Lambino Vs.

Comelec Case Digest

G.R. No. 174153Lambino Vs. ComelecG.R. No. 174153Oct. 25 2006Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition tochange the
1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that willratify their initiative
petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals
fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the1987 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 petitionsand invoked the
Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiativepetitions.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complie
s with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative.

Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms an
d conditions to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Groups petition.

Held:
According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not 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 DirectProposal by the PeopleThe 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
theinitiative void.2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing
Revision throughInitiatives
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 onlyamendments
to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change,therefore a
constitutes a revision.3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not NecessaryEven assuming that RA
6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petitionviolated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid
initiative, must first comply with the constitution before complyingwith RA 6735Petition is dismissed