RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952 registered voters vs.

THE
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160
Carpio, J.
Facts:
Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the 1987
Philippine Constitution, particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present Presidential-Bicameral
system of government to Parliamentary-Unicameral system using Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution.
Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 6,327,952 million voters all over the country and the
same constitutes over 12% of all the registered voters in the entire country and that more than 3% of
the registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in accordance with Section 2, Art. XVII
of the Constitution. The petition to change the Constitution involves sections 1-7 of Article VI; Sections
1-4 of Article VII and an Article XVII entitled Transitory Provisions. The petitioners prayed with the
COMELEC that after due publication of their Petition, the COMELEC should submit the following
proposition in a plebiscite for the voters ratification:
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BICAMERAL TO A UNICAMERAL-
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE
ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it was held
that:
RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. x x x .
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae
on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry the purposes of this act.
Considering the said dismissal, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari and
Mandamus alleging rave abuse of discretion and to set aside the COMELEC Decision and to compel the
latter to give due course to their initiative petition.
The Issues:
1. WHETHER THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 2, ARTICLE XVII OF THE
CONSTITUTION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH PEOPLES INITIATIVE;
2. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS RULING IN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC,
DECLARING THAT RA NO. 6735 INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE OR WANTING IN ESSENTIAL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE CLAUSE ON PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION;
and
3. WHETHER THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING DUE COURSE
TO THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION.
H E L D:
There is no merit to the petition.
The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a peoples initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition
warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Groups glaring failure to comply with the basic
requirements of the Constitution. As such, there is likewise no grave abuse of discretion on the part of
the COMELEC.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a peoples
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This Section provides:
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE
PEOPLE through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters therein.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention vividly explain the meaning of the amendment
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition. Thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a
constitutional amendment. IS THE DRAFT OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT READY TO
BE SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO SIGN?
MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign?
Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam PresidentAs it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare
that proposal and pass it around for signature.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment should be ready and shown to the people before they sign such proposal. The framers
plainly stated that before they sign there is already a draft shown to them. The framers also
envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must prepare
the proposal and pass it around for signature.
The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition IS
THAT THE ENTIRE PROPOSAL ON ITS FACE IS A PETITION BY THE PEOPLE. This means two (2) essential
elements must be present:
1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign
for and on their behalf;
2. As an initiative upon a petition, THE PROPOSAL MUST BE EMBODIED IN A PETITION.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to
the people who will express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETIITON ONLY IF
THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
The petitioners bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in
gathering the signaturesthat the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of
the proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition a copy of the document containing the
proposed amendments and as such, the people signed initiative petition without knowing the actual
amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead , the alleged 6.3 million people who signed the
petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino and his group deceived
the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.
MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997
RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is,
unfortunately, Inadequate to cover that system. Section 2 Art. XVII is not self-executory and unless
Congress provides for its implementation , it would remain in the cold niche of the Constitution. RA 6735
in all its 23 sections mentions the word Constitution only in section 2 and Section 3 as compared to
the initiative on statutes and local legislation. The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that RA 6735
is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and
cannot be cured by empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry the purposes of this act.
4. Read: a) MABANAG vs. LOPEZ VITO, 78 Phil. 1
b) GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774
There is no prohibition for Congress to propose amendments to the Constitution and at the
same time call for the convening of a Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution. The word
or in the provision Congress, upon a vote of of all its members; OR [2] A constitutional
Convention under Section 1, Art. XVII also means AND.
c) TOLENTINO vs. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702
Doctrine of Proper Submission means all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be
presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at the same time, not piecemeal.
d) SANIDAD vs. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333
e) ALMARIO vs. ALBA, 127 SCRA 69
If the question regarding the proposed amendment to the Constitution deals with its necessity,
expediency or wisdom, the same is political in nature and beyond the power of the courts to decide.
f) MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 ACRA 106

