Santiago vs. COMELEC, G.R.
No, 127325, March 19, 1997 be implemented by a law to be passed by
SEPTEMBER 16, 2018
FACTS:
On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin (President of the People‘s
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action or PIRMA) filed
with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term
Limits of Elective Officials (Delfin Petition) through Peoples‘
Initiative based on Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
where Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order:
 fixing the time and dates for signature
gathering all over the country;
 causing the necessary publications of the said
Order in newspapers of general and local
circulation; and
 instructing Municipal Election Registrars in
all regions to assist petitioners and volunteers
in establishing signing stations at the time
and dates designated for the purpose.
The COMELEC through its Chairman issued an Order directing Delfin
to cause the publication of the petition; and setting the case for
hearing.
At the hearing, the petitioner-intervenors appeared and on the same
day, Senator Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition on the
ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the
COMELEC.
Petitioner filed the special civil action for prohibition raising the
following arguments:
 The constitutional provision on people‘s
initiatives to amend the Constitution can only
Congress.
 RA No. 6735 provides for 3 systems of
initiative (Constitution, statutes, local
legislation) but it failed to provide any
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution.
 RA 6735 only covers laws and not
constitutional amendments.
 COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (1991) to
govern the conduct of initiative is ultra vires
(beyond legal capacity) because only
Congress is authorized by the Constitution to
pass implementing law.
 People‘s initiative is limited to amendments
to the Constitution and not revision.
 Congress has not yet appropriated funds for
people‘s initiatives.
ISSUES/HELD:
1. Whether RA No. 6735 was intended to cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution
– NO.
2. Whether that portion of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct
of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is valid – NO.
3. Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction
over a petition solely intended to obtain an
order – NO.
4. Whether the lifting of term limits as
proposed in the Delfin Petition would
constitute a revision or an amendment to the
Constitution – MOOT AND ACADEMIC.
5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court
to take cognizance of the petition when there
is a pending case before the COMELEC –
YES.
RATIO:
1. Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987
Constitution is not self-executor and RA
6735 cannot be the implementing
legislation.
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executory.
The details for carrying out the provision are left to the legislature. The
interpellations which ensued on the modified amendment to Section 2
clearly showed that it was a legislative act which must implement the
exercise of the right. Furthermore, the modified amendment confines
initiative to amendments to and not revision of the Constitution.
However, RA 6735 does not provide for the contents of a petition for
initiative on the Constitution because there was no subtitle provided
for it. Hence, RA 6735 is not sufficient to be the implementing
legislation for Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution.
2. The COMELEC Resolution is not valid.
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body, to promulgate
rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority
under the rule that what has been delegated cannot be delegated. It will
only be valid if the law a) is complete in itself; and b) fixes a standard.
However, these requirements were not met.
3. COMELEC has no jurisdiction over a
petition solely intended to obtain an order.
COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only
after its filing and thus, becomes the initiatory pleading. The Delfin
petition is not an initiatory pleading since it does not contain
signatures of the required number of voters (under Sec 2 of Article
XVII), COMELEC has no jurisdiction before its filing.
4. There is no need to discuss whether the
petition presents an amendment or revision
of the Constitution.
The discussion on the issue of whether it is an amendment or a
revision is unnecessary if not academic since COMELEC has no
jurisdiction.
5. The Supreme Court can take cognizance of
the present petition for prohibition.
COMELEC has no jurisdiction so it must be stopped from proceeding
further. Moreover, petition for prohibition is the proper remedy. In this
case, the writ is necessary in view of the highly divisive consequences
on the body politic of the questioned Order. This political instability
and legal confusion climate begs for judicial statesmanship because
only the SC can save the nation in peril and uphold the majesty of the
Constitution when the system of constitutional law is threatened.
Subject:
Initiative and Referendum
Facts:
Under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two methods of
proposing amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution were
recognized: (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
members and (2) by a constitutional convention.
Under the 1987 Constitution, in Section 2 of Article XVII, the system with respect to a system of initiative on the Constitution. (2) The
of initiative was introduced through which the people may directly people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to
propose amendments to the Constitution. revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a
revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative

In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a "Petition to

Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by Held:
People's Initiative" (Delfin Petition)

