EN BANC represented by Chairperson Eleanor de Guzman, LEAGUE OF

FILIPINO STUDENTS represented by Chair Vencer Crisostomo

Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the League of Concerned Professionals and
[G.R. NO. 174153 : October 25, 2006] Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO of the Solidarity of Health
Against Charter Change, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS of Health Action
for Human Rights, Intervenors.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, v. THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, Intervenors.

ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., Intervenor.

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Intervenor.

ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL

L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.
CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., Intervenors.

LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, Intervenor.

ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, Intervenor.

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA),

BAYAN represented by its Chairperson Dr. Carolina Pagaduan- CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON,
Araullo, BAYAN MUNA represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P.
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented by its Secretary General AGUAS, and AMADO GAT INCIONG, Intervenors.
Joel Maglunsod, HEAD represented by its Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM represented by Fr.
Dionito Cabillas, MIGRANTE represented by its Chairperson RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,
Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA represented by its Intervenors.
Secretary General Emerenciana de Jesus, GABRIELA WOMEN'S
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina Palabay, ANAKBAYAN
Page 1 of 30
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A.V.
(PTGWO) and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Intervenors. SAGUISAG, Petitioners, v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., and
Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A.
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, MANUEL TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO,
VILLAR, JR., Intervenor. NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondent.

SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Intervenor. DECISION

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. CARPIO, J.:
LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and RANDALL TABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
The Case

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU

PROVINCE CHAPTERS, Intervenors. These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August
2006 of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") denying due
course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and
SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY
ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO LACSON, Intervenors. Antecedent Facts

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L.
Intervenors. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other
groups1 and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an
initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August
[G.R. NO. 174299 : October 25, 2006] 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold
a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b)
Page 2 of 30
and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative
and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").
The Ruling of the COMELEC

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of
On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due
6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%)
course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law
of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by
governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The
at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino
COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on
Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the
Elections8 declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative
signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.9

The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987

In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the
Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC
Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive
Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give
Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory
due course to their initiative petition. The Lambino Group contends
Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present
that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding
government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication
precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago
of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following
binds only the parties to that case, and their petition deserves
proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification:
cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people."
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court
UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE require respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why
XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification
FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER? of signatures and for "entertaining" the Lambino Group's petition
despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The Court treated the
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition
Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in-intervention.
with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article
XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.7

Page 3 of 30
In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor The petitions raise the following issues:
General joined causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant
Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with
the petition despite the Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its implementing rules
Constitution through a people's initiative;
"as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative."

Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA

Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings
6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
supporting or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting
conditions" to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend
intervenors10 uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed
the Constitution; and
grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand,
the opposing intervenors11 hold the contrary view and maintain that
Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition; (2)
denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition.
the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3)
the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for The Ruling of the Court
the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;12 (4) the nature of
the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as There is no merit to the petition.
provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and
(5) the Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section
10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic
requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative.
Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present
The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's
September 2006. After receiving the parties' memoranda, the Court glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the
considered the case submitted for resolution. Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave
abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.
The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII
The Issues
of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

Page 4 of 30
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing
constitutional provision that allows a people's initiative to propose
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that
amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
proposal and pass it around for signature.13 (Emphasis supplied)
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
the proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which
shown" to the people "before" they sign such proposal. The framers
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
plainly stated that "before they sign there is already a draft shown to
centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
them." The framers also "envisioned" that the people should sign on
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the proposal itself because the proponents must "prepare that
the meaning of an amendment "directly proposed by the people proposal and pass it around for signature."
through initiative upon a petition," thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people
want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the
through initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its
proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people
face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements
when they are asked to sign?
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
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
embodied in a petition.

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
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
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.
upon a petition" only if the people sign on a petition that contains
the full text of the proposed amendments.

MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft
shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to
propose this constitutional amendment.
Page 5 of 30
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting,
the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition portions of the petition that might not be to the signer's liking. This
must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving
every one of the several millions of signatories to the petition had the description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a
seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to qualify for the ballot.17 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full
Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,18 the Court of Appeals of Oregon
text of the proposed amendments before signing.
explained:
The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to amendments by
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed14 the concept of initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The
people�s initiative from the United States where various State purpose of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient
constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States15 information so that registered voters can intelligently evaluate
which allow initiative petitions, the unbending requirement is that whether to sign the initiative petition."); x x x (publication of full text
the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments of amended constitutional provision required because it is "essential
before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must for the elector to have x x x the section which is proposed to be
sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the added to or subtracted from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must
proposed amendments.16 have this knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he would be
required to vote in the dark.") (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time of
The rationale for this requirement has been repeatedly explained in
signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed" and
several decisions of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot
failure to do so is "deceptive and misleading" which renders the
Commission, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the
initiative void.19
First Circuit Court of Appeals, declared:
[A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person
supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state
signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed
subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A amendments. However, the deliberations of the framers of our
person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt the
petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. In particular,
examined the petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal
Page 6 of 30
that the framers intended that the people must first see the full text signature sheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the
of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the people signature sheet attached21 to the opposition in intervention filed on
must sign on a petition containing such full text. Indeed, Section 7 September 2006 by intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra.
5(b) of Republic Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act
that the Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that the people
must sign the "petition x x x as signatories." The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the
signature sheet attached to the Lambino Group's Memorandum are
the same. We reproduce below the signature sheet in full:
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 Province:
disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and
City/Municipality:
disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The
proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do No. of Verified Signatures:
not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents,
or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures.
Legislative District:
Barangay:
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
PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF
constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures - that the
ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING
petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-
proposed amendments.
PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY,
SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this
ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY
Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative
SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER�"
petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a
signature sheet20 after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006
when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006. The

Page 7 of 30
I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987
Constitution. My signature herein which shall form part of the
petition for initiative to amend the Constitution signifies my support
for the filing thereof.

Precinct Number
Name 3
Last Name, First Name, M.I.
Address
Birthdate
MM/DD/YY
Signature
Verification
1 4

2 5
Page 8 of 30
6 9

7 10

8
Page 9 of 30
___________________
Barangay Official Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the
signature-gathering from February to August 2006, the Lambino
(Print Name and Sign)
Group circulated, together with the signature sheets, printed copies
of the Lambino Group's draft petition which they later filed on 25
August 2006 with the COMELEC. When asked if his group also
___________________
circulated the draft of their amended petition filed on 30 August
Witness 2006 with the COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they
circulated both. However, Atty. Lambino changed his answer and
(Print Name and Sign)
stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August
__________________ 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 petition.

Witness
(Print Name and Sign) The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they
prepared the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition almost
seven months earlier in February 2006 when they started gathering
There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the signatures. Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado's
Lambino Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither "Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as
does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC,
is attached to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted this during states as follows:
the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September 2006.
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition
in my personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of
the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people
Resolution No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of
approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-
the mass of signatories hereto. (Emphasis supplied)
Parliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not
show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No.
are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is 2006-02 to the present petition. However, the "Official Website of
not the "petition" that the framers of the Constitution envisioned the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines"22 has posted the
when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, which provides:
of the Constitution.
Page 10 of 30
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02 WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments
in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form
of amending the 1987 Constitution;
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE'S
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH
PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and
AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent
assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional
reform agenda through People's Initiative and Referendum without
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same;
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to
support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on
Charter Change; WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT
ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL
AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC)
Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S
reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE
Reforms signed by the members of the ULAP and the majority 1987 CONSTITUTION;
coalition of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime
in October 2005;
DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting
held on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel, Manila.23
WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change (Underscoring supplied)
created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987
ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner
Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December
Aumentado to prepare the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August
2005;
2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC. ULAP Resolution
No. 2006-02 "support(s) the porposals (sic) of the Consulatative (sic)
Commission on Charter Change through people's initiative and
referendum as a mode of amending the 1987 Constitution." The
proposals of the Consultative Commission24 are vastly different from
Page 11 of 30
the proposed changes of the Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the
petition or 30 August 2006 amended petition filed with the proposed amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically,
COMELEC. paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the
Transitory Provisions were inaccurately stated and failed to correctly
reflect their proposed amendments.
For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission
The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the
affect all provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble
petition because the amended petition was what they had shown to
to the Transitory Provisions. The proposed revisions have profound
the people during the February to August 2006 signature-gathering.
impact on the Judiciary and the National Patrimony provisions of the
Instead, the Lambino Group alleged that the petition of 25 August
existing Constitution, provisions that the Lambino Group's proposed
2006 "inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their
changes do not touch. The Lambino Group's proposed changes
proposed amendments."
purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the existing Constitution,
including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions.
The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or
the 30 August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they
The ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on 14 January 2006 or
circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the
more than six months before the filing of the 25 August 2006
signature sheets. Likewise, the Lambino Group did not allege in their
petition or the 30 August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC.
present petition before this Court that they circulated printed copies
However, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not establish that ULAP
of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. The
or the Lambino Group caused the circulation of the draft petition,
signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft
together with the signature sheets, six months before the filing with
petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets.
the COMELEC. On the contrary, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 casts
grave doubt on the Lambino Group's claim that they circulated the
draft petition together with the signature sheets. ULAP Resolution
It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-
No. 2006-02 does not refer at all to the draft petition or to the
Interventions that the Lambino Group first claimed that they
Lambino Group's proposed changes.
circulated the "petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC," thus:
[T]here is persuasive authority to the effect that "(w)here there is
In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the not (sic) fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a
COMELEC, the Lambino Group declared: referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground
that he did not understand the nature of the act." [82 C.J.S. S128h.

