LAMBINO v COMELEC

F: The petitioners commenced a signature campaign for an initiative petition to

change the 1987 Constitution. They alleged that:
- they had the support of over 6.3 million individuals constituting at least 12%
of all registered voters, with each district represented by at least 3% of the
RVs. COMELEC verified these signatures.
- they seek to modify multiple sections in Arts. VI and VII, while adding transi
tory provisions, such that the bicam-presidential system would be transformed to
a unicam-parliamentary government.
Pursuant to Secs. 5b&c of the Initiative and Referendum Act, they seek that COME
LEC submit the petition to a plebiscite. The plebiscite would contain the follow
ing proposition: "DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 198
7 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESI
DENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRA
NSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?"
COMELEC: Denied. Petition cannot be granted due course for lack of enabling law,
given that the Comelec, in Santiago v COMELEC, declared RA 6735 inadequate to i
mplement the initiative clause under the Constitution.
Petitioners: GAD. At best, limit the ruling to that particular case given the nu
mber of individuals that signed their petition.
More groups intervened, seeking to support/oppose the Lambino group. Among the k
ey arguments against the provision include: standing, validity of the signature
process, compliance with the minimum requirement for an initiative under Art. XV
II, Sec. 2, nature of the proposed changes as REVISIONS, and compliance with the
requirement in RA 6735 limiting petitions to only one subject.
Procedural Issues:
1. Whether or not the initiative petition complies with Sec. 2 Art XVII on direc
t proposal by the people.
The ConComm deliberations show that an amendment directly proposed by the people
requires that the draft proposals be shown to the people before signing. This m
eans that they should have the entire proposal ready as this proposal on its fac
e is a proposal by the people. Hence, there are two elements here:
(a) signing on personal behalf, NOT through an agent/representative
(b) proper embodiment in a petition
The proper mode here was to include the full text, and to note the fact of attac
hment if attached. This is the assurance that the signatories had seen the full
text of the amendments before signing-- after all, they should know what they ar
e signing up for. There is unwavering precedent here in American jurisprudence,
and took note the danger when the person giving the petition also drafted the sa
me. Though the Constitution does not seem to require the full text, the ConComm
seems to show an intent to adopt relevant these American jurisprudence.
Now, onus probandi is with the petitioners to show that they indeed complied wit
h the requirement. What the LG showed, was not the petition, but a signature sh
eet, which merely included the abovecited petition and the statement of approval
. If the said sig sheet could be treated as a petition, it is fatally defective
for failing to state the proposed changes or the fact of attachment of text of p
roposed changes, which was ADMITTED by their counsel.
Petitioner: During the signature gathering, the LG circulated printed copies of

the draft petition which they later filed around August 2006.
Court: WTF the draft was prepared months after gathering signatures. What is int
eresting was Petitioner Aumentado, who filed the draft allegedly as representati
ve of ULAp, was not explicitly authoritized to prepare the petition. Also the pr
oposed ULAP changes were different from the original LG changes, with the former
affecting the entire Constitution. This casts a shadow of doubt on the claim th
at the draft petition was present with the sig sheets.
All in all, there seems to be a huge disconnect between the sig sheets and the s
upposed drafts. Equally odd is that the LG group only seemed to have filed the p
etitions when they were being opposed in the COMELEC-- this argument now seems t
o be an afterthought given admissions and testimonies showing that the sig sheet
s did not contain the text of the proposd changes.
Petitioner: But citing CJS, a signer who did not read the measure is estopped fr
om questioning his signature.
Court: That proposed amendment should be part of a proper initiative petition. H
ere, the proposed changes were not incorporated with the sig sheets. The signer
could never know what measures were to be done.
All in all, what seems to be the case was that the signatories practically didn'
t know what the changes were. At best, only limited copies were sent out- a FACT
ADMITTED BY THE LG.
Conclusions:
- Only a certain fraction of the signatories would have known the proposed chang
es. The Court estimates 1 million. However, the fact is that most of the signato
ries never knew what the full text was.
- The petition/document should include the proposed changes. Omission would be f
atal. Certainly, this was present here.
Worse is the fact that the proposed changes contemplate a paradigm shift in the
syste of government. The signatories never knew of this-- people would have acte
d differently had they known.
Also problematic is a proposed transitory provision where the interim Parliament
would convene to propose further amendments and revisions. This is totally unre
lated to the shift to the parliamentary system-- a type of logrolling equally pr
ohibited. Under Am jurisprudence, this should mean a nullification of the entire
proposition as it prevents the electorate from knowing what it is voting on. In
effect: the whole petition is a grand deception on the electorate. From this al
one, the initiative suffers a fatal defect that makes it unconstitutional under
Art. XVII, Sec. 2.
Substantive Issue: Whether or not the proposed changes were amendments that coul
d be carried out via people's initiaitve.
The distinction between amendments and revisions was made clear in the ConComm d
eliberations. Initiaitve refers to amendments, while ConAss/ConCon refers to rev
isions. This is consistent in American jurisprudence, which has been transplante
d through the deliberations.
It was noted that revision implies:
- changes on basic principles in the Consti, like altering checks and ba
lances
- changes on the substantial provisions of the constitution
Amendment merely affects provisions without changing basic principles.
The applicable test in the US is a two-part quali/quanti test:
Quanti: whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to cha

nge directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or a

lteration of numerous existing provisions
Quali: inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the const
itution. The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far reachi
ng changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revisi
on.
Here: It is obviously a revision. The changes overhaul two articles: 105 provisi
ons, changing the basic plan of government, including the separation of powers.
Petitioners: This is merely a procedural change. Revisions and amendments are ba
sed on who drafts changes-- revisions are done by members of a full-time body.
Court: Apparently, this is based on a failed theory in the US, where the dominan
t view is against based on quanti-quali. The intent of the framers and the relev
ant US jurisprudence totally undermine their argument. What have been considered
amendments include reduction in voting ages or adding qualifications for electe
d officials, not far-reaching changes that completely overhaul government.
The need for a deliberative body is incidental given the changes to be proposed
in a revision. There are so many potential conflicts involved that a full-time b
ody would be best poised in handling these changes. Worse, it is unknown as to w
hich parliamentary system we will take after-- this would certainly require a fu
ll-time body.
- Should the court revisit Santiago v COMELEC?
No. The fact is the petition is fatal for meeting the CONSTITUTIONAL requirement
s. Revisiting the ruling wrt what the Court considered an insufficient law is un
necessary.
Effect: No GAD with the dismissal of the initiative as it merely followed the Sa
ntiago ruling.
(and oh yeah: the plebiscite that ratified the 1987 Constitution had 16.6 millio
n voters back in 1987!)
(and oh yeah again: note that ULAP said it did the petition to show its unqualif
ied support to Arroyo's agenda for consti reforms. Whoops!)