Defensor Santiago vs. Comelec Full Case

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html 1/47

TodayisTuesday,June30,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.127325March19,1997

MIRIAMDEFENSORSANTIAGO,ALEXANDERPADILLA,andMARIAISABELONGPIN,petitioners,vs.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,JESUSDELFIN,ALBERTOPEDROSA&CARMENPEDROSA,intheircapacitiesasfoundingmembersofthePeople'sInitiativeforReforms,ModernizationandAction(PIRMA),respondents.

SENATORRAULS.ROCO,DEMOKRASYAIPAGTANGGOLANGKONSTITUSYON(DIK),MOVEMENTOFATTORNEYSFORBROTHERHOODINTEGRITYANDNATIONALISM,INC.(MABINI),INTEGRATEDBAROFTHEPHILIPPINES(IBP),andLABANNGDEMOKRATIKONGPILIPINO(LABAN),petitionersintervenors.

DAVIDE,JR.,J.:

TheheartofthiscontroversybroughttousbywayofapetitionforprohibitionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtistherightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionthroughthesystemofinitiativeunderSection2ofArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution.Undoubtedly,thisdemandsspecialattention,asthissystemofinitiativewasunknowntothepeopleofthiscountry,exceptperhapstoafewscholars,beforethedraftingofthe1987 Constitution. The 1986 Constitutional Commission itself, through the original proponent 1 and the mainsponsor 2 of the proposed Article on Amendments or Revision of the Constitution, characterized this system as"innovative".3Indeeditis,forbothunderthe1935and1973Constitutions,onlytwomethodsofproposingamendmentsto,orrevisionof,theConstitutionwererecognized,viz.,(1)byCongressuponavoteofthreefourthsofallitsmembersand(2)byaconstitutionalconvention.4Forthisandtheotherreasonshereafterdiscussed,weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothispetition.

On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission onElections(hereafter,COMELEC)a"PetitiontoAmendtheConstitution,toLiftTermLimitsofElectiveOfficials,byPeople'sInitiative"(hereafter,DelfinPetition)5whereinDelfinaskedtheCOMELECforanorder

1.Fixingthetimeanddatesforsignaturegatheringalloverthecountry

2.Causing thenecessarypublicationsof saidOrderand theattached "Petition for Initiativeon the1987Constitution,innewspapersofgeneralandlocalcirculation

3.InstructingMunicipalElectionRegistrarsinallRegionsofthePhilippines,toassistPetitionersandvolunteers,inestablishingsigningstationsatthetimeandonthedatesdesignatedforthepurpose.

Delfinalleged inhispetition thathe isa foundingmemberof theMovement forPeople's Initiative,6 a group ofcitizensdesiroustoavailofthesystemintendedtoinstitutionalizepeoplepowerthatheandthemembersoftheMovementandothervolunteersintendtoexercisethepowertodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutiongrantedunderSection2,ArticleXVIIof theConstitution that theexerciseof thatpowershallbeconducted inproceedingsunderthecontrolandsupervisionof theCOMELECthat,asrequired inCOMELECResolutionNo.2300,signaturestationsshallbeestablishedalloverthecountry,withtheassistanceofmunicipalelectionregistrars,whoshallverifythesignaturesaffixedbyindividualsignatoriesthatbeforetheMovementandothervolunteerscangathersignatures,itisnecessarythatthetimeanddatestobedesignated for thepurposebe first fixed inanorder tobe issuedby theCOMELECand that toadequately inform thepeopleof theelectoralprocess involved, it is likewisenecessary that thesaidorder,aswellas thePetitiononwhich thesignaturesshallbeaffixed,bepublishedinnewspapersofgeneralandlocalcirculation,underthecontrolandsupervisionoftheCOMELEC.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


TheDelfinPetitionfurtherallegedthattheprovisionssoughttobeamendedareSections4and7ofArticleVI,7Section4ofArticleVII,8andSection8ofArticleX9oftheConstitution.Attachedtothepetitionisacopyofa"PetitionforInitiative on the 1987 Constitution" 10 embodying the proposed amendments which consist in the deletion from theaforecitedsectionsoftheprovisionsconcerningtermlimits,andwiththefollowingproposition:

DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENTOFFICIALS,AMENDINGFORTHEPURPOSESECTIONS4AND7OFARTICLEVI,SECTION4OFARTICLEVII,ANDSECTION8OFARTICLEXOFTHE1987PHILIPPINECONSTITUTION?

AccordingtoDelfin,thesaidPetitionforInitiativewillfirstbesubmittedtothepeople,andafterit issignedbyatleast twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with theCOMELEC.

Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, which was forthwith given the number UND 96037 (INITIATIVE), theCOMELEC, through its Chairman, issued anOrder 11 (a) directing Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition,together with the attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal, proposed constitutionalamendment,andthesignatureform),andthenoticeofhearinginthree(3)dailynewspapersofgeneralcirculationathisownexpense"notlaterthan9December1996and(b)settingthecaseforhearingon12December1996at10:00a.m.

At the hearing of the Delfin Petition on 12 December 1996, the following appeared: Delfin and Atty. Pete Q.Quadra representatives of the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) intervenoroppositorSenatorRaulS.Roco,togetherwithhistwoother lawyers,andrepresentativesof,orcounsel for, theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), DemokrasyaIpagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest LawCenter,andLabanngDemokratikongPilipino(LABAN).12SenatorRoco,onthatsameday,filedaMotiontoDismisstheDelfinPetitiononthegroundthatitisnottheinitiatorypetitionproperlycognizablebytheCOMELEC.

Afterhearingtheirarguments,theCOMELECdirectedDelfinandtheoppositorstofiletheir"memorandaand/oroppositions/memoranda"withinfivedays.13

On18December1996,thepetitionershereinSenatorMiriamDefensorSantiago,AlexanderPadilla,andMariaIsabelOngpinfiledthisspecialcivilactionforprohibitionraisingthefollowingarguments:

(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only beimplementedby law tobepassedbyCongress.Nosuch lawhasbeenpassed in fact,SenateBillNo.1290entitledAnActPrescribingandRegulatingConstitutionAmendmentsbyPeople'sInitiative,which petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November 1995, is still pending before the SenateCommitteeonConstitutionalAmendments.

(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on theConstitution,onstatutes,andonlocallegislation.However,itfailedtoprovideanysubtitleoninitiativeon the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for inSubtitle IIandSubtitle III.Thisdeliberateomission indicates that thematterofpeople's initiative toamend theConstitutionwas left tosome future law.FormerSenatorArturoTolentinostressed thisdeficiency in the law in his privilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There is not asingle word in that law which can be considered as implementing [the provision on constitutionalinitiative].Suchimplementingprovisionshavebeenobviouslylefttoaseparatelaw.

(3)RepublicActNo.6735providesfortheeffectivityofthelawafterpublicationinprintmedia.Thisindicates that theAct coversonly lawsandnot constitutional amendmentsbecause the latter takeeffectonlyuponratificationandnotafterpublication.

(4)COMELECResolutionNo.2300,adoptedon16January1991togovern"theconductofinitiativeontheConstitutionandinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallaws,isultravires insofarasinitiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC has no power toproviderulesandregulationsfortheexerciseoftherightofinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.OnlyCongressisauthorizedbytheConstitutiontopasstheimplementinglaw.

(5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of thepeople'sinitiative.

(6)Finally,Congresshasnotyetappropriatedfundsforpeople'sinitiativeneithertheCOMELECnoranyothergovernmentdepartment,agency,orofficehasrealignedfundsforthepurpose.

Tojustifytheirrecoursetousviathespecialcivilactionforprohibition,thepetitionersallegethatintheeventtheCOMELECgrantstheDelfinPetition,thepeople'sinitiativespearheadedbyPIRMAwouldentailexpensestothenational treasury for general reregistration of voters amounting to at least P180 million, not to mention the

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


millionsofadditionalpesosinexpenseswhichwouldbeincurredintheconductoftheinitiativeitself.Hence,thetranscendental importance to the public and the nation of the issues raised demands that this petition forprohibition be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure and calling for theadmissionofataxpayer'sandlegislator'ssuit.14Besides,thereisnootherplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.

On 19 December 1996, this Court (a) required the respondents to comment on the petition within a nonextendibleperiodoftendaysfromnoticeand(b)issuedatemporaryrestrainingorder,effectiveimmediatelyandcontinuinguntil furtherorders, enjoiningpublic respondentCOMELEC fromproceedingwith theDelfinPetition,andprivaterespondentsAlbertoandCarmenPedrosafromconductingasignaturedriveforpeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.

On2January1997,privaterespondents,throughAttyQuadra,filedtheirComment15on thepetition.Theyarguethereinthat:

1. IT ISNOTTRUETHAT "ITWOULDENTAILEXPENSESTOTHENATIONALTREASURYFORGENERAL REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST PESOS: ONE HUNDREDEIGHTY MILLION (P180,000,000.00)" IF THE "COMELEC GRANTS THE PETITION FILED BYRESPONDENTDELFINBEFORETHECOMELEC.

2. NOT A SINGLE CENTAVO WOULD BE SPENT BY THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IF THECOMELEC GRANTS THE PETITION OF RESPONDENT DELFIN. ALL EXPENSES IN THESIGNATURE GATHERING ARE ALL FOR THE ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT DELFIN AND HISVOLUNTEERSPERTHEIRPROGRAMOFACTIVITIESANDEXPENDITURESSUBMITTEDTOTHECOMELEC.THEESTIMATEDCOSTOFTHEDAILYPERDIEMOFTHESUPERVISINGSCHOOLTEACHERS IN THESIGNATUREGATHERINGTOBEDEPOSITED and TOBEPAIDBYDELFINANDHISVOLUNTEERSISP2,571,200.00

3.THEPENDINGPETITIONBEFORETHECOMELECISONLYONTHESIGNATUREGATHERINGWHICH BY LAW COMELEC IS DUTY BOUND "TO SUPERVISE CLOSELY" PURSUANT TO ITS"INITIATORY JURISDICTION" UPHELD BY THE HONORABLE COURT IN ITS RECENTSEPTEMBER26,1996DECISIONINTHECASEOFSUBICBAYMETROPOLITANAUTHORITYVS.COMELEC,ETAL.G.R.NO.125416

4.REP.ACTNO.6735APPROVEDONAUGUST4,1989ISTHEENABLINGLAWIMPLEMENTINGTHE POWER OF PEOPLE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.SENATORDEFENSORSANTIAGO'SSENATEBILLNO.1290 ISADUPLICATIONOFWHATAREALREADYPROVIDEDFORINREP.ACTNO.6735

5. COMELECRESOLUTIONNO. 2300 PROMULGATEDON JANUARY 16, 1991 PURSUANT TOREP.ACT6735WASUPHELDBYTHEHONORABLECOURT INTHERECENTSEPTEMBER26,1996DECISION INTHECASEOFSUBICBAYMETROPOLITANAUTHORITYVS.COMELEC,ETAL. G.R. NO. 125416 WHERE THE HONORABLE COURT SAID: "THE COMMISSION ONELECTIONS CAN DO NO LESS BY SEASONABLY AND JUDICIOUSLY PROMULGATINGGUIDELINESANDRULESFORBOTHNATIONALANDLOCALUSE,INIMPLEMENTINGOFTHESELAWS."

