You are on page 1of 6

Santiago v COMELEC

GR No 127325, March 19, 1997


FACTS

On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to


Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by
Peoples Initiative

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.

On 18 Dec 1996, Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition


against the Delfins petition arguing that 1.) The constitutional
provision on peoples initiative to amend the constitution can only be
implemented by law to be passed by Congress and no such law has yet
been passed by Congress; 2.) RA 6735 (The Initiative and
Referendum Act) indeed provides for three systems of initiative
namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statues and on local
legislation.

The two latter forms of initiative were specifically provided for in


Subtitles II and III thereof but no provisions were specifically made for
initiatives on the Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to
the constitution and is adequate to cover such system.
HELD:

No. RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on


amendments to the constitution but is unfortunately inadequate to
cover that system.

Sec 2 of Article 17 of the Constitution provides: Amendments to this


constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
must be represented by at least there per centum of the
registered voters therein. . . The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right

This provision is obviously not self-executory as it needs an


enabling law to be passed by Congress. Without implementing
legislation Section 2, Art 17 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode
of amending the constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses
Congressional action in the last analysis is still dependent on
Congressional action.

The people cannot exercise such right, though constitutionally


guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide for its
implementation.

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:

Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with


Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a peoples initiative.
Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying due course to the Lambino Groups petition.
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring
RA 6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend
the Constitution.

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.

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


Revision through Initiatives. The framers of the constitution intended a clear
distinction between amendment and revision, it is intended that the third
mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only
amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive
is a radical change, therefore it constitutes a revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is not Necessary . Even assuming that
RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the
constitution before complying with RA 6735
The petition was dismissed.

Taada v Cuenco
GR No. L-10520, February 28, 1957
FACTS:

The membership in the Senate was overwhelmingly occupied by


the Nacionalista Party (NP) after the 1955 national elections and the
lone opposition senator was Lorenzo Taada who belonged to the
Citizens Party.

Diosdado Macapagal on the other hand was a senatorial candidate who


lost the bid but was contesting it before the Senate Electoral Tribunal
(SET).

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.

Taada assailed this process, together with Macapagal before the


Supreme Court because if the SET would be dominated by NP senators
then he, as a member of the Liberalista Party (LP) will not have any
chance in his election contest.

Senator Mariano Cuenco et al (members of the NP) averred that the


Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of the issue because it is a
political question and further argued that the power to choose the
members of the SET is vested in the Senate alone and the remedy for
Taada and Macapagal was not to raise the issue before judicial courts
but rather to leave it before the bar of public opinion.

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

issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular


measure.

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.

Guide Question: But how should this be resolved?

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.

In this case, the Chairman of the SET, apparently already appointed


members that would fill in the minority seats (even though those will
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.

You might also like