DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Get Paid To Use Facebook, Twitter And Youtube --- Interested? Then, Click the LINK.
FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend
Constitution, to lift term limits of elective officials, by people’s
initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s
initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is:
“Do you approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government
officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of Article VI, Section 4
of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine
Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the
people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered
voters in the country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition.
Petitioners Sen. Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the
ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the
COMELEC.
a. 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.b. Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on
initiative but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission
indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law.c. COMELEC
has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s
initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the
implementing law.d. People’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits
constitutes a revision.e. Congress nor any government agency has not yet
appropriated funds for people’s initiative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the people can directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII
of the 1987 Constitution.
Get Paid To Use Facebook, Twitter And Youtube --- Interested? Then, Click the LINK.
HELD:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735
It was intended to include or cover people’s initiative on amendments
to the Constitution but, as worded, it does not adequately cover such
intiative. Article XVII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing for
amendments to Constitution, is not self-executory. While the Constitution has
recognized or granted the right of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution via PI, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for
whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.
FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does
not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of
the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought. The word is not
relevant to the section which is silent as to amendments of the Constitution.
SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act
does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the
Constitution. Sec 5(c) does not include the provisions of the Constitution
sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
THIRD: No subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This
conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the
Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. The argument that
the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed
under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national
in scope. Under Subtitle II and III, the classification is not based on the
scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and character.
National initiative – what is proposed to be enacted is a national law,
or a law which only Congress can pass.
Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law,
ordinance or resolution which only legislative bodies of the governments of the
autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest
ADS:
How to awaken a man's most secret and powerful desire to earn your love, prove his devotion to you, and give you romance that lasts a lifetime. Click this LINK to learn more.
What has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions
to the rule are: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2]
Delegation of emergency powers to the President; [3] Delegation to the people
at large; [4] Delegation to local governments; and [5] Delegation to
administrative bodies.
COMELEC
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi
judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation
of legislative authority. In every case of permissible delegation, there must
be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It 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 standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and
determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. Republic Act No. 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then
invalid.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300
Insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void. 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 Republic Act No. 6735.
Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a
petition solely intended to obtain an order: (a) fixing the time and dates for
signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist
Delfin’s movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c)
directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for
Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
DELFIN PETITION
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that RA 6735
is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to
initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the
COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number
of voters. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed
validly initiated. The COMELEC requires jurisdiction over a petition for
initiative only after its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading.
Nothing before its filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance
of by the COMELEC. The petition was merely entered as UND, meaning undocketed.
It was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been
dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and
the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file
their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time,
energy, and resources.
How to awaken a man's most secret and powerful desire to earn your love, prove his devotion to you, and give you romance that lasts a lifetime. Click this LINK to learn more.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional
amendment.