6.EVENSENATORDEFENSORSANTIAGO'SSENATEBILLNO. 1290CONTAINSAPROVISIONDELEGATING TO THE COMELEC THE POWER TO "PROMULGATE SUCH RULES ANDREGULATIONSASMAYBENECESSARYTOCARRYOUTTHEPURPOSESOFTHISACT."(SEC.12,S.B.NO.1290,ENCLOSEDASANNEXE,PETITION)

7. THE LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION ON THE TERM OF OFFICE OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALSPROVIDEDUNDERTHE1987CONSTITUTIONISNOTA"REVISION"OFTHECONSTITUTION.ITIS ONLY AN AMENDMENT. "AMENDMENT ENVISAGES AN ALTERATION OF ONE OR A FEWSPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. REVISION CONTEMPLATES A REEXAMINATIONOFTHEENTIREDOCUMENTTODETERMINEHOWANDTOWHATEXTENT ITSHOULDBEALTERED."(PP.412413,2ND.ED.1992,1097PHIL.CONSTITUTION,BYJOAQUING.BERNAS,S.J.).

Alsoon2January1997,private respondentDelfin filed inhisownbehalfaComment16 which starts offwith anassertionthattheinstantpetitionisa"kneejerkreactiontoadraft'PetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution'...whichisnot formally filedyet."Whathefiledon6December1996wasan"InitiatoryPleading"or"InitiatoryPetition,"whichwaslegallynecessary to start thesignature campaign toamend theConstitutionor toput themovement togather signaturesunderCOMELECpowerandfunction.Onthesubstantiveallegationsofthepetitioners,Delfinmaintainsasfollows:

(1)Contrarytotheclaimofthepetitioners,thereisalaw,R.A.No.6735,whichgovernstheconduct

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


ofinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Theabsencethereinofasubtitleforsuchinitiativeisnotfatal,sincesubtitlesarenotrequirementsforthevalidityorsufficiencyoflaws.

(2)Section9(b)ofR.A.No.6735specificallyprovides that theproposition inan initiative toamendtheConstitutionapprovedbythemajorityofthevotescastintheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveasofthedayoftheplebiscite.

(3) The claim that COMELECResolution No. 2300 is ultra vires is contradicted by (a) Section 2,ArticleIXCoftheConstitution,whichgrantstheCOMELECthepowertoenforceandadministeralllaws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, andrecall and (b)Section20ofR.A.6735,whichempowers theCOMELEC topromulgate such rulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesoftheAct.

(4)Theproposedinitiativedoesnot involvearevisionof,butmereamendment to, theConstitutionbecauseitseekstoalteronlyafewspecificprovisionsoftheConstitution,ormorespecifically,onlythosewhichlaytermlimits.Itdoesnotseektoreexamineoroverhaultheentiredocument.

As to thepublicexpenditures for registrationof voters,Delfinconsiderspetitioners'estimateofP180millionasunreliable, for only the COMELEC can give the exact figure. Besides, if there will be a plebiscite it will besimultaneouswith the 1997BarangayElections. In any event, fund requirements for initiative will be a prioritygovernmentexpensebecauseitwillbefortheexerciseofthesovereignpowerofthepeople.

IntheComment17forthepublicrespondentCOMELEC,filedalsoon2January1997,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralcontendsthat:

(1)R.A.No.6735dealswith,interalia,people'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.ItsSection2onStatementofPolicyexplicitlyaffirms,recognizes,andguaranteesthatpoweranditsSection3,whichenumerates the three systems of initiative, includes initiative on the Constitution and defines thesameas thepower toproposeamendments to theConstitution.Likewise, itsSection5 repeatedlymentionsinitiativeontheConstitution.

(2)Aseparatesubtitleon initiativeon theConstitution isnotnecessary inR.A.No.6735because,being national in scope, that system of initiative is deemed included in the subtitle on NationalInitiativeandReferendumandSenatorTolentinosimplyoverlookedpertinentprovisionsof the lawwhenheclaimedthatnothingthereinwasprovidedforinitiativeontheConstitution.

(3)SenateBillNo.1290isneitheracompetentnoramaterialproofthatR.A.No.6735doesnotdealwithinitiativeontheConstitution.

(4)ExtensionoftermlimitsofelectedofficialsconstitutesamereamendmenttotheConstitution,notarevisionthereof.

(5)COMELECResolutionNo.2300wasvalidlyissuedunderSection20ofR.A.No.6735andundertheOmnibusElectionCode.TherulemakingpoweroftheCOMELECtoimplementtheprovisionsofR.A.No.6735wasinfactupheldbythisCourtinSubicBayMetropolitanAuthorityvs.COMELEC.

On 14 January 1997, this Court (a) confirmed nunc pro tunc the temporary restraining order (b) noted theaforementioned Comments and the Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order filed by private respondentsthroughAtty.Quadra,aswellas the latter'sManifestationstating thathe is thecounsel forprivaterespondentsAlbertoandCarmenPedrosaonlyandtheCommenthefiledwasforthePedrosasand(c)grantedtheMotionforInterventionfiledon6January1997bySenatorRaulRocoandallowedhimtofilehisPetitioninInterventionnotlaterthan20January1997and(d)setthecaseforhearingon23January1997at9:30a.m.

On17January1997, theDemokrasyaIpagtanggolangKonstitusyon (DIK) and theMovement ofAttorneys forBrotherhoodIntegrityandNationalism,Inc.(MABINI),filedaMotionforIntervention.Attachedtothemotionwastheir Petition in Intervention, which was later replaced by an Amended Petition in Intervention wherein theycontendthat:

(1)TheDelfinproposaldoesnot involveamereamendment to,buta revision of, theConstitutionbecause,inthewordsofFr.JoaquinBernas,S.J.,18itwouldinvolveachangefromapoliticalphilosophythatrejectsunlimitedtenuretoonethatacceptsunlimitedtenureandalthoughthechangemightappeartobean isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on synchronization of elections and on the Statepolicyofguaranteeingequalaccesstoopportunitiesforpublicserviceandprohibitingpoliticaldynasties.19Arevision cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of theConstitution,islimitedtoamendments.

(2)Theprohibitionagainst reelectionof thePresidentand the limitsprovided forall othernational

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


andlocalelectiveofficialsarebasedonthephilosophyofgovernance,"toopenupthepoliticalarenato as many as there are Filipinos qualified to handle the demands of leadership, to break theconcentrationofpoliticalandeconomicpowersinthehandsofafew,andtopromoteeffectiveproperempowerment for participation in policy and decisionmaking for the common good" hence, toremovethetermlimitsistonegateandnullifythenoblevisionofthe1987Constitution.

(3)TheDelfinproposal runscounter to thepurposeof initiative,particularly inaconflictofinterestsituation.Initiativeisintendedasafallbackpositionthatmaybeavailedofbythepeopleonlyiftheyare dissatisfied with the performance of their elective officials, but not as a premium for goodperformance.20

(4) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate in itself to be called the enabling law that implements thepeople's initiativeonamendments to theConstitution. It fails tostate (a) theproperpartieswhomay file thepetition,(b)theappropriateagencybeforewhomthepetitionistobefiled,(c)thecontentsofthepetition,(d)thepublicationofthesame,(e)thewaysandmeansofgatheringthesignaturesofthevotersnationwideand3%perlegislativedistrict,(f)theproperpartieswhomayopposeorquestiontheveracityofthesignatures,(g)theroleoftheCOMELECintheverificationofthesignaturesandthesufficiencyofthepetition,(h)theappealfromanydecisionoftheCOMELEC,(I)theholdingofaplebiscite,and(g)theappropriationoffundsforsuchpeople'sinitiative.Accordingly,therebeingnoenablinglaw,theCOMELEChasnojurisdictiontohearDelfin'spetition.

(5)ThedeficiencyofR.A.No.6735cannotbe rectifiedor remediedbyCOMELECResolutionNo.2300, since the COMELEC is without authority to legislate the procedure for a people's initiativeunder Section 2 of Article XVII of theConstitution. That function exclusively pertains toCongress.Section20ofR.A.No.6735doesnotconstitutealegalbasisfortheResolution,astheformerdoesnotsetasufficientstandardforavaliddelegationofpower.

On20January1997,SenatorRaulRocofiledhisPetitioninIntervention.21HeaversthatR.A.No.6735istheenablinglawthatimplementsthepeople'srighttoinitiateconstitutionalamendments.ThislawisaconsolidationofSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505hecoauthoredtheHouseBillandevendeliveredasponsorshipspeechthereon.HelikewisesubmitsthattheCOMELECwasempoweredunderSection20ofthat law to promulgate COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. Nevertheless, he contends that the respondent Commission iswithoutjurisdictiontotakecognizanceoftheDelfinPetitionandtoorderitspublicationbecausethesaidpetitionisnottheinitiatorypleadingcontemplatedundertheConstitution,RepublicActNo.6735,andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300.WhatvestsjurisdictionupontheCOMELECinaninitiativeontheConstitutionisthefilingofapetitionforinitiativewhichissignedbytherequirednumberofregisteredvoters.Healsosubmitsthattheproponentsofaconstitutionalamendmentcannotavailof the authority and resources of the COMELEC to assist them is securing the required number of signatures, as theCOMELEC'sroleinaninitiativeontheConstitutionislimitedtothedeterminationofthesufficiencyoftheinitiativepetitionandthecallandsupervisionofaplebiscite,ifwarranted.

On20January1997,LABANfiledaMotionforLeavetoIntervene.

Thefollowingday,theIBPfiledaMotionforInterventiontowhichitattachedaPetitioninInterventionraisingthefollowingarguments:

(1)CongresshasfailedtoenactanenablinglawmandatedunderSection2,ArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution.

(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the required implementing law on theinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.

(3)ThePetitionforInitiativesuffersfromafataldefectinthatitdoesnothavetherequirednumberofsignatures.

(4) The petition seeks, in effect a revision of the Constitution, which can be proposed only byCongressoraconstitutionalconvention.22

On21January1997,wepromulgatedaResolution(a)grantingtheMotionsforInterventionfiledbytheDIKandMABINIandbytheIBP,aswellastheMotionforLeavetoIntervenefiledbyLABAN(b)admittingtheAmendedPetition inInterventionofDIKandMABINI,andthePetitionsinInterventionofSenatorRocoandoftheIBP(c)requiringtherespondentstofilewithinanonextendibleperiodoffivedaystheirConsolidatedCommentsontheaforesaidPetitionsinInterventionand(d)requiringLABANtofileitsPetitioninInterventionwithinanonextendibleperiodofthreedaysfromnotice,andtherespondentstocommentthereonwithinanonextendibleperiodoffivedaysfromreceiptofthesaidPetitioninIntervention.

