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

Even assuming arguendo that the declaration in the Santiago case, that Republic Act
As a rule, the word "shall" commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is
No. 6735 is insufficient and inadequate, is already tantamount to a declaration that the
inconsistent with the idea of discretion, and that the presumption is that the word
statute is unconstitutional, it was rendered in violation of established rules in statutory
"shall" when used, is mandatory.11 Under the above-quoted constitutional provision, it
construction, which state that –
is the mandatory or imperative obligation of the COMELEC to (a) determine the
sufficiency of the petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution and issue a
certification on its findings; and (b) in case such petition is found to be sufficient, to set [A]ll presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who attacks
the date for the plebiscite on the proposed amendments not earlier than 60 days nor a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity beyond a
later than 90 days after its certification. The COMELEC should not be allowed to shun reasonable doubt (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59 SCRA 54
its constitutional mandate under the second paragraph of Article XVII, Section 4, [19741). In fact, this Court does not decide questions of a constitutional
through the summary dismissal of the petition for initiative filed by Lambino and nature unless that question is properly raised and presented in appropriate
 cases and is necessary to a determination of the case, i.e., the issue of Oppositors to Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative argue that the proposed
constitutionality must be lis mota presented (Tropical Homes v. National changes therein to the provisions of the Constitution already amount to a revision
Housing Authority, 152 SCRA 540 [1987]). thereof, which is not allowed to be done through people's initiative; Article XVII,
Section 2 of the Constitution on people's initiative refers only to proposals for
amendments to the Constitution. They assert the traditional distinction between an
First, the Court, in the Santiago case, could have very well avoided the issue of
amendment and a revision, with amendment referring to isolated or piecemeal change
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 by ordering the COMELEC to dismiss the
only, while revision as a revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument.13
Delfin petition for the simple reason that it does not constitute an initiatory pleading
over which the COMELEC could acquire jurisdiction. And second, the
unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 has not been adequately shown. It was by However, as pointed out by Justice Puno in his dissent, there is no quantitative or
and large merely inferred or deduced from the way Republic Act No. 6735 was qualitative test that can establish with definiteness the distinction between an
worded and the provisions thereof arranged and organized by Congress. The amendment and a revision, or between a substantial and simple change of the
dissenting opinions rendered by several Justices in the Santiago case reveal the other Constitution.
side to the argument, adopting the more liberal interpretation that would allow the
Court to sustain the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735. It would seem that the
The changes proposed to the Constitution by Lambino and Aumentado's petition for
majority in the Santiago case failed to heed the rule that all presumptions should be
initiative basically affect only Article VI on the Legislative Department and Article VII
resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the statute.
on the Executive Department. While the proposed changes will drastically alter the
constitution of our government by vesting both legislative and executive powers in a
The Court, acting en banc on the Petition at bar, can revisit its Decision in unicameral Parliament, with the President as the Head of State and the Prime Minister
the Santiago case and again open to judicial review the constitutionality of Republic exercising the executive power; they would not essentially affect the other 16 Articles
Act No. 6735; in which case, I shall cast my vote in favor of its constitutionality, having of the Constitution. The 100 or so changes counted by the oppositors to the other
satisfied the completeness and sufficiency of standards tests for the valid delegation provisions of the Constitution are constituted mostly of the nominal substitution of one
of legislative power. I fully agree in the conclusion made by Justice Puno on this word for the other, such as Parliament for Congress, or Prime Minister for President.
matter in his dissenting opinion12 in the Santiago case, that reads – As eloquently pointed out in the dissent of Justice Puno, the changes proposed to
transform our form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-
parliamentary, would not affect the fundamental nature of our state as a democratic
R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide the
and republican state. It will still be a representative government where officials
COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and regulations of
continue to be accountable to the people and the people maintain control over the
the law. As aforestated, Section 2 spells out the policy of the law; viz: "The
government through the election of members of the Parliament.
power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws,
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance Furthermore, should the people themselves wish to change a substantial portion or
with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and even the whole of the Constitution, what or who is to stop them? Article XVII, Section
guaranteed." Spread out all over R.A. No. 6735 are the standards to 2 of the Constitution which, by the way it is worded, refers only to their right to initiative
canalize the delegated power to the COMELEC to promulgate rules and on amendments of the Constitution? The delegates to the Constitutional Convention
regulations from overflowing. Thus, the law states the number of signatures who, according to their deliberations, purposely limited Article XVII, Section 2 of the
necessary to start a people's initiative, directs how initiative proceeding is Constitution to amendments? This Court which has the jurisdiction to interpret the
commenced, what the COMELEC should do upon filing of the petition for provision? Bearing in mind my earlier declaration that the will of the sovereign people
initiative, how a proposition is approved, when a plebiscite may be held, is supreme, there is nothing or no one that can preclude them from initiating changes
when the amendment takes effect, and what matters may not be the subject to the Constitution if they choose to do so. To reiterate, the Constitution is supposed
of any initiative. By any measure, these standards are adequate. to be the expression and embodiment of the people's will, and should the people's will
clamor for a revision of the Constitution, it is their will which should prevail. Even the
fact that the people ratified the 1987 Constitution, including Article XVII, Section 2
III
thereof, as it is worded, should not prevent the exercise by the sovereign people of
their inherent right to change the Constitution, even if such change would be
The dissent of Justice Puno has already a well-presented discourse on the difference tantamount to a substantial amendment or revision thereof, for their actual exercise of
between an "amendment" and a "revision" of the Constitution. Allow me also to the said right should be a clear renunciation of the limitation which the said provision
articulate my additional thoughts on the matter. imposes upon it. It is the inherent right of the people as sovereign to change the
Constitution, regardless of the extent thereof.
 IV Chairman BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, JR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z.
BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, respondents.
Lastly, I fail to see the injustice in allowing the COMELEC to give due course to and
take cognizance of Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative to amend the
Constitution. I reiterate that it would be a greater evil if one such petition which is x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
ostensibly supported by the required number of registered voters all over the country,
be summarily dismissed.
SEPARATE OPINION