System of Initiative
The Delfin Petition alleged that the provisions sought to be amended
are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and
Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution. Attached to the petition is a
copy of a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution" embodying 1. The system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of
the proposed amendments. It moved that Comelec fix the time and Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory.
dates for signature gathering. After it is signed by at least twelve per
cent of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be
formally filed with the COMELEC
2. While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the
people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the
system of initiative, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for
Senator Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the Delfin whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation by way of a
Petition is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the law or statute.
COMELEC. What vests jurisdiction upon the COMELEC is the filing
of a petition for initiative which is already signed by the required
number of registered voters. Proponents of a constitutional amendment
cannot avail of the authority and resources of the COMELEC to assist 3. Based on the interpellations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission
them in securing the required number of signatures. which drafted the 1987 Constitution, initiative can only relate to
"amendments" not "revision” of the Constitution. Moreover, the
process of proposing amendments to the Constitution through initiative
must be more rigorous and difficult than the initiative on legislation.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and others filed an action for
prohibition raising the argument that: (1) The constitutional provision
on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be
implemented by law and no such law has been passed. While Republic RA 6735 is Inadequate to cover the System of Initiative on the
Act 6735 provides for three systems of initiative (on the Constitution, Constitution
on statutes, and on local legislation), however, said law is inadequate
 8. The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as
expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest.
4. RA 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution. However, RA 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution 9. The recognized exceptions to the rule are as follows:
is concerned.

(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of

5. Although Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of RA 6753 defines Article VI of the Constitution;
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it does not provide for
the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Other (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section
provisions of the Act cannot be made to apply to fill in the gap since 23(2) of
these provisions expressly refer to ―proposed laws sought to be
enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed‖ Article VI of the Constitution;

(3) Delegation to the people at large;

6. While RA 6735 provides separate Subtitles for initiative and (4) Delegation to local governments; and
referendum on laws and ordinances, no subtitle is provided for
initiative on the Constitution. This omission means that the main thrust (5) Delegation to administrative bodies
of RA 6753 is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If
Congress intended RA 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have
provided for a subtitle therefor. 10. The delegation is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself,
setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a sufficient standard - the
limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable - to
7. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some separate and
future law.

11. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy,

marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public
Subordinate Legislation (Delegation to fill in gaps in the law) agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected.

Invalid Delegation to Comelec (Lack of Sufficient Standard)
12. The deficiency of RA 6735 are fatal and cannot be cured by
"empowering" the COMELEC "to promulgate such rules and
regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act‖.
13. Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising
quasi-judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form
of delegation of legislative authority. However, in every case of
permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation
itself is valid.
14. RA 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation (―completeness test‖ and ―sufficient standard test‖). The
delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Necessarily,
COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It
does not have that power under R.A. No. 6735
Petition for Initiative to Propose Amendments on the Constitution
15. Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section
5(b)of RA 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must
be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered voters
of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of
the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain
signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin admits that the
purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to
gather signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot
be deemed validly initiated.
16. Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA
6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or
given cognizance of by the COMELEC.
17. Given the foregoing, the court stated that further discussion on the
issue of whether the proposal to lift the term limits of elective national
and local officials is an amendment to, and not a revision of, the
Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.
DECISION:
CONCLUSION
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of
the system.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given
flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any
longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the
implementation of the right of the people under that system.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and

d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the

DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made

permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as
against private respondents.

