Santiago V COMELEC

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII
of the Constitution
Initiative was unknown to the people of the country except for a few scholars who drafted the constitution
For the past Constitutions (1935 and 1973) there are only two methods of proposing amendments to, or revision:
1. Congress upon vote of of all its members
Constitutional convention
Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution (lifting term limits of elective officials) through peoples initiative. Delfin
asked the COMELEC for an order:
1. Fixing the time and date for signature gathering all over the country
2. Causing the necessary publication of said order and the attached Petition for Initiative on newspapers of general and local circulation
3. Instructing Municipal election registrars in all regions of the Philippines to assist the petitioners
According to Delfin, the petition will be shown to the people first then ask for their signature then it will be formally filed with the COMELEC
The COMELEC then issued an order directing Delfin to cause the publication and the notice of the hearing in 3 daily newspapers at his
own expense
Senator Mirriam Santiago et al filed a special action for prohibition:
1. The constitutional provision on peoples initiative can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
2. RA 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative.
3. RA 6735 only provides for the effectively of laws after publication print and do not cover constitutional amendments because the latter
take effect upon ratification NOT PUBLICTION
4. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right to initiative to amend the Constitution
5. The peoples initiative is limited to amendments not revision. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision.
Congress has not yet appropriated funds for peoples initiative.

Issues Held
WON RA 6735 was intended to include or cover initiative or
amendments
RA 6735 INTENDED to include the system of initiative on amendments
to the constitution but UNFORTUNATELY INADEQUATE to cover that
system.
The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain in the
Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation.
The people cannot exercise peoples initiative if the congress does not
provide for its implementation
WON that portion of COMELEC Resoution 2300 regarding the
conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid
IT IS VOID.
COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative.
WON lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials
would constitute a revision or amendment

WON COMELEC can take cognizance or jurisdiction over a
petition intended to obtain an order for fixing the time and date
for signature gathering; instructing municipal election officers to
assist Delfin; directing the publication
COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the
Delfin petition, The Comelec acquires jurisdiction over a petition for
initiative only after its filing.
WON it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of
the petition when there is pending case before the COMELEC
Yes


Lambino V COMELEC
Lambino et al commence 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
Lambino grouped alleged that their petition had the support of at least 12% of all registered voters with each legislative district represented by at
least 3%. They also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures.
Lambino groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI and Sec 1- 4 of Art VIII and adding
Transitory Provisions. The changes will shift the present bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary form of government.
COMELEC denied Lambinos petition for the lack of enabling law governing petitions
Issues Held
WON Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Sec 2, Art XVII
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
peoples initiative.
Failed to comply with the basic requirement of the Constitution
for conducting Peoples Initiative.
The Framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the
proposed constitutional amendment should be ready and
shown to the people before they sign such proposal. They
plainly said that before they sign there is already a draft shown
to them. They also envisioned that the people should sign on
the proposal itself because the proponents must prepare that
proposal and pass it around for signature.
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.
2 elements must be present:
1. People must author and thus sign the entire proposal
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
Elements are only present only if the full text of the
proposed amendments is first shown to the people
An AMENDMENT is DIRECTLY PROPOSED by the PEOPLE
through INITIATIVE upon a petition only if the people sign on a
petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
(maybe written or attached to it.)
A signature requirement would be meaningless if the person
supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or
she is signing.


