CASE DIGEST

Santiago v. COMELEC
Constitutional Law

Date March 19, 1997

Petitioners Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, Maria Isabel Ongpin
Respondents COMELEC & founding members of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization, and
Action (PIRMA)
Ponente Davide, Jr., J.
Overview A case regarding filing of petition for amendment of Constitution through people’s
initiative with the COMELEC
Relevant topic Proposal – By the People through Initiative

RELEVANT CHARACTERS:

FACTS:
 People’s initiative is considered “innovative”
- Under previous constitutions, only 2 methods to propose amendments or revision of the Constitution:
1. By Congress, upon ¾ vote of all its members
2. By constitutional convention
 On Dec. 6, 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the
Constitution, Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative”
- Delfin Petition
- Founding member of the Movement for People’s Initiative
 Delfin petition sought to amend the following provisions
1. Sec. 4 and 7 of Art. VI
2. Sec. 4 of Art. VII
3. Sec. 8 of Art. X
- Copy of the proposed amendments was attached to the petition
- Amendment consists of the deletion of the aforecited provisions concerning term limits
 COMELEC issued an Order:
- Directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition together with attached proposal, proposed
amendments and signature form
- Notice of hearing in 3 daily newspapers of general circulation
 Sen. Raul S. Roco appeared at the hearing as intervenor-oppositor
- Filed motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly
cognizable by the COMELEC
 On Dec. 18, 1996, petitioners filed special civil action for prohibition raising the following arguments:
1. Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by
law to be passed by Congress
 Bill is still pending
2. RA 6735 does not provide for implementation of the provision on constitutional initiative
 No subtitle specifically for initiatives to amend the Constitution
 Deliberate omission indicates the matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law
3. RA 6735 covers only laws and not constitutional amendments
4. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 providing for rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of
initiative to amend the Constitution is ultra vires
 COMELEC has no such authority
 Only Congress is authorized to pass the implementing law
5. People’s initiative is limited to amendments only
 Petition at hand constitutes a revision of the Constitution
6. Congress, COMELEC, nor any other government agency/department has appropriated funds for
peoples initiative
 Petitioners justified filing of special civil action for prohibition
- Issue is of transcendental importance and demands to be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside
technicalities of procedure and calling for admission of a taxpayer’s and legislator’s suit
- Would entail expenses to the national treasury (at least P180M) for general registration of voters and in
the conduct of the intiative
 Private respondents argue:
1. The initiative would not entail expenses to the national treasury; all expenses are for the account of
private respondent and his volunteers
2. Pending petition before the COMELEC is only on the signature gathering
3. RA 6735 is the enabling law implementing the power of people’s initiative

Page 1 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Santiago v. COMELEC
Constitutional Law

 Absence of specific subtitle for initiative is not fatal since subtitles are not requirements for the
validity or sufficiency of laws
 RA 6735 also provides that the proposition in an initiative approved by a majority of votes cast
in the plebiscite shall become effective as of the day of the plebiscite
4. COMELEC Resolution was upheld by the SC in its recent decision in the case Subic Bay Metropolitan
Authority v. COMELEC
 Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 of the Constitution grants the COMELEC power to enforce and administer
laws and regulations relative to conduct of election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
recall
 Sec. 20 of RA 6735 empowers COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may
be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act
 Senate Bill passed by Sen. Santiago even delegates to the COMELEC the power to
promulgate such rules and regulations related to people’s initiative
5. The lifting of term limits is not a revision but only an amendment
 Amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific provisions
 Revision contemplates a re-examination of the entire document
 Proposed initiative only seeks to alter a few specific provisions and does not seek to re-
examine or overhaul the entire document
 Court decided to give due course to the special civil action

ISSUE – HELD – RATIO:

ISSUES HELD
1) WON RA 6735 (An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor) was intended to include
or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, WON
the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative
2) WON the portion of COMELEC Resolution regarding conduct of initiative
on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in
the law of specific provisions on the conduct of initiative
3) WON the proposed amendments constitute a revision or an amendment
of the Constitution
4) WON the COMELEC can take cognizance of the petition
5) WON it is proper for the SC to take cognizance of the petition when
there is a pending case before the COMELEC

RATIO:
The instant petition is viable despite pendency of the Delfin Petition in the COMELEC
 COMELEC’s failure to act on Roco’s motion to dismiss and insistence to hold on to the Delfin petition
rendered the instant petition for prohibition ripe and viable
 Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in cases of transcendental importance
- Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr.
- Procedural technicalities may, in the exercise of the Court’s discretion, be set aside in view of the
importance of the issues raised

RA 6735 intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution but is, unfortunately,
inadequate to cover that system
 Art. XVII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution is not self-executory
- “Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right”
- According to Joaquin Bernas, “without implementing legislation, Sec. 2 cannot operate
- It is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, but is still dependent on congressional
action
- While the Constitution has recognized or granted this right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for
whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation
 Interpellations on Sec. 2 show that the details for carrying out Sec. 2 are left to the legislature
- As long as legislature does not pass the necessary implementing law, provision for people’s initiative will
not operate
- Legislative act will implement the exercise of the right; Sec. 2 is not self-executory
- However, none of procedures proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the rights
conceded in Sec. 2

Page 2 of 3
CASE DIGEST
Santiago v. COMELEC
Constitutional Law

- It was also made clear that Sec. 2 is limited to proposals to amend and not to revise
- It was also emphasized that the process of proposing amendments through initiative must be more
rigorous and difficult than the initiative on legislation
 RA 6735 is not a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to provide for the implementation of the
exercise of the right
- RA 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution
- If Congress intended RA 6735 to fully provide for implementation of the initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle
 Right of people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the
initiative on national and local laws
- RA 6735 merely a) mentions the Constitution, b) defines “initiative on the Constitution” and includes in
enumeration of 3 systems of initiative, c) provides that plebiscite is the process for initiative on the
Constitution, d) reiterates constitutional requirements as to number of voters, and e) provides for date of
effectivity of approved proposition
- Court concludes that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
- Its lacunae/void on this substantive matter is fatal
- Cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations necessary to
carry out the purposes of the Act
 GR: what has been delegated cannot be delegated
- Potestas delegate non delegari potest
- Except: xxx 5) delegation to administrative bodies
- COMELEC is an administrative body
- For delegation to COMELEC to be valid, must satisfy the following:
1. Law is complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate (completeness test)
2. Fixes a standard to which delegate must conform in the performance of his functions (sufficient
standard test)
- RA 6735 failed to satisfy above requirements
- Delegation to COMELEC is invalid

COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is void

 Follows from previous discussion that 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

COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or in grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin petition
 Art. XVII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution and RA 6735 provides for requirement for a petition for initiative on the
Constitution
- Must be signed by at least 12% of total registered voters and every legislative district must be represented
by at least 3% of registered voters therein
- Delfin petition does not have required signatures yet
- Private respondent admits that purpose of petition is to obtain assistance in the signature gathering
- Without required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated
 COMELEC may only acquire jurisdiction over petition for initiative after filing
- Prior to filing COMELEC may only:
1. Prescribe the form of the petition
2. Issue a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district
3. Assist in the establishment of signature stations
4. Verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’
identification cards
 Discussion on whether the proposal constitutes an amendment or a revision of the Constitution is rendered
unnecessary, if not academic
 Petition must be granted
- COMELEC is 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

RULING:
WHEREFORE, instant petition is GRANTED, RA 6735 is declared inadequate, parts of Resolution No. 2300 are
declared void, and COMELEC is ordered to DISMISS the DELFIN petition.
Page 3 of 3