Lambino V Comelec Presentation

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B.
AUMENTADO, TOGETHER
WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/htmfil
es/sc_decision_background_summary.htm
1
The Petitioners
2
Raul L. Lambino
an active practicing lawyer in
the Philippines. He rose to
prominence when he led the
signature campaign to amend
or revise the 1987 Philippine
Constitution
Lambino is married to Marilyn
De Guzman, and has three
children: Mark Ronald, Mary
Rhauline, and Meryllainne
Rhacquel.

3
Raul L. Lambino
Education
Lambino earned a Bachelor of
Arts in Political Science, cum
laude, from the University of
Pangasinan in 1981.
Bachelor of Laws degree,
valedictorian and cum
laude also from the University
of Pangasinan in 1986

4
Raul L. Lambino
Government
Lambino has been a Consultant and
Coordinator for the Philippine House of
Representatives contingent to the
Commission on Appointments.
1995 - 1998 Consultant in the Office of
the Speaker of the Philippine House of
Representatives and 2000 to 2001
the Chief-of-Staff in the Office of
Senator Loren Legarda from 1998 to 2000
the Chief of Staff in the Office of
Speaker Jose De Venecia from 1995 to
1998
the Officer-in-Charge Provincial Board
Member of the Province
of Pangasinan from 1987 to 1988.

5
Erico Boyles Aumentado
(May 18, 1940 -
December 25, 2012) was
a journalist, a lawyer,
senior provincial board
member, provincial vice-
governor, congressman
and deputy speaker of
the Philippine House of
Representatives.
6
He graduated Bachelor of
Laws at the University of
Bohol in 1963. He
became representative of
the 2nd district of Bohol
in 1992-2001, Vice
Governor of Bohol in
1988-1992 and Provincial
Board Member in 1967-
1980; 1984-1986.

7
He was the governor of Bohol for
three consecutive terms (2001-
2010),
chairman of both the Regional
Development Council and the
Regional Tourism Council of Central
Visayas, and
National President of the League of
Provinces of the Philippines (LPP)
and the Union of Local Authorities
of the Philippines (ULAP), the
umbrella organization of the 1.5M
local officials of the Philippines,
the 1st Boholano ever elected to the
position.

8
Raul Lambino and Erico
Aumentado filed a petition for
people's initiative before the
Commission on Elections on
August 25, 2006, after months of
gathering signatures all over the
country. Lambino claimed that
the petition is backed up by 6.3
million registered voters.

9
Raul Lambino
Erico Aumentado
Respondent
10
The COMELEC denied the
petition, reasoning that a lack of an
enabling law keeps them from
entertaining such petitions. It
invoked a 1997 Supreme Court ruling
(Santiago vs. COMELEC), where the
Supreme Court declared RA 6735
inadequate to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to
amend the Constitution.

COMELEC's ruling prompted
Lambino and Aumentado to bring
their case before the Supreme Court.

Respondent
11
However, the Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's ruling
on the petition for people's initiative. The decision
came out on October 25, 2006, with a close 8-7 vote.

BACKGROUND
12
SUMMARY OF THE SUPREME COURT DECISION
1. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply
with the basic requirements of the Constitution for
conducting a peoples initiative according to Section
2 Article XVII

The Constitution requires that the amendment must be "directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition."
a) Lambino's group failed to include the full text of the proposed changes
in the signature sheets-- a fatal omission, according to the Supreme Court
ruling, because it means a majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the
signature sheets could not have known the nature and effect of the
proposed changes.

b) A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. Only Congress or a
constitutional convention may propose revisions to the Constitution. A
peoples initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution.

13
14
"A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3
million signatures, cannot justify a
deviation from the specific modes
prescribed in the Constitution itself." --
Supreme Court

15
2. The Initiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution disallowing Revision through
Initiatives

ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
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 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. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
16
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its
Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority
vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the
question of calling such a convention.
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution
under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held
not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after
the approval of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which
shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the certification by the Commission on
Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

17
3. A Revisit of Santiago v COMELEC is not
necessary

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.

Thus, an affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not
change the outcome of the present petition.

18
4. The COMELEC did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in dismissing the Lambino
Groups initiative

COMELEC merely followed the Supreme Court's
earlier ruling on Santiago vs. COMELEC.

19
Definition of Legal Terms
Amendment refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic
principles involved

Revision implies a change that alters a basic
principle in the constitution, like altering the
principle of separation of powers or the system
of checks and balances
20
Initiative important prerogative given by the
constitution

Petition A formal request made upon the
court asking for it to resolve a certain matter
and issuing a ruling or an order, for example, a
petition of the court to remove an execute

21
Definition of terms
Arroyo + Lambino

22
RELATED QS DOCUMENTS

Supreme Court Decision on Lambino vs.
COMELEC (People's Initiative)--Full Text

COMELEC--Summary of Voting

COMELEC--Separate Concurring Opinion of
Chief Justice Artemio Panganiban

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/htmfiles
/sc_decision_background_summary.htm

23
I

24

Lambino V Comelec Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambino V Comelec Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B.

You might also like