Atthehearingofthecaseon23January1997,thepartiesarguedonthefollowingpivotalissues,whichtheCourtformulatedinlightoftheallegationsandargumentsraisedinthepleadingssofarfiled:

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


1.WhetherR.A.No.6735,entitledAnActProvidingforaSystemof InitiativeandReferendumandAppropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to theConstitutionandifso,whethertheAct,asworded,adequatelycoverssuchinitiative.

2.WhetherthatportionofCOMELECResolutionNo.2300(Inre:RulesandRegulationsGoverningtheConduct of Initiative on theConstitution, and Initiative andReferendumonNational and LocalLaws)regardingtheconductofinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionisvalid,consideringtheabsenceinthelawofspecificprovisionsontheconductofsuchinitiative.

3.Whether the liftingof term limits of electivenational and local officials, asproposed in thedraft"PetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution,"wouldconstitutearevisionof,oranamendmentto,theConstitution.

4.WhethertheCOMELECcantakecognizanceof,orhasjurisdictionover,apetitionsolelyintendedto obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering (b) instructing municipalelectionofficerstoassistDelfin'smovementandvolunteersinestablishingsignaturestationsand(c)directingorcausingthepublicationof, interalia, theunsignedproposedPetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution.

5.Whether it is proper for the SupremeCourt to take cognizance of the petitionwhen there is apendingcasebeforetheCOMELEC.

Afterhearingthemonthe issues,werequiredthepartiestosubmitsimultaneouslytheirrespectivememorandawithintwentydaysandrequestedintervenorSenatorRocotosubmitcopiesofthedeliberationsonHouseBillNo.21505.

On27January1997,LABANfiled itsPetition in Interventionwherein itadoptstheallegationsandarguments inthemainPetition. It further submits that theCOMELECshouldhavedismissed theDelfinPetition for failure tostateasufficientcauseofactionandthattheCommission'sfailureorrefusaltodosoconstitutedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction.

On28January1997,SenatorRocosubmittedcopiesofportionsofboththeJournalandtheRecordoftheHouseofRepresentativesrelatingtothedeliberationsofHouseBillNo.21505,aswellasthetranscriptsofstenographicnotes on the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee, Committee on Suffrage and ElectoralReforms,of6June1989onHouseBillNo.21505andSenateBillNo.17.

Private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa filed their Consolidated Comments on the Petitions inInterventionofSenatorRoco,DIKandMABINI, and IBP.23The parties thereafter filed, in due time, their separatememoranda.24

Aswestatedinthebeginning,weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothisspecialcivilaction.

Foramorelogicaldiscussionoftheformulatedissues,weshallfirsttakeupthefifthissuewhichappearstoposeaprejudicialproceduralquestion.

I

THEINSTANTPETITIONISVIABLEDESPITETHEPENDENCYINTHECOMELECOFTHEDELFINPETITION.

ExceptforthepetitionersandintervenorRoco,thepartiespaidnoseriousattentiontothefifthissue,i.e.,whetherit isproper for thisCourt to takecognizanceof thisspecialcivilactionwhenthere isapendingcasebeforetheCOMELEC.Thepetitionersprovideanaffirmativeanswer.Thus:

28.TheComelechasno jurisdiction to take cognizanceof thepetition filed by private respondentDelfin.Thisbeingso, itbecomes imperative tostop theComelec fromproceedingany further,andundertheRulesofCourt,Rule65,Section2,apetitionforprohibitionistheproperremedy.

29.Thewritofprohibitionisanextraordinaryjudicialwritissuingoutofacourtofsuperiorjurisdictionanddirected toan inferiorcourt, for thepurposeofpreventing the inferior tribunal fromusurpingajurisdictionwithwhichitisnotlegallyvested.(Peoplev.Vera,supra.,p.84).Inthiscasethewritisanurgentnecessity,inviewofthehighlydivisiveandadverseenvironmentalconsequencesonthebodypolitic of the questioned Comelec order. The consequent climate of legal confusion and politicalinstabilitybegsforjudicialstatesmanship.

30.Inthefinalanalysis,whenthesystemofconstitutionallawisthreatenedbythepoliticalambitionsofman,onlytheSupremeCourt

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


cansaveanationinperilandupholdtheparamountmajestyoftheConstitution.25

Itmustbe recalled that intervenorRoco filedwith theCOMELECamotion todismiss theDelfinPetitionon thegroundthattheCOMELEChasnojurisdictionorauthoritytoentertainthepetition.26TheCOMELECmadenorulingthereon evidently because after having heard the arguments ofDelfin and the oppositors at the hearing on 12December1996,itrequiredthemtosubmitwithinfivedaystheirmemorandaoroppositions/memoranda.27Earlier,orspecificallyon6December 1996, it practically gave due course to the Delfin Petition by ordering Delfin to cause the publication of thepetition, togetherwith theattachedPetition for Initiative, thesignature form,and thenoticeofhearingandbysetting thecase forhearing.TheCOMELEC's failure toactonRoco'smotion todismissand its insistence toholdon to thepetitionrenderedripeandviabletheinstantpetitionunderSection2ofRule65oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:

Sec. 2.Petition for prohibition. Where the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board, orperson, whether exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its or hisjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,andthereisnoappealoranyotherplain,speedyandadequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verifiedpetition in thepropercourtalleging the factswithcertaintyandpraying that judgmentbe renderedcommanding the defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or matter specifiedtherein.

Itmustalsobenotedthat intervenorRococlaimsthattheCOMELEChasnojurisdictionovertheDelfinPetitionbecause thesaidpetition isnotsupportedby the requiredminimumnumberofsignaturesof registeredvoters.LABANalso asserts that theCOMELECgravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss theDelfinPetition,whichdoesnotcontaintherequirednumberofsignatures.Inlightoftheseclaims,theinstantcasemaylikewisebetreatedasaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderSectionIofRule65oftheRulesofCourt.

In any event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his Memorandum, this Court may brush asidetechnicalitiesofprocedureincasesoftranscendentalimportance.AswestatedinKilosbayan,Inc.v.Guingona,Jr.28

Aparty's standingbefore thisCourt isaprocedural technicalitywhich itmay, in theexerciseof itsdiscretion,setasideinviewoftheimportanceofissuesraised.InthelandmarkEmergencyPowersCases,thisCourtbrushedasidethistechnicalitybecausethetranscendentalimportancetothepublicof these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if wemust,technicalitiesofprocedure.

II

R.A.NO.6735INTENDEDTOINCLUDETHESYSTEMOFINITIATIVEONAMENDMENTSTOTHECONSTITUTION,BUTIS,UNFORTUNATELY,INADEQUATETOCOVERTHATSYSTEM.

Section2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionprovides:

Sec. 2.Amendments to thisConstitutionmay likewise be directly proposed by the people throughinitiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, ofwhichevery legislativedistrictmust be representedbyat least three per centum of the registeredvoters therein.Noamendmentunder thissectionshallbeauthorizedwithin fiveyears following theratificationofthisConstitutionnoroftenerthanonceeveryfiveyearsthereafter.

TheCongressshallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.

Thisprovisionisnotselfexecutory.Inhisbook,29JoaquinBernas,amemberofthe1986ConstitutionalCommission,stated:

Without implementing legislationSection2 cannotoperate.Thus,although thismodeofamendingtheConstitutionisamodeofamendmentwhichbypassescongressionalaction,inthelastanalysisitstillisdependentoncongressionalaction.

Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through thesystemofinitiativewouldremainentombedinthecoldnicheoftheConstitutionuntilCongressprovidesforitsimplementation.Statedotherwise,whiletheConstitutionhasrecognizedorgrantedthatright,thepeoplecannotexerciseitifCongress,forwhateverreason,doesnotprovideforitsimplementation.

This system of initiative was originally included in Section 1 of the draft Article on Amendment or RevisionproposedbytheCommitteeonAmendmentsandTransitoryProvisionsofthe1986ConstitutionalCommissioninitsCommitteeReportNo.7(ProposedResolutionNo.332).30Thatsectionreadsasfollows:

Sec.1.Anyamendmentto,orrevisionof,thisConstitutionmaybeproposed:

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


(a)bytheNationalAssemblyuponavoteofthreefourthsofallitsmembersor

(b)byaconstitutionalconventionor

(c) directly by thepeople themselves thru initiative as provided for inArticle___Section___of theConstitution.31

After several interpellations, but before the period of amendments, the Committee submitted a newformulationoftheconceptofinitiativewhichitdenominatedasSection2thus:

MR.SUAREZ.Thank you,MadamPresident.Maywe respectfully call attentionof theMembers of theCommission that pursuant to themandate given to us last night, wesubmitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies theproposedprovisiongoverningthematterofinitiative.ThisisnowcoveredbySection2ofthe complete committee report. With the permission of the Members, may I quoteSection2:

The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly proposeamendmentstothisConstitutionthruinitiativeuponpetitionofat leasttenpercentoftheregisteredvoters.

ThiscompletestheblanksappearingintheoriginalCommitteeReportNo.7.32

TheinterpellationsonSection2showedthatthedetailsforcarryingoutSection2arelefttothelegislature.Thus:

FR.BERNAS.MadamPresident,justtwosimple,clarificatoryquestions.

First,onSection1onthematterof initiativeuponpetitionofat least10percent, therearenodetailsintheprovisiononhowtocarrythisout.Doweunderstand,therefore,thatweareleavingthismattertothelegislature?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright,MadamPresident.

FR.BERNAS.Anddowealsounderstand,therefore,that foras longasthelegislaturedoesnotpassthenecessaryimplementinglawonthis,thiswillnotoperate?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatmatterwasalsotakenupduringthecommitteehearing,especiallywithrespecttothebudgetappropriationswhichwouldhavetobelegislatedsothattheplebiscitecouldbecalled.Wedeemed itbest that thismatterbe left to the legislature.TheGentlemanisright.Inanyevent,asenvisioned,noamendmentthroughthepowerof initiative can be called until after five years from the date of the ratification of thisConstitution. Therefore, the first amendment that could be proposed through theexerciseofthisinitiativepowerwouldbeafterfiveyears.It isreasonablyexpectedthatwithin that fiveyear period, the National Assembly can come up with the appropriaterulesgoverningtheexerciseofthispower.

FR.BERNAS.Sincethematterislefttothelegislaturethedetailsonhowthisistobecarried out is it possible that, in effect, what will be presented to the people forratification is theworkof the legislature rather thanof thepeople?Does thisprovisionexcludethatpossibility?

MR.SUAREZ.No,itdoesnotexcludethatpossibilitybecauseeventhelegislatureitselfasabodycouldproposethatamendment,maybeindividuallyorcollectively,ifitfailstomusterthethreefourthsvoteinordertoconstituteitselfasaconstituentassemblyandsubmitthatproposaltothepeopleforratificationthroughtheprocessofaninitiative.

xxxxxxxxx

MS.AQUINO.DoIunderstandfromthesponsorthattheintentionintheproposal istovestconstituentpowerinthepeopletoamendtheConstitution?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatisabsolutelycorrect,MadamPresident.