Resolution on the.
 Lambino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
SEPTEMBER 16, 2018
FACTS:
On August 25, 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition
under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of RA 6735.
The Lambino Group claims that their petition has the support of
6,327,952 individuals satisfying the requirement that the signatories of
the petition constitute 12% of all registered voters with each legislative
district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.
The Lambino Group‘s initiative petition modifies Sections 1-7 of
Article VI and Sections 1-4 of Article VII of the Constitution and adds
Article XVIII entitled ‗Transitory Provisions‖ to it shifting the
country‘s form of government from Bicameral-Presidential to
Unicameral-Parliamentary.
Days later, the Lambino Group filed an amended petition with the
COMELEC. However, the COMELEC issued its resolution denying
due course to the Lambino Groups‘s petition invoking Santiago v.
Commission on Elections, which found RA 6735 as inadequate, in
stating that there is no enabling law governing initiative petitions such
as that of the Lambino Group to amend the Constitution.
The Lambino Group is petitioning for the issuance of writs of
certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of
August 31, 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to
their initiative petition. The petitioners and supporting intervenors hold
the view that COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
relying on Santiago.
Opposing intervenors maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent
and they also challenge:
 The Lambino Group‘s standing to file the
petition
 The validity of the signature gathering and
verification process
 The Lambino Group‘s compliance with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
The nature of the proposed changes as
revisions and not mere amendments.
 The Lambino Group‘s compliance with RA
6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one
subject.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Group‘s initiative petition complied with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution – NO.
2. Whether the Court should revisit its ruling on Santiago v.
COMELEC which declared RA 6735 ―incomplete, inadequate, or
wanting in essential terms and conditions‖ to implement the initiative
clause proposals to amend the Constitution – NO
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying due course to the Lambino Group‘s petition – NO.
RATIO:
1. The Lambino Group failed to comply with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution.
a. The petition is not directly proposed by the people.
The Lambino Group‘s Initiative does comply with the requirement that
the amendment be ―directly proposed by the people upon a petition‖
because the Lambino group failed to present the full text of the
proposed changes to the Constitution to the signatories and thus it
cannot be assumed that the signatories had knowledge of the full
nature and effect of the changes they were supporting. Given that the
Initiative first gathered signatures without showing the full text of the
proposed amendments, it can be seen as a ―gigantic fraud on the
people.‖
While Section 2, Article XVII does not explicitly state that the full text
of proposed amendments to the constitution should be presented to the
people before they sign the petition, as shown on the record of the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, it was the intent of the
framers that an amendment is ―directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition‖ only if the people sign on a petition that
contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
A signature requirement would be meaningless if the signatories have
not first been informed of the full extent of the proposal he/she is
signing, and that the attachment of the full text proposal would provide
the assumption that people would be informed in their decision
whether to sign or not.
Moreover, the signature sheet submitted by the Lambino Group to the
Court does not contain the full text of the proposed changes to the
Constitution; instead, the signature sheet merely asks whether the
people approve a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary system of government.
The petitioners alleged that they circulated the draft of their 30 August
2006 amended petition during the signature gathering from February
to August 2006, having the Court believe that they prepared their
amended petition almost seven months earlier in February 2006 and
even before they filed their 25 August 2006 petition. While
Aumentado gives as evidence ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, as proof
that the amended petition was circulated six months before the
petitions were filed, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize
petitioner Aumentado to prepare the petitions, rather, it only states that
ULAP ―supports the proposals of the Consultative Commission on
Charter Change‖ which are vastly different from the proposals of the
Lambino Group, thus the ULAP Resolution does not establish that the
Lambino Group circulated the draft of the petition.
There is inconsistency in the story of the Lambino Group as it was first
stated that they circulated both the 25 August 2006 petion and the 30
August 2006 amended petion; however, Atty. Lambino later changed
the story stating that only the amended petition was circulated.
Even with the assumption that the amended petition was indeed
circulated while the signatures were being gathered it could still be
concluded that there would not be enough copies of the petition for all
the signatories to see. As per Atty. Lambino‘s own admission only
100,000 copies could be confirmed to have been printed as these were
printed by Lambino himself. Assuming that each signature sheet,
which had space for 10 signatures, was attached with a copy of the
petition, there would be enough copies for only 1 million people, far
from the 6,327,952 signatures gathered by the Lambino Group.
Having proved that majority of the signatories were not able to see the
full text of the of the proposed changes proposed signing, they could
not have known the full nature and effect of the proposed changes
which include three controversial amendments:
 The lifting of term limits on the members of
the legislature.
 The interim Parliament will continue to
function indefinitely until it decides to call
for parliamentary elections thus enabling its
members to determine when they will end
their term.
 Within 45 days after the proposed changes,
the interim Parliament will convene to
propose further amendments to the
constitution.
This provision is determined by the Court to be totally unrelated to the
stated objective of the initiative and is considered logrolling.
Logrolling refers to the incorporation of an unrelated subject matter in
the same petition thus creating two propositions within one petition
thus putting the people in a dilemma where since they can only say yes
or no to the whole petition they cannot agree to one proposition
without also agreeing to the other.
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people.
While Atty. Lambino states that this provision is not necessary and
should thus be ignored, the Court does not agree since this provision
could effectively invalidate the whole exercise of the people‘s
initiative as through this provision the interim Parliament could, in
theory, propose amendments not agreed upon by the signatories of the
initial petition.
b. People’s initiative can only be done for constitutional amendments
and not revisions.
Based on the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, the
