Imbong vs Comelec:

In Gonzales vs Comelec: clear and present danger test to determine whether the statute is a legitimate
exercise of police power
Proper exercise of police power:
1. Interest of the public generally as distinguished from a particular class require such interference
2. Means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive of individuals
Tolentino vs Comelec
Courts may review the validity of the act of the constitutional convention proposing a particular
amendment to the Constitution
Legislature and Con CON no superior over the other
Calling a plebiscite valid:
1. Ample basis (nature of amendment)
2. Sufficient time
Constitutional amendments need not be introduced only in one election
*reducing voting age to 18
When exercising the amendment: Senators and members of Congress acts as a constituent assembly not
as members of Congress when exercising the same
Issue whether or not a resolution of congress acting as a constituent assemble violates the constitution is
a justiciable not political question, hence subject to judicial review and to the extent that this view may be
inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag vs Lopez Vito =, the latter should be deemed modified
accordingly.
In cases of conflict the judicial department is the only consti organ whch can be called upon to determine
the proper allocation of pwers bet. Several departments and among the integral or constituent units
thereof.
ISSUE:
1. Does the court have jurisdiction over the case?
2. Is the Organic Resolution No. 1 constitutional?
HELD:
1. The case at bar is justiciable. As held in Gonzales vs. Comelec, the issue whether or not a
resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the constitution is a justiciable one and
thus subject to judicial review. The jurisdiction is not because the Court is superior to the Convention but
they are both subject to the Constitution.
2. The act of the Convention calling for a plebiscite on a single amendment in Organic Resolution No. 1
violated Sec. 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which states that all amendments must be submitted to
the people in a single election or plebiscite. Moreover, the voter must be provided sufficient time and
ample basis to assess the amendment in relation to the other parts of the Constitution, not separately but
together.
ALMARIO VS ALBA
people for ratification or rejection on the ground that there has been no fair and proper submission
following the doctrine laid down in Tolentino v. COMELEC
issue before us has nothing to do with the wisdom of the proposed amendments, their desirability, or the
danger of the power being abused. The issue is whether or not the voters are aware of the wisdom, the
desirability, or the dangers of abuse. The petitioners have failed to make out a case that the average voter
does not know the meaning of grant of public land or of urban land reform.
The necessity, expediency, and wisdom of the proposed amendments are beyond the power of the courts
to adjudicate. Precisely, whether or not "grant" of public land and "urban land reform" are unwise or
improvident or whether or not the proposed amendments are unnecessary is a matter which only the
people can decide. The questions are presented for their determination.
NO COMPELLING REASON FOR A SEPARATE PLEBISCITE FOR THE APPROVAL OF QUESTIONED
PROPOSALS. There is no compelling reason why so much of the peoples money should be spent for
holding a separate plebiscite when the purpose, by and large, of the second is merely to confirm an
existing Constitutional power.

Lambino vs COMELEC
two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal.
No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal
must be embodied in a petition. the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full
text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people
must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.16
must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed" and failure to
do so is "deceptive and misleading" which renders the initiative void
Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition tochange the 1987
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that willratify 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 the1987 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 petitionsand invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec
ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiativepetitions.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complie
s 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 an
d 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 DirectProposal by the PeopleThe 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
theinitiative void.2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision
throughInitiatives
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 onlyamendments 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 NecessaryEven assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it
will not change the result because the present petitionviolated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must
first comply with the constitution before complyingwith RA 6735Petition is dismissed
SANTIAGO VS COMELEC
Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the majority, holds that:
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the initiatory
Delfin Petition.

(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to be directly proposed by the people through initiative,
there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2330, insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.
I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can show the required number of
signatures in this case, 12% of all the registered voters in the Philippines with at least 3% in every
legislative district no public funds may be spent and no government resources may be used in an
initiative to amend the Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent such
signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the majoritys two other rulings.

GONZALES VS COMELEC
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not RA No. 4913 is unconstitutional.
2.) Whether or not the issue involves a political question.
HELD:
1.) Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this provision that
states that the election referred to is special, different from the general election. The Congress deemed it
best to submit the amendments for ratification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It
does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. Petition
is therefore DENIED.
2.) SC also noted that the issue is a political question because it attacks the wisdom of the action taken
by Congress and not the authority to take it. A political question is not subject to review by the Court.

CONSTITUTION AND THE COURTS

2. KILOSBAYAN VS GUINGONA
A. We find the instant petition to be of transcendental importance to the public. The issues it raised
are of paramount public interest and of a category even higher than those involved in many of the
aforecited cases. The ramifications of such issues immeasurably affect the social, economic, and
moral well-being of the people even in the remotest barangays of the country and the counterproductive and retrogressive effects of the envisioned on-line lottery system are as staggering as
the billions in pesos it is expected to raise. The legal standing then of the petitioners deserves
recognition and, in the exercise of its sound discretion, this Court hereby brushes aside the
procedural barrier which the respondents tried to take advantage of.
B. We thus declare that the challenged Contract of Lease violates the exception provided for in
paragraph B, Section 1 of R.A. No. 1169, as amended by B.P. Blg. 42, and is, therefore, invalid
for being contrary to law. This conclusion renders unnecessary further discussion on the other
issues raised by the petitioners.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED and the challenged Contract of Lease executed
on 17 December 1993 by respondent Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and respondent
Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC) is hereby DECLARED contrary to law and invalid.

QUESTION of CONTRACT LAW: The real parties are those who are parties to the
agreement orarebound either principally or subsidiarily or are prejudiced in their
rights with respect to one of thecontracting parties and can show the detriment
which would positively result to them from the contractxxx.(g) Petitioners do not
have such present substantial interest. Questions to the nature or validity of
publiccontracts maybe made before COA or before the Ombudsman.

4. Dumlao vs COMELEC