Case Digests Constitutional Law I

1
LAMBINO VS. COMELEC
OCTOBER 25, 2006
FACTS:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Lambino group gathered signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution. On August 2006 they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition anchored by RA 6735 or the
Initiative and referendum Act. It mainly targets Article VI and VII of the
Constitution that will transform our Government from Bicameral- Presidential
System to Unicameral-Parliamentary form. The Lambino group alleged that their
petition had the support of 6.3 million individuals that constitute 12% of all
registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least 3% of its
registered voters by signing in the signature sheets.
The COMELEC denied due course of the petition due to lack of enabling law that
governs their initiative petition and invoked the Courts ruling in Santiago vs.
COMELEC case declaring that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
After receiving the parties memoranda the Court considered the case submitted
for resolution.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the initiative petition of Lambino group for the amendments of the
Constitution complied with the Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

HELD:

No. there is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of the text of the Lambino
Groups proposed changes is attached to it. The signature sheet does not show
to the people the draft of the proposed changes hence, they merely ask question
whether the people is favourable to the shift of the governments form. Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition must set
forth the full text of the proposed amendments. However, the deliberations of the
framers of our Constitution explicitly reveal that they intended that the people
must first see the full text of the proposed changes before they sign, and that the
people must sign on a petition containing such full text.
The Court also declared that the petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution merely because the petition is not an amendment but a revision.
Revision broadly implies a change that alters basic principle in the Constitution,
like altering the separation of powers or the system of checks and balances. It is
also a revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the Constitution, a
when the change affects substantial provisions of the Constitution.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

2
IMBONG VS. COMELEC
September 11, 1970
FACTS:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

On March 1967, Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly passed resolution

No.2 which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to propose
constitutional amendments. Before the elections on November after the
resolutions adaptation the Congress as a legislative body enacted RA 4914
implementing the aforesaid resolution. On June 1969, Congress acting as
Constituent Assembly passed resolution No.4 amending the Resolution no.2 by
laying down the apportionment of the delegates in the convention. On August
1970, Congress acting as a legislative body enacted RA no. 6132 - implementing
resolutions nos. 2 and 4 and expressly repealing RA 4914.
Petitioner Gonzales challenged the validity of the entire law while petitioner
Imbong challenged certain provisions only. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RA 6132 is valid.

HELD:

YES. The Court sustained the constitutionality of the enactment of RA 6132 by

the Congress, acting as a legislative body in the exercise of their law-making
authority and not as a Constituent Assembly. The grant to Congress as a
Constituent Assembly of such plenary authority to call a constitutional convention
includes, by virtue of the doctrine of necessary implication, all other powers
essential to the effective exercise of the principal power granted, such as the
power to fix the qualifications, number, apportionment and compensation of the
delegates as well as the appropriation of the funds.
To answer the constitutionality here as follows:
Sec.2- the petitioner assails that the apportionment is not in accordance with
proportional representation and therefore violates the Constitution and the intent
of the Law itself, the Court ruled that Congress, sitting as constituent assembly
may constitutionally allocate delegates that they saw will fit the benefits of the
convention.
Sec.5- the petitioners attacked this section into which there is an undue
deprivation of liberty without due process of law. Sec. 5 seeks to disqualify any
elected delegate from running for any public office in any election or from
assuming appointments until the final adjournment of the Constitutional
Convention. The Court held that, the State through its Constitution or legislative
body can create an office and define the qualifications and disqualifications
therefor as well as impose inhibitions on a public officer.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

SANIDAD VS. COMELEC

OCTOBER 12, 1976

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

FACTS:

Former President Ferdinand Marcos issued Presidential Decrees calling for a

referendum to resolve among other things the issues of martial law, declaring the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in barangays and the questions to be
submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite. Petitioners challenged the
Presidential Decrees by alleging that the president has no power to propose
amendments of the constitution. The Solicitor General answered in return
claimed that the petitioners may not sue because the issue is political in nature,
beyond the cognizance of this Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Court may take cognizance of the issue raised by the
petitioners.

HELD:

YES. The Court disagree with the Solicitor General who claims that the question
at bar is a political one. The amending process both as to proposal and
ratification raises a judicial question. This is especially true in cases where the
power of the Presidency to initiate the normally exercised by the legislature, is
seriously doubted. The Supreme Court has the last word in the construction not
only of treaties and statutes, but also of the Constitution itself. The amending, like
all other powers organized in the Constitution, is in form a delegated and hence a
limited power, so that the Supreme Court as vested with that authorities to
determine whether that power has been discharged with its limits.

Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, of the legality of a
particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or validity
of the contested act, is definitely a justiciable one. If the Constitution provides
how it may be amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can
declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or
not.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC

OCTOBER 16, 1971

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

FACTS:

Constitutional convention of 1971 proposed constitutional amendment reducing

the voting age from 21 to 18 in the face of Organic Resolution no. 1, thereby,
scheduled an advance plebiscite to ratify the said piece of amendment. Although
the rest of the draft of the Constitution under revision was not yet approved the
COMELEC takes the task to hold the said election. The petitioner then filed the
petition to declare the Organic res. No. 1 and other implementing resolutions be
null and void, alleging that the proposed amendment in question may not be
presented separately from each and all of the other amendments to be drafted
and proposed by the Convention.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the act of the Convention to call for a plebiscite on the sole
amendment under organic resolution no. 1 violates the Constitution.