Page 12 of 30
Mo. State v. Sullivan, 224, S.W. 327, 283 Mo. 546.] Thus, the petition signed by the people. In the present initiative, the Lambino
registered voters who signed the signature sheets circulated Group's proposed changes were not incorporated with, or attached
together with the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC to, the signature sheets. The Lambino Group's citation of Corpus
below, are presumed to have understood the proposition contained Juris Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet.
in the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
The Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people
It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed,
"the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC" appears an
circulated, from February to August 2006 during the signature-
afterthought, made after the intervenors Integrated Bar of the
gathering period, the draft of the petition or amended petition they
Philippines (Cebu City Chapter and Cebu Province Chapters) and
filed later with the COMELEC. The Lambino Group are less than
Atty. Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not
candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and
contain the text of the proposed changes. In their Consolidated
circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or
Reply, the Lambino Group alleged that they circulated "the petition
amended petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group
for initiative" but failed to mention the amended petition. This
circulated the amended petition during the signature-gathering
contradicts what Atty. Lambino finally stated during the oral
period, the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very limited
arguments that what they circulated was the draft of the amended
copies of the petition.
petition of 30 August 2006.

During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that

The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum,
they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more
stating that "a signer who did not read the measure attached to a
than six months later with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that
referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground
he also asked other supporters to print additional copies of the draft
that he did not understand the nature of the act." The Lambino
petition but he could not state with certainty how many additional
Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed change attached to
copies the other supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only assure
the petition signed by the people. Even the authority the Lambino
this Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because he himself
Group quotes requires that the proposed change must be attached
caused the printing of these 100,000 copies.
to the petition. The same authority the Lambino Group quotes
requires the people to sign on the petition itself.

Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October

2006, the Lambino Group expressly admits that "petitioner Lambino
Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed
initiated the printing and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the
amendment must be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative
Page 13 of 30
petition for initiative x x x."25 This admission binds the Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds
Group and establishes beyond any doubt that the Lambino Group the Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of
failed to show the full text of the proposed changes to the great the signature sheet. This omission is fatal. The failure to so include
majority of the people who signed the signature sheets. the text of the proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the
initiative void for non-compliance with the constitutional requirement
that the amendment must be "directly proposed by the people
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could through initiative upon a petition." The signature sheet is not the
have received with certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming "petition" envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution.
a 100 percent distribution with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and
company attached one copy of the petition to each signature sheet,
only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with the For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the
petition. Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes
Assuming ten people signed each of these 100,000 signature sheets before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of
with the attached petition, the maximum number of people who saw the proposed changes, among which are:
the petition before they signed the signature sheets would not
The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus
exceed 1,000,000.
members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;26

With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be

The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its
physically impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million
members, who are almost all the present members of Congress,
signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the
decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of
signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino
the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own
Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the
term of office; 27
proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories
saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets.

Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the

interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or
In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain
revisions to the Constitution.28
the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face of the
signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in
signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino the Lambino Group's signature sheets. The people who signed the

Page 14 of 30
signature sheets had no idea that they were proposing these before the phrase "election of all local government officials." This
amendments. These three proposed changes are highly would have insured that the elections for the regular Parliament
controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these would be held in the next local elections following the ratification of
proposed changes merely from a reading or rereading of the the proposed changes. However, the absence of the word "next"
contents of the signature sheets. allows the interim Parliament to schedule the elections for the
regular Parliament simultaneously with any future local elections.

During the oral arguments, petitioner Atty. Lambino stated that he

and his group assured the people during the signature-gathering Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the
that the elections for the regular Parliament would be held during expiration of their own term of office. This allows incumbent
the 2007 local elections if the proposed changes were ratified before members of the House of Representatives to hold office beyond their
the 2007 local elections. However, the text of the proposed changes current three-year term of office, and possibly even beyond the five-
belies this. year term of office of regular members of the Parliament. Certainly,
this is contrary to the representations of Atty. Lambino and his group
to the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets. Atty.
The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and
found in the amended petition, states: even the entire nation.

Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of
the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
This lucidly shows the absolute need for the people to sign an
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. x x
initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed
x x (Emphasis supplied)
amendments to avoid fraud or misrepresentation. In the present
Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely on the verbal
Parliament will be held simultaneously with the 2007 local elections. representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because the
This section merely requires that the elections for the regular signature sheets did not contain the full text of the proposed
Parliament shall be held simultaneously with the local elections changes. The result is a grand deception on the 6.3 million
without specifying the year. signatories who were led to believe that the proposed changes
would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular
Parliament simultaneously with the local elections.
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, who claims to be the principal drafter of
the proposed changes, could have easily written the word "next"

Page 15 of 30
The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes
people who signed the signature sheets. The proposed changes "logrolling," which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean anything,
mandate the interim Parliament to make further amendments or we cannot permit. The very broadness of the proposed amendment
revisions to the Constitution. The proposed Section 4(4), Article amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is
XVIII on Transitory Provisions, provides: voting on - the amendment's proponents' simplistic explanation
reveals only the tip of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must give the
Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these
electorate fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted on. x
amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
x x x The ballot language in the instant case fails to do that. The
amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the
very broadness of the proposal makes it impossible to state what it
principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong
will affect and effect and violates the requirement that proposed
bureaucracy. (Emphasis supplied)
amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied)
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino stated that this provision
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska
is a "surplusage" and the Court and the people should simply ignore
v. McAlpine,30 the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against
it. Far from being a surplusage, this provision invalidates the
"inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in logrolling:
Lambino Group's initiative.
Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the
problems that the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from exacerbated. There is a greater danger of logrolling, or the
the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system. deliberate intermingling of issues to increase the likelihood of an
American jurisprudence on initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for
when the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter "inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in the enactment-by-initiative
in the same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma since they process. The drafters of an initiative operate independently of any
can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing structured or supervised process. They often emphasize particular
them to sign a petition that effectively contains two propositions, provisions of their proposition, while remaining silent on other (more
one of which they may find unacceptable. complex or less appealing) provisions, when communicating to the
public. x x x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use simplistic
advertising to present their initiative to potential petition-signers and
Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the eventual voters. Many voters will never read the full text of the
entire proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, initiative before the election. More importantly, there is no process
in Fine v. Firestone,29 the Supreme Court of Florida declared: for amending or splitting the several provisions in an initiative