Is there a law which would provide for the mechanism for the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution by peoples initiative?
While Congress had enacted RA 6735 purportedly to provide the mechanisms for the
peoples exercise the power to amend the Constitution by peoples initiative, the Supreme Court
in MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 & June
10, 1997, the Supreme Court held that RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by
empowering the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to
carry the purposes of this act.
In LAMBINO VS. COMELEC, however, the Supreme Court on November 21, 2006, in the Minute
Resolution of the petitioners Motion for Reconsideration held that RA No. 6735 is adequate
and complete for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution through peoples
initiative by a vote of 10 members as per Certification of the En Bancs Clerk of Court.
5-a. May the question Do you approve the amendment of Articles VI and VII of the 1987
Philippine Constitution changing the form of government from Presidential-Bicameral to
Parliamentary-Unicameral be allowed to be submitted to the people for their ratification
or rejection as a means of amending the Constitution by peoples initiative if the requisite
number of signatories (12% nationwide and at least 3% for every legislative district) are
met?
No for two (2) reasons.
1. The said proposal did not indicate which provisions of Articles VI and VII are actually being
amended which is a must under Section 2, Art. XVII. Otherwise, who shall make the amendments
if the people in a plebiscite approve the same;
2. Changing the form of government from presidential to parliamentary is an act of REVISING the
Constitution which is not allowed under Art. XVII, Section 2. Peoples initiative may only be
allowed to propose amendments to the Constitution, not revision.

Proposal of amendments:
Amendments may be proposed by:
A. Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, by a 3/4 vote of all its members.
The power of Congress to propose amendments is NOT part of its ordinary legislative power.
The only reason Congress can exercise such power is that the Constitution has granted it such
power.
B. Constitutional Convention:
1) How a Constitutional Convention may be called
a). Congress may call a ConCon by a 2/3 vote of all its members; or
b). By a majority vote of all its members, Congress may submit to the electorate the question of
whether to call a ConCon or not.
2) Choice of which constituent assembly (either Congress or ConCon) should initiate amendments
and revisions is left to the discretion of Congress. In other words, it is a political question.
3) BUT: The manner of calling a ConCon is subject to judicial review, because the Constitution
has provided for vote requirements.
4) If Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, calls for a ConCon but does not provide the
details for the calling of such ConCon, Congress exercising its ordinary legislative power may
supply such details. But in so doing, Congress (as legislature) should not transgress the resolution
of Congress acting as a constituent assemble.
5) Congress, as a constituent assembly and the ConCon have no power to appropriate money for
their expenses. Money may be spent from the treasury only to pursuant to an appropriation made
by law.
C. Peoples Initiative
1) Petition to propose such amendments must be signed be at least 12% of ALL registered voters.
2) Every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
3) Limitation:
It cannot be exercised oftener than once every 5 years.











The Constitution of the Philippines

1. The Commonwealth Constitution
Adopted in 1935, was the first Constitution of the Philippines. It became operative after the
proclamation of the Republic of the Philippines.

2. The Constitution of 1973
The second Constitution of the Philippines, which was enforced during the Marcos regime
following its dubious approval and ratification at a time when the country was already under martial law.

3. Freedom Constitution
The third Constitution of the Philippines and the result of the people power upheaval that deposed
President Marcos. Pres. Corazon C. Aquino proclaimed it to be effective pending the adoption of a
permanent Constitution. It was aimed at correcting the shortcomings of the previous constitutions and
specifically eliminating all the iniquitous vestiges of the past regime.

4. The Constitution of 1987
It is the fourth fundamental law to govern the Philippines since it became independent on July 4,
1946.

a. Outstanding Features
i. consists of eighteen (18) articles and is excessively long compared to constitutions of 1935 and
1973, on which it was largely based
ii. many of the original provisions of the 1935, particularly those pertaining to the legislative and
the executive departments, have been restored because of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the
Philippines and the strictly presidential system
iii. the independence of the judiciary has been strengthened, with new provisions for appointment
thereto and an increase in its authority, which now covers even political questions formerly beyond its
jurisdiction
iv. many provisions of the 1973 Constitution have been retained, like those on the Constitutional
Commissions and local governments
v. the bill of rights of the Commonwealth and Marcos Constitutions has been considerably
improved and even bolstered with the creation elsewhere in the document of a Commission on Human
Rights

What made the 1987 Constitution excessively long?
It is because of the inclusion therein of provisions that should have been embodied only in
implementing statutes to be enacted by the legislature pursuant to the basic constitutional principles.

b. The Supremacy of the Constitution
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to
which all persons, including the highest officials of the land, must defer.

No act shall be valid, however noble its intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution.

The Constitution must ever remain supreme. All must bow to the mandate of this law.

Right or wrong, the Constitution must be upheld as long as it has not been changed by the
sovereign people lest its disregard result in the usurpation of the majesty of law by the pretenders to
illegitimate power.

c. Prospects of the Constitution
It must grow with the society it seeks to re-structure and march apace with the progress of the
race, drawing from the vicissitudes of history the dynamism and vitality that will keep it, far from becoming
a petrified rule, a pulsing, living law attuned to the heartbeat of the nation.