HELD:

YES. The Language of the constitutional provision is clear. It says distinctly that
the either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for
the purpose may propose amendments to this Constitution. Thus, placing no limit
as to the number of amendments that the Congress or Convention may propose.
It shall only valid when ratified by a majority of votes cast at an election by the
people. Therefore, leaving no doubt as to how many elections or plebiscites may
be held to ratify any amendment or amendments. And the law is clear with words
an election which means only one.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

5
GONZALES VS COMELEC
APRIL 18, 1969

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

FACTS:

In June 1967, RA 4913 was enacted by the Congress to hold a plebiscite for the
proposed amendments of the Constitution. It was contained in the Law that the
election must be held simultaneously with the General national elections on
November 1967. The petitioners questioned the scheduled election alleging that
the people will be more interested in the matters concerning the general election
rather than the plebiscite; they further maintain that the term election, as used
in Section 1 of Art. XV of the Constitution should be construed as meaning a
special election. Petitioner Gonzales contends the procedure on how the
amendments were approved; it was opposed by the COMELEC saying that the
issue raised by the petitioner is a political in nature.

ISSUES:

Whether or not the plebiscite may be held simultaneously with the General
national elections.
Whether or not the issue at bar is political in nature.

HELD:

YES. There is no prohibition in the Constitution that will deter the plebiscite be
held simultaneously with the general elections. There is in this provision nothing
to indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general,
election. The circumstance that three previous amendments to the Constitution
had been submitted to the people for ratification in special elections merely
shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the circumstances then
obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed amendments for
ratification in general elections.
NO. The power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is
not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of
the inherent powers of the people as the repository of sovereignty in a
republican state, such as ours, to make, and, hence, to amend their own
Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution
merely because the same explicitly grants such power. SC as the protector and
interpreter of the Constitution may declare a law unconstitutional if it is not in
conformity with our Law. Therefore, the issue raised is a justiciable one.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

6
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP
OCTOBER 14, 2008
FACTS:

AMENDMENTS OR REVISION

on July 1997, the GRP and MILF Peace Panels signed the Agreement on General
Cessation of Hostilities after long process of negotiations.
The following year, they signed the General framework of Agreement of Intent on
August 1998. However, the MILF still attacked different parts of the country. By
this, President Estrada declared an all out war against the MILF.
As President Arroyo assumed office, she has suspended any military offense
against the MILF and reach for the resumption of the peace talks. MILF respond
unwillingly. President Arroyo then asked the help of the Malaysian Government
to convince the MILF. Finally, MILF decided to meet with the GRP.
In Kuala Lumpur Malaysia on March 2001, the parties have signed the
Agreement on the General Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks
between the GRP and MILF.
Finally, Tripoli agreement 2001 was signed with the following aspects: Security,
Rehabilitation and the Ancestral Domain.
A second round of the peace talks happened at Cyberjaya Malaysia on August
2001 ended with the signing of Implementing Guidelines on Security Aspect and
later on with the signing of Implementing Guidelines on the Humanitarian
Rehabilitation and Development Aspects.
Before the signing of the 3rd aspect dated august 2008, the petitioners then filed a
petition praying for TRO, invoking that the MOA-AD is unconstitutional. The
Court granted the TRO. The MOA-AD included, among others, a stipulation
that creates the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE), to which the GRP grants the
authority and jurisdiction over the ancestral domain and ancest ral l ands of
t h e Ban gsam o ro defi ned as t he present geo graphi c area of the
AR MM con sti tut ed b y Lan ao del S ur,Maguindanao, Sulu, Tawi-Tawi,
Basilan, and Marawi City, as wellas the municipalities of Lanao del Norte which
voted for inclusion inthe ARMM in the 2001 plebiscite. The BJE is then granted the
power to build, develop, and maintain its own institutions. The MOA-AD a l s o
described the relationship of the GRP and the BJE as
associative, characterized by shared authority and responsibility. It further
provides that its provisions requiring amendments to the exi st ing l egal
fram ework shall take eff ect upo n signi ng of a Comprehensive
Compact.

Prepared by: JMD

Case Digests Constitutional Law I

The Solicitor General in response summarizes that MOA-AD contains the

commitment of the parties to pursue peace negotiations, protect and respect
human rights, negotiate with sincerity in the resolution and pacific settlement of
the conflict, and refrain from the use of threat or force to attain undue advantage
while the peace negotiations on the substantive agenda are on-going. The Court
compelled the SG to submit a copy of the draft of the MOA-AD.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the President has the power to propose amendments or revision to
the Constitution.

HELD:

YES. Howev er, t he st i pul at ion in the MOA -AD that vir t ual l y
guarantees that necessary changes shall be effected upon the legal framework of
the GRP must be struck down as unconstitutional as it is inconsistent with the
limits of the Presidents authority to propose constitutional amendments. It will be
observed that the president has authority, as stated in her oath of office, only to
preserve and defend the Constitution. Such presidential power does not, however,
extend to allowing her to change the Constitution, but simply recommend
proposed amendments or revision. As long as she limits herself to recommending
these changes and submits to the proper procedure for constitutional amendments
and revision, her mere recommendation need to be construed as an
unconstitutional act.

Prepared by: JMD