GONZALES V COMELEC

21 SCRA 774 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political Question vs Justiciable
Question
In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for
the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was provided in the said law that the plebiscite shall be
held on the same day that the general national elections shall be held (November 14, 1967). This was
questioned by Ramon Gonzales and other concerned groups as they argued that this was unlawful as
there would be no proper submission of the proposals to the people who would be more interested in the
issues involved in the general election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite.
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by Congress when they came up with
their proposals to amend the Constitution (RA 4913). In this regard, the COMELEC and other respondents
interposed the defense that said act of Congress cannot be reviewed by the courts because it is a political
question.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political question.
II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general election.
HELD:
I. No. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that the power to amend as well as the power to
propose amendments to the Constitution is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to
Congress. Such powers are not constitutionally granted to Congress. On the contrary, such powers are
inherent to the people asrepository of sovereignty in a republican state. That being, when Congress
makes amendments or proposes amendments, it is not actually doing so as Congress; but rather, it is
sitting as a constituent assembly. Such act is not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is
reviewable by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say whether or not such act of the
constituent assembly is within constitutional limitations.
II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must only be held on a special election. SC
held that there is nothing in this provision of the [1935] Constitution to indicate that the election therein
referred to is a special, not a general election. The circumstance that the previous amendment 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.
Note: **Justice Sanchez and Justice JBL Reyes dissented. Plebiscite should be scheduled on a special
date so as to facilitate Fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection. They should be able to
compare the original proposition with the amended proposition.

DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v Comelec

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 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 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. This omission indicates that the matter of peoples initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law as pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the constitution and
if so whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
HELD: 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 selfexecutory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by Congress. Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986
Con-Con stated 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. Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of inititative would remain entombed in the
cold niche of the constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. The people cannot exercise
such right, though constitutionally guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide for its
implementation.

***Note that 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 (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already
given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and
adequate to amend the Constitution thru a peoples initiative.

As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare decisis.
VERSION 2
DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v 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.

LAMBINO et al v Comelec
Amendment vs Revision
Lambino was able to gather the signatures of 6,327,952 individuals for an initiative petition to amend the
1987 Constitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12 per centum of all registered voters
with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3 per centum of its registered voters. This has
been verified by local COMELEC registrars as well. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to
modify Secs 1-7 of Art VI and Sec 1-4 of Art VII and by adding Art XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions.
These proposed changes will shift the president bicameral-presidential system to a UnicameralParliamentary form of government. The COMELEC, on 31 Aug 2006, denied the petition of the Lambino
group due to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution this is in
pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC. Lambino et al contended that the decision in the
aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within that case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec 2 ArtXVII of the 1987
Constitution.
HELD: The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the
signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested
parties who can impartially explain theadvantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the
people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments
against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering
the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional
requirements in gathering the signatures that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment,
the full text of the proposed amendments. The proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the
proposed amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains. Petitioners merely
handed out the sheet where people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed
amendments.

Lambino et al are also actually proposing a revision of the constitution and not a mere amendment. This is
also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should only contain one issue. The
proposed amendment/s by petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would enable the wouldbe parliament to enact more rules.
There is no need to revisit the Santiago case since the issue at hand can be decided upon other facts.
The rule is, the Court avoids questions of constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an
issue at bar.

***NOTE: On November 20, 2006 in a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Lambino Group 10
(ten) Justices of the Supreme Court voted that Republic Act 6735 is adequate.
HOWEVER, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part:
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already
given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and
adequate to amend the Constitution thru a peoples initiative.

As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare decisis.
****RA 6735: An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds
Therefore