Name: CALO, Michael John T.

Citation: Santiago v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

Constitutional provision on People's Initiative is not self-executory

Principle of Non-delegation of Powers, Exceptions

FACTS:

Petitioners in this case sought to amend certain provisions of the

Constitution, specifically lifting the limit of terms of elective officials,
through peoples initiative. Santiago et al. opposed on the ground that
the constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the
Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by
Congress. There is no law passed yet and RA 6735, which provides for
initiative on statues and local legislation but not initiative on the
Constitution.

ISSUE:
Whether or not RA 6735 adequately provided for peoples
initiative on Constitution

RULING:

Constitutional provision on peoples initiative is not self-executory

Sec. 2 of Art. XVII of the Constitution...is not self-executory. xxx

Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments

to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain
entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides
for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has
recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if
Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.

Has Congress provided for the implementation of the exercise of this

right?

There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the
exercise of the right than through the passage of a statute or
legislative act. xxx

We agree that RA 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover

initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.

But is RA 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress
to provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?

A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.

First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondents COMELEC, Sec. 2

of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. The said section reads:

SECTION 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a

system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve
or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or
resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the
requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and
guaranteed.

The inclusion of the word Constitution therein was a delayed

afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said
section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on
national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section
is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier,
initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND.
The people are not accorded the power to directly propose, enact,
approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution through the
system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to laws,
ordinances, or resolutions.

xxx

Second. It is true that Sec. 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines

initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of
the three systems of initiative, and that Sec. 5 (Requirements) restates
the constitutional requirements as to the percentage of the registered
voters who must submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of the
other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of
a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Sec. 5, paragraph (c)
requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law sought to
be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case
may be. It does not include, as among the contents of the petition, the
provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of
initiative on the Constitution.

xxx

Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and
 Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum
(Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution.
This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main
thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws.
If Congress intended RA 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of
the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have
provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things,
the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people
to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.

xxx

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 out the purposes of the Act.

Principle of non-delegation of power

The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as

expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest.
The recognized exceptions to the rule are as follows:

1 Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Sec. 28(2), Art. VI;
2 Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Sec. 23(2), Art.
VI;
3 Delegation to the people at large;
4 Delegation to local governments; and
5 Delegation to administrative bodies.

Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-

judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of
delegation of legislative authority under no. 5 above. However, in
every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in
itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or
implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard the limits of
which are sufficiently determinate and determinable to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. A sufficient
standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps
out its boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It
indicates the circumstances under which the legislative command is to
be effected.

Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is

concerned, RA 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is
then invalid.
Name:
Citation: Lambino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

FACTS:
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to
hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition to change the
1987 Constitution under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of
Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of
6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of
all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at
least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino
Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the
signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution
by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and
Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article
XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions. These proposed changes will shift
the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
Parliamentary form of government.
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with
the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII
(Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC
declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a peoples initiative;
2. Whether this 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; and

HELD:
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the
People
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 states:

Sec. 2. 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 three
per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis
supplied)

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 that 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 essential elements must
be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the
entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their
behalf. Second, 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 express their
assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an
amendment is directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full
text of the proposed amendments.

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 Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this
Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative
petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a
signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when
they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.

2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the
basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the
conduct and scope of a peoples initiative to amend the Constitution.
There is no need to revisit this Courts ruling in Santiago declaring RA
6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution.
An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of
the present petition. Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiago
which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with the
requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on
amendments to the Constitution.

Citation: Gonzales v COMELEC 21 SCRA 774

21 SCRA 774 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political
Question vs Justiciable Question

FACTS:
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 as repository
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.

Citation: Tolentino v COMELEC

41 SCRA 702 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution
Doctrine of Proper Submission

FACTS:
The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite
concerning only the proposal to lower the voting age from 21 to 18.
This was even before the rest of the draft of the Constitution (then
under revision) had been approved. Arturo Tolentino then filed a
motion to prohibit such plebiscite.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.

HELD: Yes. If the advance plebiscite will be allowed, there will be an

improper submission to the people. Such is not allowed.
The proposed amendments shall be approved by a majority of the
votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to
the people for ratification. Election here is singular which meant that
the entire constitution must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given a proper frame
of reference in arriving at their decision because they had at the time
no idea yet of what the rest of the revised Constitution would
ultimately be and therefore would be unable to assess the proposed
amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the Doctrine of
Submission which means that all the proposed amendments to the
Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or
rejection at the same time, NOT piecemeal.