MS. AQUINO. I fully concur with the underlying precept of the proposal in terms ofinstitutionalizing popular participation in the drafting of the Constitution or in theamendmentthereof,butIwouldhavealotofdifficultiesintermsofacceptingthedraftofSection 2, aswritten.Would the sponsor agreewithme that in the hierarchy of legalmandate,constituentpowerhasprimacyoverallotherlegalmandates?

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


MR.SUAREZ.TheCommissionerisright,MadamPresident.

MS.AQUINO.Andwouldthesponsoragreewithmethatinthehierarchyoflegalvalues,theConstitution is source of all legalmandates and that thereforewe require a greatdealofcircumspectioninthedraftingandintheamendmentsoftheConstitution?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatpropositionisnondebatable.

MS. AQUINO. Such that in order to underscore the primacy of constituent power wehaveaseparatearticleintheconstitutionthatwouldspecificallycovertheprocessandthemodesofamendingtheConstitution?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright,MadamPresident.

MS.AQUINO.Therefore, is thesponsor inclined,as theprovisionsaredraftednow, toagain concede to the legislature the process or the requirement of determining themechanicsofamendingtheConstitutionbypeople'sinitiative?

MR.SUAREZ.ThematterofimplementingthiscouldverywellbeplacedinthehandsoftheNationalAssembly,notunlesswecanincorporateintothisprovisionthemechanicsthatwouldadequatelycoveralltheconceivablesituations.33

ItwasmadeclearduringtheinterpellationsthattheaforementionedSection2islimitedtoproposalstoAMENDnottoREVISEtheConstitutionthus:

MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter ofinitiative,whichcameaboutbecauseoftheextraordinarydevelopmentsthisyear,hastobeseparated from the traditionalmodesofamending theConstitutionasembodied inSection1.ThecommitteemembersfeltthatthissystemofinitiativeshouldnotextendtotherevisionoftheentireConstitution,soweremoveditfromtheoperationofSection1oftheproposedArticleonAmendmentorRevision.34

xxxxxxxxx

MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this process ofinitiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the sponsor beamenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning Section 2 as anothersubparagraph(c)ofSection1,insteadofsettingitupasanotherseparatesectionasifitwereaselfexecutingprovision?

MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while ago, thisprocessofinitiativeislimitedtothematterofamendmentandshouldnotexpandintoarevisionwhichcontemplatesatotaloverhauloftheConstitution.ThatwasthesensethatwasconveyedbytheCommittee.

MS.AQUINO.Inotherwords,theCommitteewasattemptingtodistinguishthecoverageof modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision whereas theprocess of initiation to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply toamendments?

MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright.ThosewerethetermsenvisionedintheCommittee.35

AmendmentstotheproposedSection2werethereafterintroducedbythenCommissionerHilarioG.Davide,Jr.,whichtheCommitteeaccepted.Thus:

MR.DAVIDE.ThankyouMadamPresident.IproposetosubstitutetheentireSection2withthefollowing:

MR.DAVIDE.MadamPresident,Ihavemodifiedtheproposedamendmentaftertakinginto account the modifications submitted by the sponsor himself and the honorableCommissioners Guingona, Monsod, Rama, Ople, de los Reyes and Romulo. ThemodifiedamendmentinsubstitutionoftheproposedSection2willnowreadasfollows:"SECTION 2. AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BEDIRECTLYPROPOSEDBY THEPEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVEUPONA PETITIONOF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER Of REGISTEREDVOTERS,OFWHICHEVERYLEGISLATIVEDISTRICTMUSTBEREPRESENTEDBYAT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


AMENDMENTUNDERTHISSECTIONSHALLBEAUTHORIZEDWITHINFIVEYEARSFOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THANONCEEVERYFIVEYEARSTHEREAFTER.

THENATIONALASSEMBLYSHALLBYLAWPROVIDEFORTHE IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEEXERCISEOFTHISRIGHT.

MR.SUAREZ.MadamPresident,consideringthattheproposedamendmentisreflectiveof the sense contained in Section 2 of our completed Committee Report No. 7, weaccepttheproposedamendment.36

TheinterpellationswhichensuedontheproposedmodifiedamendmenttoSection2clearlyshowedthatitwasalegislativeactwhichmustimplementtheexerciseoftheright.Thus:

MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, is it possible for thelegislaturetosetforthcertainprocedurestocarryouttheinitiative...?

MR.DAVIDE.Itcan.

xxxxxxxxx

MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislaturefromaskinganotherbodytosetthepropositioninproperform.

MR.DAVIDE.TheCommissioner iscorrect. Inotherwords, the implementationof thisparticularrightwouldbesubjecttolegislation,providedthelegislaturecannotdetermineanymorethepercentageoftherequirement.

MR.ROMULO.But theprocedures, including thedeterminationof theproper form forsubmissiontothepeople,maybesubjecttolegislation.

MR.DAVIDE.Aslongasitwillnotdestroythesubstantiverighttoinitiate.Inotherwords,noneof theprocedurestobeproposedbythe legislativebodymustdiminishor impairtherightconcededhere.

MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I havediscussedbelegislated?

MR.DAVIDE.Yes.37

CommissionerDavidealsoreaffirmedthathismodifiedamendmentstrictlyconfinesinitiativetoAMENDMENTStoNOTREVISIONoftheConstitution.Thus:

MR.DAVIDE.Withpleasure,MadamPresident.

MR.MAAMBONG.My firstquestion:CommissionerDavide'sproposedamendmentonline 1 refers to "amendment." Does it not cover the word "revision" as defined byCommissionerPadillawhenhemadethedistinctionbetweenthewords"amendments"and"revision"?

MR.DAVIDE.No,itdoesnot,because"amendments"and"revision"shouldbecoveredbySection1.Soinsofarasinitiativeisconcerned,itcanonlyrelateto"amendments"not"revision."38

CommissionerDavidefurtheremphasizedthattheprocessofproposingamendmentsthrough initiativemustbemorerigorousanddifficultthantheinitiativeonlegislation.Thus:

MR.DAVIDE.Adistinctionhastobemadethatunderthisproposal,whatis involvedisanamendment to theConstitution.ToamendaConstitutionwouldordinarily requireaproposalbytheNationalAssemblybyavoteofthreefourthsandtocallaconstitutionalconventionwouldrequireahighernumber.Moreover,justtosubmittheissueofcallingaconstitutionalconvention,amajorityof theNationalAssembly is required, the importbeing that the process of amendmentmust bemademore rigorous and difficult thanprobably initiating an ordinary legislation or putting an end to a law proposed by theNationalAssemblybywayofareferendum.IcannotagreetoreducingtherequirementapprovedbytheCommitteeontheLegislativebecause itwouldrequireanothervotingby theCommittee,and thevotingaspreciselybasedona requirementof10percent.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


Perhaps, I might present such a proposal, by way of an amendment, when theCommissionshalltakeuptheArticleontheLegislativeorontheNationalAssemblyonplenarysessions.39

TheDavidemodifiedamendmentstoSection2weresubjectedtoamendments,andthefinalversion,whichtheCommissionapprovedbyavoteof31infavorand3against,readsasfollows:

MR.DAVIDE.ThankyouMadamPresident.Section2,asamended, readsas follows:"AMENDMENTTOTHISCONSTITUTIONMAYLIKEWISEBEDIRECTLYPROPOSEDBYTHEPEOPLETHROUGH INITIATIVEUPONAPETITIONOFATLEASTTWELVEPERCENTOFTHETOTALNUMBEROFREGISTEREDVOTERS,OFWHICHEVERYLEGISLATIVEDISTRICTMUSTBEREPRESENTEDBYATLEASTTHREEPERCENTOFTHEREGISTEREDVOTERSTHEREOF.NOAMENDMENTUNDERTHISSECTIONSHALLBEAUTHORIZEDWITHINFIVEYEARSFOLLOWINGTHERATIFICATIONOFTHIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARSTHEREAFTER.

THENATIONALASSEMBLYSHALLBYLAWPROVIDEFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEEXERCISEOFTHISRIGHT.40

TheentireproposedArticleonAmendmentsorRevisionswasapprovedonsecondreadingon9July1986.41Thereafter,uponhismotionforreconsideration,CommissionerGasconwasallowedtointroduceanamendmenttoSection2which,nevertheless,waswithdrawn.Inviewthereof,theArticlewasagainapprovedonSecondandThirdReadingson1August1986.42

However,theCommitteeonStylerecommendedthattheapprovedSection2beamendedbychanging"percent"to"percentum"and"thereof"to"therein"anddeletingthephrase"bylaw"inthesecondparagraphsothatsaidparagraphreads:TheCongress43shallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.44ThisamendmentwasapprovedandisthetextofthepresentsecondparagraphofSection2.

Theconclusionthenisinevitablethat,indeed,thesystemofinitiativeontheConstitutionunderSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionisnotselfexecutory.

HasCongress"provided"fortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright?Thosewhoanswerthequestionintheaffirmative,liketheprivaterespondentsandintervenorSenatorRoco,pointtousR.A.No.6735.

There is, of course, no other betterway forCongress to implement the exercise of the right than through thepassage of a statute or legislative act. This is the essence or rationale of the lastminute amendment by theConstitutionalCommissiontosubstitutethelastparagraphofSection2ofArticleXVIIthenreading:

TheCongress45shallbylawprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.

with

TheCongressshallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.

This substitute amendment was an investiture on Congress of a power to provide for the rulesimplementing theexerciseof the right.The "rules"means "thedetailsonhow [the right] is tobecarriedout."46

WeagreethatR.A.No.6735was,as itshistoryreveals, intendedtocover initiative toproposeamendments tothe Constitution. The Act is a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The former waspreparedbytheCommitteeonSuffrageandElectoralReformsoftheHouseofRepresentativesonthebasisoftwoHouseBillsreferredtoit,viz.,(a)HouseBillNo.497,47whichdealtwiththeinitiativeandreferendummentionedinSections1and32ofArticleVIoftheConstitutionand(b)HouseBillNo.988,48whichdealtwiththesubjectmatterofHouseBillNo.497,aswellaswithinitiativeandreferendumunderSection3ofArticleX(LocalGovernment)andinitiativeprovidedforinSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitution.SenateBillNo.1749solelydealtwithinitiativeandreferendumconcerningordinancesorresolutionsoflocalgovernmentunits.TheBicameralConferenceCommitteeconsolidatedSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505 intoadraftbill,whichwassubsequentlyapprovedon8June1989by theSenate50

andbytheHouseofRepresentatives.51ThisapprovedbillisnowR.A.No.6735.

ButisR.A.No.6735afullcompliancewiththepoweranddutyofCongressto"providefortheimplementationoftheexerciseoftheright?"