People v. Perfecto G.R. No. L-18463, October 4, 1922

"The important question is here squarely presented of whether article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code, punishing "Any
person who, by . . . writing, shall defame, abuse, or insult any Minister of the Crown or other person in authority . . .,"
is still in force."
public law: It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated -- "political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained
by the inhabitants to the sovereign.

FACTS:
This is a case relating to the loss of some documents which constituted the records of testimony given by witnesses
in the Senate investigation of oil companies. The newspaper La Nacion, edited by Mr. Gregorio Perfecto, published
an article about it to the effect that "the author or authors of the robbery of the records from the iron safe of the
Senate have, perhaps, but followed the example of certain Senators who secured their election through fraud and
robbery."
Consequently, the Attorney-General, through a resolution adopted by the Philippine Senate, filed an information
alleging that the editorial constituted a violation of article 256 of the Penal Code.
The defendant Gregorio Perfecto was found guilty in the municipal court and again in the Court of First Instance of
Manila.

ISSUEs:
Whether or not article 256 of the Spanish Penal Code was abrogated with the change from Spanish to American
sovereignty
Whether or not Perfecto is guilty of libel

HELD:
It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the ceded
region are totally abrogated -- "political" being used to denominate the laws regulating the relations sustained by the
inhabitants to the sovereign.
On American occupation of the Philippines, by instructions of the President to the Military Commander, and by
proclamation of the latter, the municipal laws of the conquered territory affecting private rights of person and property
and providing for the punishment of crime (e.g. the Spanish Penal Code) were nominally continued in force in so far
as they were compatible with the new order of things.
Article 256 was enacted by the Government of Spain to protect Spanish officials who were the representatives of the
King. But with the change of sovereignty, a new government, and a new theory of government, was set up in the
Philippines. No longer is there a Minister of the Crown or a person in authority of such exalted position that the citizen
must speak of him only with bated breath. Said article is contrary to the genius and fundamental principles of the
American character and system of
government. It was crowded out by implication as soon as the United States established its authority in the Philippine
Islands.
"From an entirely different point of view, it must be noted that this article punishes contempts against executive
officials, although its terms are broad enough to cover the entire official class. Punishment for contempt of non-
judicial officers has no place in a government based upon American principles. Our official class is not, as in
monarchies, an agent of some authority greater than the people but it is an agent and servant of the people
themselves. These officials are only entitled to respect and obedience when they are acting within the scope of their
authority and jurisdiction. The American system of government is calculated to enforce respect and obedience where
such respect and obedience is due, but never does it place around the individual who happens to occupy an official
position by mandate of the people any official halo, which calls for drastic punishment for contemptuous remarks."

DECISION:
To summarize, the result is, that all the members of the court are of the opinion, although for different reasons, that
the judgment should be reversed and the defendant and appellant acquitted, with costs de officio. So ordered.


