Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

TOPIC: Amendments and Revisions to the Constitution (Art.

XVII, Secs 1-4)


SUB-TOPIC: Procedure - by People’s Initiative; Requirements and Limitations

CASE: Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC, GR No. 127325, 19 March 1997

Petitioners: M Defensor-Santiago, A Padilla, and MI Ongpin

Respondents: COMELEC (public) and J Delfin, A & C Pedrosa (private) as founding


members of the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization, and Action (PIRMA)

Petitioner-Intervenors: Sen R Roco, DIK, MABINI, IBP, and LABAN

Facts:
 On 06 December 1996, Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift the Term Limits of Elective Officials by People’s Initiative.

 Specifically, the petition sought to ‘amend’ Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section
4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution.

 The filed Delfin Petition contained the Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution
but does not include the required signature of at least 12 per centum of the total
number of registered voters nationwide, of which each legislative district must be
represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered voters. Per Delfin, the petition
they filed to the COMELEC is not yet final as they must first submit it to the people
to gather the Constitutional requirement on signatures of registered voters.

 The Delfin petition likewise asked the COMELEC to issue an Order on the period
of signature gathering, the publication of the petition, and the required assistance
to be extended by municipal election registrars to Delfin’s group to establish the
signing stations for the signature gathering.

 Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss Delfin Petition claiming it is not the initiatory petition
properly cognizable by the COMELEC.

 Santiago et al filed a civil action for prohibition contending that:

 A law implementing the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution has yet to
be enacted, as the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735) does not provide
the requirements and process for the system on the initiative on the
Constitution; and
 The rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the
Constitution, as embodied in in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, cited by Delfin
as basis of their requests to COMELEC regarding signature gathering, is
beyond COMELEC’s power. Only Congress is authorized to pass the
implementing law.

 DIK and MABINI in their own words in their Motion for Intervention shared Santiago
et al’s arguments.
 Roco further contended that the proponents of the Delfin Petition cannot avail of
the authority and resources of the COMELEC to gather the required signatures as
the agency’s role in this case, given the obvious lacking requirement on signatures,
is confined to the determination of the sufficiency of the initiative petition.

 The IBP filed its own Motion for Intervention which conformed with Santiago et al’s
and Roco’s contentions.

Issues:
1. Whether the Delfin petition for initiative is valid; and

2. Whether RA 6735 is an adequate implementing law of initiative on amendments to


the Constitution.

Ruling:

1. The Delfin petition is not valid as it was not supported by the required minimum
number of signatures of registered voters as provided for in Sec. 2 of Article XVII
of the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC has no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the said petition as the latter may only acquire
jurisdiction over a petition for initiative after filing of a proper initiatory petition.

2. The Supreme Court ruled that the provisions of RA 6735 are inadequate to cover
the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution as it only provided
subtitles for the National Initiative and Referendum and Local Initiative and
Referendum. The Supreme Court concluded that RA 6735 is incomplete,
inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is concerned.

The COMELEC has been permanently enjoined from entertaining petitions on


initiative to amend the Constitution until the Congress has enacted the
implementing law for the exercise of such right.

S-ar putea să vă placă și