AcarefulscrutinyoftheActyieldsanegativeanswer.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


First.ContrarytotheassertionofpublicrespondentCOMELEC,Section2oftheActdoesnotsuggestaninitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitution.Thesaidsectionreads:

Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative andreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject, inwholeor inpart, theConstitution, laws,ordinances,orresolutionspassedbyanylegislativebodyuponcompliancewiththerequirementsofthisActisherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed.(Emphasissupplied).

Theinclusionoftheword"Constitution"thereinwasadelayedafterthought.Thatwordisneithergermanenorrelevanttosaidsection,whichexclusivelyrelatestoinitiativeandreferendumonnationallawsandlocallaws,ordinances,andresolutions.ThatsectionissilentastoamendmentsontheConstitution.Aspointedout earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are notaccorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, inwhole or in part, theConstitution"throughthesystemofinitiative.Theycanonlydosowithrespectto"laws,ordinances,orresolutions."

TheforegoingconclusionisfurtherbuttressedbythefactthatthissectionwasliftedfromSection1ofSenateBillNo.17,whichsolelyreferredtoastatementofpolicyonlocalinitiativeandreferendumandappropriatelyusedthephrases"proposeandenact,""approveorreject"and"inwholeorinpart."52

Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines initiative on amendments to theConstitutionandmentionsitasoneofthethreesystemsofinitiative,andthatSection5(Requirements)restatestheconstitutionalrequirementsastothepercentageoftheregisteredvoterswhomustsubmittheproposal.Butunlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, theAct does not provide for the contents of a petition forinitiativeon theConstitution.Section5,paragraph(c) requires,amongother things,statementof the proposedlawsoughttobeenacted,approvedorrejected,amendedorrepealed,asthecasemaybe.Itdoesnotinclude,asamong thecontentsof thepetition, theprovisionsof theConstitutionsought tobeamended, in thecaseofinitiativeontheConstitution.Saidparagraph(c)readsinfullasfollows:

(c)Thepetitionshallstatethefollowing:

c.1contentsor textof theproposed law sought tobeenacted, approvedor rejected, amendedorrepealed,asthecasemaybe

c.2theproposition

c.3thereasonorreasonstherefor

c.4thatitisnotoneoftheexceptionsprovidedtherein

c.5signaturesofthepetitionersorregisteredvotersand

c.6anabstractor summaryproposition isnotmore thanonehundred (100)wordswhichshall belegiblywrittenorprintedatthetopofeverypageofthepetition.(Emphasissupplied).

Theuseoftheclause"proposedlawssoughttobeenacted,approvedorrejected,amendedorrepealed"only strengthens the conclusion thatSection 2, quoted earlier, excludes initiative on amendments to theConstitution.

Third.While theActprovidessubtitles forNational InitiativeandReferendum(Subtitle II)and forLocal InitiativeandReferendum(SubtitleIII),nosubtitleisprovidedforinitiativeontheConstitution.ThisconspicuoussilenceastothelattersimplymeansthatthemainthrustoftheActisinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallaws.IfCongress intendedR.A.No.6735to fullyprovide for the implementationof the initiativeonamendments to theConstitution, itcouldhaveprovidedforasubtitletherefor,consideringthat intheorderofthings,theprimacyofinterest,orhierarchyofvalues,therightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionisfarmoreimportantthantheinitiativeonnationalandlocallaws.

We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under thesubtitleonNationalInitiativeandReferendumbecauseitisnationalinscope.OurreadingofSubtitleII(NationalInitiativeandReferendum)andSubtitle III (Local InitiativeandReferendum) leavesno room fordoubt that theclassification isnotbasedon thescopeof the initiative involved,buton itsnatureandcharacter. It is "nationalinitiative,"ifwhatisproposedtobeadoptedorenactedisanationallaw,oralawwhichonlyCongresscanpass.Itis"localinitiative"ifwhatisproposedtobeadoptedorenactedisalaw,ordinance,orresolutionwhichonlythelegislativebodiesofthegovernmentsoftheautonomousregions,provinces,cities,municipalities,andbarangayscanpass.ThisclassificationofinitiativeintonationalandlocalisactuallybasedonSection3oftheAct,whichwequoteforemphasisandclearerunderstanding:

Sec.3.Definitionofterms

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


xxxxxxxxx

Therearethree(3)systemsofinitiative,namely:

a.1InitiativeontheConstitutionwhichreferstoapetitionproposingamendmentstotheConstitution

a.2InitiativeonStatuteswhichreferstoapetitionproposingtoenactanationallegislationand

a.3 Initiativeon locallegislationwhich refers toapetitionproposing toenacta regional, provincial,city,municipal,orbarangaylaw,resolutionorordinance.(Emphasissupplied).

Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there should have been a subtitle on initiative onamendmentstotheConstitution.53

A furtherexaminationof theActeven reveals that thesubtitling isnotaccurate.Provisionsnotgermane to thesubtitle onNational InitiativeandReferendumareplaced therein, like (1) paragraphs (b) and (c) ofSection9,whichreads:

(b)Theproposition inan initiativeontheConstitutionapprovedby themajorityof thevotescast intheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveastothedayoftheplebiscite.

(c)Anationalorlocalinitiativepropositionapprovedbymajorityofthevotescastinanelectioncalledfor the purpose shall become effective fifteen (15) days after certification and proclamation of theCommission.(Emphasissupplied).

(2) thatportionofSection11 (Indirect Initiative) referring to indirect initiativewith the legislativebodiesof localgovernmentsthus:

Sec.11.IndirectInitiative.Anydulyaccreditedpeople'sorganization,asdefinedbylaw,mayfileapetitionforindirectinitiativewiththeHouseofRepresentatives,andotherlegislativebodies....

and(3)Section12onAppeal,sinceitappliestodecisionsoftheCOMELEConthefindingsofsufficiencyorinsufficiencyofthepetitionforinitiativeorreferendum,whichcouldbepetitionsforbothnationalandlocalinitiativeandreferendum.

Upontheotherhand,Section18on"AuthorityofCourts"undersubtitleIIIonLocalInitiativeandReferendumismisplaced,54sincetheprovisionthereinappliestobothnationalandlocalinitiativeandreferendum.Itreads:

Sec.18.AuthorityofCourts.NothinginthisActshallpreventorprecludethepropercourtsfromdeclaringnullandvoidanypropositionapprovedpursuanttothisActforviolationoftheConstitutionorwantofcapacityofthelocallegislativebodytoenactthesaidmeasure.

Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details in theimplementationofinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallegislationtherebygivingthemspecialattention,it failed, rather intentionally, todo soon the systemof initiativeonamendments to theConstitution.Anent theinitiativeonnationallegislation,theActprovidesforthefollowing:

(a)Therequiredpercentageofregisteredvoterstosignthepetitionandthecontentsofthepetition

(b)Theconductanddateoftheinitiative

(c)Thesubmissiontotheelectorateofthepropositionandtherequirednumberofvotesforitsapproval

(d)ThecertificationbytheCOMELECoftheapprovaloftheproposition

(e)ThepublicationoftheapprovedpropositionintheOfficialGazetteorinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthePhilippinesand

(f)Theeffectsoftheapprovalorrejectionoftheproposition.55

Asregardslocalinitiative,theActprovidesforthefollowing:

(a)Thepreliminaryrequirementastothenumberofsignaturesofregisteredvotersforthepetition

(b)Thesubmissionofthepetitiontothelocallegislativebodyconcerned

(c)Theeffectofthelegislativebody'sfailuretofavorablyactthereon,andtheinvocationofthepowerofinitiativeasaconsequencethereof

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


(d)Theformulationoftheproposition

(e)Theperiodwithinwhichtogatherthesignatures

(f)Thepersonsbeforewhomthepetitionshallbesigned

(g)TheissuanceofacertificationbytheCOMELECthroughitsofficialinthelocalgovernmentunitconcernedastowhethertherequirednumberofsignatureshavebeenobtained

(h)ThesettingofadatebytheCOMELECforthesubmissionofthepropositiontotheregisteredvotersfortheirapproval,whichmustbewithintheperiodspecifiedtherein

(i)Theissuanceofacertificationoftheresult

(j)Thedateofeffectivityoftheapprovedproposition

(k)Thelimitationsonlocalinitiativeand

(l)Thelimitationsuponlocallegislativebodies.56

Upontheotherhand,asto initiativeonamendmentstotheConstitution,R.A.No.6735,inallofitstwentythreesections,merely(a)mentions,theword"Constitution"inSection2(b)defines"initiativeontheConstitution"andincludes it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3 (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as theprocessbywhichthepropositioninaninitiativeontheConstitutionmaybeapprovedorrejectedbythepeople(d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voterswho should sign the petition and (e)providesforthedateofeffectivityoftheapprovedproposition.

Therewas,therefore,anobviousdowngradingofthemoreimportantortheparamountsystemof initiative.RA.No.6735thusdeliveredahumiliatingblowtothesystemofinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionbymerelypayingitareluctantlipservice.57

Theforegoingbringsus to theconclusionthatR.A.No.6735 is incomplete, inadequate,orwanting inessentialterms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to theConstitution is concerned. Its lacunae on thissubstantivematterarefatalandcannotbecuredby"empowering"theCOMELEC"topromulgatesuchrulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesof[the]Act.58

The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestasdelegatanondelegaripotest.59Therecognizedexceptionstotheruleareasfollows:

(1)DelegationoftariffpowerstothePresidentunderSection28(2)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution

(2)DelegationofemergencypowerstothePresidentunderSection23(2)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution

(3)Delegationtothepeopleatlarge

(4)Delegationtolocalgovernmentsand

(5)Delegationtoadministrativebodies.60

Empowering theCOMELEC,anadministrativebodyexercisingquasijudicial functions, topromulgate rulesandregulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority under no. 5 above. However, in every case ofpermissibledelegation,theremustbeashowingthatthedelegationitself isvalid.It isvalidonlyif thelaw(a) iscompleteinitself,settingforththereinthepolicytobeexecuted,carriedout,orimplementedbythedelegateand(b)fixesastandardthelimitsofwhicharesufficientlydeterminateanddeterminabletowhichthedelegatemust conform in the performance of his functions. 61 A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy,marks its limits,mapsout itsboundariesandspecifies thepublicagencytoapply it. It indicatesthecircumstancesunderwhichthelegislativecommandistobeeffected.62

Insofaras initiative toproposeamendments to theConstitution isconcerned,R.A.No.6735miserably failed tosatisfybothrequirementsinsubordinatelegislation.ThedelegationofthepowertotheCOMELECistheninvalid.

III

COMELECRESOLUTIONNO.2300,INSOFARASITPRESCRIBESRULESANDREGULATIONSONTHECONDUCTOFINITIATIVEONAMENDMENTSTOTHECONSTITUTION,ISVOID.

