Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The COMELEC then, upon its approval a.) Set the time and dates for
signature gathering all over the country; b.) Caused the
necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general
circulation, and c.) Instructed local election registrars to assist
petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.
ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to
the constitution and is adequate to cover such system.
HELD:
Note:
This ruling has been reversed on November 20, 2006 when ten justices
of the SC ruled that RA 6735 is adequate enough to enable such
initiative.
However, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part:
Ten members of the Court reiterate their position, as
shown by their various opinions already given when the
decision therein was promulgated, that RA No. 6735 is
sufficient and adequate enough to amend the
Constitution thru a peoples initiative.
As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare
decisis.
Lambino v Comelec
G.R. No. 174153, October 25 2006
FACTS:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an
initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution and filed a petition
before the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
petition under RA 6735.
Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of six (6)
million individuals fulfilling what was provided by Section 2, Article 17
of the 1987 Constitution.
Their petition aimed to change the 1987 constitution by modifying
sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18.
The proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential
form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied
the petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions
and invoked the Santiago v. COMELEC ruling that RA 6735 is
inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.
ISSUE:
HELD:
The Supreme Court held that Lambino group failed to comply with the
basic requirements for conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held that
the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the
Lambino petition.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People .The petitioners failed to show
the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the
signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is deceptive and
misleading which renders the initiative void.
Taada v Cuenco
GR No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
FACTS:
But prior to a decision, the SET would have to choose its members. It is
provided that the SET should be composed of 9 members comprised of
the following: Three (3) justices of the Supreme Court, three (3)
senators from the majority party and three (3) senators from the
minority party.
But since there is only one minority senator, the other two SET
members supposed to come from the minority were filled in by the NP.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the issue is a judicial question and subject to judicial review
HELD:
Yes. The Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case because it is a
justiciable question. Political Question connotes what it means in
ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It is concerned with
In this case, the issue at bar is not a political question. The issue being
raised by Taada was whether or not the elections of the five (5) NP
members to the SET are valid which is a judicial question. Note: that
the SET is a separate and independent body from the Senate which
does not perform legislative acts.
The nomination of the last two members (who would fill in the
supposed seat of the minority members) must not come from the
majority party.
This is still valid provided the majority members of the SET (referring to
those legally sitting) concurred with the Chairman. Besides, the SET
may set its own rules in situations like this provided such rules comply
with the Constitution.