Citation: Javellana v Executive Secretary

50 SCRA 30 Political law Constitutional Law Political
Question Validity of the 1973 Constitution Restriction to
Judicial Power

FACTS:
In 1973, Marcos ordered the immediate implementation of the new
1973 Constitution. Javellana, a Filipino and a registered voter sought to
enjoin the Exec Sec and other cabinet secretaries from implementing
the said constitution. Javellana averred that the said constitution is
void because the same was initiated by the president. He argued that
the President is w/o power to proclaim the ratification by the Filipino
people of the proposed constitution. Further, the election held to ratify
such constitution is not a free election there being intimidation and
fraud.

ISSUE: Whether or not the SC must give due course to the petition.

HELD: The SC ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar.
Majority of the SC justices expressed the view that they were
concluded by the ascertainment made by the president of the
Philippines, in the exercise of his political prerogatives. Further, there
being no competent evidence to show such fraud and intimidation
during the election, it is to be assumed that the people had acquiesced
in or accepted the 1973 Constitution. The question of the validity of the
1973 Constitution is a political question which was left to the people in
their sovereign capacity to answer. Their ratification of the same had
shown such acquiescence.

Citation: Sanidad v COMELEC

73 SCRA 333 Political Law Constitutional Law Amendment
to the Constitution
FACTS:
On 2 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 991 calling for a national
referendum on 16 Oct 1976 for the Citizens Assemblies (barangays)
to resolve, among other things, the issues of martial law, the interim
assembly, its replacement, the powers of such replacement, the period
of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise by the
President of his present powers. Twenty days after, the President
issued another related decree, PD No. 1031, amending the previous PD
No. 991, by declaring the provisions of PD No. 229 providing for the
manner of voting and canvass of votes in barangays applicable to
the national referendum-plebiscite of Oct 16, 1976. Quite relevantly,
PD No. 1031 repealed inter alia, Sec 4, of PD No. 991. On the same
date of 22 Sept 1976, Marcos issued PD No. 1033, stating the
questions to he submitted to the people in the referendum-plebiscite
on October 16, 1976. The Decree recites in its whereas clauses that
the peoples continued opposition to the convening of the interim
National Assembly evinces their desire to have such body abolished
and replaced thru a constitutional amendment, providing for a new
interim legislative body, which will be submitted directly to the people
in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16.
On September 27, 1976, Sanidad filed a Prohibition with Preliminary
Injunction seeking to enjoin the Commission on Elections from holding
and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to declare
without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and 1033, insofar
as they propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as
Presidential Decree No. 1031, insofar as it directs the Commission on
Elections to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-
Plebiscite scheduled on October 16, 1976.Petitioners contend that
under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions there is no grant to the
incumbent President to exercise the constituent power to propose
amendments to the new Constitution. As a consequence, the
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has no constitutional or legal
basis. The Soc-Gen contended that the question is political in nature
hence the court cannot take cognizance of it.

ISSUE: Whether or not Marcos can validly propose amendments to the

Constitution.

HELD: Yes. 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 amending process by proposals
of amendments, a function normally exercised by the legislature, is
seriously doubted. Under the terms of the 1973 Constitution, the power
to propose amendments to the Constitution resides in the interim
National Assembly during the period of transition (Sec. 15, Transitory
Provisions). After that period, and the regular National Assembly in its
active session, the power to propose amendments becomes ipso facto
the prerogative of the regular National Assembly (Sec. 1, pars. 1 and 2
of Art. XVI, 1973 Constitution). The normal course has not been
followed. Rather than calling the interim National Assembly to
constitute itself into a constituent assembly, the incumbent President
undertook the proposal of amendments and submitted the proposed
amendments thru Presidential Decree 1033 to the people in a
Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16. Unavoidably, the regularity of
the procedure for amendments, written in lambent words in the very
Constitution sought to be amended, raises a contestable issue. The
implementing Presidential Decree Nos. 991, 1031, and 1033, which
commonly purport to have the force and effect of legislation are
assailed as invalid, thus the issue of the validity of said Decrees is
plainly a justiciable one, within the competence of this Court to pass
upon. Section 2 (2) Article X of the new Constitution provides: All
cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, executive agreement,
or law shall be heard and decided by the Supreme Court en banc and
no treaty, executive agreement, or law may be declared
unconstitutional without the concurrence of at least ten Members. . . ..
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 is
vested with that authority to determine whether that power has been
discharged within its limits.
This petition is however dismissed. The President can propose
amendments to the Constitution and he was able to present those
proposals to the people in sufficient time. The President at that time
also sits as the legislature.