ItlogicallyfollowsthattheCOMELECcannotvalidlypromulgaterulesandregulationstoimplementtheexerciseof

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


therightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionthroughthesystemofinitiative.ItdoesnothavethatpowerunderR.A.No.6735.RelianceontheCOMELEC'spowerunderSection2(1)ofArticleIXCof theConstitution ismisplaced, for the lawsand regulations referred to thereinare thosepromulgatedby theCOMELECunder (a)Section3ofArticle IXCof theConstitution, or (b) a lawwhere subordinate legislation isauthorizedandwhichsatisfiesthe"completeness"andthe"sufficientstandard"tests.

IV

COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION INENTERTAININGTHEDELFINPETITION.

EvenifitbeconcededexgratiathatR.A.No.6735isafullcompliancewiththepowerofCongresstoimplementthe right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power ofsubordinatelegislationandthatCOMELECResolutionNo.2300isvalid,theCOMELECactedwithoutjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninentertainingtheDelfinPetition.

UnderSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionandSection5(b)ofR.A.No.6735,apetitionforinitiativeontheConstitutionmustbesignedbyat least12%of the total numberof registeredvotersofwhichevery legislativedistrict is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not containsignaturesof the requirednumberofvoters.Delfinhimselfadmits thathehasnotyetgatheredsignaturesandthat the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures.Without therequiredsignatures,thepetitioncannotbedeemedvalidlyinitiated.

The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. The petition then is theinitiatorypleading.NothingbeforeitsfilingiscognizablebytheCOMELEC,sittingenbanc.TheonlyparticipationoftheCOMELECoritspersonnelbeforethefilingofsuchpetitionare(1)toprescribetheformofthepetition63(2)toissuethroughitsElectionRecordsandStatisticsOfficeacertificateonthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersineachlegislativedistrict64 (3) toassist, through itselectionregistrars, in theestablishmentofsignaturestations65and (4) toverify,throughitselectionregistrars,thesignaturesonthebasisoftheregistrylistofvoters,voters'affidavits,andvoters'identificationcardsusedintheimmediatelyprecedingelection.66

SincetheDelfinPetitionisnottheinitiatorypetitionunderR.A.No.6735andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300,itcannotbeentertainedorgivencognizanceofbytheCOMELEC.TherespondentCommissionmusthaveknownthatthepetitiondoesnotfallunderanyoftheactionsorproceedingsundertheCOMELECRulesofProcedureorunderResolutionNo.2300, forwhichreason itdidnotassign to thepetitionadocketnumber.Hence, thesaidpetitionwasmerelyenteredasUND,meaning,undocketed.Thatpetitionwasnothingmorethanamerescrapofpaper,which shouldnot havebeendignifiedby theOrder of 6December 1996, thehearingon12December1996,andtheorderdirectingDelfinandtheoppositorstofiletheirmemorandaoroppositions.Insodignifyingit,theCOMELECactedwithoutjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionandmerelywasteditstime,energy,andresources.

Theforegoingconsidered,furtherdiscussionontheissueofwhethertheproposaltoliftthetermlimitsofelectivenationalandlocalofficialsisanamendmentto,andnotarevisionof,theConstitutionisrenderedunnecessary,ifnotacademic.

CONCLUSION

This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining ortakingcognizanceofanypetitionforinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionuntilasufficientlawshallhavebeenvalidlyenactedtoprovidefortheimplementationofthesystem.

We feel,however, that thesystemof initiative toproposeamendments to theConstitutionshouldno longerbekeptinthecolditshouldbegivenfleshandblood,energyandstrength.Congressshouldnottarryanylongerincomplyingwiththeconstitutionalmandatetoprovidefortheimplementationoftherightofthepeopleunderthatsystem.

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered

a)GRANTINGtheinstantpetition

b)DECLARINGR.A.No.6735 inadequate tocover thesystemof initiativeonamendments to theConstitution,andtohavefailedtoprovidesufficientstandardforsubordinatelegislation

c)DECLARINGvoid thoseparts ofResolutionNo. 2300of theCommissiononElectionsprescribing rulesandregulationsontheconductofinitiativeoramendmentstotheConstitutionand

d)ORDERINGtheCommissiononElectionstoforthwithDISMISStheDELFINpetition(UND96037).

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


TheTemporaryRestrainingOrderissuedon18December1996ismadepermanentasagainsttheCommissiononElections,butisLIFTEDasagainstprivaterespondents.

Resolutiononthematterofcontemptisherebyreserved.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa,C.J.,Regalado,Romero,Bellosillo,Kapunan,Hermosisima,Jr.andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

Padilla,J.,tooknopart.

SeparateOpinions

PUNO,J.,concurringanddissenting:

I join the groundbreaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice Davide insofar as it orders theCOMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. I regret, however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 5735 andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300are legallydefectiveandcannot implement thepeople's initiative toamendtheConstitution.IlikewisesubmitthatthepetitionwithrespecttothePedrosashasnolegtostandonandshouldbedismissed.Withduerespect:

I

First, I submit thatR.A.No. 6735 sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to theConstitutionthruinitiative.OurefforttodiscoverthemeaningofR.A.No.6735shouldstartwiththesearchoftheintentofour lawmakers.Aknowledgeof this intent is critical for the intentof the legislature is the lawand thecontrollingfactorinitsinterpretation.1Statedotherwise,intentistheessenceofthelaw,thespiritwhichgiveslifetoitsenactment.2

Significantly, themajoritydecisionconcedesthat". . .R.A.No.6735was intendedtocover initiativetoproposeamendmentstotheConstitution."Itoughttobesoforthisintentiscrystalclearfromthehistoryofthelawwhichwas a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3 and Senate Bill No. 17. 4Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled "An ActProviding foraSystemof InitiativeandReferendumand theExceptionTherefrom,WherebyPeople inLocalGovernmentUnits Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or ResolutionPassed by the Local Legislative Body." Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people's initiative to proposeamendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast, House Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people's initiative toamendtheConstitution.Congressman(nowSenator)RaulRocoemphasizedinhissponsorshipremarks:6

xxxxxxxxx

SPONSORSHIPREMARKSOFMR.ROCO

At the outset, Mr. Roco provided the following backgrounder on the constitutional basis of theproposedmeasure.

1. As cited inVera vs.Avelino (1946), the presidential systemwhichwas introduced by the 1935Constitutionsawtheapplicationoftheprincipleofseparationofpowers.

2.Whileundertheparliamentarysystemofthe1973Constitutiontheprincipleremainedapplicable,the 1981 amendments to the Constitution of 1973 ensured presidential dominance over theBatasangPambansa.

ConstitutionalhistorythensawtheshiftingandsharingoflegislativepowersbetweentheLegislatureand the Executive departments. Transcending changes in the exercise of legislative power is thedeclarationinthePhilippineConstitutionthatthePhilippinesisarepublicanstatewheresovereigntyresidesinthepeopleandallsovereigntyemanatesfromthem.

3. Under the 1987 Constitution, the lawmaking power is still preserved in Congress however, toinstitutionalize direct action of the people as exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, the Constitution

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


recognizesthepowerofthepeople,throughthesystemofinitiativeandreferendum.

As cited inSection1,ArticleVI of the1987Constitution,Congressdoesnot haveplenarypowerssince reservepowersaregiven to thepeopleexpressly.Section32of the sameArticlemandatesCongress topassat thesoonestpossible time,abillon referendumand initiative,and toshare itslegislativepowerswiththepeople.

Section2,ArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution,ontheotherhand,vestsinthepeoplethepowertodirectly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, upon petition of at least 12percentofthetotalnumberofregisteredvoters.

StatingthatHouseBillNo.21505istheCommittee'sresponsetothedutyimposedonCongresstoimplementtheexercisebythepeopleoftherighttoinitiativeandreferendum,Mr.Rocorecalledthebeginningsof thesystemof initiativeand referendumunderPhilippineLaw.HecitedSection99oftheLocalGovernmentCodewhichvests in thebarangayassembly thepower to initiate legislativeprocesses, decide the holding of plebiscite and hear reports of the Sangguniang Barangay, all ofwhicharevariationsofthepowerofinitiativeandreferendum.HeaddedthattheholdingofbarangayplebiscitesandreferendumarelikewiseprovidedinSections100and101ofthesameCode.

Thereupon,forthesakeofbrevity,Mr.RocomovedthatpertinentquotationonthesubjectwhichhewilllatersubmittotheSecretaryoftheHousebeincorporatedaspartofhissponsorshipspeech.

He then cited examples of initiative and referendum similar to those contained in the instant Billamong which are the constitutions of states in the United States which recognize the right ofregisteredvoterstoinitiatetheenactmentofanystatuteortoprojectanyexistinglaworpartsthereofin a referendum. These states, he said, are Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Massachusets, Dakota,Oklahoma,Oregon,andpracticallyallotherstates.

Mr. Roco explained that in certain American states, the kind of laws to which initiative andreferendum apply is also without limitation, except for emergency measures, which are likewiseincorporatedinHouseBillNo.21505.HeaddedthattheprocedureprovidedbytheBillfromthefilingofthepetition,therequirementsofacertainpercentageofsupporterstopresentaproposition,tothesubmissiontoelectorsaresubstantiallysimilartotheprovisionsinAmericanlaws.AlthoughaninfantinPhilippinepoliticalstructure,thesystemofinitiativeandreferendum,hesaid,isatriedandtestedsysteminotherjurisdictions,andtheBillispatternedafterAmericanexperience.

He further explained that the bill has only 12 sections, and recalled that the ConstitutionalCommissionerssawthesystemoftheinitiativeandreferendumasaninstrumentwhichcanbeusedshouldthelegislatureshowitselftobeindifferenttotheneedsofthepeople.Thisisthereason,heclaimed,whynow is anopportune time topass theBill evenashenoted the felt necessity of thetimestopasslawswhicharenecessarytosafeguardindividualrightsandliberties.

AtthisjunctureMr.RocoexplainedtheprocessofinitiativeandreferendumasadvocatedinHouseBillNo.21505.Hestatedthat:

1.Initiativemeansthatthepeople,ontheirownpoliticaljudgment,submitaBillfortheconsiderationofthegeneralelectorate.

2.The instantBillprovides threekindsof initiative,namely the initiative toamend theConstitutiononce every five years the initiative to amend statutes approved byCongress and the initiative toamendlocalordinances.

3.TheinstantBillgivesadefiniteprocedureandallowstheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)todefinerulesandregulationsonthepowerofinitiative.

4. Referendummeans that the legislators seek the consent of the people onmeasures that theyhaveapproved.

5.UnderSection4of theBill thepeoplecan initiateareferendumwhich isamodeofplebiscitebypresentingapetitiontherefor,butundercertainlimitations,suchasthesigningofsaidpetitionbyatleast10percentofthetotalofregisteredvotersatwhicheverylegislativedistrictisrepresentedbyatleast threepercentof theregisteredvoters thereof.Within30daysafter receiptof thepetition, theCOMELECshalldeterminethesufficiencyof thepetition,publishthesame,andset thedateof thereferendumwithin45to90dayperiod.