framers intentionally made a distinction between amendments and
revisions. It was the intent, as is written, that only Congress or a
constitutional convention can propose revisions while a people‘s
initiative is limited only to the proposal of amendments.
A revision implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
constitution while amendment refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes, without altering the basic principle of the constitution. A
change in a single word could already be considered a revision as long
as it overhauls the structure of government and the ideological basis of
the Constitution.
There are two tests to determine whether a change is an amendment or
a revision:
 Quantitative test – examines the number of
provisions, not the degree of change, in order
to test how extensive the proposed changes
are.
 Qualitative test – based on qualitative
effects, asks whether the proposed changes
create far reaching changes in the nature of
the basic governmental plan thus amounting
to a revision.
The prosed changes by the Lambino Group significantly alter the basic
plan of government as it would effectively alter the separation of
powers through the abolition of the Office of the President and
merging of the legislative and executive, and alter the system of
checks and balances within the legislature through the abolition of one
chamber of Congress.
Under both quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group‘s
proposed changes constitute a revision and not simply an amendment
as it ―radically alters the framework of government set forth in the
Constitution.
The Court states that since the proposed changes constitute a revision
and would require far-reaching amendments in not just the specified
articles and provisions but also in several others, a deliberative body
with recorded proceedings would be the best vehicle to undertake
them, as was intended by the framers and is stated in the constitution,
and not a people‘s initiative.
2. There is no need to revisit the Court’s ruling in Santiago since an
affirmation or reversal of the said ruling would not change the
outcome of this petition.
Even if it is assumed RA 6735 is valid, contrary to the ruling in
Santiago, the outcome of the Lambino Group‘s petition would not
change since before referring to RA 6735 a petition must first comply
with Section 2, Article XVII, and as was previously established, it
does not.
The Lambino Group‘s petition also does not comply with RA 6735.
Indeed, It violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requiring that the
signatories, consistitng of 12% of the total number of registered voters,
sign the petition since it has already been established that the 6 million
signatories only signed a signature sheet and not the petition itself.
It also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735, which states that no more
than 1 subject can be embraced by a petition, through its provision
which mandates the interim Parliament to propose further amendments
which as determined earlier is unrelated to the subject of a shift from
presidential to parliamentary form of government.
3. The COMELEC did not commit a grave of abuse of discretion in
dismissing the Lambino Group’s Initiative petition.
Since the COMELEC merely followed the Court‘s ruling in Santiago,
the Commission did not gravely abuse its discretion.
Subject:
Section 2, Article XVII of theConstitution (Amendment by
initiative); Logrolling in the petition; Amendment vs Revision of the
Constitution; People's Initiative applies only to Amendments; Revisit
of Santiago v Comelec not necessary
Facts:
Groups of individuals including Atty. Raul Lambino (Lambino Group)
gathered signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution. The proposed changes under the initiative petition will
shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary form of government.
The Lambino Group alleged that the 6.3 Million signatures gathered
constituted at least 12 percent of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3percent of its registered
voters.
The Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Republic Act
No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. The COMELEC
denied the Lambino petition and invoked the ruling in Santiago v.
Comelec declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
Held:
Section 2, Article XVII (Amendment of the Constitution through a
People's Initiative)
1. The Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional
because it fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be "directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition."
2. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing
constitutional provision that allows a people's initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. It states:
Sec 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. xxx
3. 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, the proposal must be embodied in a
petition.
4. In order to comply with these essential elements , the petition must
contain the full text of the proposed amendments. The full text of the
proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition,
or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such
attachment.
5. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state
that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed
amendments. However, the deliberations clearly show that the framers
of the Constitution intended to adopt the relevant American
jurisprudence on people's initiative where the requirement is that the
people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before
they sign to signify their assent. This is so that registered voters can
intelligently evaluate whether to sign the initiative petition.
6. The Lambino Group merely submitted a copy of the signature
sheet. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature
sheet. The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the
draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets.
The signature sheet is not the 'petition' envisioned in the initiative
clause of the Constitution.
Logrolling in the petition
7. American jurisprudence on initiatives outlaws logrolling - when
the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the
same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma since they can answer
only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to sign a
petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they
may find unacceptable. Under American jurisprudence, the effect of
logrolling is to nullify the entire proposition and not only the unrelated
subject matter.
8. The proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions, mandating
the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to
the Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the
form of government.
Amendment vs Revision of the Constitution
9. Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in
the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or
the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change
alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change
affects substantial provisions of the constitution. Revision generally
affects several provisions of the constitution. The intention of a
revision is to contemplate a re-examination of the entire document, or
of provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the
entire document
10. Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or
deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Amendment
generally affects only the specific provision being amended. The
intention of an amendment is to improve specific parts or to add new
provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress
specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to
be dangerous. [Examples: reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15
years; reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100
percent to 60 percent; change requiring a college degree as an
additional qualification for election to the Presidency]
11. US courts have developed a two-part test in determining whether
the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision:
(a) The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is 'so
extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial
entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous
existing provisions.' The court examines only the number of provisions
affected and does not consider the degree of the change.
(b) The qualitative test asks whether the change will 'accomplish such
far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision'. Whether there is an alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry.
12. The Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an
amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes
overhaul two articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on
the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially
the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and
from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
People's Initiative applies only to amendments
13. Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes
of amending the Constitution.
a) By Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members.
b) By Constitutional convention.
c) through a People's initiative.
14. A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to
an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In
contrast, Congress or a Constitutional convention can
propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution.(Sec 1 and
2, Article XVII of the Constitution)
15. In other words, only Congress or a Constitutional convention may
propose revisions to the Constitution. A people's initiative is only
available to propose amendments.
16. Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or
several provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded
proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision.
Revisit of Santiago v Comelec not necessary
17. The Court must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled
that RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the
Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to the
Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiagowill not change the
outcome of the present petition.
18. Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the
constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this
will not change the result here because the present petition violates
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the
present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.
19. The present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which
requires that the "petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution
must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
registered voters as signatories." Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that
the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories." The 6.3 million
signatories did not sign the petition filed with the COMELEC. Only
Atty. Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C.
Agra signed the petition and amended petition as counsels for "Raul L.
Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, Petitioners.‖
DECISION:
The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice."
However, the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution
No. 2006-02, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that
"ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her
Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms."
The Lambino Group thus admits that their "people's" initiative is an
"unqualified support to the agenda" of the incumbent President to change
the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be wary of incantations of
"people's voice" or "sovereign will" in the present initiative.
This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the
Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign
will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect
the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled
by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the
Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such
alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
 b) DECLARING R. A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed
to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300 of
the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations
on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution;
and
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith
DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December
1996 is made permanent as against the Commission on
Elections, but is LIFTED against private respondents.
Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
Conclusion
Sovereignty residing in the people is the highest form of sovereignty
and thus deserves the highest respect even from the courts. It is not
something that can be overruled, set aside, ignored or stomped over by
whatever amount of technicalities, blurred or vague provisions of the
law.
As I find RA 6735 to be adequate as the implementing law for the
People's Initiative, I vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and
dismiss the petition in G.R. No. 174299. The Amended Petition for
Initiative filed by petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B.
Aumentado should be remanded to the COMELEC for determination
whether or not the petition is sufficient under RA 6735, and if the
petition is sufficient, to schedule and hold the necessary plebiscite as
required by RA 6735.
It is time to let the people's voice be heard once again as it was twenty
years ago. And should this voice demand a change in the Constitution,
the Supreme Court should not be one to stand in its way.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Puno, J.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the examination of Santiago
on the following grounds:
 In the Santiago ruling, the court ruled RA
6735 as insufficient but if did not strike it
down as unconstitutional, by doing so the
Court ―usurped the exclusive right of
legislators to determine how far laws
implementing constitutional mandates should
be crafted,‖ defying the principle that courts
cannot dictate on Congress the style on
writing laws and in doing so rendered an
intolerable ruling.
 The ruling in Santiago involves the
sovereignty of the people.
 The ruling should not impede the will of the
6.3 million signatories.
RA 6735 is sufficient to implement the people‘s initiative.
  The intent of the legislators in enacting RA
6735 was the implementation of the right of
the people to propose amendments to the
Constitution through direct action.
 The court has the duty to give effect to the
intent.
 Only implementing details were omitted
from RA 6735 and not fundamental
principles. The implementing details of a law
can be delegated to the COMELEC.
 The proposed changes are amendments and
can be undertaken through people‘s initiative
constitution. The petition, if approved, does
not constitute already the amendment of the
constitution. It will still require debate and
deliberation of the people, as well as
ratification by majority of the people. Every
step of the way it is the people who should
decide, the court should not prohibit them
from doing so.