Giving due course and taking cognizance of the petition would not necessarily mean
VELASCO, JR., J.:
that the same would be found sufficient and set for plebiscite. The COMELEC still
faces the task of reviewing the petition to determine whether it complies with the
requirements for a valid exercise of the right to initiative. Questions raised by the Introduction
oppositors to the petition, such as those on the authenticity of the registered voters'
signatures or compliance with the requisite number of registered voters for every
The fate of every democracy, of every government
legislative district, are already factual in nature and require the reception and
based on the Sovereignty of the people, depends on
evaluation of evidence of the parties. Such questions are best presented and resolved
the choices it makes between these opposite principles:
before the COMELEC since this Court is not a trier of facts.
absolute power on the one hand, and on the other the
restraints of legality and the authority of tradition.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the position that the Resolution of the COMELEC —John Acton
dated 31 August 2006 denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by Lambino
and Aumentado be reversed and set aside for having been issued in grave abuse of
In this thorny matter of the people's initiative, I concur with the erudite and highly
discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and that the Petition be remanded to the
persuasive opinion of Justice Reynato S. Puno upholding the people's initiative and
COMELEC for further proceedings.
raise some points of my own.

In short, I vote to GRANT the petition for Initiative of Lambino and Aumentado.

The issue of the people's power to propose amendments to the Constitution was once
discussed in the landmark case of Santiago v. COMELEC.1 Almost a decade later, the
issue is once again before the Court, and I firmly believe it is time to reevaluate the
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
pronouncements made in that case.
Associate Justice

The issue of Charter Change is one that has sharply divided the nation, and its
____________________ proponents and opponents will understandably take all measures to advance their
position and defeat that of their opponents. The wisdom or folly of Charter Change
does not concern the Court. The only thing that the Court must review is the validity of
EN BANC the present step taken by the proponents of Charter Change, which is the People's
Initiative, as set down in Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution:
G.R. No. 174153             October 25, 2006
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
ELECTIONS, respondent. represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
G.R. No. 174299             October 25, 2006 thereafter.

