Requisites for a valid peoples initiative to amend the Constitution; distinctions between amendment and revision.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO , together with 6,327,952 registered voters vs. THE COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160
Carpio, J.
Facts:

Petitioners filed a Petition for Initiative and Referendum with the COMELEC to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution,
particularly Articles VI and VII to replace the present Presidential-Bicameral system of government to Parliamentary-Unicameral
system using Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. Petitioners claim that their petition was signed by 6,327,952 million voters
all over the country and the same constitutes over 12% of all the registered voters in the entire country and that more than 3% of
the registered voters in every legislative district signed the same in accordance with Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. The
petition to change the Constitution involves sections 1-7 of Article VI; Sections 1-4 of Article VII and an Article XVII entitled
Transitory Provisions. The petitioners prayed with the COMELEC that after due publication of their Petition, the COMELEC
should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters ratification:

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL BICAMERAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

The COMELEC dismissed the petition citing SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 where it was held that:

RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is, unfortunately, Inadequate to
cover that system under Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. x x x .

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 the purposes of
this act.

Considering the said dismissal, petitioners elevated the matter to the Supreme Court on Certiorari and Mandamus alleging rave
abuse of discretion and to set aside the COMELEC Decision and to compel the latter to give due course to their initiative
petition.

The Issues:

1. WHETHER THE LAMBINO GROUPS PETITION COMPLIES WITH SECTION 2, ARTICLE XVII OF THE CONSTITUTION ON
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION THROUGH PEOPLES INITIATIVE;

2. WHETHER THE COURT SHOULD REVISIT ITS RULING IN DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC, DECLARING THAT RA NO. 6735
INCOMPLETE, INADEQUATE OR WANTING IN ESSENTIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE INITIATIVE CLAUSE ON
PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION; and

3. WHETHER THE COMELEC COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING DUE COURSE TO THE LAMBINO GROUPS
PETITION.

H E L D:

There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a peoples
initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino
Groups glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. As such, there is likewise no grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the COMELEC.

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 provides:

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 (12%) of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention vividly explain the meaning of the amendment directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition. Thus:

MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional amendment. IS THE DRAFT
OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT READY TO BE SHOWN TO THE PEOPLE WHEN THEY ARE ASKED TO SIGN?
MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign? Now, who prepares the
draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam PresidentAs it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it
around for signature.

Clearly, 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 the 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 (2) essential elements must be present:

1. The people must author and must sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign for and on their behalf;

2. 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 will
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE
PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETIITON ONLY IF THE PEOPLE SIGN ON A PETITION THAT OCNTAINS THE FULL TEXT OF
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

The petitioners 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 a copy of the document containing the proposed amendments and as
such, the people signed initiative petition without knowing the actual amendments proposed in the said initiative. Instead ,
the alleged 6.3 million people who signed the petition had to rely the representations of Atty. Lambino. Clearly, Atty. Lambino
and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.

2. A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In
contrast, Congress and a Constitutional Convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution. This is clear
under Section 1 of Art. XVII of the Constitution.

Where the intent and language of the Constitution under Section 2 of Art. XVIII clearly withhold from the people the power to
propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments.
The two are distinguished as follows:
Revision is the alterations of the different portions of the entire document [Constitution]. It may result in the rewriting
whether the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps some of its important provisions. But whatever results
the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be
carried out. That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution to determine
which one should be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one.
Amendment of the Constitution, on the other hand, envisages a change or only a few specific provisions. The intention of an
act to amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire constitution or of considering that possibility. The
intention rather is to improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it provisions deemed essential on account of
changed conditions or to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading in their effect.

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO, et al. Vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 & June 10, 1997

RA 6735 intended to include the System of Initiative on Amendments to the Constitution, but is, unfortunately, Inadequate to
cover that system. Section 2 Art. XVII is not self-executory and unless Congress provides for its implementation , it would remain
in the cold niche of the Constitution. RA 6735 in all its 23 sections mentions the word Constitution only in section 2 and Section
3 as compared to the initiative on statutes and local legislation. 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 the purposes of this act.