6.When thematterunder referendumor initiative isapprovedby the requirednumberof votes, itshallbecomeeffective15daysfollowingthecompletionofitspublicationintheOfficialGazette.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


In concluding his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Roco stressed that the Members cannot ignore thepeople'scallforinitiativeandreferendumandurgedtheBodytoapproveHouseBillNo.21505.

At this juncture, Mr. Roco also requested that the prepared text of his speech together with thefootnotesbereproducedaspartoftheCongressionalRecords.

Thesamesentimentas to thebill's intent to implementpeople's initiative toamend theConstitutionwasstressed by then Congressman (now Secretary of Agriculture) Salvador Escudero III in his sponsorshipremarks,viz:7

xxxxxxxxx

SPONSORSHIPREMARKSOFMR.ESCUDERO

Mr.Escudero first pointedout that thepeoplehavebeenclamoring for a truly popular democracyever since, especially in the socalled parliament of the streets. A substantial segment of thepopulation feels,hesaid, that the formofdemocracy is there,butnot therealityorsubstanceof itbecauseoftheincreasinglyelitistapproachoftheirrepresentativestothecountry'sproblem.

Whereupon, Mr. Escudero pointed out that the Constitution has provided a means whereby thepeoplecanexercisethereservedpowerofinitiativetoproposeamendmentstotheConstitution,andrequested thatSections1and32,ArticleVISection3,ArticleXandSection2,ArticleXVIIof theConstitutionbemadepartofhissponsorshipremarks.

Mr. Escudero also stressed that an implementing law is needed for the aforecited Constitutionalprovisions.WhiletheenactmentoftheBillwillgivewaytostrongcompetitionamongcauseorientedandsectoralgroups,hecontinued,itwillhastenthepolitizationofthecitizenry,aidthegovernmentinforminganenlightenedpublicopinion,andproducemoreresponsivelegislation.ThepassageoftheBill will also give street parliamentarians the opportunity to articulate their ideas in a democraticforum,headded.

Mr.EscuderostatedthatheandMr.Rocohopedfor theearlyapprovalof theBillsothat itcanbeinitiallyusedfortheAgrarianReformLaw.HesaidthatthepassageofHouseBillNo.21505willshowthattheMemberscansetasidetheirpersonalandpoliticalconsiderationforthegreatergoodofthepeople.

The disagreeing provisions in Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 were threshed out in aBicameralConferenceCommittee.8InthemeetingoftheCommitteeonJune6,1989,9themembersagreedthatthetwo(2)billsshouldbeconsolidatedandthattheconsolidatedversionshouldincludepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitutionascontemplatedbyHouseBillNo.21505.Thetranscriptofthemeetingstates:

xxxxxxxxx

CHAIRMANGONZALES. But at any rate, as I have said, because this is new in ourpoliticalsystem,theSenatedecidedonamorecautiousapproachandlimitingitonlytothe local government units because evenwith that stagewhere . . . at least this hasbeenquitepopular,ano?Ithasbeenattemptedonanationalbasis.Alright.Therehasnotbeenasingleattempt.Now,so,kamilimitadodoon.And,second,weconsideralsothat it isonly fair that the local legislativebodyshouldbegivenachance toadopt thelegislationbillproposed, right? Iyongsinasabing indirectsystemof initiative. Ifafterall,thelocallegislativeassemblyorbodyiswillingtoadoptitinfullorintoto,thereoughttobeanyreasonfor initiative,anofor initiative.And,number3,wefeel that thereshouldbesomelimitationonthefrequencywithwhich itshouldbeapplied.Number4,nathepeople,thruinitiative,cannotenactanyordinancethatisbeyondthescopeofauthorityof the local legislative body, otherwise, my God, magaassume sila ng power that isbroader and greater than the grant of legislative power to the Sanggunians. AndNumber5,becauseofthat,thenapropositionwhichhasbeentheresultofasuccessfulinitiativecanonlycarry the forceandeffectofanordinanceand therefore thatshouldnotdeprivethecourtofitsjurisdictiontodeclareitnullandvoidforwantofauthority.Ha,di ba? Imean it is beyond powers of local government units to enact. Iyon angmainessencenamin,soweconcentratedonthat.Andthatiswhy...soangsainyonamanincludes iyonsaConstitution,amendment to theConstitutioneh . . .national laws.Saamin, if you insist on that, alright, althoughwe feel na itwill in effect becomea deadstatute.Alright,andwecanagree,wecanagree.Soangmangyayaridito,andmagigingbasicnito,letusnotdiscussanymorekungalinandmagigingbasicbill,ano,whetheritistheSenateBillorwhetheritistheHousebill.Logicallyitshouldbeourssapagkatunaiyongsaamineh. It isoneof the firstbillsapprovedby theSenatekayaangnumber

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


niyan,makikitamo,17,eh.Huwagnanatingpagusapan.Now,ifyouinsist,reallyiyongfeaturesngnationalatsakaconstitutional,okay.____gagawinnanatinnaconsolidationofbothbills.

HON.ROCO.Yes,weshallconsolidate.

CHAIRMANGONZALES.ConsolidationoftheSenateandHouseBillNo.soandso.10

When the consolidated bill was presented to the House for approval, then Congressman Roco uponinterpellationbyCongressmanRodolfoAlbano,againconfirmedthatitcoveredpeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.TherecordoftheHouseRepresentativestates:11

xxxxxxxxx

THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TheGentlemanfromCamarinesSurisrecognized.

MR. ROCO. On the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing provisionsbetweenSenateBillNo.21505whichreferstothesystemprovidingfortheinitiativeandreferendum, fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, we consolidated the Senate and the Houseversions,sobothversionsare totally intact in thebill.TheSenators ironicallyprovidedforlocalinitiativeandreferendumandtheHouseRepresentativescorrectlyprovidedforinitiativeandreferendumontheConstitutionandonnationallegislation.

Imovethatweapprovetheconsolidatedbill.

MR.ALBANO.Mr.Speaker.

THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.WhatisthepleasureoftheMinorityFloorLeader?

MR.ALBANO.Willthedistinguishedsponsoranswerjustafewquestions?

THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TheGentlemenwillpleaseproceed.

MR.ALBANO.IheardthesponsorsaythattheonlydifferenceinthetwobillswasthatintheSenateversiontherewasaprovisionforlocalinitiativeandreferendum,whereastheHouseversionhasnone.

MR.ROCO.Infact,theSenateversionprovidepurelyforlocalinitiativeandreferendum,whereas in the House version, we provided purely for national and constitutionallegislation.

MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding therefore, that the two provisions wereincorporated?

MR.ROCO.Yes,Mr.Speaker.

MR.ALBANO.Sothatwewillnowhaveacompleteinitiativeandreferendumbothintheconstitutionalamendmentandnationallegislation.

MR.ROCO.Thatiscorrect.

MR.ALBANO.Andprovincialaswellasmunicipalresolutions?

MR.ROCO.Downtobarangay,Mr.Speaker.

MR.ALBANO.AndthisinitiativeandreferendumisinconsonancewiththeprovisionoftheConstitutionwhereby itmandates thisCongress toenact theenabling law,so thatwe shall have a system which can be done every five years. Is it five years in theprovisionoftheConstitution?

MR.ROCO. That is correct,Mr. Speaker. For constitutional amendments in the 1987Constitution,itiseveryfiveyears.

MR.ALBANO.Foreveryfiveyears,Mr.Speaker?

MR.ROCO.Withinfiveyears,wecannothavemultipleinitiativesandreferenda.

MR.ALBANO.Therefore,basically,therewasnosubstantialdifferencebetweenthetwo

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


versions?

MR. ROCO. The gaps in our bill were filled by the Senate which, as I said earlier,ironicallywasaboutlocal,provincialandmunicipallegislation.

MR.ALBANO.Andthetwobillswereconsolidated?

MR.ROCO.Yes,Mr.Speaker.

MR.ALBANO.Thankyou,Mr.Speaker.

APPROVALOFC.C.R.ONS.B.NO.17ANDH.B.NO.21505(TheInitiativeandReferendumAct)

THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TherewasamotiontoapprovethisconsolidatedbillonSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505.

Isthereanyobjection?(Silence.TheChairhearsnonethemotionisapproved.

Since it iscrystalline that the intentofR.A.No.6735 is to implement thepeople's initiative toamend theConstitution,itisourboundendutytointerpretthelawasitwasintendedbythelegislature.Wehaveruledthatonceintentisascertained,itmustbeenforcedevenif itmaynotbeconsistentwiththestrict letterofthelawandthisrulingisasoldasthemountain.Wehavealsoheldthatwherealawissusceptibleofmorethan one interpretation, that interpretation which will most tend to effectuate the manifest intent of thelegislaturewillbeadopted.12

The text of R.A. No. 6735 should therefore be reasonably construed to effectuate its intent to implement thepeople's initiative toamend theConstitution.Tobesure,weneednot torture the textof said law to reach theconclusion that it implements people's initiative to amend the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735 is replete withreferencestothisprerogativeofthepeople.

First,thepolicystatementdeclares:

Sec.2.StatementofPolicy.Thepowerofthepeopleunderasystemofinitiativeandreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject,inwholeorinpart,theConstitution,laws,ordinances,orresolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act isherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed.(emphasissupplied)

Second,thelawdefines"initiative"as"thepowerofthepeopletoproposeamendmentstotheconstitutionortopropose and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoralprocessbywhichaninitiativeontheConstitutionisapprovedorrejectedbythepeople.

Third,thelawprovidestherequirementsforapetitionforinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Section5(b)statesthat"(a)petitionforaninitiativeonthe1987Constitutionmusthaveatleasttwelvepercentum(12%)ofthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersassignatories,ofwhicheverylegislativedistrictmustberepresentedbyatleastthreeper centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." It also states that "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may beexercisedonlyafterfive(5)yearsfromtheratificationofthe1987Constitutionandonlyonceeveryfive(5)yearsthereafter.

Finally,R.A.No.6735fixestheeffectivitydateoftheamendment.Section9(b)statesthat"(t)hepropositioninaninitiativeontheConstitutionapprovedbyamajorityofthevotescastintheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveastothedayoftheplebiscite.

ItisunfortunatethatthemajoritydecisionresortstoastrainedinterpretationofR.A.No.6735todefeatitsintentwhich it itself concedes is to implement people's initiative to proposeamendments to theConstitution. Thus, itlamentsthattheword"Constitution"isneithergermanenorrelevanttothepolicythrustofsection2andthatthestatute'ssubtitlingisnotaccurate.TheselapsesaretobeexpectedforlawsarenotalwayswritteninimpeccableEnglish.Rightly, theConstitutiondoesnot requireour legislators tobewordsmithswith theability towritebillswithpoetic commas like JoseGarciaVilla or in lyrical prose likeWinstonChurchill.But it hasalwaysbeenourgoodpolicynottorefusetoeffectuatetheintentofalawonthegroundthatitisbadlywritten.AsthedistinguishedVicenteFrancisco13remindsus:"Manylawscontainwordswhichhavenotbeenusedaccurately.Buttheuseofinaptorinaccuratelanguageorwords,willnotvitiatethestatuteifthelegislativeintentioncanbeascertained.Thesameisequallytrue with reference to awkward, slovenly, or ungrammatical expressions, that is, such expressions and words will beconstrued as carrying the meaning the legislature intended that they bear, although such a construction necessitates adeparturefromtheliteralmeaningofthewordsused.