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
SAGUISAG, petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by right.
In the Santiago case, the Court discussed whether the second paragraph of that This petition must then be granted and the COMELEC should be
section had been fulfilled. It determined that Congress had not provided for the permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
implementation of the exercise of the people's initiative, when it held that Republic Act or initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
No. 6735, or "The Initiative and Referendum Act," was "inadequate to cover the have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system
system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide (emphasis supplied).
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation."2
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to
With all due respect to those Justices who made that declaration, I must disagree. the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given
flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer
in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the
Republic Act No. 6735 is the proper law for proposing constitutional
implementation of the right of the people under that system.
amendments and it should not have been considered inadequate.

In the said case, the Court's fallo states as follows:

The decision in Santiago focused on what it perceived to be fatal flaws in the drafting
of the law, in the failings of the way the law was structured, to come to the conclusion
that the law was inadequate. The Court itself recognized the legislators' intent, but WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
disregarded this intent. The law was found wanting. The Court then saw the inclusion
of the Constitution in RA 6735 as an afterthought. However, it was included, and it
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
should not be excluded by the Court via a strained analysis of the law. The difficult
construction of the law should not serve to frustrate the intent of the framers of the
1987 Constitution: to give the people the power to propose amendments as they saw b) DECLARING R. A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
fit. It is a basic precept in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is the amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient
controlling factor in the interpretation of a statute.3 The intent of the legislature was standard for subordinate legislation;
clear, and yet RA 6735 was declared inadequate. It was not specifically struck down
or declared unconstitutional, merely incomplete. The Court focused on what RA 6735
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300 of the
was not, and lost sight of what RA 6735 was.
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct
of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and
It is my view that the reading of RA 6735 in Santiago should have been more flexible.
It is also a basic precept of statutory construction that statutes should be construed
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
not so much according to the letter that killeth but in line with the purpose for which
DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
they have been enacted.4 The reading of the law should not have been with the view
of its defeat, but with the goal of upholding it, especially with its avowed noble
purpose. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made
permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED against
private respondents.
Congress has done its part in empowering the people themselves to propose
amendments to the Constitution, in accordance with the Constitution itself. It should
not be the Supreme Court that stifles the people, and lets their cries for change go Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
unheard, especially when the Constitution itself grants them that power.
SO ORDERED.
The court's ruling in the Santiago case does not bar the present petition
because the fallo in the Santiago case is limited to the Delfin petition.
The question now is if the ruling in Santiago is decisive in this case. It is elementary
that when there is conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of the decision and
The Santiago case involved a petition for prohibition filed by Miriam Defensor- the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the judgment, the former
Santiago, et al., against the COMELEC, et al., which sought to prevent the COMELEC prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on the disposition, not on the
from entertaining the "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of body, of the decision.5 The dispositive portion is its decisive resolution; thus, it is the
Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" filed by Atty. Jesus Delfin. In the body of the subject of execution. The other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to
judgment, the Court made the following conclusion, viz: determine the ratio decidendi for the disposition. Where there is conflict between
the dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of
the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that the Complied with the DISPOSITIONS in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No.
dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a statement 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10,
ordering nothing. Hence, the execution must conform with that which is ordained or 1997.
decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.6
Take note that the Court specifically referred to "dispositions" in the March 19, 1997
A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is an informal Decision. To reiterate, the dispositions in the Santiago case decision refer specifically
expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order or to the December 18, 1996 TRO being made permanent against the COMELEC but do
decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no part not pertain to a permanent injunction against any other petition for initiative on
of the judgment. So there is a distinction between the findings and conclusions of a amendment. Thus, what was confirmed or even affirmed in the Minute Resolution in
court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its decision and amount to the the PIRMA case pertains solely to the December 18, 1996 TRO which became
rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment itself. It is not infrequent that the permanent, the declaration of the inadequacy of RA 6735, and the annulment of
grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact views of the court, especially those of certain parts of Resolution No. 2300 but certainly not the alleged perpetual injunction
concurring justices in a collegiate court. We often encounter in judicial decisions against the initiative petition. Thus, the resolution in the PIRMA case cannot be
lapses, findings, loose statements and generalities which do not bear on the issues or considered res judicata to the Lambino petition.
are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound and considered result reached by the
court as expressed in the dispositive part, so called, of the decision.7
Amendment or Revision

