AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS

Santiago v. Commission on Elections

270 SCRA 106 (1997)
Finality of Judgement

Facts:

Private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission on Elections
(hereafter, COMELEC) a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by
Peoples Initiative wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order: (1) fixing the time and dates for
signature gathering all over the country; (2) causing the necessary publications of said Order and the
attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of general and local circulation; (3)
instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and
volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose. Sen.
Santiago filed a special civil action against Delfin stating that (1) the constitutional provision on people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress; and (2) RA
6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local
legislation but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of
initiative.

Issue:

Whether RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the constitution

Ruling:

The Supreme Court held that YES, RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on
amendments to the constitution but inadequate to cover the system. The petitioner’s claim that the
constitutional provision on people’s initiative can only be implemented by a law to be passed by the
congress is not self-executory. Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of
amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional
action. Therefore, the people cannot exercise such right if the congress will not implement a law to support
Art. XVII Sec. 2.

Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, together with 6,327,952 Registered

Voters vs. The Commission on Elections
505 SCRA 160 (2006)
Constitutional Amendments

(An amendment is “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition”
only if the people sign on a petition that contains full text of the proposed
Facts: amendments.
The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 Constitution. They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite
that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and 5(c) and Section 7 of the
Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (R.A. 6735). They alleged
that their petition had the support of 12% percent of all the registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.

The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII
(Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions”. The
COMELEC denied the petition citing that R.A. 6735 is inadequate to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.

Issues:

Whether or not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to make amendments through a people’s
initiative.

Ruling:

NO. The Supreme Court held that the petition does not comply with the provisions
stated in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the amendments to the Constitution.
The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people before they sign such proposal.
The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. The Lambino
Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the paper that the
people signed as their initiative petition. The signature sheet does not show to the people
the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the said signature sheet.
Clearly, the signature sheet is not the petition that the framers of the Constitution
envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution.