Lambino vs. Comelec Case

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html 1/143

TodayisTuesday,June30,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.174153October25,2006

RAULL.LAMBINOandERICOB.AUMENTADO,TOGETHERWITH6,327,952REGISTEREDVOTERS,Petitioners,vs.THECOMMISSIONONELECTIONS,Respondent.

xx

ALTERNATIVELAWGROUPS,INC.,Intervenor.

xx

ONEVOICEINC.,CHRISTIANS.MONSOD,RENEB.AZURIN,MANUELL.QUEZONIII,BENJAMINT.TOLOSA,JR.,SUSANV.OPLE,andCARLOSP.MEDINA,JR.,Intervenors.

xx

ATTY.PETEQUIRINOQUADRA,Intervenor.

xx

BAYANrepresentedbyitsChairpersonDr.CarolinaPagaduanAraullo,BAYANMUNArepresentedbyitsChairpersonDr.ReynaldoLesaca,KILUSANGMAYOUNOrepresentedbyitsSecretaryGeneralJoelMaglunsod,HEADrepresentedbyitsSecretaryGeneralDr.GeneAlzonaNisperos,ECUMENICALBISHOPSFORUMrepresentedbyFr.DionitoCabillas,MIGRANTErepresentedbyitsChairpersonConcepcionBragasRegalado,GABRIELArepresentedbyitsSecretaryGeneralEmerencianadeJesus,GABRIELAWOMEN'SPARTYrepresentedbySec.Gen.CristinaPalabay,ANAKBAYANrepresentedbyChairpersonEleanordeGuzman,LEAGUEOFFILIPINOSTUDENTSrepresentedbyChairVencerCrisostomoPalabay,JOJOPINEDAoftheLeagueofConcernedProfessionalsandBusinessmen,DR.DARBYSANTIAGOoftheSolidarityofHealthAgainstCharterChange,DR.REGINALDPAMUGASofHealthActionforHumanRights,Intervenors.

xx

LORETTAANNP.ROSALES,MARIOJOYOAGUJA,andANATHERESAHONTIVEROSBARAQUEL,Intervenors.

xx

ARTUROM.DECASTRO,Intervenor.

xx

TRADEUNIONCONGRESSOFTHEPHILIPPINES,Intervenor.

xx

LUWALHATIRICASAANTONINO,Intervenor.

xx

PHILIPPINECONSTITUTIONASSOCIATION(PHILCONSA),CONRADOF.ESTRELLA,TOMASC.TOLEDO,MARIANOM.TAJON,FROILANM.BACUNGAN,JOAQUINT.VENUS,JR.,FORTUNATOP.AGUAS,and

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


AMADOGATINCIONG,Intervenors.

xx

RONALDL.ADAMAT,ROLANDOMANUELRIVERA,andRUELOBAYA,Intervenors.

xx

PHILIPPINETRANSPORTANDGENERALWORKERSORGANIZATION(PTGWO)andMR.VICTORINOF.BALAIS,Intervenors.

xx

SENATEOFTHEPHILIPPINES,representedbyitsPresident,MANUELVILLAR,JR.,Intervenor.

xx

SULONGBAYANMOVEMENTFOUNDATION,INC.,Intervenor.

xx

JOSEANSELMOI.CADIZ,BYROND.BOCAR,MA.TANYAKARINAA.LAT,ANTONIOL.SALVADOR,andRANDALLTABAYOYONG,Intervenors.

xx

INTEGRATEDBAROFTHEPHILIPPINES,CEBUCITYANDCEBUPROVINCECHAPTERS,Intervenors.

xx

SENATEMINORITYLEADERAQUILINOQ.PIMENTEL,JR.andSENATORSSERGIOR.OSMENAIII,JAMBYMADRIGAL,JINGGOYESTRADA,ALFREDOS.LIMandPANFILOLACSON,Intervenors.

xx

JOSEPHEJERCITOESTRADAandPWERSANGMASANGPILIPINO,Intervenors.

xx


MARLENABIGAILBINAY,SOFRONIOUNTALAN,JR.,andRENEA.V.SAGUISAG,Petitioners,vs.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,representedbyChairmanBENJAMINS.ABALOS,SR.,andCommissionersRESURRECCIONZ.BORRA,FLORENTINOA.TUASON,JR.,ROMEOA.BRAWNER,RENEV.SARMIENTO,NICODEMOT.FERRER,andJohnDoeandPeterDoe,,Respondent.

DECISION

CARPIO,J.:

TheCase

These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections("COMELEC")denyingduecoursetoaninitiativepetitiontoamendthe1987Constitution.

AntecedentFacts

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado("LambinoGroup"),withothergroups1andindividuals,commencedgatheringsignaturesforaninitiativepetitiontochangethe1987Constitution.On25August2006, theLambinoGroupfiledapetitionwiththeCOMELECtoholdaplebiscitethatwillratifytheirinitiativepetitionunderSection5(b)and(c)2andSection73ofRepublicActNo.6735ortheInitiativeandReferendumAct("RA6735").

TheLambinoGroupallegedthattheirpetitionhadthesupportof6,327,952individualsconstitutingatleasttwelve

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


percentum(12%)ofallregisteredvoters,witheachlegislativedistrictrepresentedbyat leastthreeper centum(3%)ofitsregisteredvoters.TheLambinoGroupalsoclaimedthatCOMELECelectionregistrarshadverifiedthesignaturesofthe6.3millionindividuals.

The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 17 of Article VI(LegislativeDepartment)4 and Sections 14 of Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIIIentitled"TransitoryProvisions."6TheseproposedchangeswillshiftthepresentBicameralPresidentialsystemtoaUnicameralParliamentary formofgovernment.TheLambinoGroupprayed thatafterduepublicationof theirpetition,theCOMELECshouldsubmitthefollowingpropositioninaplebisciteforthevoters'ratification:

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION,CHANGING THE FORMOF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERALPRESIDENTIAL TO AUNICAMERALPARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORYPROVISIONSFORTHEORDERLYSHIFTFROMONESYSTEMTOTHEOTHER?

On30August2006,theLambinoGroupfiledanAmendedPetitionwiththeCOMELECindicatingmodificationsintheproposedArticleXVIII(TransitoryProvisions)oftheirinitiative.7

TheRulingoftheCOMELEC

On31August2006,theCOMELECissueditsResolutiondenyingduecoursetotheLambinoGroup'spetitionforlack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked thisCourt'srulinginSantiagov.CommissiononElections8declaringRA6735inadequatetoimplementtheinitiativeclauseonproposalstoamendtheConstitution.9

InG.R.No.174153, theLambinoGroupprays for the issuanceof thewritsof certiorariandmandamus tosetaside theCOMELECResolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel theCOMELEC to give due course to theirinitiative petition. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion indenyingduecoursetotheirpetitionsinceSantiagoisnotabindingprecedent.Alternatively,theLambinoGroupclaimsthatSantiagobindsonlythepartiestothatcase,andtheirpetitiondeservescognizanceasanexpressionofthe"willofthesovereignpeople."

In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require respondent COMELECCommissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification ofsignaturesandfor"entertaining"theLambinoGroup'spetitiondespitethepermanentinjunctioninSantiago.TheCourttreatedtheBinayGroup'spetitionasanoppositioninintervention.

InhisCommenttotheLambinoGroup'spetition,theSolicitorGeneral joinedcauseswiththepetitioners,urgingtheCourttograntthepetitiondespitetheSantiagoruling.TheSolicitorGeneralproposedthattheCourttreatRA6735anditsimplementingrules"astemporarydevisestoimplementthesystemofinitiative."

Variousgroupsandindividualssoughtintervention,filingpleadingssupportingoropposingtheLambinoGroup'spetition. The supporting intervenors10 uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse ofdiscretion in relying onSantiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors11 hold the contrary view andmaintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the LambinoGroup's standing to file the petition (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process (3) theLambinoGroup'scompliancewiththeminimumrequirementforthepercentageofvoterssupportinganinitiativepetition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution12 (4) the nature of the proposed changes asrevisionsandnotmereamendmentsasprovidedunderSection2,ArticleXVIIof the1987Constitutionand(5)theLambinoGroup'scompliancewith therequirement inSection10(a)ofRA6735 limiting initiativepetitions toonlyonesubject.

TheCourtheardthepartiesandintervenorsinoralargumentson26September2006.Afterreceivingtheparties'memoranda,theCourtconsideredthecasesubmittedforresolution.

TheIssues

Thepetitionsraisethefollowingissues:

1.Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution onamendmentstotheConstitutionthroughapeople'sinitiative

2.WhetherthisCourtshouldrevisititsrulinginSantiagodeclaringRA6735"incomplete,inadequateorwantinginessentialtermsandconditions"toimplementtheinitiativeclauseonproposalstoamendtheConstitutionand

3.Whether theCOMELECcommittedgraveabuseofdiscretion indenyingduecourse to theLambinoGroup's

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


petition.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Thereisnomerittothepetition.

TheLambinoGroupmiserably failed tocomplywith thebasicrequirementsof theConstitution forconductingapeople's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisitSantiago, as the present petitionwarrants dismissalbasedaloneontheLambinoGroup'sglaringfailuretocomplywiththebasicrequirementsoftheConstitution.ForfollowingtheCourt'srulinginSantiago,nograveabuseofdiscretionisattributabletotheCommisiononElections.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on DirectProposalbythePeople

Section2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionisthegoverningconstitutionalprovisionthatallowsapeople'sinitiativetoproposeamendmentstotheConstitution.Thissectionstates:

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people throughinitiativeuponapetitionofatleasttwelvepercentumofthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersofwhicheverylegislativedistrictmustberepresentedbyatleastthreepercentumoftheregisteredvoterstherein.xxxx(Emphasissupplied)

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment "directlyproposedbythepeoplethroughinitiativeuponapetition,"thus:

MR.RODRIGO: Let us look at themechanics. Let us say some voterswant to propose a constitutionalamendment. Is the draft of the proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to thepeoplewhentheyareaskedtosign?

MR.SUAREZ:Thatcanbereasonablyassumed,MadamPresident.

MR.RODRIGO:Whatdoesthesponsormean?Thedraftisreadyandshowntothembeforetheysign.Now,whopreparesthedraft?

MR.SUAREZ:Thepeoplethemselves,MadamPresident.

MR.RODRIGO:No,becausebefore theysign there is alreadyadraft shown to them and they areaskedwhetherornottheywanttoproposethisconstitutionalamendment.

MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around forsignature.13(Emphasissupplied)

Clearly, the framersof theConstitution intended that the"draftof theproposedconstitutionalamendment"shouldbe "readyandshown" to thepeople "before" theysignsuchproposal.The framersplainlystated that"before theysign there isalreadyadraftshown to them."The framersalso "envisioned" that the peopleshouldsignontheproposalitselfbecausetheproponentsmust"preparethatproposalandpassitaroundforsignature."

Theessenceofamendments"directlyproposedbythepeoplethroughinitiativeuponapetition"isthattheentireproposalonitsfaceisapetitionbythepeople.Thismeanstwoessentialelementsmustbepresent.First, the peoplemust author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on theirbehalf.Second,asaninitiativeuponapetition,theproposalmustbeembodiedinapetition.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to thepeople who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is"directlyproposedbythepeoplethroughinitiativeuponapetition"onlyifthepeoplesignonapetitionthatcontainsthefulltextoftheproposedamendments.

Thefulltextoftheproposedamendmentsmaybeeitherwrittenonthefaceofthepetition,orattachedtoit.Ifsoattached,thepetitionmuststatethefactofsuchattachment.Thisisanassurancethateveryoneoftheseveralmillions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that every one of the millions ofsignatorieshadseenthefulltextoftheproposedamendmentsbeforesigning.

TheframersoftheConstitutiondirectlyborrowed14theconceptofpeople'sinitiativefromtheUnitedStateswherevariousStateconstitutions incorporatean initiativeclause. InalmostallStates15whichallow initiativepetitions,theunbendingrequirement is that thepeoplemust firstsee the full textof theproposedamendments

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must sign on an initiative petition thatcontainsthefulltextoftheproposedamendments.16

Therationaleforthisrequirementhasbeenrepeatedlyexplainedinseveraldecisionsofvariouscourts.Thus,inCapezzutov.StateBallotCommission, theSupremeCourtofMassachusetts,affirmedby theFirstCircuitCourtofAppeals,declared:

[A]signaturerequirementwouldbemeaninglessifthepersonsupplyingthesignaturehasnotfirstseen what it is that he or she is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of thesubscriptionrequirementcanposeasignificantpotentialforfraud.Apersonpermittedtodescribeorallythecontents of an initiative petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined thepetition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatlymisrepresenting, portions of the petition that might not be to the signer's liking. This danger seemsparticularlyacutewhen,inthiscase,thepersongivingthedescriptionisthedrafterofthepetition,whoobviouslyhasavestedinterestinseeingthatitgetstherequisitesignaturestoqualifyfortheballot.17(Boldfacingandunderscoringsupplied)

Likewise,inKerrv.Bradbury,18theCourtofAppealsofOregonexplained:

The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to amendments by initiative commonly are described insimilarterms.xxx(Thepurposeofthefulltextrequirementistoprovidesufficientinformationsothat registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the initiative petition.") x x x(publicationoffulltextofamendedconstitutionalprovisionrequiredbecauseitis"essentialfortheelectortohavexxxthesectionwhichisproposedtobeaddedtoorsubtractedfrom.Ifheistovoteintelligently,hemust have this knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote in the dark.")(Emphasissupplied)

Moreover,"aninitiativesignermustbeinformedatthetimeofsigningofthenatureandeffectof thatwhich isproposed"andfailuretodosois"deceptiveandmisleading"whichrenderstheinitiativevoid.19

Section2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutiondoesnotexpresslystatethatthepetitionmustsetforththefulltextoftheproposed amendments. However, the deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that theframers intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. In particular, thedeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommissionexplicitlyrevealthattheframersintendedthatthepeoplemustfirstseethefulltextoftheproposedamendmentsbeforetheysign,andthatthepeoplemustsignonapetitioncontainingsuchfulltext.Indeed,Section5(b)ofRepublicActNo.6735,theInitiativeandReferendumAct that the Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x assignatories."

Theproponentsoftheinitiativesecurethesignaturesfromthepeople.Theproponentssecurethesignaturesintheirprivatecapacityandnotaspublicofficials.Theproponentsarenotdisinterestedpartieswhocanimpartiallyexplaintheadvantagesanddisadvantagesoftheproposedamendmentstothepeople.Theproponentspresentfavorablytheirproposaltothepeopleanddonotpresenttheargumentsagainsttheirproposal.Theproponents,ortheirsupporters,oftenpaythosewhogatherthesignatures.

Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering thesignatures.Theproponentsbeartheburdenofprovingthattheycompliedwiththeconstitutionalrequirementsingathering thesignatures that thepetitioncontained,or incorporatedbyattachment, the full textof theproposedamendments.

TheLambinoGroupdidnotattach to theirpresentpetitionwith thisCourtacopyof thepaper that thepeoplesignedastheirinitiativepetition.TheLambinoGroupsubmittedtothisCourtacopyofasignaturesheet20aftertheoralargumentsof26September2006whentheyfiledtheirMemorandumon11October2006.Thesignaturesheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the signature sheet attached21 to the opposition ininterventionfiledon7September2006byintervenorAtty.PeteQuirinoQuadra.

The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature sheet attached to the LambinoGroup'sMemorandumarethesame.Wereproducebelowthesignaturesheetinfull:

Province: City/Municipality: No.of

Verified

Signatures:

LegislativeDistrict: Barangay:

PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERALPRESIDENTIALTOAUNICAMERALPARLIAMENTARYSYSTEMOFGOVERNMENT, INORDERTOACHIEVEGREATEREFFICIENCY,SIMPLICITYANDECONOMYINGOVERNMENTANDPROVIDINGANARTICLEXVIIIASTRANSITORYPROVISIONSFORTHEORDERLYSHIFTFROMONESYSTEMTOANOTHER?"

IherebyAPPROVEtheproposedamendmenttothe1987Constitution.MysignaturehereinwhichshallformpartofthepetitionforinitiativetoamendtheConstitutionsignifiesmysupportforthefilingthereof.

PrecinctNumber

Name

LastName,FirstName,M.I.

Address Birthdate

MM/DD/YY

Signature Verification

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

_________________BarangayOfficial

(PrintNameandSign)

_________________Witness

(PrintNameandSign)

__________________Witness

(PrintNameandSign)

Thereisnotasingleword,phrase,orsentenceoftextoftheLambinoGroup'sproposedchangesinthesignature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes isattached to it. PetitionerAtty.Raul Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before thisCourt on 26September2006.

ThesignaturesheetmerelyasksaquestionwhetherthepeopleapproveashiftfromtheBicameralPresidentialtotheUnicameralParliamentarysystemofgovernment.Thesignaturesheetdoesnotshowtothepeoplethedraftof theproposedchangesbefore theyareasked tosign thesignaturesheet. Clearly, the signaturesheetisnotthe"petition"thattheframersoftheConstitutionenvisionedwhentheyformulatedtheinitiativeclauseinSection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitution.

PetitionerAtty.Lambino,however,explainedthatduringthesignaturegatheringfromFebruarytoAugust2006,theLambinoGroupcirculated, togetherwith thesignaturesheets,printedcopiesof theLambinoGroup'sdraftpetitionwhichtheylaterfiledon25August2006withtheCOMELEC.Whenaskedifhisgroupalsocirculatedthedraftoftheiramendedpetitionfiledon30August2006withtheCOMELEC,Atty.Lambinoinitiallyrepliedthattheycirculatedboth.However,Atty.Lambinochangedhisanswerandstated thatwhathisgroupcirculatedwas thedraftofthe30August2006amendedpetition,notthedraftofthe25August2006petition.

TheLambinoGroupwouldhavethisCourtbelievethattheypreparedthedraftofthe30August2006amendedpetitionalmostsevenmonthsearlierinFebruary2006whentheystartedgatheringsignatures.PetitionerEricoB. Aumentado's "Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30 August 2006amendedpetition,filedwiththeCOMELEC,statesasfollows:

Ihavecausedthepreparationoftheforegoing[Amended]Petitioninmypersonalcapacityasaregisteredvoter,for andonbehalf of theUnionofLocalAuthoritiesof thePhilippines, asshownbyULAPResolution No. 200602 hereto attached, and as representative of the mass of signatories hereto.(Emphasissupplied)

TheLambinoGroupfailedtoattachacopyofULAPResolutionNo.200602tothepresentpetition.However,the"OfficialWebsiteoftheUnionofLocalAuthoritiesofthePhilippines"22haspostedthefull textofResolutionNo.200602,whichprovides:

RESOLUTIONNO.200602

RESOLUTIONSUPPORTINGTHEPROPOSALSOFTHEPEOPLE'SCONSULTATIVECOMMISSIONONCHARTERCHANGETHROUGHPEOPLE'SINITIATIVEANDREFERENDUMASAMODEOFAMENDING

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


THE1987CONSTITUTION

WHEREAS,thereisaneedfortheUnionofLocalAuthoritiesofthePhilippines(ULAP)toadoptacommonstand on the approach to support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on CharterChange

WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President GloriaMacapagalArroyo forconstitutional reformsasembodied in theULAPJointDeclaration forConstitutionalReformssignedbythemembersoftheULAPandthemajoritycoalitionoftheHouseofRepresentativesinManilaHotelsometimeinOctober2005

WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change created by Her Excellency torecommend amendments to the 1987Constitution has submitted its final report sometime inDecember2005

WHEREAS, theULAP ismindfulof thecurrentpoliticaldevelopments inCongresswhichmilitatesagainsttheuseoftheexpeditiousformofamendingthe1987Constitution

WHEREAS,subjecttotheratificationofitsinstitutionalmembersandthefailureofCongresstoamendtheConstitutionasaconstituentassembly,ULAPhasunanimouslyagreedtopursuetheconstitutionalreformagendathroughPeople'sInitiativeandReferendumwithoutprejudicetootherpragmaticmeanstopursuethesame

WHEREFORE,BE ITRESOLVEDAS IT ISHEREBYRESOLVED,THATALLTHEMEMBERLEAGUESOFTHEUNIONOFLOCALAUTHORITIESOFTHEPHILIPPINES(ULAP)SUPPORTTHEPORPOSALS(SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGHPEOPLE'SINITIATIVEANDREFERENDUMASAMODEOFAMENDINGTHE1987CONSTITUTION

DONE,duringtheULAPNationalExecutiveBoardspecialmeetingheldon14January2006attheCenturyParkHotel,Manila.23(Underscoringsupplied)

ULAPResolutionNo.200602doesnotauthorizepetitionerAumentadotopreparethe25August2006petition,orthe30August2006amendedpetition,filedwiththeCOMELEC.ULAPResolutionNo.200602"support(s)theporposals (sic) of theConsulatative (sic)CommissiononCharterChange through people's initiative andreferendumasamodeofamendingthe1987Constitution."TheproposalsoftheConsultativeCommission24arevastlydifferentfromtheproposedchangesoftheLambinoGroupinthe25August2006petitionor30August2006amendedpetitionfiledwiththeCOMELEC.

For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all provisions of the existingConstitution,fromthePreamble to theTransitoryProvisions.Theproposed revisionshaveprofound impacton theJudiciaryand theNationalPatrimonyprovisionsof theexistingConstitution,provisions that theLambinoGroup'sproposedchangesdonottouch.TheLambinoGroup'sproposedchangespurporttoaffectonlyArticlesVIandVIIoftheexistingConstitution,includingtheintroductionofnewTransitoryProvisions.

TheULAPadoptedResolutionNo.200602on14January2006ormorethansixmonthsbeforethefilingofthe25August2006petitionorthe30August2006amendedpetitionwiththeCOMELEC.However,ULAPResolutionNo. 200602 does not establish that ULAP or the Lambino Group caused the circulation of the draft petition,together with the signature sheets, six months before the filing with the COMELEC. On the contrary, ULAPResolutionNo.200602castsgravedoubton theLambinoGroup'sclaim that theycirculated thedraftpetitiontogetherwiththesignaturesheets.ULAPResolutionNo.200602doesnotreferatalltothedraftpetitionortotheLambinoGroup'sproposedchanges.

IntheirManifestationexplainingtheiramendedpetitionbeforetheCOMELEC,theLambinoGroupdeclared:

After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the proposed amendments alleged in thePetition, more specifically, paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the TransitoryProvisionswereinaccuratelystatedandfailedtocorrectlyreflecttheirproposedamendments.

TheLambinoGroupdidnotallegethattheywereamendingthepetitionbecausetheamendedpetitionwaswhatthey had shown to the people during the February to August 2006 signaturegathering. Instead, the LambinoGroupallegedthatthepetitionof25August2006"inaccuratelystatedandfailedtocorrectlyreflecttheirproposedamendments."

TheLambinoGroupneverallegedinthe25August2006petitionorthe30August2006amendedpetitionwiththeCOMELECthattheycirculatedprintedcopiesofthedraftpetitiontogetherwiththesignaturesheets.Likewise,theLambinoGroupdidnotallegeintheirpresentpetitionbeforethisCourtthattheycirculatedprintedcopiesofthedraftpetitiontogetherwiththesignaturesheets.Thesignaturesheetsdonotalsocontainanyindicationthat

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


thedraftpetitionisattachedto,orcirculatedwith,thesignaturesheets.

It isonlyintheirConsolidatedReplytotheOppositioninInterventionsthattheLambinoGroupfirstclaimedthattheycirculatedthe"petitionforinitiativefiledwiththeCOMELEC,"thus:

[T]hereispersuasiveauthoritytotheeffectthat"(w)herethereisnot(sic)fraud,asignerwhodidnotreadthemeasureattachedtoareferendumpetitioncannotquestionhissignatureonthegroundthathedidnotunderstandthenatureof theact." [82C.J.S.S128h.Mo.Statev.Sullivan,224,S.W.327,283Mo.546.]Thus,theregisteredvoterswhosignedthesignaturesheetscirculatedtogetherwith thepetition for initiative filedwith theCOMELECbelow,arepresumed tohaveunderstood thepropositioncontainedinthepetition.(Emphasissupplied)

The LambinoGroup's statement that they circulated to the people "the petition for initiative filedwith theCOMELEC" appears an afterthought, made after the intervenors Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu CityChapterandCebuProvinceChapters)andAtty.Quadrahadpointedoutthatthesignaturesheetsdidnotcontainthe textof theproposedchanges. In theirConsolidatedReply, theLambinoGroupalleged that theycirculated"thepetition for initiative" but failed tomention theamendedpetition. This contradicts what Atty. Lambinofinallystatedduring theoralarguments thatwhat theycirculatedwas thedraftof theamendedpetition of 30August2006.

The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a signer who did not read themeasure attached to a referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground that he did notunderstand the nature of the act." The Lambino Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed changeattachedtothepetitionsignedbythepeople.EventheauthoritytheLambinoGroupquotesrequiresthattheproposedchangemustbeattachedto thepetition.Thesameauthority theLambinoGroupquotesrequiresthepeopletosignonthepetitionitself.

Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be incorporated with, orattached to, the initiativepetitionsignedby thepeople. In thepresent initiative, theLambinoGroup'sproposedchangeswerenotincorporatedwith,orattachedto,thesignaturesheets.TheLambinoGroup'scitationofCorpusJurisSecundumpullstherugfromundertheirfeet.

It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from February to August 2006during the signaturegathering period, the draft of the petition or amended petition they filed later with theCOMELEC.TheLambinoGrouparelessthancandidwiththisCourt intheirbelatedclaimthattheyprintedandcirculated, togetherwith thesignaturesheets, thepetitionoramendedpetition.Nevertheless,evenassumingtheLambinoGroupcirculatedtheamendedpetitionduringthesignaturegatheringperiod,theLambinoGroupadmittedcirculatingonlyverylimitedcopiesofthepetition.

Duringtheoralarguments,Atty.Lambinoexpresslyadmittedthattheyprintedonly100,000copiesofthedraftpetition they filedmore thansixmonths laterwith theCOMELEC.Atty.Lambinoadded thathealsoaskedother supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not statewith certainty howmany additional copies the other supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only assure this Court of theprintingof100,000copiesbecausehehimselfcausedtheprintingofthese100,000copies.

Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the Lambino Group expresslyadmitsthat"petitionerLambinoinitiatedtheprintingandreproductionof100,000copiesofthepetitionforinitiativexxx."25ThisadmissionbindstheLambinoGroupandestablishesbeyondanydoubtthatthe LambinoGroup failed to show the full text of the proposed changes to the greatmajority of thepeoplewhosignedthesignaturesheets.

Thus,ofthe6.3millionsignatories,only100,000signatoriescouldhavereceivedwithcertaintyonecopyeachofthepetition,assuminga100percentdistributionwithnowastage. IfAtty.Lambinoandcompanyattachedonecopyofthepetitiontoeachsignaturesheet,only100,000signaturesheetscouldhavecirculatedwiththepetition.Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of these 100,000signature sheetswith the attached petition, themaximum number of peoplewho saw the petition before theysignedthesignaturesheetswouldnotexceed1,000,000.

Withonly100,000printedcopiesofthepetition,itwouldbephysicallyimpossibleforalloragreatmajorityofthe6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapableconclusion is that theLambinoGroup failed toshow to the6.3millionsignatories the full textof theproposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the petition before they signed thesignaturesheets.

Inanyevent,theLambinoGroup'ssignaturesheetsdonotcontainthefulltextoftheproposedchanges,eitheronthefaceofthesignaturesheets,orasattachmentwithanindicationinthesignaturesheetofsuchattachment.PetitionerAtty.Lambinoadmittedthisduringtheoralarguments,andthisadmissionbindstheLambino

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


Group.Thisfactisalsoobviousfromamerereadingofthesignaturesheet.Thisomissionisfatal.Thefailuretosoincludethetextoftheproposedchangesinthesignaturesheetsrenderstheinitiativevoidfornoncompliancewiththeconstitutionalrequirementthattheamendmentmustbe"directlyproposedbythepeoplethroughinitiativeuponapetition."Thesignaturesheetisnotthe"petition"envisionedintheinitiativeclauseoftheConstitution.

Forsure,thegreatmajorityofthe6.3millionpeoplewhosignedthesignaturesheetsdidnotseethefulltextoftheproposedchangesbeforesigning.Theycouldnothaveknownthenatureandeffectoftheproposedchanges,amongwhichare:

1.ThetermlimitsonmembersofthelegislaturewillbeliftedandthusmembersofParliamentcanbereelectedindefinitely26

2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until itsmembers, who are almost all thepresentmembersofCongress,decidetocallfornewparliamentaryelections.Thus,themembersof theinterimParliamentwilldeterminetheexpirationoftheirowntermofoffice27

3.Within45daysfromtheratificationoftheproposedchanges,theinterimParliamentshallconvenetoproposefurtheramendmentsorrevisionstotheConstitution.28

ThesethreespecificamendmentsarenotstatedorevenindicatedintheLambinoGroup'ssignaturesheets.Thepeoplewhosignedthesignaturesheetshadnoideathattheywereproposingtheseamendments.Thesethreeproposed changes are highly controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these proposedchangesmerelyfromareadingorrereadingofthecontentsofthesignaturesheets.

Duringtheoralarguments,petitionerAtty.Lambinostatedthatheandhisgroupassuredthepeopleduringthesignaturegathering that the elections for the regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 localelections if the proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections. However, the text of theproposedchangesbeliesthis.

TheproposedSection5(2),ArticleXVIIIonTransitoryProvisions,asfoundintheamendedpetition,states:

Section5(2). The interimParliament shall provide for theelection of themembers ofParliament,whichshallbesynchronizedandheldsimultaneouslywiththeelectionofalllocalgovernmentofficials.xxxx(Emphasissupplied)

Section5(2)doesnotstatethattheelectionsfortheregularParliamentwillbeheldsimultaneouslywiththe2007local elections. This section merely requires that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be heldsimultaneouslywiththelocalelectionswithoutspecifyingtheyear.

PetitionerAtty.Lambino,whoclaimstobetheprincipaldrafteroftheproposedchanges,couldhaveeasilywrittentheword "next" before the phrase "election of all local government officials." Thiswould have insured that theelections for the regular Parliament would be held in the next local elections following the ratification of theproposed changes. However, the absence of the word "next" allows the interim Parliament to schedule theelectionsfortheregularParliamentsimultaneouslywithanyfuturelocalelections.

Thus, themembers of the interimParliamentwill decide the expiration of their own termof office. This allowsincumbentmembersoftheHouseofRepresentativestoholdofficebeyondtheircurrentthreeyeartermofoffice,andpossiblyevenbeyond the fiveyear termofofficeof regularmembersof theParliament.Certainly, this iscontrarytotherepresentationsofAtty.Lambinoandhisgrouptothe6.3millionpeoplewhosignedthesignaturesheets.Atty.Lambinoandhisgroupdeceivedthe6.3millionsignatories,andeventheentirenation.

Thislucidlyshowstheabsoluteneedforthepeopletosignaninitiativepetitionthatcontainsthefulltextoftheproposed amendments to avoid fraud ormisrepresentation. In the present initiative, the 6.3million signatorieshadtorelyontheverbalrepresentationsofAtty.Lambinoandhisgroupbecausethesignaturesheetsdidnotcontainthefulltextoftheproposedchanges.Theresultisagranddeceptiononthe6.3millionsignatorieswhowere led to believe that the proposed changes would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regularParliamentsimultaneouslywiththelocalelections.

The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the people who signed the signature sheets. TheproposedchangesmandatetheinterimParliamenttomakefurtheramendmentsorrevisionstotheConstitution.TheproposedSection4(4),ArticleXVIIIonTransitoryProvisions,provides:

Section 4(4). Within fortyfive days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament shallconvenetoproposeamendmentsto,orrevisionsof,thisConstitutionconsistentwiththeprinciplesoflocalautonomy,decentralizationandastrongbureaucracy.(Emphasissupplied)

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


Duringtheoralarguments,Atty.Lambinostatedthatthisprovisionisa"surplusage"andtheCourtandthepeopleshouldsimplyignoreit.Farfrombeingasurplusage,thisprovisioninvalidatestheLambinoGroup'sinitiative.

Section4(4)isasubjectmattertotallyunrelatedtotheshiftfromtheBicameralPresidentialtotheUnicameralParliamentarysystem.Americanjurisprudenceoninitiativesoutlawsthisaslogrollingwhentheinitiativepetitionincorporatesanunrelatedsubjectmatterinthesamepetition.Thisputsthepeopleinadilemmasincetheycanansweronlyeitheryesornototheentireproposition,forcingthemtosignapetitionthateffectivelycontainstwopropositions,oneofwhichtheymayfindunacceptable.

Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire proposition and not only theunrelatedsubjectmatter.Thus,inFinev.Firestone,29theSupremeCourtofFloridadeclared:

Combiningmultiplepropositions intooneproposalconstitutes"logrolling,"which, ifour judicialresponsibilityistomeananything,wecannotpermit.Theverybroadnessoftheproposedamendmentamounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is voting on the amendment'sproponents' simplistic explanation reveals only the tip of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must give theelectoratefairnoticeoftheproposedamendmentbeingvotedon.xxxxTheballotlanguageintheinstantcasefailstodothat.Theverybroadnessoftheproposalmakesitimpossibletostatewhatitwillaffectandeffect and violates the requirement that proposed amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasissupplied)

Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. InYuteAirAlaska v.McAlpine,30 theSupremeCourt ofAlaskawarnedagainst"inadvertence,stealthandfraud"inlogrolling:

Wheneverabillbecomes law through the initiativeprocess,allof theproblems that thesinglesubject rulewasenacted to prevent are exacerbated. There is a greater danger of logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling ofissues to increase the likelihood of an initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for"inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in the enactmentbyinitiative process. The drafters of an initiativeoperate independently of any structured or supervised process. They often emphasize particular provisions oftheir proposition, while remaining silent on other (more complex or less appealing) provisions, whencommunicating to the public. x x x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use simplistic advertising topresenttheirinitiativetopotentialpetitionsignersandeventualvoters.Manyvoterswillneverreadthefulltextoftheinitiativebeforetheelection.Moreimportantly,thereisnoprocessforamendingorsplittingtheseveralprovisions inan initiativeproposal.Thesedifficultiesclearlydistinguishthe initiativefromthe legislativeprocess.(Emphasissupplied)

Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further amendments or revisions to beundertaken by the interimParliament as a constituent assembly. The peoplewho signed the signature sheetscould not have known that their signatures would be used to propose an amendmentmandating the interimParliamenttoproposefurtheramendmentsorrevisionstotheConstitution.

Apparently,theLambinoGroupinsertedtheproposedSection4(4)tocompeltheinterimParliamenttoamendorreviseagaintheConstitutionwithin45daysfromratificationoftheproposedchanges,orbeforetheMay2007elections. In the absence of the proposed Section 4(4), the interim Parliament has the discretion whether toamendorreviseagaintheConstitution.WiththeproposedSection4(4),theinitiativeproponentswanttheinterimParliamentmandatedtoimmediatelyamendorreviseagaintheConstitution.

However,thesignaturesheetsdonotexplainthereasonforthisrushinamendingorrevisingagainsosoontheConstitution. The signature sheets do not also explain what specific amendments or revisions the initiativeproponents want the interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments orrevisions.Thepeopleareagainleftinthedarktofathomthenatureandeffectoftheproposedchanges.Certainly, suchan initiative isnot "directlyproposedby thepeople"because thepeopledonotevenknow thenatureandeffectoftheproposedchanges.

Thereisanother intriguingprovisioninsertedintheLambinoGroup'samendedpetitionof30August2006.TheproposedSection4(3)oftheTransitoryProvisionsstates:

Section4(3).Senatorswhosetermofofficeendsin2010shallbemembersofParliamentuntilnoonofthethirtiethdayofJune2010.

After30June2010,notoneofthepresentSenatorswillremainasmemberofParliamentiftheinterimParliamentdoes not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no counterpartprovisionforthepresentmembersoftheHouseofRepresentativeseveniftheirtermofofficewillallendon30June2007, threeyearsearlier than thatofhalfof thepresentSenators.Thus,all thepresentmembersof theHousewillremainmembersoftheinterimParliamentafter30June2010.

The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010. Thereafter, the PrimeMinister exercises all the

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


powersof thePresident. If the interimParliamentdoesnotscheduleelections for the regularParliamentby30June2010,thePrimeMinisterwillcomeonlyfromthepresentmembersoftheHouseofRepresentativestotheexclusionofthepresentSenators.

The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators. The 6.3 million people whosignedthesignaturesheetscouldnothaveknownthattheirsignatureswouldbeusedtodiscriminateagainsttheSenators.Theycouldnothaveknownthattheirsignatureswouldbeusedtolimit,after30June2010, the interimParliament'schoiceofPrimeMinisteronly tomembersof theexistingHouseofRepresentatives.

An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of theproposedamendmentsismostlikelyadeception,andcanoperateasagiganticfraudonthepeople.ThatiswhytheConstitutionrequiresthataninitiativemustbe"directlyproposedbythepeoplexxxinapetition"meaningthat thepeoplemustsignonapetitionthatcontainsthefull textof theproposedamendments.Onsovital an issue as amending the nation's fundamental law, thewriting of the text of the proposed amendmentscannot behidden from thepeople under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, andunelectedindividuals.

TheConstitutionentruststothepeoplethepowertodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitution.ThisCourttruststhewisdomofthepeopleevenifthemembersofthisCourtdonotpersonallyknowthepeoplewhosignthepetition. However, this trust emanates from a fundamental assumption: the full text of the proposedamendment is first shown to the people before they sign the petition, not after they have signed thepetition.

In short, theLambinoGroup's initiative is voidandunconstitutional because it dismally fails to complywith therequirementofSection2,ArticleXVIIof theConstitution that the initiativemustbe "directly proposedby thepeoplethroughinitiativeuponapetition."

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision throughInitiatives

Apeople's initiative tochange theConstitutionappliesonly toanamendmentof theConstitutionandnot to itsrevision.Incontrast,CongressoraconstitutionalconventioncanproposebothamendmentsandrevisionstotheConstitution.ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionprovides:

ARTICLEXVIIAMENDMENTSORREVISIONS

Sec.1.Anyamendmentto,orrevisionof,thisConstitutionmaybeproposedby:

(1)TheCongress,uponavoteofthreefourthsofallitsMembers,or

(2)Aconstitutionalconvention.

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people throughinitiativexxx.(Emphasissupplied)

ArticleXVII of theConstitution speaksof threemodesof amending theConstitution.The firstmode is throughCongressupon threefourthsvoteofall itsMembers.Thesecondmode is throughaconstitutionalconvention.Thethirdmodeisthroughapeople'sinitiative.

Section1ofArticleXVII,referringtothefirstandsecondmodes,appliesto"[A]nyamendmentto,orrevisionof,thisConstitution."Incontrast,Section2ofArticleXVII,referringtothethirdmode,appliesonlyto"[A]mendmentstothisConstitution."ThisdistinctionwasintentionalasshownbythefollowingdeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommission:

MR.SUAREZ:Thankyou,MadamPresident.

Maywe respectfully call the attention of theMembers of theCommission that pursuant to themandategiventouslastnight,wesubmittedthisafternoonacompleteCommitteeReportNo.7whichembodiestheproposed provision governing thematter of initiative. This is now covered by Section 2 of the completecommitteereport.WiththepermissionoftheMembers,mayIquoteSection2:

Thepeoplemay,afterfiveyearsfromthedateofthelastplebisciteheld,directlyproposeamendmentstothisConstitutionthruinitiativeuponpetitionofatleasttenpercentoftheregisteredvoters.

ThiscompletestheblanksappearingintheoriginalCommitteeReportNo.7.Thisproposalwassuggestedon the theory that thismatterof initiative,whichcameaboutbecauseof theextraordinarydevelopments

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


this year, has to be separated from the traditionalmodes of amending theConstitution as embodied inSection 1. The committee members felt that this system of initiative should be limited toamendmentstotheConstitutionandshouldnotextendtotherevisionoftheentireConstitution,so we removed it from the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment orRevision.xxxx

xxxx

MS.AQUINO:[I]amseriouslybotheredbyprovidingthisprocessof initiativeasaseparatesection intheArticleonAmendment.WouldthesponsorbeamenabletoacceptinganamendmentintermsofrealigningSection2asanothersubparagraph(c)ofSection1,insteadofsettingitupasanotherseparatesectionasifitwereaselfexecutingprovision?

MR.SUAREZ:Wewouldbeamenableexceptthat,asweclarifiedawhileago,thisprocessofinitiativeislimitedtothematterofamendmentandshouldnotexpandintoarevisionwhichcontemplatesatotaloverhauloftheConstitution.ThatwasthesensethatwasconveyedbytheCommittee.

MS.AQUINO:Inotherwords,theCommitteewasattemptingtodistinguishthecoverageofmodes(a) and (b) inSection 1 to include theprocessof revisionwhereas, theprocessof initiation toamend,whichisgiventothepublic,wouldonlyapplytoamendments?

MR.SUAREZ:Thatisright.ThosewerethetermsenvisionedintheCommittee.

MS.AQUINO:Ithankthesponsorandthankyou,MadamPresident.

xxxx

MR.MAAMBONG:Myfirstquestion:CommissionerDavide'sproposedamendmentonline1refersto"amendments."Doesitnotcovertheword"revision"asdefinedbyCommissionerPadillawhenhemadethedistinctionbetweenthewords"amendments"and"revision"?

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

MR.MAAMBONG:Thankyou.31(Emphasissupplied)

There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended, and wrote, a clear distinctionbetween"amendment"and"revision"oftheConstitution.Theframersintended,andwrote,thatonlyCongressoraconstitutionalconventionmayproposerevisionstotheConstitution.Theframersintended,andwrote,thata people's initiativemay propose only amendments to theConstitution.Where the intent and language of theConstitutionclearlywithholdfromthepeoplethepowertoproposerevisionstotheConstitution,thepeoplecannotproposerevisionsevenastheyareempoweredtoproposeamendments.

This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the United States. Thus, in McFadden v.Jordan,32theSupremeCourtofCaliforniaruled:

TheinitiativepowerreservedbythepeoplebyamendmenttotheConstitutionxxxappliesonlytothe proposing and the adopting or rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the Constitution' anddoesnotpurport toextend toaconstitutional revision. xxxx It is thusclear thata revisionof theConstitutionmaybeaccomplishedonlythroughratificationbythepeopleofarevisedconstitutionproposedbyaconventioncalledforthatpurposeasoutlinedhereinabove.Consequentlyifthescopeoftheproposedinitiative measure (hereinafter termed 'the measure') now before us is so broad that if such measurebecame lawasubstantial revisionofourpresentstateConstitutionwouldbeeffected, then themeasuremaynotproperlybesubmittedtotheelectorateuntilandunless it is firstagreeduponbyaconstitutionalconvention,andthewritsoughtbypetitionershouldissue.xxxx(Emphasissupplied)

Likewise,theSupremeCourtofOregonruledinHolmesv.Appling:33

Itiswellestablishedthatwhenaconstitutionspecifiesthemannerinwhichitmaybeamendedorrevised,itcanbealteredbythosewhofavoramendments,revision,orotherchangeonlythroughtheuseofoneofthespecifiedmeans.Theconstitution itself recognizes that there isadifferencebetweenanamendmentand a revision and it is obvious from an examination of themeasure here in question that it is not anamendmentas that termisgenerallyunderstoodandas it isused inArticle IV,Section1.Thedocumentappears to be based in large part on the revision of the constitution drafted by the 'Commission forConstitutional Revision' authorized by the 1961 Legislative Assembly, x x x and submitted to the 1963Legislative Assembly. It failed to receive in the Assembly the twothird's majority vote of both housesrequiredbyArticleXVII,Section2,andhencefailedofadoption,xxx.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


While differing from that document in material respects, the measure sponsored by the plaintiffs is,nevertheless,athoroughoverhaulingofthepresentconstitutionxxx.

Tocallitanamendmentisamisnomer.

Whetheritbearevisionoranewconstitution,itisnotsuchameasureascanbesubmittedtothepeoplethrough the initiative. If a revision, it is subject to the requirementsofArticleXVII,Section2(1) if a newconstitution,itcanonlybeproposedataconventioncalledinthemannerprovidedinArticleXVII,Section1.xxxx

Similarly,inthisjurisdictiontherecanbenodisputethatapeople'sinitiativecanonlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from theconstitutionallyprescribedmodesofrevisingtheConstitution.Apopularclamor,evenonebackedby6.3millionsignatures,cannotjustifyadeviationfromthespecificmodesprescribedintheConstitutionitself.

AstheSupremeCourtofOklahomaruledinInreInitiativePetitionNo.364:34

It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised or amended in themannerprescribedbytheinstrumentitself,andthatanyattempttoreviseaconstitutioninamannerotherthan the one provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as extraconstitutional andrevolutionary.xxxx"While it isuniversallyconcededthat thepeoplearesovereignandthat theyhavepowertoadoptaconstitutionandtochangetheirownworkatwill,theymust,indoingso,actinanorderlymannerandaccording to thesettledprinciplesofconstitutional law.Andwhere thepeople, inadoptingaconstitution,haveprescribedthemethodbywhichthepeoplemayalteroramendit,anattempttochangethe fundamental law in violation of the selfimposed restrictions, is unconstitutional." x x x x (Emphasissupplied)

ThisCourt,whosemembersaresworntodefendandprotecttheConstitution,cannotshirkfromitssolemnoathandduty to insurecompliancewith theclearcommandof theConstitutionthatapeople's initiativemayonlyamend,neverrevise,theConstitution.

Thequestionis,doestheLambinoGroup's initiativeconstituteanamendmentorrevisionoftheConstitution?Ifthe Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a revision, then the present petition should be dismissed for beingoutsidethescopeofSection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitution.

Courtshavelongrecognizedthedistinctionbetweenanamendmentandarevisionofaconstitution.Oneoftheearliestcasesthatrecognizedthedistinctiondescribedthefundamentaldifferenceinthismanner:

[T]heveryterm"constitution"impliesaninstrumentofapermanentandabidingnature,andtheprovisionscontainedthereinforitsrevisionindicatethewillofthepeoplethattheunderlyingprinciplesuponwhichitrests,aswellasthesubstantialentiretyoftheinstrument,shallbeofalikepermanentandabidingnature.On theotherhand, thesignificanceof the term"amendment" impliessuchanadditionorchange within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out thepurposeforwhichitwasframed.35(Emphasissupplied)

Revisionbroadlyimpliesachangethataltersabasicprincipleintheconstitution,likealteringtheprincipleofseparation of powers or the system of checksandbalances. There is also revision if the change alters thesubstantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of theconstitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deleteswithoutalteringthebasicprincipleinvolved.Revisiongenerallyaffectsseveralprovisionsoftheconstitution,whileamendmentgenerallyaffectsonlythespecificprovisionbeingamended.

InCaliforniawhere the initiative clauseallowsamendments but not revisions to the constitution just like in ourConstitution,courtshavedevelopedatwoparttest:thequantitativetestandthequalitativetest.Thequantitativetest askswhether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantialentirety'of theconstitutionby thedeletionoralterationofnumerousexistingprovisions."36Thecourtexaminesonlythenumberofprovisionsaffectedanddoesnotconsiderthedegreeofthechange.

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The maininquiryiswhetherthechangewill"accomplishsuchfarreachingchangesinthenatureofourbasicgovernmentalplan as to amount to a revision."37Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a propersubject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan" includes "change in itsfundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches."38 A change in the nature of the basicgovernmentalplanalso includeschangesthat"jeopardizethetraditional formofgovernmentandthesystemofcheckandbalances."39

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


Underboth thequantitativeandqualitative tests, theLambinoGroup's initiative isa revisionandnotmerelyanamendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two articles Article VI on theLegislature and Article VII on the Executive affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.40Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential toparliamentary,andfromabicameraltoaunicamerallegislature.

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great coequalbranchesofgovernmentinthepresentConstitutionarereducedintotwo.Thisalterstheseparationofpowersin the Constitution. A shift from the present BicameralPresidential system to a UnicameralParliamentarysystemisarevisionoftheConstitution.Mergingthelegislativeandexecutivebranchesisaradicalchangeinthestructureofgovernment.

TheabolitionaloneoftheOfficeofthePresidentasthelocusofExecutivePoweralterstheseparationofpowersand thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of CongressaltersthesystemofchecksandbalanceswithinthelegislatureandconstitutesarevisionoftheConstitution.

By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a BicameralPresidential to a UnicameralParliamentarysystem, involving theabolitionof theOfficeof thePresidentand theabolitionofonechamberofCongress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group'sproposedchanges,itisreadilyapparentthatthechangeswillradicallyaltertheframeworkofgovernmentassetforthintheConstitution.FatherJoaquinBernas,S.J.,aleadingmemberoftheConstitutionalCommission,writes:

Anamendmentenvisagesanalterationofoneora fewspecificandseparableprovisions.Theguidingoriginalintentionofanamendmentistoimprovespecificpartsortoaddnewprovisionsdeemednecessarytomeetnewconditionsortosuppressspecificportionsthatmayhavebecomeobsoleteorthatarejudgedtobedangerous.Inrevision,however,theguidingoriginalintentionandplancontemplatesareexaminationoftheentiredocument,orofprovisionsofthedocumentwhichhaveoverallimplicationsfortheentiredocument,todeterminehowandto what extent they should be altered. Thus, for instance a switch from the presidential system to aparliamentary system would be a revision because of its overall impact on the entire constitutionalstructure.SowouldaswitchfromabicameralsystemtoaunicameralsystembebecauseofitseffectonotherimportantprovisionsoftheConstitution.41(Emphasissupplied)

InAdamsv.Gunter,42 an initiativepetitionproposed theamendmentof theFloridaState constitution toshiftfromabicameral toaunicameral legislature. The issue turnedonwhether the initiative "wasdefective andunauthorizedwhere[the]proposedamendmentwouldxxxaffectseveralotherprovisionsof[the]Constitution."TheSupremeCourtofFlorida,strikingdown the initiativeasoutside thescopeof the initiativeclause, ruledasfollows:

Theproposalhere toamendSection1ofArticle III of the1968Constitution toprovide foraUnicameralLegislatureaffectsnotonlymanyotherprovisionsoftheConstitutionbutprovidesforachangeinthe formof the legislative branch of government, which has been in existence in the United StatesCongressandinallofthestatesofthenation,exceptone,sincetheearliestdays.Itwouldbedifficulttovisualizeamorerevolutionarychange.TheconceptofaHouseandaSenateisbasicintheAmericanformofgovernment.Itwouldnotonlyradicallychangethewholepatternofgovernmentinthisstateand tear apart thewhole fabric of theConstitution, butwould even affect thephysical facilitiesnecessarytocarryongovernment.

xxxx

Weconcludewith theobservation that if suchproposedamendmentwereadoptedby thepeopleat theGeneralElectionandiftheLegislatureatitsnextsessionshouldfailtosubmitfurtheramendmentstoreviseand clarify the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts which would result, or if after submission ofappropriate amendments the people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos would prevail in thegovernmentofthisState.Thesameresultwouldobtainfromanamendment,forinstance,ofSection1ofArticleV, toprovide foronlyaSupremeCourtandCircuitCourtsand therecouldbeotherexamples toonumeroustodetail.Theseexamplespointunerringlytotheanswer.

ThepurposeofthelongandarduousworkofthehundredsofmenandwomenandmanysessionsoftheLegislatureinbringingabouttheConstitutionof1968wastoeliminateinconsistenciesandconflictsandtogive theStateaworkable,accordant,homogenousanduptodatedocument.Allof thiscoulddisappearveryquickly ifwewere tohold that it couldbeamended in themannerproposed in the initiativepetitionhere.43(Emphasissupplied)

The rationale of theAdams decision applies with greater force to the present petition. The LambinoGroup'sinitiativenotonlyseeksashiftfromabicameraltoaunicamerallegislature,italsoseekstomergetheexecutive

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


andlegislativedepartments.TheinitiativeinAdamsdidnoteventouchtheexecutivedepartment.

In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of the Florida Constitution that would beaffectedby theshift fromabicameral toaunicameral legislature. In theLambinoGroup'spresent initiative,noless than 105 provisions of theConstitutionwould be affected based on the count of Associate JusticeRomeo J.Callejo, Sr.44 There is no doubt that the LambinoGroup's present initiative seeks far more radicalchangesinthestructureofgovernmentthantheinitiativeinAdams.

TheLambinoGrouptheorizesthatthedifferencebetween"amendment"and"revision"isonlyoneofprocedure,notofsubstance.TheLambinoGrouppositsthatwhenadeliberativebodydraftsandproposeschangestotheConstitution,substantivechangesarecalled"revisions"becausemembersofthedeliberativebodyworkfulltimeonthechanges.However,thesamesubstantivechanges,whenproposedthroughaninitiative,arecalled"amendments"because the changes are made by ordinary people who do not make an "occupation,profession,orvocation"outofsuchendeavor.

Thus,theLambinoGroupmakesthefollowingexpositionoftheirtheoryintheirMemorandum:

99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional provisions expressly provide for both"amendment" and "revision" when it speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the sameprovisionsexpresslyprovideonly for "amendment"when it speaksof thepeople. Itwouldseem that theapparentdistinctionisbasedontheactualexperienceofthepeople,thatononehandthecommonpeopleingeneralarenotexpectedtoworkfulltimeonthematterofcorrectingtheconstitutionbecausethatisnottheir occupation, profession or vocation while on the other hand, the legislators and constitutionalconventiondelegatesareexpectedtoworkfulltimeonthesamematterbecausethat istheiroccupation,professionorvocation.Thus,thedifferencebetweenthewords"revision"and"amendment"pertainonlytotheprocessorprocedureofcomingupwiththecorrections,forpurposesofinterpretingtheconstitutionalprovisions.

100.Statedotherwise,thedifferencebetween"amendment"and"revision"cannotreasonablybeinthesubstanceorextentofthecorrection.xxxx(Underliningintheoriginalboldfacingsupplied)

The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the sameproposedchangesthattheLambinoGroupwroteinthepresentinitiative,thechangeswouldconstitutearevisionof the Constitution. Thus, the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes in the presentinitiative constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the changes.However,sincetheLambinoGroupasprivateindividualsdraftedtheproposedchanges,thechangesaremerelyamendmentstotheConstitution.TheLambinoGrouptrivializestheseriousmatterofchangingthefundamentallawoftheland.

The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution contradict the LambinoGroup'stheory.WheretheintentoftheframersandthelanguageoftheConstitutionareclearandplainlystated,courtsdonotdeviatefromsuchcategoricalintentandlanguage.45Anytheoryespousingaconstructioncontraryto such intent and language deserves scant consideration.More so, if such theory wreaks havoc by creatinginconsistencies in the form of government established in the Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of anyjurisprudentialmooringandinvitinginconsistenciesintheConstitution,onlyexposestheflimsinessoftheLambinoGroup's position. Any theory advocating that a proposed change involving a radical structural change ingovernmentdoesnotconstitutearevisionjustlydeservesrejection.

TheLambinoGroupsimplyrecyclesatheorythatinitiativeproponentsinAmericanjurisdictionshaveattemptedtoadvancewithoutanysuccess.InLowev.Keisling,46theSupremeCourtofOregonrejectedthistheory,thus:

Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes to the constitution proposed byinitiative. His theory is that Article XVII, section 2 merely provides a procedure by which thelegislaturecanproposea revisionof theconstitution,but it doesnot affectproposed revisionsinitiatedbythepeople.

Plaintiffs argue that theproposedballotmeasure constitutes awholesale change to the constitution thatcannotbeenactedthroughtheinitiativeprocess.Theyassertthatthedistinctionbetweenamendmentandrevision is determined by reviewing the scope and subject matter of the proposed enactment, and thatrevisionsarenot limited to"a formaloverhaulingof theconstitution."Theyarguethat thisballotmeasureproposesfarreachingchangesoutsidethe linesof theoriginal instrument, includingprofoundimpactsonexistingfundamentalrightsandradicalrestructuringofthegovernment'srelationshipwithadefinedgroupof citizens. Plaintiffs assert that, because the proposed ballot measure "will refashion the most basicprinciplesofOregonconstitutional law," the trialcourtcorrectlyheld that itviolatedArticleXVII,section2,andcannotappearontheballotwithoutthepriorapprovalofthelegislature.

WefirstaddressMabon'sargumentthatArticleXVII,section2(1),doesnotprohibitrevisionsinstitutedby

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


initiative.InHolmesv.Appling,xxx,theSupremeCourtconcludedthatarevisionoftheconstitutionmaynotbeaccomplishedbyinitiative,becauseoftheprovisionsofArticleXVII,section2.AfterreviewingArticleXVII,section1,relatingtoproposedamendments,thecourtsaid:

"FromtheforegoingitappearsthatArticleIV,Section1,authorizestheuseoftheinitiativeasameansofamendingtheOregonConstitution,butitcontainsnosimilarsanctionforitsuseasameansofrevisingtheconstitution."xxxx

It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said: "It is the only section of theconstitutionwhichprovidesthemeansforconstitutionalrevisionanditexcludestheideathatanindividual,throughtheinitiative,mayplacesuchameasurebeforetheelectorate."xxxx

Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply toconstitutionalrevisionsproposedbyinitiative.(Emphasissupplied)

Similarly,thisCourtmustrejecttheLambinoGroup'stheorywhichnegatestheexpressintentoftheframersandtheplainlanguageoftheConstitution.

Wecanvisualizeamendmentsandrevisionsasaspectrum,atoneendgreenforamendmentsandattheotherend red for revisions. Towards the middle of the spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determiningwhetherthereisanamendmentorrevision.Thepresentinitiativeisindisputablylocatedatthefarendoftheredspectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks a radical overhaul of the existing separation ofpowers among the three coequal departments of government, requiring farreaching amendments in severalsectionsandarticlesoftheConstitution.

Where theproposed changeapplies only to a specific provision of theConstitutionwithout affecting anyothersectionorarticle, thechangemaygenerallybeconsideredanamendmentandnota revision.Forexample,achange reducing thevotingage from18years to15years47 isanamendmentandnota revision.Similarly,achangereducingFilipinoownershipofmassmediacompaniesfrom100percentto60percentisanamendmentandnotarevision.48Also,achangerequiringacollegedegreeasanadditionalqualification forelection to thePresidencyisanamendmentandnotarevision.49

ThechangesintheseexamplesdonotentailanymodificationofsectionsorarticlesoftheConstitutionotherthanthe specific provision being amended. These changes do not also affect the structure of government or thesystemofchecksandbalancesamongorwithinthethreebranches.Thesethreeexamplesarelocatedatthefargreenendofthespectrum,oppositethefarredendwheretherevisionsoughtbythepresentpetitionislocated.

However,therecanbenofixedruleonwhetherachangeisanamendmentorarevision.AchangeinasinglewordofonesentenceoftheConstitutionmaybearevisionandnotanamendment.Forexample,thesubstitutionof the word "republican" with "monarchic" or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II50 of the Constitution radicallyoverhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus,eachspecificchangewillhavetobeexaminedcasebycase,dependingonhowitaffectsotherprovisions,aswellas how it affects the structure of government, the carefully crafted system of checksandbalances, and theunderlyingideologicalbasisoftheexistingConstitution.

Sincea revisionofaconstitutionaffectsbasicprinciples,orseveralprovisionsofaconstitution,adeliberativebodywith recordedproceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing notonly several provisions, but also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutionsnormally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertakerevisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people's initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiabledeliberativebodiesorrecordedproceedings,toundertakeonlyamendmentsandnotrevisions.

Inthepresentinitiative,theLambinoGroup'sproposedSection2oftheTransitoryProvisionsstates:

Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President, with theexception ofSections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 ofArticleVI of the 1987Constitutionwhich shall hereby beamendedandSections18and24whichshallbedeleted,allotherSectionsofArticleVIareherebyretainedandrenumberedsequentiallyasSection2,adseriatimupto26,unlesstheyareinconsistentwiththeParliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be amended to conform with aunicameralparliamentaryformofgovernmentxxxx(Emphasissupplied)

Thebasicruleinstatutoryconstructionisthatifalaterlawisirreconcilablyinconsistentwithapriorlaw,thelaterlawprevails.Thisrulealsoappliestoconstructionofconstitutions.However,theLambinoGroup'sdraftofSection2 of the Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that in case of suchirreconcilableinconsistency,theearlierprovision"shallbeamendedtoconformwithaunicameralparliamentaryform of government." The effect is to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one "shall be

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


amended,"whichrequiresafutureseparateconstitutionalamendment.

Realizingtheabsurdityoftheneedforsuchanamendment,petitionerAtty.Lambinoreadilyconcededduringtheoralarguments that the requirementofa futureamendment isa "surplusage." Inshort,Atty.Lambinowants toreinstatetheruleofstatutoryconstructionsothatthelaterprovisionautomaticallyprevailsincaseofirreconcilableinconsistency.However,itisnotassimpleasthat.

TheirreconcilableinconsistencyenvisionedintheproposedSection2oftheTransitoryProvisionsisnotbetweenaprovision inArticleVIof the1987Constitutionandaprovision in theproposedchanges.The inconsistency isbetweenaprovisioninArticleVIofthe1987Constitutionandthe"Parliamentarysystemofgovernment,"andtheinconsistencyshallberesolvedinfavorofa"unicameralparliamentaryformofgovernment."

Now,what"unicameralparliamentaryformofgovernment"dotheLambinoGroup'sproposedchangesreferto the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand models, which are among the few countries withunicameral parliaments? The proposed changes could not possibly refer to the traditional and wellknownparliamentary forms of government the British, French, Spanish, German, Italian, Canadian, Australian, orMalaysianmodels,whichhaveallbicameralparliaments.Didthepeoplewhosignedthesignaturesheetsrealizethat they were adopting the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand parliamentary form ofgovernment?

Thisdriveshome thepoint that thepeople's initiative isnotmeant for revisionsof theConstitutionbutonly foramendments. A shift from the present BicameralPresidential to a UnicameralParliamentary system requiresharmonizing several provisions in many articles of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution through apeople'sinitiativewillonlyresultingrossabsurditiesintheConstitution.

Insum, there isnodoubtwhatsoever that theLambinoGroup's initiative isa revisionandnotanamendment.Thus, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of theConstitutionlimitingthescopeofapeople'sinitiativeto"[A]mendmentstothisConstitution."

3.ARevisitofSantiagov.COMELECisNotNecessary

ThepresentpetitionwarrantsdismissalforfailuretocomplywiththebasicrequirementsofSection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionontheconductandscopeofapeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.ThereisnoneedtorevisitthisCourt'srulinginSantiagodeclaringRA6735"incomplete,inadequateorwantinginessentialtermsandconditions"tocoverthesystemofinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.AnaffirmationorreversalofSantiagowill not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court must decline to revisitSantiago whicheffectivelyruledthatRA6735doesnotcomplywiththerequirementsoftheConstitutiontoimplementtheinitiativeclauseonamendmentstotheConstitution.

ThisCourtmustavoidrevisitingarulinginvolvingtheconstitutionalityofastatuteifthecasebeforetheCourtcanbe resolvedonsomeothergrounds.Suchavoidance isa logical consequenceof thewellsettleddoctrine thatcourtswillnotpassupontheconstitutionalityofastatuteifthecasecanberesolvedonsomeothergrounds.51

Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional provision on initiatives toamendtheConstitution,thiswillnotchangetheresultherebecausethepresentpetitionviolatesSection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitution.Tobeavalidinitiative,thepresentinitiativemustfirstcomplywithSection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionevenbeforecomplyingwithRA6735.

Eventhen,thepresentinitiativeviolatesSection5(b)ofRA6735whichrequiresthatthe"petitionforaninitiativeonthe1987Constitutionmusthaveatleasttwelvepercentum(12%)ofthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersassignatories."Section5(b)ofRA6735requiresthatthepeoplemustsignthe"petitionxxxassignatories."

The6.3millionsignatoriesdidnotsignthepetitionof25August2006ortheamendedpetitionof30August2006filed with the COMELEC.Only Atty. Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C. Agrasigned thepetition andamendedpetition as counsels for "Raul L. LambinoandEricoB.Aumentado,Petitioners." In theCOMELEC, the LambinoGroup, claiming to act "togetherwith" the 6.3million signatories,merely attached the signature sheets to the petition and amended petition. Thus, the petition and amendedpetition filedwith theCOMELECdidnotevencomplywith thebasic requirementofRA6735 that theLambinoGroupclaimsasvalid.

TheLambinoGroup'slogrollinginitiativealsoviolatesSection10(a)ofRA6735stating,"Nopetitionembracingmore thanone (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate x x x." The proposedSection 4(4) of theTransitory Provisions, mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to theConstitution,isasubjectmattertotallyunrelatedtotheshiftintheformofgovernment.Sincethepresentinitiativeembracesmorethanonesubjectmatter,RA6735prohibitssubmissionoftheinitiativepetitiontotheelectorate.Thus,evenifRA6735isvalid,theLambinoGroup'sinitiativewillstillfail.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


4.TheCOMELECDidNotCommitGraveAbuseofDiscretioninDismissingtheLambinoGroup'sInitiative

IndismissingtheLambinoGroup'sinitiativepetition,theCOMELECenbancmerelyfollowedthisCourt'srulinginSantiago and People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.52 ForfollowingthisCourt'sruling,nograveabuseofdiscretionisattributabletotheCOMELEC.Onthisgroundalone,thepresentpetitionwarrantsoutrightdismissal.Thus,thisCourtshouldreiterateitsunanimousrulinginPIRMA:

TheCourt ruled, first, byaunanimousvote, thatnograveabuseofdiscretioncouldbeattributed to thepublic respondent COMELEC in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it onlycompliedwiththedispositionsintheDecisionsofthisCourtinG.R.No.127325,promulgatedonMarch19,1997,anditsResolutionofJune10,1997.

5.Conclusion

The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and obedience of all thecitizensofthisnation.NoonecantrivializetheConstitutionbycavalierlyamendingorrevisingitinblatantviolationoftheclearlyspecifiedmodesofamendmentandrevisionlaiddownintheConstitutionitself.

ToallowsuchchangeinthefundamentallawistosetadrifttheConstitutioninuncharteredwaters,tobetossedand turned by every dominant political group of the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in theConstitutionoutsidetheconstitutionallyprescribedmodes,tomorrowthenewdominantpoliticalgroupthatcomeswilldemanditsownsetofchangesinthesamecavalierandunconstitutionalfashion.Arevolvingdoorconstitutiondoesnotaugurwellfortheruleoflawinthiscountry.

Anoverwhelmingmajority16,622,111voterscomprising76.3percentofthetotalvotescast53approvedourConstitutioninanationalplebisciteheldon11February1987.Thatapprovalistheunmistakablevoiceofthe people, the full expression of the people's sovereign will. That approval included the prescribedmodesforamendingorrevisingtheConstitution.

Noamountofsignatures,noteventhe6,327,952millionsignaturesgatheredbytheLambinoGroup,canchangeourConstitutioncontrarytothespecificmodesthatthepeople,intheirsovereigncapacity,prescribedwhentheyratifiedtheConstitution.Thealternativeisanextraconstitutionalchange,whichmeanssubvertingthepeople'ssovereignwillanddiscardingtheConstitution.ThisisoneacttheCourtcannotandshouldneverdo.Astheultimateguardianof theConstitution, thisCourt is sworn to perform its solemnduty to defendandprotect theConstitution,whichembodiestherealsovereignwillofthepeople.

Incantationsof"people'svoice,""people'ssovereignwill,"or"let thepeopledecide"cannotoverridethespecificmodes of changing the Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution thepeople's fundamental covenant that providesenduring stability toour societybecomeseasily susceptible tomanipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitutionceasestobethebedrockofthenation'sstability.

TheLambinoGroupclaimsthattheirinitiativeisthe"people'svoice."However,theLambinoGroupunabashedlystates in ULAP Resolution No. 200602, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that "ULAPmaintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria MacapagalArroyo forconstitutionalreforms."TheLambinoGroupthusadmitsthattheir"people's"initiativeisan"unqualifiedsupporttothe agenda" of the incumbent President to change the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be wary ofincantationsof"people'svoice"or"sovereignwill"inthepresentinitiative.

This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, whichembodies thepeople'ssovereignwill, is thebibleof thisCourt.ThisCourtexists todefendandprotect theConstitution.Toallowthisconstitutionallyinfirminitiative,propelledbydeceptivelygatheredsignatures,toalterbasic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration anddesecrationistolosethisCourt'sraisond'etre.

WHEREFORE,weDISMISSthepetitioninG.R.No.174153.

SOORDERED.

Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, YnaresSantiago, SandovalGutierrez, AustriaMartinez, Corona, CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,Azcuna,Tinga,ChicoNazario,Garcia,andVelasco,Jr.,JJ.,concur.

____________________

ENBANC


6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


RAULL.LAMBINOANDERICOB.AUMENTADO,TOGETHERWITH6,327,952REGISTEREDVOTERSV.COMMISSIONONELECTIONSETAL.

SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINION

PANGANIBAN,CJ.:

Withouttheruleoflaw,therecanbenolastingprosperityandcertainlynoliberty.

BeverleyMcLachlin1ChiefJusticeofCanada

Afteradeepreflectionontheissuesraisedandacarefulevaluationoftheparties'respectiveargumentsbothoralandwrittenaswellastheenlightenedandenlighteningOpinionssubmittedbymyesteemedcolleagues,IamfullyconvincedthatthepresentPetitionmustbedismissed.

I write, however, to show thatmy present disposition is completely consistent withmy previousOpinions andvotesonthetwoextantSupremeCourtcasesinvolvinganinitiativetochangetheConstitution.

In my Separate Opinion inSantiago v. Comelec,2 I opined "that taken together and interpreted properly andliberally,theConstitution(particularlyArt.XVII,Sec.2),RepublicAct6735andComelecResolution2300providemorethansufficient

__________________

'SEC.2.AmendmentstothisConstitutionmaylikewisebedirectlyproposedbythepeoplethroughinitiativeupon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which everylegislative districtmust be representedby at least threeper centumof the registered voters therein.Noamendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of thisConstitutionnoroftenerthanonceeveryfiveyearsthereafter.'

"Withallduerespect,Ifindthemajority'spositionalltoosweepingandalltooextremist.Itisequivalenttoburning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain.WhatCitizenDelfinwants theComelec to dowe should reject.Butwe shouldnot therebypreempt any futureefforttoexercisetherightofinitiativecorrectlyandjudiciously.ThefactthattheDelfinPetitionproposesamisuseofinitiativedoesnotjustifyabanagainstitsproperuse.Indeed,thereisarightwaytodotherightthingattherighttimeandfortherightreason.

