SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC [270 SCRA 106; G.R. No.

127325; 19 Mar 1997]

Monday, January 19, 2009 Posted by Coffeeholic Writes
Labels: Case Digests, Political Law

Facts: Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the
constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s 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 to directly proposeamendments 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, Public Interest 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 people’s
initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress.
No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s 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 people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for
Intervention.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing 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:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing 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
that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). The
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 people’s initiative.

The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other 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 Court’s decision in the above Issue, the issue of
whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.