Using the same quantitative test it could be argued that since only 2
out of the 18 articles of the 1987 constitution will be changed and thus
the big bulk of the 1987 Constitution would remain unaffected.

 Based on the work of Garner, who says that a

good constitution is composed of the
constitution of liberty, constitution of
government, and constitution of sovereignty,
the proposed changes only affect the
constitution of government and even then the
changes do not change the fundamental
nature of our state as a democratic and
republican state.
 According to Dean Vicente G. Sincon,
revision refers to a consideration of the entire
constitution while amendment refers only to
particular provisions to be added to or altered
in a constitution. This traditional distinction
guided our people when they effected
changes in the 1935 and 1975 Constitutions.

The court should let the voice of the people be heard.

 The petition for people‘s initiative is but the

first step towards the amendment of the
 Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 122156 | February 3, 1997
SEPTEMBER 12, 2018
Facts:
Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), pursuant to the
privatization program of the Philippine Government, decided to sell
through public bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding
shares of respondent Manila Hotel Corporation. The winning bidder,
or the eventual ―strategic partner,‖ is to provide management expertise
and/or an international marketing/reservation system, and financial
support to strengthen the profitability and performance of the Manila
Hotel.
In a close bidding, only two (2) bidders participated: petitioner Manila
Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation, which offered to buy
51% of the MHC, and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, which bid
for the same number of shares at P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.
Petitioner wrote to respondent GSIS offering to match the bid price of
P44.00 per share tendered by Renong Berhad. It even subsequently
tendered a manager‘s check to pay for the shares, which respondent
GSIS refused to accept.
Petitioner filed a case before the Supreme Court for prohibition
and mandamus.
Petitioner invokes par., Art. XII, Section 10, par. 2 of the 1987
Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified
with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument which reflects the vibrancy of Philippine heritage and
culture. It is a proud legacy of an earlier generation of Filipinos who
believed in the nobility and sacredness of independence and its power
and capacity to release the full potential of the Filipino people. To all
intents and purposes, it has become a part of the national patrimony.
It is also the thesis of petitioner that since Manila Hotel is part of the
national patrimony and its business also unquestionably part of the
national economy petitioner should be preferred after it has matched
the bid offer of the Malaysian firm.
Respondents argued that Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution is merely a statement of principle and policy since it is
not a self-executing provision and requires implementing legislation(s)
. . . Thus, for the said provision to Operate, there must be existing laws
“to lay down conditions under which business may be done.‖
Second, granting that this provision is self-executing, Manila Hotel
does not fall under the term national patrimony which only refers to
lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber,
wildlife, flora and fauna and all marine wealth in its territorial sea, and
exclusive marine zone as cited in the first and second paragraphs of
Sec. 2, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution.
According to respondents, while petitioner speaks of the guests who
have slept in the hotel and the events that have transpired therein
which make the hotel historic, these alone do not make the hotel fall
under the patrimony of the nation. What is more, the mandate of the
Constitution is addressed to the State, not to respondent GSIS which
possesses a personality of its own separate and distinct from the
Philippines as a State.
Issues:
1. Whether or not Article XII, Section 10, par.
2 of the Constitution is self-executing.
2. Whether or not Manila Hotel is part of
national patrimony
Held:
 1. Article XII, Section 10, par. 2 of the
Constitution is self-executing.
A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those found
in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, is usually not self-executing. But a
provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative without
the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which supplies
sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be enjoyed or
protected, is self-executing.
Thus a constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and
extent of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination
and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
provisions of the constitution are self-executing If the constitutional
provisions are treated as requiring legislation instead of self-executing,
the legislature would have the power to ignore and practically nullify
the mandate of the fundamental law.
In self-executing constitutional provisions, the legislature may still
enact legislation to facilitate the exercise of powers directly granted by
the constitution, further the operation of such a provision, prescribe a
practice to be used for its enforcement, provide a convenient remedy
for the protection of the rights secured or the determination thereof, or
place reasonable safeguards around the exercise of the right.
2. Manila Hotel is part of national patrimony.
In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to
heritage. When the Constitution speaks of national patrimony, it refers
not only to the natural resources of the Philippines, as the Constitution
could have very well used the term natural resources, but also to
the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
Manila Hotel has become a landmark — a living testimonial of
Philippine heritage. While it was restrictively an American hotel when
it first opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino,
Formerly a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue
of various significant events which have shaped Philippine history. It
was called the Cultural Center of the 1930’s. It was the site of the
festivities during the inauguration of the Philippine Commonwealth.
Dubbed as the Official Guest House of the Philippine Government. it
plays host to dignitaries and official visitors who are accorded the
traditional Philippine hospitality.
The history of the hotel has been chronicled in the book The Manila
Hotel: The Heart and Memory of a City. During World War II the
hotel was converted by the Japanese Military Administration into a
military headquarters. When the American forces returned to recapture
Manila the hotel was selected by the Japanese together with
Intramuros as the two (2) places fro their final stand. Thereafter, in the
1950‘s and 1960‘s, the hotel became the center of political activities,
playing host to almost every political convention. In 1970 the hotel
reopened after a renovation and reaped numerous international
recognitions, an acknowledgment of the Filipino talent and ingenuity.
In 1986 the hotel was the site of a failed coup d’etat where an aspirant
for vice-president was ―proclaimed‖ President of the Philippine
Republic.
For more than eight (8) decades Manila Hotel has bore mute witness to
the triumphs and failures, loves and frustrations of the Filipinos; its
existence is impressed with public interest; its own historicity
associated with our struggle for sovereignty, independence and
nationhood. Verily, Manila Hotel has become part of our national
economy and patrimony.
Other matters discussed: Doctrine of constitutional supremacy
Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract
violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and Perhaps apprehensive that the sale will consummated with Renong
without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the Berhad, Manila Prince came to this Court on prohibition and
fundamental, paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed mandamus.
written in every statute and contract.