Lambino Groups petition for initiative violates Sec 2 of Art 18 of
the Constitution disallowing revision through initiatives
Peoples initiative may propose only amendments to the
Constitution. It withholds the people to propose revision.
Constitution - an instrument of a permanent and
abiding nature, and the provisions contained
therein for its revision indicate the will of the people
that the underlying principles upon which it rests
shall ne of like a permanent instrument and abiding
nature,
Amendment an addition or change within the
lines of the original instrument as will effect an
improvement or better carry out the purpose for
which it was framed. A change that adds, reduces
or deletes without altering the basic principle.
Envisages an alteration of one or a few
specific and separable provisions. TO
improve specific parts or to add new provisions
deemed necessary to meet new conditions
Revision a change that alters a basic principle in
the constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or system of checks and
balances. Alters the substantial elements of the
entirety of the constitution, as when the change
affects substantial provisions of the constitution.
The guiding original intention and plan
contemplates a re-examination of the entire
document.
A shift from Bicameral to Unicameral is a revision. Because the
changes will radically alter the framework of government as set
forth in the Constitution. It will greatly affect the entire
constitutional structure.
There can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an
amendment or a revision. A change in a single word of one
sentence may be a revision and not amendment.
WON this Court should revisit the ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735
incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions
No need to revisit Santiago case
WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
the Lambino Groups petition
Did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino
Groups initiative.
Some notes
Proposal of Amendments 2 Methods:
1. Constitutional Convention
The convention once organized is free to decide whether
the amendatory process will be done through Congress
or through a constitutional convention is a matter normally
for Congress to decide.
2. Congress
Required vote is of all its Members, two houses voting
separately
3. Initiative








Sanidad V COMELEC
On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies (barangays) to
resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period of
its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the President of his present powers. 20 days after.
The President issued another related decree, PD 1031, amending the previous PD 991, by declaring the provisions of PD 229 providing for
the manner of voting and canvass of votes in barangays applicable to the national referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16, 1976. Quite relevantly,
PD 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD. 991. On the same date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD. 1033, stating the questions to he
submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite on Oct 16, 1976. The PD recites in its whereas clauses that the peoples continued
opposition to the convening of the interim NA evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru a constituti onal
amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16.
On Sep 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from holding and conducting the
Referendum Plebiscite on Oct 16; to declare without force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar as they propose amendments to the
Constitution, as well as PD 1031, insofar as it directs the COMELEC to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite
scheduled on Oct 16, 1976.Petitioners contend that under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the incumbent President to
exercise the constituent power to propose amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the Referendum-Plebiscite on Oct 16
has no constitutional or legal basis.
The Sol-Gen contended that the question is political in nature hence the court cannot take cognizance of it. The Sol-Gen principally maintains
that petitioners have no standing to sue; the issue raised is political in nature, beyond judicial cognizance of the SC; at this state of the
transition period, only the incumbent President has the authority to exercise constituent power; the referendum-plebiscite is a step towards
normalization.

ISSUE: Whether or not the issue is a political question.

HELD: The SC ruled that the issue is not a political question but rather
a justiciable one. This is especially true in cases where the power of the
Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals of
amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is
seriously doubted. Political questions are neatly associated with the
wisdom, not the legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the
controversy refers to the legality or validity of the contested act,
that matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. What is
confronting the SC is not the wisdom of the act of the incumbent
President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his
constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the
power of a constituent assembly. Whether the amending process
confers on the President that power to propose amendments is
therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the contrary be
found, the actuation of the President would merely he a brutum
fulmen. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the
judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare
whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was
valid or not.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose
amendments to the Constitution and he was able to present those
proposals to the people in sufficient time

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly propose amendments to the
Constitution.

HELD: The amending process both as to proposal and ratification
raises a judicial question. This is especially true in cases where the
power of the Presidency to initiate the amending process by proposals
of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is
seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power
to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the interim
National Assembly during the period of transition (Sec. 15, Transitory
Provisions). After that period, and the regular National Assembly in its
active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto
the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2
of Art. XVI, 1973 Constitution). The normal course has not been
followed. Rather than calling the interim National Assembly to constitute
itself into a constituent assembly, the incumbent President undertook
the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed amendments
thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a Referendum-Plebiscite
on October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of the procedure for
amendments, written in lambent words in the very Constitution sought
to be amended, raises a contestable issue. The implementing
Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which commonly
purport to have the force and effect of legislation are assailed as invalid,
thus the issue of the validity of said Decrees is plainly a justiciable one,
within the competence of this Court to pass upon. Section 2 (2) Article X
of the new Constitution provides: All cases involving the
constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement, or law shall be heard
and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and no treaty, executive
agreement, or law may be declared unconstitutional without the
concurrence of at least ten Members. . . .. The Supreme Court has the
last word in the construction not only of treaties and statutes, but also of
the Constitution itself. The amending, like all other powers organized in
the Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a limited power, so
that the Supreme Court is vested with that authority to determine
whether that power has been discharged within its limits.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose
amendments to the Constitution and he was able to present those
proposals to the people in sufficient time.



