Lambino vs. Comelec Case Digest I. Facts The Lambino group gathered 6.

3 million signatures for their petition to make changes to the 1987 Philippine Constitution through peoples initiative. The proposal, which was not attached to the signature sheets, would make changes to Articles VI and VII of the Constitution, changing the system of government from Presidential-Bicameral to Parliamentary-Unicameral, and also adds Article XVIII, whose Section 4 mandates that after the proposed changes are ratified, the Parliament convene within forty days after such ratification to propose amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization, and strong bureaucracy. The Labino group filed the petition with the Comelec for ratification under Section 5(b) and (c) of RA 7635. The Comelec dismissed the petition because of lack of enabling law governing Constitutional amendment through peoples initiative; RA 6735 is inadequate to implement Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, according to the ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec.

II. Issues A. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or amendment. B. Whether the Lambino groups petition complied with Constitutional requirements for peoples initiative. C. Whether the Comelec committed abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino groups petition. III. Held A. The Lambino groups petition is a revision. To understand why, here are several criteria for the determination of whether a petition is a revision or an amendment. a. Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution such as the principle of separation of powers or system of checks and balances. b. Revision is a change that alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution, affecting substantial provisions. c. Amendment refers to change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering principle involved. d. Amendment implies addition as will affect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which the Constitution was framed. e. Californias quantitative rule: There is revision when change is so extensive as to change directly the substantial entirety of the Constitution.

f.

Californias qualitative rule: Revision when change accomplishes such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan, which includes change in fundamental framework and powers of the branches of government.

The Lambino groups petition satisfies both testsit overhauls Articles VI and VII, which include 150 provisions, and it changes the fundamental framework and powers of government branches, merging executive and legislative powers in one branch. Change from having three branches to two constitute alteration of the principle of separation of powers, as the legislative and executive powers are merged. There is also a change in the principle of checks and balances. For example, under the presidential system, the three branches act as checks upon each, but under the parliamentary system, there is no check between legislature and executive for they are merged. Having a unicameral legislature is a change in the principle of checks and balances. The Senate and the House of Representatives act as checks on each other under the bicameral system, but under the unicameral system, such check does not exist. B. The Lambino groups petition does not comply with the Constitution requirements for peoples initiative. To understand why, here are the requirements: a. Peoples initiative can be used only for amendments. b. Requisite for initiative are: the petition is authored and signed by the people (not their agents or representatives); and the proposal must be part of petition, or attached to it, with mention of such attachment. The reason for B is that the proposal must be seen by the people before signing to prevent deception and fraud, and the petition cannot be a direct petition (as contemplated by the constitution) if the people do not see the proposal before signing. c. It is the intention of the writers of the constitution on initiative, which is copied from the US, to use jurisprudence on it. According to jurisprudence, and even RA 7635, logrollingthe inclusion of more than one issue in a petitionis prohibited. Logrolling puts the people in a dilemma, as they can only say yes or no to an entire proposal, though one issue may be unacceptable to them. The Lambino groups petition, thus, violates Constitutional requirements because it is a revision. The original and revised proposals were not attached to the petition before the people signed. The addition of Article XVIII constitutes logrolling, as it is entirely a different issue from the proposed change in form of government. C. Comelec did not commit grave abuse of discretion, for it merely followed the Courts ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec.

Digest on Separate Opinions Part 1 JUSTICE PANGANIBAN (CONCURRING) A. Whether the Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion. a. No, as it only acted in accord with Courts ruling in Santiago vs. Comelec. b. Dismissal is the only course of action available, otherwise, it would have committed defiance of Court. JUSTICE PUNO (DISSENTING) A. Whether Lambino and Aumentado have authority to file the petition and to file petition for certoriari and mandamus. a. Yes. Wording of the signature sheet is this: My signature herein signifies my support for filing thereof (referring to the petition). (Just my comment: even if this wording cannot be construed as an authorization, the fact that the people did not object to Lambino and Aumentados filing can be construed as constructive authorization.) c. Under Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65 of the 1997Rules of Civil Procedure; when a tribunal, board, or officer of judicial or quasi-judicial function acted in excess or without jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, an aggrieved party may file for certoriari, when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law. When a tribunal, corporation, board, officer, or person unlawfully neglects performance of act enjoined by law, an aggrieved party may file for certoriari or mandamus before appropriate court, when there is no appeal, or plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in ordinary course of law. Clearly, Lambino and Aumentado are aggrieved parties. B. Whether RA 6735 is sufficient but inadequate to implement the Constitutional provision for peoples initiative. a. It is sufficient and adequate. b. The laws failure to suggest the initiative, and to provide for petition contents, and for subtitle on peoples initiative on constitutional amendments are weak reasons to declare it inadequate, because they are mere details and not fundamental policies, and it was the intention of the legislators to give effect to the constitutional provision. c. Comelec under Section 2(1) Article IX-C of the Constitution is granted the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations on initiative, and Courts have long recognized its rule-making power. (Just my comment: Does anyone know of any case where the Courts recognized such rule-making power?) C. Whether the Lambino groups petition is a revision or amendment. a. The quantitative test fails. While the petition changes 150 provisions, the fact is that only two of the eighteen articles of the Constitution are to be changed.

b. The qualitative test fails too. A good constitution should have three provisions: constitution of liberty, constitution of government, and constitution of sovereignty. Only the constitution of government is changed, and it doesnt change the nature of the Philippine state, which is democratic and republican. c. Though the tests form part of jurisprudence on the provisions from which the Philippine provision for peoples initiative was copied, they cannot be applied because they were only the opinions by some members of the convention. The intent of the writers of the constitution is not what the courts want to bring forth when judging issues of constitutionality, but the intent of the people. ( Just my comment: It may be argued that since the writers were the representative of the people, they represent the intent of the people.) d. Just because a change is substantial it does not mean that it is a revision. Since the foreign jurisprudence cant be used as argument, there is a need to go back to the basic definition of amendment and revision. Amendment is a change, whether substantial or simple. Revision implies change of the whole document, which may include new covenant. e. Limiting initiative to simple amendments is in itself a violation of the peoples sovereignty, which is enshrined in the Constitution. D. Whether Comelec committed grave abuse of decision/ a. Yes. The Commission should have given due process to the petition, because Santiago vs. Comelec cannot give precedence. While originally, the was a majority supporting the decision that RA 6735 is sufficient but inadequate, when the motion for reconsideration was filed, there was an equal division, and it has been court practice that when there is an equal division, the decision of the lower courts or the previous decision is upheld, but it is only treated as res judicata and not stare decisis. JUSTICE QUISUMBING a. Comelec should allow due course for the Lambino groups petition, because it is the sovereign right of the people to propose amendments (Quisumbing follows Punos arguments on revision vs. amendment.)