TakenTogetherandInterpretedProperly,theConstitution,R.A.6735andComelecResolution2300AreSufficienttoImplementConstitutionalInitiatives

"WhileR.A.6735maynotbeaperfect law, itwasasthemajorityopenlyconcedesintendedbythelegislaturetocoverand,Irespectfullysubmit,itcontainsenoughprovisionstoeffectuateaninitiativeontheConstitution.IcompletelyagreewiththeinspiredandinspiringopinionsofMr.JusticeReynatoS.PunoandMr.JusticeRicardoJ.FranciscothatRA6735,theRocolawoninitiative,sufficientlyimplementstherightofthe people to initiate amendments to the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat norelaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en banc rulings in Subic BayMetropolitanAuthorityvs.CommissiononElections, that "provisions for initiative . . . are (to be) liberallyconstruedtoeffectuatetheirpurposes,tofacilitateandnothampertheexercisebythevotersoftherightsgranted thereby" and in Garcia vs. Comelec, that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people'sinitiativesoughttoberejected."

"No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. In recognition of this, R.A. 6735wisely empowered the Commission on Election "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may benecessarytocarryoutthepurposesofthisAct."Andpursuantthereto,theComelecissueditsResolution2300on16January1991.SuchResolution,byitsverywords,waspromulgated"togoverntheconductofinitiativeontheConstitutionandinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallaws,"notbytheincumbentCommission on Elections but by one then composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac, Comms.Alfredo

authoritytoimplement,effectuateandrealizeourpeople'spowertoamendtheConstitution."

__________________

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


E.Abueg, Jr., LeopoldoL.Africa,AndresR.Flores,DarioC.RamaandMagdaraB.Dimaampao.All oftheseCommissionerswhosignedResolution2300haveretiredfromtheCommission,andthuswecannotascribe any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and exemplary effort to give life to acherishedrightofourpeople.

"ThemajorityarguesthatwhileResolution2300isvalidinregardtonationallawsandlocallegislations,itisvoid in reference to constitutionalamendments.There isnobasis for suchdifferentiation.ThesourceofandauthorityfortheResolutionisthesamelaw,R.A.6735.

"Irespectfullysubmitthattakentogetherandinterpretedproperlyandliberally,theConstitution(particularlyArt. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority toimplement,effectuateandrealizeourpeople'spowertoamendtheConstitution.

PetitionerDelfinandthePedrosaSpousesShouldNotBeMuzzled

"IamgladthemajoritydecidedtoheedourpleatoliftthetemporaryrestrainingorderissuedbythisCourton18December1996 insofaras itprohibitedPetitionerDelfinand theSpousesPedrosa fromexercisingtheirrightofinitiative.Infact,Ibelievethatsuchrestrainingorderasagainstprivaterespondentsshouldnothavebeen issued, in thefirstplace.While Iagreethat theComelecshouldbestoppedfromusingpublicfunds and government resources to help them gather signatures, I firmly believe that thisCourt has nopower to restrain them from exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose amendments to theConstitution is really a species of the right of free speech and free assembly.And certainly, itwould betyrannicalanddespotic tostopanyone fromspeaking freelyandpersuadingothers toconformtohis/herbeliefs.AstheeminentVoltaireoncesaid,'Imaydisagreewithwhatyousay,butIwilldefendtothedeathyour right to say it.'Afterall, freedom isnot really for the thoughtweagreewith, butas JusticeHolmeswrote,'freedomforthethoughtthatwehate.'

Epilogue

"Bywayofepilogue,letmestresstheguidingtenetofmySeparateOpinion.Initiative,likereferendumandrecall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are institutionalizedlegacies of the worldadmired EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowedexpressionsofpopularsovereignty.Theyaresacreddemocraticrightsofourpeopletobeusedas

Sixmonthsafter, inmySeparateOpinioninPeople'sInitiativeforReform,ModernizationandAction(PIRMA)v.Comelec,3I joinedtherestofthemembersoftheCourt inruling"byaunanimousvote,thatnograveabuseofdiscretioncouldbeattributedtotheComelecindismissingthepetitionfiledby

__________________

Constitution x x x." While concededly, petitioners in this case were not direct parties in Santiago,nonetheless theCourt's injunction against theComelec coveredANYpetition, not just theDelfin petitionwhichwastheimmediatesubjectofsaidcase.AsadissenterinSantiago,Ibelieved,andstilldo,thatthemajoritygravelyerredinrenderingsuchasweepinginjunction,butIcannotfaulttheComelecfor complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi.RespondentComelecwasdirectlyenjoinedbythehighestCourtoftheland.Ithadnochoicebutto obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of discretion. Refusal to act on the PIRMApetition was the only recourse open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have constituteddefianceof theCourtandwouldhavebeenstruckdownasgraveabuseofdiscretionandcontumaciousdisregardofthisCourt'ssupremacyasthefinalarbiterofjusticiablecontroversies.

SecondIssue:SufficiencyofRA6735

"IrepeatmyfirmlegalpositionthatRA6735 isadequatetocover initiativesontheConstitution,and that whatever administrative details may have been omitted in said law are satisfactorilyprovidedbyComelecResolution2300.ThepromulgationofResolution2300issanctionedbySection2,ArticleIXCoftheConstitution,whichvestsupontheComelecthepowerto"enforceandadministeralllawsand regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." TheOmnibus Election Code likewise empowers the electoral body to "promulgate rules and regulationsimplementing theprovisionsof thisCodeorother lawswhich theCommission is required toenforceandadminister x x x."Finallyandmost relevantly,Section20ofRa6735specificallyauthorizesComelec "topromulgaterulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesofthisAct."

"InmydissentinSantiago,Iwrotethat"thereisarightwaytodotherightthingattherighttimeandfortherightreason."Letmeexplainfurther.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


TheRightThing

"Apeople'sinitiativeisdirectdemocracyinaction.Itistherightthingthatcitizensmayavailthemselvesofto articulate their will. It is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. Even themajority implicitlyconceded itsvalueandworth inour legal firmamentwhen it imploredCongress "not totarryanylongerincomplyingwiththeconstitutionalmandatetoprovideforimplementationoftheright(ofinitiative)ofthepeoplexxx."Hence,intheenbanccaseofSubicBayMetropolitanAuthorityvs.Comelec,[G.R.No. 125416,September 26, 1996], thisCourt unanimously held that "(l)ike elections, initiative andreferendumarepowerfulandvaluablemodesofexpressingpopular

PIRMAtherein,"sincetheCommissionhad"onlycomplied"withtheSantiagoDecision.

__________________

sovereignty.AndthisCourtasamatterofpolicyanddoctrinewillexerteveryefforttonurture,protectandpromotetheirlegitimateexercise."

TheRightWay

"From the outset, I have alreadymaintained the view that "taken together and interpreted properly andliberally, theConstitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), RA 6735 andComelecResolution 2300 providemore than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend theConstitution."LetmenowdemonstratetheadequacyofRA6735byoutlining,inconcreteterms,thestepstobetakentherightwaytoamendtheConstitutionthroughapeople'sinitiative.

"PursuanttoSection3(f)ofthelaw,theComelecshallprescribetheformofthepetitionwhichshallcontainthepropositionandtherequirednumberofsignatories.UnderSec.5(c)thereof,thepetitionshallstatethefollowing:

'c.1contentsortextofthe[provisionorprovisions]soughttobexxxamended,xxx

c.2theproposition[infulltext]

c.3thereasonorreasonstherefor[fullyandclearlyexplained]

c.4thatitisnotoneofexceptionsprovidedherein

c.5signaturesofthepetitionersorregisteredvotersand

c.6anabstractorsummaryproposition innotmore thanonehundred (100)wordswhichshallbelegiblywrittenorprintedatthetopofeverypageofthepetition.'

"Section8(f)ofComelecResolution2300additionallyrequiresthatthepetitionincludeaformaldesignationofthedulyauthorizedrepresentativesofthesignatories.

"Beingaconstitutionalrequirement,thenumberofsignaturesbecomesaconditionprecedenttothefilingofthe petition, and is jurisdictional. Without such requisite signatures, the Commission shallmotu propriorejectthepetition.

"Where the initiators have substantially compliedwith the above requirements, theymay thence file thepetitionwiththeComelecwhichistaskedtodeterminethesufficiencythereofandtoverifythesignatureson the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and voters' identification cards. In decidingwhether the petition is sufficient, the Comelec shall also determine if the proposition is proper for aninitiative,i.e.,ifitconsistsofanamendment,notarevision,oftheConstitution.AnydecisionoftheelectoralbodymaybeappealedtotheSupremeCourtwithinthirty(30)daysfromnotice.

Iadded"thatmypositionupholdingtheadequacyofRA6735andthevalidityofComelecResolution2300willnotipso

__________________

"Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, and after the determination of its sufficiency, theComelecshallpublish thesame inFilipinoandEnglishat least twice innewspapersofgeneraland localcirculation,andsetthedateoftheplebiscite.Theconductoftheplebisciteshouldnotbeearlierthansixty(60) days, but not later than ninety (90) days after certification by theComelec of the sufficiency of thepetition.Theproposition,ifapprovedbyamajorityofthevotescastintheplebiscite,becomeseffectiveasofthedayoftheplebiscite.

6/30/2015 G.R.No.174153


"Fromtheforegoing,itshouldbeclearthatmypositionupholdingtheadequacyofRA6735andthevalidityof Comelec Resolution 2300 will not ipso facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to aplebiscite toamend theConstitution.Far from it.Amongothers,PIRMAmuststillsatisfactorilyhurdle thefollowingsearchingissues:

1. Does the proposed change the lifting of the term limits of elective officials constitute a mereamendmentandnotarevisionoftheConstitution?

2.Which registry of voterswill be used to verify the signatures in the petition?This question is relevantconsideringthatunderRA8189,theoldregistryofvotersusedinthe1995nationalelectionswasvoidedafterthebaranga

Date post:	13-Sep-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	jubail-esteban
View:	36 times
Download:	4 times

Lambino vs. Comelec Case

Documents