Applying the foregoing argument to the Santiago case, it immediately becomes

One last matter to be considered is whether the petition may be allowed under RA
apparent that the disposition in the latter case categorically made permanent the
6735, since only amendments to the Constitution may be the subject of a people's
December 18, 1996 Temporary Restraining Order issued against the COMELEC in
initiative.
the Delfin petition but did NOT formally incorporate therein any directive
PERMANENTLY enjoining the COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of
any petition for initiative on amendments." Undeniably, the perpetual proscription The Lambino petition cannot be considered an act of revising the Constitution; it is
against the COMELEC from assuming jurisdiction over any other petition on Charter merely an attempt to amend it. The term amendment has to be liberally construed so
Change through a People's Initiative is just a conclusion and cannot bind the poll as to effectuate the people's efforts to amend the Constitution.
body, for such unending ban would trench on its constitutional power to enforce and
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
As an eminent constitutionalist, Dean Vicente G. Sinco,9 explained:
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall under Section 2, Article IX of the
Constitution. RA 6735 gave the COMELEC the jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency
of the petition on the initiative under Section 8, Rule 11 and the form of the petition Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations of
under Section 3, Rule I; hence, it cannot be barred from entertaining any such petition. different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting either
of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps only some
of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision may produce,
In sum, the COMELEC still retains its jurisdiction to take cognizance of any petition on
the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention
initiative under RA 6735 and it can rule on the petition and its action can only be
and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention and plan must
passed upon by the Court when the same is elevated through a petition for certiorari.
contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the constitution to
COMELEC cannot be barred from acting on said petitions since jurisdiction is
determine which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole
conferred by law (RA 6735) and said law has not been declared unconstitutional and
document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
hence still valid though considered inadequate in the Santiago case.

The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change

Respondents, however, claim that the Court in the subsequent case of PIRMA v.
of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to amend is not to
Commission on Elections8confirmed the statement of the Court in the Santiago case
consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering
that the COMELEC was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance
that possibility. The intention rather is to improve specific parts of the
of any petition for initiative on amendments." Much reliance is placed on the ruling
existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account
contained in a Minute Resolution which reads:
of changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or
dangerous, or misleading in their effect.
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
Discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
Dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
In this case, the Lambino petition is not concerned with rewriting the entire
Constitution. It was never its intention to revise the whole Constitution. It merely
concerns itself with amending a few provisions in our fundamental charter.

When there are gray areas in legislation, especially in matters that pertain to the
sovereign people's political rights, courts must lean more towards a more liberal
interpretation favoring the people's right to exercise their sovereign power.

Conclusion

Sovereignty residing in the people is the highest form of sovereignty and thus
deserves the highest respect even from the courts. It is not something that can be
overruled, set aside, ignored or stomped over by whatever amount of technicalities,
blurred or vague provisions of the law.

As I find RA 6735 to be adequate as the implementing law for the People's Initiative, I
vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and dismiss the petition in G.R. No.
174299. The Amended Petition for Initiative filed by petitioners Raul L. Lambino and
Erico B. Aumentado should be remanded to the COMELEC for determination whether
or not the petition is sufficient under RA 6735, and if the petition is sufficient, to
schedule and hold the necessary plebiscite as required by RA 6735.

It is time to let the people's voice be heard once again as it was twenty years ago. And
should this voice demand a change in the Constitution, the Supreme Court should not
be one to stand in its way.