Macariola v. Asuncion, 114 SCRA 77, May 31, 1982 (En Banc), J. Makasiar
Facts: When the decision in Civil Case No. 3010 rendered by respondent Hon. Judge Elias B. Asuncion of Court of
First Instance of Leyte became final on June 8, 1863 for lack of an appeal, a project of partition was submitted to him
which he later approved in an Order dated October 23, 1963. Among the parties thereto was complainant Bernardita
R. Macariola.
One of the properties mentioned in the project of partition was Lot 1184. This lot according to the decision rendered
by Judge Asuncion was adjudicated to the plaintiffs Reyes in equal shares subdividing Lot 1184 into five lots
denominated as Lot 1184-A to 1184-E.
On July 31, 1964 Lot 1184-E was sold to Dr. Arcadio Galapon who later sold a portion of Lot 1184-E to Judge
Asuncion and his wife Victoria Asuncion. Thereafter spouses Asuncion and spouses Galapon conveyed their
respective shares and interests in Lot 1184-E to the Traders Manufacturing and Fishing Industries Inc. wherein Judge
Asuncion was the president.
Macariola then filed an instant complaint on August 9, 1968 docketed as Civil Case No. 4234 in the CFI of Leyte
against Judge Asuncion with "acts unbecoming a judge" alleging that Judge Asuncion in acquiring by purchase a
portion of Lot 1184-E violated Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code, Art. 14, pars. 1 and 5 of the Code of
Commerce, Sec. 3 par. H of R.A. 3019, Sec. 12 Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons of
Judicial Ethics.
On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision dismissing the complaints
against Judge Asuncion.
After the investigation, report and recommendation conducted by Justice Cecilia Munoz Palma of the Court of
Appeals, she recommended on her decision dated March 27, 1971 that Judge Asuncion be exonerated.
Issue: Does Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals violated any law in acquiring by purchase a
parcel of Lot 1184-E which he previously decided in a Civil Case No. 3010 and his engagement in business by joining
a private corporation during his incumbency as a judge of the CFI of Leyte constitute an "act unbecoming of a judge"?
Ruling: No. The respondent Judge Asuncion's actuation does not constitute of an "act unbecoming of a judge." But
he is reminded to be more discreet in his private and business activities.
SC ruled that the prohibition in Article 1491 par. 5 of the New Civil Code applies only to operate, the sale or
assignment of the property during the pendency of the litigation involving the property. Respondent judge purchased
a portion of Lot 1184-E on March 6, 1965, the in Civil Case No. 3010 which he rendered on June 8, 1963 was already
final because none of the parties therein filed an appeal within the reglementary period. Hence, the lot in question
was no longer subject to litigation. Furthermore, Judge Asuncion did not buy the lot in question directly from the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 3010 but from Dr. Arcadio Galapon who earlier purchased Lot1184-E from the plaintiffs
Reyes after the finality of the decision in Civil Case No. 3010.
SC stated that upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later on from the US to the Republic of the
Philippines, Article 14 of Code of Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is
change of sovereignty, the political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new
sovereign, are automatically abrogated, unless they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.
There appears no enabling or affirmative act that continued the effectivity of the aforestated provision of the Code of
Commerce, consequently, Art. 14 of the Code of Commerce has no legal and binding effect and cannot apply to the
respondent Judge Asuncion.
Respondent Judge cannot also be held liable to par. H, Section 3 of R.A. 3019 because the business of the
corporation in which respondent participated had obviously no relation or connection with his judicial office.
SC stated that respondent judge and his wife deserve the commendation for their immediate withdrawal from the firm
22 days after its incorporation realizing that their interest contravenes the Canon 25 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics.


DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS COMELEC
Political Law Revision vs Amendment to the Constitution
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, MD Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition.
Santiago argues among others that the Peoples Initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution NOT a revision
thereof. The extension or the lifting of the term limits of those in power (particularly the President) constitutes revision
and is therefore beyond the power of peoples initiative.
ISSUE: Whether the proposed Delfin petition constitutes amendment to the constitution or does it constitute a
revision.
HELD: The Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment to, but a revision of, the Constitution because, in the
words of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ., it would involve a change from a political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to
one that accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change might appear to be an isolated one, it can affect other
provisions, such as, on synchronization of elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative which, by
express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to amendments. The prohibition against
reelection of the President and the limits provided for all other national and local elective officials are based on the
philosophy of governance, to open up the political arena to as many as there are Filipinos qualified to handle the
demands of leadership, to break the concentration of political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and to
promote effective proper empowerment for participation in policy and decision-making for the common good; hence,
to remove the term limits is to negate and nullify the noble vision of the 1987 Constitution.

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC
G.R. No. L-34150, October 16 1971, 41 SCRA 702
FACTS:
The 1971 Constitutional Convention came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress approved in its
capacity as a constituentassembly convened for the purpose of calling a convention to proposeamendments to the
Constitution. After election of delegates held on November 10, 1970, the Convention held its inaugural session on
June 1, 1971. In the morning of September 28, 1970, the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 which is
entitled as, "A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION 1 OF ARTICLE V OF THE CONSTITUTION SO AS TO LOWER
THE VOTING AGE TO 18." On September 30, 1971, the COMELEC "resolved" to follow the mandate of the
Convention, that it will hold the said plebiscite together with the senatorial elections on November 8, 1971 .
Petitioner, Arturo Tolentino, filed a petition for prohibition, its mainthrust being that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the
necessary implementing resolutions subsequently approved have no force and effect as laws in so far as they
provide for the holding of a plebiscite co-incident with the senatorial elections, on the ground that the calling and
holding of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a power lodged exclusively in Congress as a legislative body and
may not be exercised by the Convention, and that, under Article XV Section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, the proposed
amendment in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Organic Resolution No. 1 of the 1971Constitutional Convention violative to the Constitution.
HELD:
NO. All the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention must be submitted to the people in a single
"election" or plebiscite. In order that a plebiscite for the ratification of a Constitutional amendment may be validly held,
it must provide the voter not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of the
amendment per se but as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution with which it has to form a
harmonious whole. In the present context, where the Convention has hardly started considering the merits, if not
thousands, of proposals to amend the existing Constitution, to present to the people any single proposal or a few of
them cannot comply with this requirement.