Subject: Manila Prince invokes Sec. 10, second paragraph, Art. XII, of the 1987
Constitution and submits that the Manila Hotel has been identified
with the Filipino nation and has practically become a historical
monument of Philippine heritage and culture. it has become a part of
the national patrimony. Petitioner also argues that since 51% of the
Constitutional Supremacy; Filipino First Policy, Self-executory
shares of the MHC carries with it the ownership of the business of the
provisions, National Patrimony; State Action
hotel which is owned by GSIS, a government-owned and controlled
corporation, the hotel business of GSIS being a part of the tourism
industry is unquestionably a part of the national economy.
Facts

Held:
The controversy arose when Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS), pursuant to the privatization program of the Philippine
Government under Proclamation No. 50, decided to sell through public
bidding 30% to 51% of the issued and outstanding shares of Manila Constitutional Supremacy
Hotel Corporation (MHC). In a close bidding, only two bidders
participated: Manila Prince Hotel Corporation, a Filipino corporation,
which offered to buy 51% of the MHC at P41.58 per share,
1. A constitution is a system of fundamental laws for the governance
and Renong Berhad, a Malaysian firm, with ITT-Sheraton as its hotel
and administration of a nation. It is supreme, imperious, absolute and
operator, which bid for the same number of shares at P44.00 per share,
unalterable except by the authority from which it emanates.
or P2.42 more than the bid of petitioner.

2. Under the doctrine of constitutional supremacy, if a law or contract

Pending the declaration of Renong Berhad as the winning bidder,
violates any norm of the constitution that law or contract whether
Manila Prince matched the bid price of P44.00 per share tendered by
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered
Renong Berhad.
into by private persons for private purposes is null and void and
without any force and effect.

