Defensor vs. Comelec

Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325.
March 19, 1997)
25
APR
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA ISABEL
ONGPIN, petitioners,
vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA &

CARMEN PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of the People’s
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents.
SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG

KONSTITUSYON (DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD
INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
PHILIPPINES (IBP), and LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN),
petitioners-intervenors.
Ponente: DAVIDE, JR.
FACTS:
Private respondent filed with public respondent Commission on Elections

(COMELEC) a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective
Officials, by People’s Initiative” (Delfin Petition) wherein Delfin asked the
COMELEC for an order (1) Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all
over the country; (2) Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the
attached “Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of
general and local circulation; and (3) Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in
all Regions of the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing
signing stations at the time and on the dates designated for the purpose. Delfin
asserted that R.A. No. 6735 governs the conduct of initiative to amend the
Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is a valid exercise of delegated
powers. Petitioners contend that R.A. No. 6375 failed to be an enabling law
because of its deficiency and inadequacy, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
is void.
ISSUE:
Whether or not (1) the absence of subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, (2) R.A.
No. 6735 is adequate to cover the system of initiative on amendment to the
Constitution, and (3) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid. .
HELD:
NO. Petition (for prohibition) was granted. The conspicuous silence in subtitles
simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on
national and local laws. R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide sufficient standard for
subordinate legislation. Provisions COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing
rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the
Constitution are declared void.
RATIO:
Subtitles are intrinsic aids for construction and interpretation. R.A. No. 6735
failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other
modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III.
This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to amend
the Constitution was left to some future law.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its
filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is
cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the
COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe
the form of the petition; (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics
Office a certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative
district; (3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of
signature stations; and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures
on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters’ affidavits, and voters’
identification cards used in the immediately preceding election.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of
by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have known that the
petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedings under the
COMELEC Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it
did not assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, the said petition was
merely entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more
than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of
6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing
Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying
it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and
merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
SEPARATE OPINIONS:
PUNO, concurring and dissenting
I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice

Davide insofar as it orders the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. I regret,
however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution
No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the
Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed. (MELO and
MENDOZA concur)
VITUG, concurring and dissenting
I vote for granting the instant petition before the Court and for clarifying that the
TRO earlier issued by the Court did not prescribe the exercise by the Pedrosas
of their right to campaign for constitutional amendments.
[T]he TRO earlier issued by the Court which, consequentially, is made

permanent under the ponencia should be held to cover only the Delfin petition
and must not be so understood as having intended or contemplated to embrace
the signature drive of the Pedrosas. The grant of such a right is clearly implicit in
the constitutional mandate on people initiative.
FRANCISCO, concurring and dissenting

There is no question that my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Davide has
prepared a scholarly and well-written ponencia. Nonetheless, I cannot fully
subscribe to his view that R. A. No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. (MELO and MENDOZA concur)
PANGANIBAN, concurring and dissenting
Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the
majority, holds that:
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in
entertaining the “initiatory” Delfin Petition.
(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to “be directly proposed by the
people through initiative,” there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735
is “incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.”
(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2330, “insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations
on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.”
I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can show the
required number of signatures — in this case, 12% of all the registered voters in the
Philippines with at least 3% in every legislative district — no public funds may be spent
and no government resources may be used in an initiative to amend the Constitution.
Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent such signatures.
However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority’s two other rulings.

Defensor vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defensor vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Defensor vs. Comelec

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325.

March 19, 1997)

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA &

SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG

Ponente: DAVIDE, JR.

Private respondent filed with public respondent Commission on Elections

PUNO, concurring and dissenting

I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice

VITUG, concurring and dissenting

[T]he TRO earlier issued by the Court which, consequentially, is made

FRANCISCO, concurring and dissenting

PANGANIBAN, concurring and dissenting

You might also like