Sanidad vs Comelec
PABLITO V. SANIDAD - petitioner; newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER,
a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras

COMELEC - respondent; through its Solicitor- General

Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

ISSUE:
Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is constitutional or not.


FACTS:

COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act Providing for an Organic
Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23, 1989, which paved for a call of a plebescite fo its
ratification (original schedule was reset from December 27, 1989 to January 30, 1990.

Allegations of Sanidad:

1.Unconsitutional as it it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press

2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press bause of its penal provsions in
case of violation

Responses of COMELEC

-Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press but only a valid
implementation of the power of the Comelec to supervise and regulate media during election or plebiscite periods as
enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution and Section 11 of RA 6646

-Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or against the Organic
Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the act through the Comelec space and airtime
(magazine/periodical in the province)


HELD:

Petiton is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void and unconstitutional .
TRO made permanent due to the follwing reasons:
1. It has no statutory basis
2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no justifiable reason
3. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where
the right to expression may be exercised.




JAVELLANA VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
G.R. No. L-36142, March 31 1973, 50 SCRA 33
FACTS:
On January 20, 1973, just two days before the Supreme Court decided the sequel of plebiscite cases, Javellana filed
this suit against the respondents to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the
proposed Constitution not found in the present 1935Constitution. This is a petition filed by him as a Filipino citizen
and a qualified and registered voter and as a class suit, for himself and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly
situated. Javellana also alleged that the President had announced the immediateimplementation of the
new constitution, thru his Cabinet,respondents including.
Respondents are acting without or in excess of jurisdiction inimplementing the said proposed constitution upon
ground the that the President as Commander-in-Chief of the AFP is without authority to create the
Citizens Assemblies; without power to approve proposed constitution; without power to proclaim the ratification by the
Filipino people of the proposed constitution; and the election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a
free election, hence null and void.
Following that, petitioners prayed for the nullification ofProclamation No. 1102 and any order, decree,
and proclamationwhich have the same import and objective.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 is a justiciable or political question, and
therefore non-justiciable.
2. Whether or not the constitution proposed by the 1971Constitutional Convention has been ratified validly
conforming to the applicable constitutional and statutory provisions.
3. Whether or not the proposed Constitution has been acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification) by the
people.
4. Whether or not the petitioners are entitled for relief.
5. Whether or not the proposed Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in force.
HELD:
First. To determine whether or not the new constitution is in force depends upon whether or not the said
new constitution has beenratified in accordance with the requirements of the 1935Constitution. It is well settled that
the matter of ratification of an amendment to the constitution should be settled applying the provisions of
the constitution in force at the time of the alleged ratification of the old constitution.
The issue whether the new constitution proposed has been ratified in accordance with the provisions of Article XV of
the 1935 Constitutionis justiciable as jurisprudence here and in the US (from whom we patterned our
1935 Constitution) shall show.
Second. The Constitution does not allow Congress or anybody else to vest in those lacking the qualifications and
having the disqualifications mentioned in the Constitution the right of suffrage.
The votes of persons less than 21 years of age render the proceedings in the Citizens assemblies void. Proceedings
held in such Citizens Assemblies were fundamentally irregular, in that persons lacking the qualifications prescribed in
Article V Section 1 of the 1935Constitution were allowed to vote in said Assemblies. And, since there is no means by
which the invalid votes of those less than 21 years of age can be separated or segregated from those of the qualified
voters, the proceedings in the Citizens Assemblies must be considered null and void.
Viva voce voting for the ratification of the constitution is void. Article XV of the 1935 Constitution envisages with the
term "votes cast" choices made on ballots not orally or by raising hands by the persons taking part in plebiscites.
This is but natural and logical, for, since the early years of the American regime, we had adopted the Australian Ballot
System, with its major characteristics, namely, uniform official ballots prepared and furnished by the Government and
secrecy in the voting, with the advantage of keeping records that permit judicial inquiry, when necessary, into the
accuracy of the election returns.
The plebiscite on the constitution not having been conducted under the supervision of COMELEC is void. The point is
that, such of the Barrio Assemblies as were held took place without the intervention of the COMELEC and without
complying with the provisions of theElection Code of 1971 or even of those of Presidential Decree No. 73. The
