Lambino Vs.

Comelec Case Digest

Lambino Vs. Comelec
G.R. No. 174153
Oct. 25 2006

Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735.
Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M
individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the
constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by
modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by
adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present
bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral-
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of
enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the
Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to
implement the initiative petitions.

Issue:

Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments
to the Constitution through a peoples initiative.

Whether or Not 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.

Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Groups
petition.

Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply
with the basic requirements for conducting a peoples initiative.
The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer
must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and
effect, failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which
renders the initiative void.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives

The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction
between amendment and revision, it is intended that the third
mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose
only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative
and the executive is a radical change, therefore a constitutes a
revision.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the
result because the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a
valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735

Petition is dismissed.