Lambino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
FACTS:
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No.
6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of
6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all
registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three
per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that
COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million
individuals.
The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution
by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections
1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled
“Transitory Provisions.” These proposed changes will shift the present
Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the
COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
Provisions) of their initiative.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA
6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution
through a people’s initiative;
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring
RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions”
to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and
HELD:
1. The Initiative Petition
Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing
constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. This section 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. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
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 framers plainly stated that “before they sign
there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the
people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare
that proposal and pass it around for signature.”
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. This means 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, as an initiative upon a
petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by
signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, 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.
There is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional
requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of
proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering
the signatures – that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment,
the full text of the proposed amendments.
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 Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet after the
oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11
October 2006.
2. A Revisit of Santiago v.
COMELEC is Not Necessary