Gonzales V COMELEC
1.CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; POWER OF JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE PROPER ALLOCATION OF POWERS BETWEEN
SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS. The "Judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine the proper
allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof" (Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 63
Phil., 139).

2.ID.; POWER TO PASS UPON VALIDITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. In Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito, (78 Phil., 1), the Court declined
to pass upon the question whether or not a given number of votes cast in Congress in favor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution satisfied
the three-fourths vote requirement of the fundamental law, characterizing the issue as a political one. The force of this precedent has been
weakened by Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino vs. Cuenco (1-12851, March 4, and 14, 1949), Taada vs.
Cuenco (L-10520, Feb. 18, 1957), and Macias vs. Commission on Elections, 58 Off. Gaz; (51) 8388. The Court rejected the theory, advanced in
these four cases, that the issues therein raised were political questions, the determination of which, is beyond judicial review.

3.ID.; NATURE OF POWER TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. The power to amend the Constitution or to propose, amendments thereto is
not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress (Sec. 1, Art, VI, Const.) It is part of the inherent powers of the people - as the
repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours (Sec. 1, Art. II, Const.) to make and hence, to amend their own Fundamental Law.
Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution merely because the same explicit]y grants such power (Sec. 1, Art. XV, Const.). Hence,
when exercising the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives act, not as members of Congress, but as
component elements of a constituent assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the Constitution, unlike
the people, when performing the same function, for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution - they are the very source of all powers
of government, including the Constitution itself.

15.ID.; MEANING OF TERM "ELECTION" IN ART. XV, CONSTITUTION. There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein
referred to is a "special", not a general, election. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the
people for ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections.

16.ID.; LEGISLATION CANNOT BE NULLIFIED FOR FAILURE OF CERTAIN SECTORS TO DISCUSS IT SUFFICIENTLY. A legislation
cannot be nullified by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community to discuss it sufficiently. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionality
depends upon no other factors than those existing at the time of the enactment thereof, unaffected by the acts or omissions of law enforcing
agencies, particularly those that take place subsequently to the passage or approval of the law.

17.ID.; PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. A considerable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the
proposed maximum of representative districts are actually apportioned by RBH No. 1 among the provinces in the Philippines. It is not impossible
however, that they are not interested in the detail of the apportionment, or that a careful reading thereof may tend, in their simple minds, to impair
a clear vision thereof. Upon the other hand, those who are more sophisticated, may enlighten themselves sufficiently by reading the copies of the
proposed amendments posted in public places, the copies kept in the polling places and the text of the contested resolutions as printed in full on
the back of the ballots they will use.

19.ID.; DETERMINATION OF CONDITIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF AMENDMENTS TO PEOPLE, PURELY LEGISLATIVE. The determination
of the conditions under which the proposed amendments shall be submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within the legislative
sphere.

One of the issues raised in this case was the validity of the submission of certain proposed constitutional amendments at a plebiscite scheduled
on the same day as the regular elections. Petitioners argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the proposal to the
people who would be more interested in the issues involved in the election. It was contended that such issue cannot be properly raised before the
courts because it is a political one.
Issue Held
Whether or not the issue involves a political question Pursuant to Art 15 of the 35 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing
in this provision to indicate that the election therein referred to is a
special, not a general election. The circumstance that the previous
amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for
ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it
best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in
general elections. The SC also noted that if what is placed in question
or if the crux of the problem is the validity of an act then the same would
be or the issue would be considered as a justiciable question NOT a
political one.

Pursuant to Art 15 of the 35 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing
in this provision to indicate that the election therein referred to is a
special, not a general election. The circumstance that the previous
amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for
ratification in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it
best to do so under the circumstances then obtaining. It does not
negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in
general elections.
**J JBL Reyes dissented. Plebiscite should be scheduled on a special
date so as to facilitate Fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection.
They should be able to compare the original proposition with the
amended proposition


Tolentino v COMELEC