DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs.

COMELEC
(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
Facts:
P r i v a t e r e s p o n d e n t A t t y. J e s u s D e l f i n , p r e s i d e n t o f
P e o p l e s I n i t i a t i v e f o r R e f o r m s , Modernization and Action
(PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to liftthe
term limits of elective officials, through Peoples Initiative. He based this
petition on Article XVII,Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides
for the right of the people to exercise the power todirectly propose
amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC
issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the
notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the
hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang
Konstitusyon, PublicInterest Law Center, and Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator
Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one
which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein
Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this
civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments,
such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on p e o p l e s
i n i t i a t i v e t o a m e n d t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n c a n on l y b e i m p l e m e n t ed
b y l a w t o b e p a s s e d b y Congress. No such law has been passed; (2)
The peoples initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to
revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision,
therefore it is outside the power of peoples initiative. The Supreme Court
granted the Motions for Intervention.
Issues:
(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a selfexecuting provision.(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific
provisions on the conduct of such initiative.(3) Whether the lifting of
term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an
amendment of the Constitution.
Held:
S e c . 2 , A r t X V I I o f t he C o n s t i t u t i on i s n o t s e l f e xe c u t o r y,
t h u s , wi t h o u t i m p l e m e n t i n g legislation the same cannot operate.
Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. The
portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules
and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule
thatwh a t h a s b e e n d e l e g at e d , c a n n o t be d e l e g at e d ( p ot e s t a s
d e l e g a t a n o n d e l e g a r i p o t e s t ) . T h e delegation of the power to
the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly promulgate
rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to peoples

initiative.T h e l i f t i n g o f t h e t e r m l i m i t s wa s h e l d t o b e t h a t o f a
r e v i s i o n , a s i t wo u l d a ffe c t o t h er provisions of the Constitution such
as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal
access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political
dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering
the Courts decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the
petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.