procedure therein mostly followed is such that there is no reasonable means of checking the accuracy of the returns
filed by the officers who conducted said plebiscites. This is another patent violation of Article X of the
1935 Constitution which form part of the fundamental scheme set forth in the 1935 Constitution, as amended, to
insure the "free, orderly, and honest" expression of the people's will. For this, the alleged plebiscite in the Citizens
Assemblies is null and void, insofar as the same are claimed to have ratified the revised Constitution.
Third. Proclamation No. 1102 is not an evidence of ratification. Article X of the 1935 Constitution places COMELEC
the "exclusive" charge to the "the enforcement and administration of all laws relative to the conduct of elections,"
independently of the Executive. But there is not even a certification by the COMELEC in support of the alleged results
of the citizens assemblies relied upon inProclamation No. 1102. Also, on January 17, 1973 neither the alleged
president of the Federation of Provincial or City Barangays nor the Department of Local Governments had certified to
the President the alleged result of the citizens' assemblies all over the Philippines. The citizens assemblies did not
adopt the proposedconstitution. It is to my mind a matter of judicial knowledge that there have been no such citizens
assemblies in many parts of Manila and suburbs, not to say, also, in other parts of the Philippines.
Fourth. The Court is not prepared to concede that the acts the officers and offices of the Executive Department, in
line withProclamation No. 1102, connote recognition of or acquiescence to the proposed Constitution.
A department of the Government cannot recognize its own acts. Recognition normally connotes the
acknowledgment by a party of the acts of another. Individual acts of recognition by members of Congress do not
constitute congressional recognition, unless the members have performed said acts in session duly assembled. This
is a well-established principle of Administrative Law and of the Law of Public Officers. The compliance by the people
with the orders of martial law government does not constitute acquiescence to the proposed Constitution. Neither
does the Court prepared to declare that the people's inaction as regards Proclamation No. 1102, and their
compliance with a number of Presidential orders, decrees and/or instructions, some or many of which have
admittedly had salutary effects, issued subsequently thereto, amounts to a ratification, adoption or approval of
said Proclamation No. 1102. The intimidation is there, and inaction or obedience of the people, under these
conditions, is not necessarily an act of conformity or acquiescence.
As regards the applicability to these cases of the "enrolled bill" rule, it is well to remember that the same refers to a
document certified to the President for his action under the Constitution by the Senate President and the Speaker of
the House of Reps, and attested to by the respective Secretaries of both Houses, concerning legislative measures
approved by said Houses. Whereas, Proclamation No. 1102 is an act of the President declaring the results of a
plebiscite on the proposed Constitution, an act which Article X of the 1935Constitution denies the executive
department of the Government.
In all other respects and with regard to the other respondent in said case, petitions therein should be given due
course, there being more than prima facie showing that the proposed Constitution has not been ratified in accordance
with Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, either strictly, substantially, or has been acquiesced in by the people or
majority thereof; that said proposed Constitution is not in force and effect; and that the 1935 Constitution is still the
Fundamental Law of the Land, without prejudice to the submission of said proposed Constitution to the people at a
plebiscite for its ratification or rejection in accordance with Articles V, X and XV of the 1935Constitution and the
provisions of the Revised Election Code in force at the time of such plebiscite.
Fifth. Four (4) members of the Court, namely, Justices Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio and Esguerra hold that it is in
force by virtue of the people's acceptance thereof; 4 members of the Court, namely, Justices Makalintal, Castro,
Fernando and Teehankee cast no vote thereon on the premise stated in their votes on the third question that they
could not state with judicial certainty whether the people have accepted or not accepted the Constitution; and 2
members of the Court, namely, Justice Zaldivar and myself voted that the Constitution proposed by the 1971
Constitutional Convention is not in force; with the result, there are not enough votes to declare that the new
Constitution is not in force.

LAWYERS LEAGUE FOR A BETTER PHILIPPINES vs. PRES. AQUINO
G.R. NO. 73748, May 22, 1986

FACTS:
President Corazon Aquino issued Proclamation No. 1 on February 25, 1986 announcing that she and Vice
President Laurel were taking power. On March 25, 1986, proclamation No.3 was issued providing the basis of the
Aquino government assumption of power by stating that the "new government was installed through a direct exercise
of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines."

Petitioners alleged that the Aquino government is illegal because it was not established pursuant to the 1973
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the government of Corazon Aquino is legitimate.

HELD:
Yes. The legitimacy of the Aquino government is not a justiciable matter but belongs to the realm of politics where
only the people are the judge.

The Supreme Court further held that:
1. The people have accepted the Aquino government which is in effective control of the entire country;
2. It is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government; and
3. The community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the new government.