Inthesamevein,theargumentthatR.A.No.7535doesnotincludepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


simplybecause it lacksasubtitleon thesubjectshouldbegiventheweightofhelium.Again, thehoaryrule instatutoryconstructionisthatheadingsprefixedtotitles,chaptersandsectionsofastatutemaybeconsultedinaidofinterpretation,butinferencesdrawntherefromareentitledtoverylittleweight,andtheycannevercontroltheplaintermsoftheenactingclauses.14

Allsaid,itisdifficulttoagreewiththemajoritydecisionthatrefusestoenforcethemanifestintentorspiritofR.A.No. 6735 to implement the people's initiative to amend theConstitution. It blatantly disregards the rule cast inconcretethattheletterofthelawmustyieldtoitsspiritfortheletterofthelawisitsbodybutitsspiritisitssoul.15

II

COMELECResolutionNo.2300,16promulgatedunderthestewardshipofCommissionerHaydeeYorac,thenitsActingChairman,spelledout theprocedureonhowtoexercisethepeople's initiativetoamendtheConstitution.This is inaccordwith the delegated power granted by section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 to the COMELEC which expressly states: "TheCommissionisherebyempoweredtopromulgatesuchrulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesofthisAct."Bynomeanscanthisdelegationofpowerbeassailedasinfirmed.InthebenchmarkcaseofPelaezv.AuditorGeneral,17thisCourt,thruformerChiefJusticeRobertoConcepcionlaiddownthetesttodeterminewhetherthereisunduedelegationoflegislativepower,viz:

xxxxxxxxx

AlthoughCongressmaydelegatetoanotherbranchoftheGovernmentthepowertofilldetailsintheexecution,enforcementoradministrationofalaw,itisessential,toforestallaviolationoftheprincipleofseparationofpowers,thatsaidlaw:(a)becompleteinitselfitmustsetforththereinthepolicytobeexecuted,carriedoutor implementedby thedelegateand(b) to fixstandardthe limitsofwhich are sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must conform in theperformanceofhisfunctions.Indeed,withoutastatutorydeclarationofpolicy,whichistheessenceofeverylaw,and,withouttheaforementionedstandard,therewouldbenomeanstodetermine,withreasonable certainty,whether the delegate has actedwithin or beyond the scope of his authority.Hence,hecouldtherebyarrogateuponhimselfthepower,notonlytomakethelaw,but,alsoandthisisworsetounmakeit,byadoptingmeasuresinconsistentwiththeendsoughttobeattainedbytheActofCongress,thusnullifyingtheprincipleofseparationofpowersandthesystemofchecksandbalances,and,consequently,underminingtheveryfoundationofourrepublicansystem.

Section68of theRevisedAdministrativeCodedoesnotmeet thesewellsettledrequirementsforavaliddelegationofthepowertofixthedetailsintheenforcementofalaw.ItdoesnotenunciateanypolicytobecarriedoutorimplementedbythePresident.Neitherdoesitgiveastandardsufficientlyprecisetoavoidtheevileffectsabovereferredto.

R.A.No.6735sufficientlystates thepolicyand thestandards toguide theCOMELECinpromulgating the law'simplementingrulesandregulationsofthelaw.Asaforestated,section2spellsoutthepolicyofthelawviz:"Thepowerofthepeopleunderasystemofinitiativeandreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject,inwhole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body uponcompliancewiththerequirementsofthisActisherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed."SpreadoutalloverR.A. No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to the COMELEC to promulgate rules andregulations from overflowing. Thus, the law states the number of signatures necessary to start a people'sinitiative,18directshowinitiativeproceedingiscommenced,19whattheCOMELECshoulddouponfilingofthepetitionforinitiative,20howapropositionisapproved,21whenaplebiscitemaybeheld,22whentheamendmenttakeseffect23andwhatmattersmaynotbethesubjectofanyinitiative.24Byanymeasure,thesestandardsareadequate.

Former Justice Isagani A. Cruz, similarly elucidated that "a sufficient standard is intended to map out theboundaries of thedelegates' authority by defining the legislative policy and indicating the circumstancesunderwhichitistobepursuedandeffected.Thepurposeofthesufficientstandardistopreventatotaltransferenceoflegislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate." 25 In enacting R.A. No. 6735, it cannot be said thatCongress totally transferred its power to enact the law implementing people's initiative to COMELEC. A close look atCOMELECResolutionNo.2300will show that itmerelyprovided theprocedure toeffectuate thepolicyofR.A.No.6735givinglifetothepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Thedebates26intheConstitutionalCommissionmakeitclearthattherulesofproceduretoenforcethepeople'sinitiativecanbedelegated,thus:

MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, it is possible for thelegislaturetosetforthcertainprocedurestocarryouttheinitiative...?

MR.DAVIDE.Itcan.

xxxxxxxxx

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislaturefromaskinganotherbodytosetthepropositioninproperform.

MR.DAVIDE.TheCommissioner iscorrect. Inotherwords, the implementationof thisparticularrightwouldbesubjecttolegislation,providedthelegislaturecannotdetermineanymorethepercentageoftherequirement.

MR.DAVIDE.Aslongasitwillnotdestroythesubstantiverighttoinitiate.Inotherwords,noneof theprocedurestobeproposedbythe legislativebodymustdiminishor impairtherightconcededhere.

MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I havediscussedbelegislated?

MR.DAVIDE.Yes.

Inhisbook,The Intentof the1986ConstitutionWriters,27Father Bernas likewise affirmed: "In response toquestionsofCommissionerRomulo,Davideexplainedtheextentof thepowerof the legislatureovertheprocess: itcould for instance,prescribe the 'proper formbefore(theamendment) issubmitted to thepeople,' itcouldauthorizeanotherbodytochecktheproperform.ItcouldalsoauthorizetheCOMELEC,forinstance,tochecktheauthenticityof thesignaturesofpetitioners.Davideconcluded: 'As longas itwillnotdestroy thesubstantive right to initiate. Inother words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the rightconcededhere.'"Quiteclearly,theprohibitionagainstthelegislatureistoimpairthesubstantiverightofthepeopletoinitiateamendments to theConstitution. It is not, however, prohibited from legislating theprocedure toenforce thepeople'srightofinitiativeortodelegateittoanotherbodyliketheCOMELECwithproperstandard.

AsurveyofourcaselawwillshowthatthisCourthasprudentiallyrefrainedfrominvalidatingadministrativerulesonthegroundoflackofadequatelegislativestandardtoguidetheirpromulgation.AsaptlyperceivedbyformerJusticeCruz, "even if the law itself doesnot expressly pinpoint the standard, the courtswill bendbackward tolocatethesameelsewhereinordertosparethestatute,ifitcan,fromconstitutionalinfirmity."28HecitedtherulinginHirabayashiv.UnitedStates,29viz:

xxxxxxxxx

ItistruethattheActdoesnotintermsestablishaparticularstandardtowhichordersofthemilitarycommanderare toconform,or require findings tobemadeasaprerequisite toanyorder.But theExecutiveOrder, theProclamationsandthestatutearenot tobereadin isolationfromeachother.Theywerepartsofasingleprogramandmustbejudgedassuch.TheActofMarch21,1942,wasan adoption by Congress of the Executive Order and of the Proclamations. The Proclamationsthemselves followed a standard authorized by the Executive Order the necessity of protectingmilitaryresourcesinthedesignatedareasagainstespionageandsabotage.

Inthecaseatbar,thepolicyandthestandardsarebrightlinedinR.A.No.6735.A2020lookatthelawcannotmiss them.Theywerenotwrittenbyour legislators in invisible ink.Thepolicyandstandardscanalsobefoundinnolessthansection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutiononAmendmentsorRevisions.ThereisthusnoreasontoholdthatthestandardsprovidedforinR.A.No.6735areinsufficientforinothercaseswehaveupheldasadequatemoregeneralstandardssuchas"simplicityanddignity,"30"publicinterest,"31"publicwelfare,"32 "interest of law and order,"33 "justice and equity," 34 "adequate and efficient instruction," 35

"public safety,"36 "public policy",37 "greater national interest", 38 "protect the local consumer by stabilizing andsubsidizing domestic pump rates",39and "promote simplicity, economy and efficiency in government." 40A dueregardandrespect to the legislature,acoequalandcoordinatebranchofgovernment,shouldcounsel thisCourt torefrainfromrefusingtoeffectuatelawsunlesstheyareclearlyunconstitutional.

III

ItisalsorespectfullysubmittedthatthepetitionshouldhedismissedwithrespecttothePedrosas.TheinclusionofthePedrosasinthepetitionisutterlybaseless.TherecordsshowthatthecaseatbarstartedwhenrespondentDelfinaloneandbyhimself filedwith theCOMELECaPetition toAmend theConstitution toLiftTermLimitsofElectiveOfficialsbyPeople'sInitiative.ThePedrosasdidnotjointhepetition.ItwasSenatorRocowhomovedtointerveneandwasallowedtodosobytheCOMELEC.ThepetitionwasheardandbeforetheCOMELECcouldresolve the Delfin petition, the case at bar was filed by the petitioners with this Court. Petitioners sued theCOMELEC.JesusDelfin,AlbertoPedrosaandCarmenPedrosa in theircapacitiesas foundingmembersof thePeople'sInitiativeforReform,ModernizationandAction(PIRMA).Thesuitisanoriginalactionforprohibitionwithprayerfortemporaryrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminaryinjunction.

ThepetitiononitsfacestatesnocauseofactionagainstthePedrosas.TheonlyallegationagainstthePedrosasis that theyare foundingmembersof thePIRMAwhichproposes toundertake thesignaturedrive forpeople's

6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325


initiative to amend the Constitution. Strangely, the PIRMA itself as an organization was not impleaded as arespondent.PetitionersthenprayedthatweorderthePedrosas"...todesistfromconductingasignaturedriveforapeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution."OnDecember19,1996,wetemporarilyenjoinedthePedrosas". . . fromconductingasignaturedriveforpeople's initiativetoamendtheConstitution."It isnotenoughforthemajoritytoliftthetemporaryrestrainingorderagainstthePedrosas.Itshoulddismissthepetitionandallmotionsforcontemptagainstthemwithoutequivocation.

Oneneednotdrawapictureto impart thepropositionthat insolicitingsignaturestostartapeople's initiativetoamendtheConstitutionthePedrosasarenotengagedinanycriminalact.Theirsolicitationofsignaturesisarightguaranteedinblackandwhitebysection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionwhichpr

Date post:	16-Dec-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jubail-esteban
View:	37 times
Download:	4 times

Defensor Santiago vs. Comelec Full Case

Documents