3. Since the Constitution is the fundamental, paramount and supreme
law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract.
Self-executory provisions
4. A constitutional provision is self-executing if the nature and extent
of the right conferred and the liability imposed are fixed by the
constitution itself, so that they can be determined by an examination
and construction of its terms, and there is no language indicating that
the subject is referred to the legislature for action.
5. A provision which lays down a general principle, such as those
found in Art. II of the 1987 Constitution is usually not self-executing.
But a provision which is complete in itself and becomes operative
without the aid of supplementary or enabling legislation, or that which
supplies sufficient rule by means of which the right it grants may be
enjoyed or protected, is self-executing.
6. Unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all
provisions of the constitution are self- executing.
7. The omission from a constitution of any express provision for a
remedy for enforcing a right or liability is not necessarily an indication
that it was not intended to be self-executing.
8. The rule is that a self-executing provision of the constitution does
not necessarily exhaust legislative power on the subject, but any
legislation must be in harmony with the constitution, further the
exercise of constitutional right and make it more available.
9. A constitutional provision may be self-executing in one part and
non-self-executing in another.
National patrimony
10. In its plain and ordinary meaning, the term patrimony pertains to
heritage. When the Constitution speaks of ―national patrimony,‖ it
refers not only to the natural resources of the Philippines but also to
the cultural heritage of the Filipinos.
11. Nationalism is inherent in the very concept of the Philippines being
a democratic and republican state, with sovereignty residing in the
Filipino people and from whom all government authority emanates.
Any interpretation of any constitutional provision must adhere to such
basic concept. Protection of foreign investments, while laudible, is
merely a policy. It cannot override the demands of nationalism.
12. Manila Hotel has become a landmark—a living testimonial of
Philippine heritage. It has become part of our national economy and
patrimony. While it was restrictively an American hotel when it first
opened in 1912, it immediately evolved to be truly Filipino. Formerly
a concourse for the elite, it has since then become the venue of various
significant events which have shaped Philippine history.

Filipino First policy is Self-Executory
13. Sec. 10, second par., Art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
mandatory, positive command which is complete in itself and which
needs no further guidelines or implementing laws or rules for its
enforcement.
14. When the Constitution mandates that in the grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering national economy and patrimony,
the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos, it means just
that—qualified Filipinos shall be preferred.
Filipino First Policy
15. The Filipino First Policy is a product of Philippine nationalism,
embodied in the 1987 Constitution not merely to be used as a guideline
for future legislation but primarily to be enforced—so must it be
enforced.
16. The term ―qualified Filipinos‖ as used in the Constitution also
includes corporations at least 60% of which is owned by Filipinos.
This is very clear from the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission.
17. Since the Filipino First Policy provision of the Constitution
bestows preference on qualified Filipinos, the mere tending of the
highest bid is not an assurance that the highest bidder will be declared
the winning bidder
18. Where a foreign firm submits the highest bid in a public bidding
concerning the grant of rights, privileges and concessions covering the
national economy and patrimony, thereby exceeding the bid of a
Filipino, there is no question that the Filipino will have to be allowed
to match the bid of the foreign entity.
19. Any person desiring to do business in the Philippines or with any
of its agencies or instrumentalities is presumed to know his rights and
obligations under the Constitution and the laws of the forum.
State action
20. In constitutional jurisprudence, the acts of a person distinct from
the government are considered ―state action‖ covered by the
Constitution:
(1) when the activity it engages in is a ―public function‖;
(2) when the government is so significantly involved with the private
actor as to make the government responsible for his action; and,
(3) when the government has approved or authorized the action.
21. When the Constitution addresses the State it refers not only to the
people but also to the government as elements of the State.

22. Government is composed of three (3) divisions of power—

legislative, executive and judicial. Accordingly, a constitutional
mandate directed to the State is correspondingly directed to the three
(3) branches of government.
DECISION:

WHEREFORE, respondents GOVERNMENT SERVICE

INSURANCE SYSTEM, MANILA HOTEL CORPORATION,
COMMITTEE ON PRIVATIZATION and OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNMENT CORPORATE COUNSEL are directed to CEASE
and DESIST from selling 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel
Corporation to RENONG BERHAD, and to ACCEPT the matching
bid of petitioner MANILA PRINCE HOTEL CORPORATION to
purchase the subject 51% of the shares of the Manila Hotel
Corporation at P44.00 per share and thereafter to execute the necessary
clearances and to do such other acts and deeds as may be necessary for
purpose