Lambino v. COMELEC GR No. 174153 Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado Petitioners COMELEC Respondent Ponente: Carpio, J.

J. FACTS: The Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution, then filed a petition with the COMELEC for the ratification of Section 5 (b) and (c) and Section 7 of RA 6735. The petitioners alleged that their petition had the support of 6M individuals. The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI, Sections 1-4 of Article VII, and the addition of Article XVIII or the Transitory Provisions. It will also change the present Bicameral-President system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The COMELEC did not give the petition a due course for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution, pursuant to the previous case, Santiago vs. Comelec. ISSUES: Whether or not the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's initiative; Whether or not the 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 Courted stated that the Lambino Group failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting peoples initiative. (1.) The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People The Constitution requires that the amendment must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. The petitioners failed to show to the court that the final draft was attached to the petition upon the signature-gathering for the signers to be informed of the nature and effect of that which is proposed. Failure to do so is deceptive and misleading, which renders the initiative void. (2.) A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

There is no need to revisit the ruling in Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition because in order for the present petition to be a valid initiative, it must first comply with the requirements of the constitution.