Page 16 of 30
proposal. These difficulties clearly distinguish the initiative from the
legislative process. (Emphasis supplied)
There is another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group's
Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for amended petition of 30 August 2006. The proposed Section 4(3) of
further amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim the Transitory Provisions states:
Parliament as a constituent assembly. The people who signed the
Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be
signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would
members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
be used to propose an amendment mandating the interim Parliament
to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as
member of Parliament if the interim Parliament does not schedule
elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there
Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4(4) is no counterpart provision for the present members of the House of
to compel the interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Representatives even if their term of office will all end on 30 June
Constitution within 45 days from ratification of the proposed 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Senators.
changes, or before the May 2007 elections. In the absence of the Thus, all the present members of the House will remain members of
proposed Section 4(4), the interim Parliament has the discretion the interim Parliament after 30 June 2010.
whether to amend or revise again the Constitution. With the
proposed Section 4(4), the initiative proponents want the interim
Parliament mandated to immediately amend or revise again the The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010.
Constitution. Thereafter, the Prime Minister exercises all the powers of the
President. If the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for
the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010, the Prime Minister will come
However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this only from the present members of the House of Representatives to
rush in amending or revising again so soon the Constitution. The the exclusion of the present Senators.
signature sheets do not also explain what specific amendments or
revisions the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament to
make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the
revisions. The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature Senators. The 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets
and effect of the proposed changes. Certainly, such an initiative is could not have known that their signatures would be used to
not "directly proposed by the people" because the people do not discriminate against the Senators. They could not have known that
even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes. their signatures would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the

Page 17 of 30
interim Parliament's choice of Prime Minister only to members of the The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
existing House of Representatives. Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast,
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first
Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both
showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Article XVII of the
most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the
Constitution provides:
people. That is why the Constitution requires that an initiative must
be "directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition" - meaning ARTICLE XVII
that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
the proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the
nation's fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general or
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected
proposed by:
individuals.

(1)
The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom of the The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or
people even if the members of this Court do not personally know the
(2)
people who sign the petition. However, this trust emanates from a
fundamental assumption: the full text of the proposed amendment is A constitutional convention.
first shown to the people before they sign the petition, not after they
have signed the petition.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending
because it dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2,
the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-
Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be "directly
fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is through a
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition."
constitutional convention. The third mode is through a people's
initiative.
Page 18 of 30
Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, xxxx
applies to "[A]ny amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution." In
contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third mode,
applies only to "[A]mendments to this Constitution." This distinction MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of
was intentional as shown by the following deliberations of the initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would
Constitutional Commission: the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of
realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1,
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a
self-executing provision?
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the
Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a
submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of
embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative.
amendment and should not expand into a revision which
This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report.
contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the
With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite
held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative
upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters. MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to
distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee
the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend,
Report No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this
which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional
modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the
committee members felt that this system of initiative should be
Committee.
limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to
the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the
operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
Revision. x x x x

Page 19 of 30
 This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the
United States. Thus, in McFadden v. Jordan,32 the Supreme Court of
xxxx
California ruled:
The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the adopting or
amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the rejecting of "laws and amendments to the Constitution" and does
word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made not purport to extend to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is thus
the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"? clear that a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only
through ratification by the people of a revised constitution proposed
by a convention called for that purpose as outlined hereinabove.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" Consequently if the scope of the proposed initiative measure
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, (hereinafter termed "the measure") now before us is so broad that if
it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision." such measure became law a substantial revision of our present state
Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not properly
be submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.31 (Emphasis supplied) by a constitutional convention, and the writ sought by petitioner
should issue. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution
intended, and wrote, a clear distinction between "amendment" and Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v.
"revision" of the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that Appling:33
only Congress or a constitutional convention may propose revisions
It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in
to the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that a people's
which it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who
initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. Where
favor amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of
the intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from the
one of the specified means. The constitution itself recognizes that
people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the
there is a difference between an amendment and a revision; and it is
people cannot propose revisions even as they are empowered to
obvious from an examination of the measure here in question that it
propose amendments.
is not an amendment as that term is generally understood and as it
is used in Article IV, Section 1. The document appears to be based in
large part on the revision of the constitution drafted by the
"Commission for Constitutional Revision" authorized by the 1961
Legislative Assembly, x x x and submitted to the 1963 Legislative
Page 20 of 30
Assembly. It failed to receive in the Assembly the two-third's It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised
majority vote of both houses required by Article XVII, Section 2, and or amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument itself, and
hence failed of adoption, x x x. that any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner other than the
one provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as extra-
constitutional and revolutionary. x x x x "While it is universally
While differing from that document in material respects, the measure conceded that the people are sovereign and that they have power to
sponsored by the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorough overhauling adopt a constitution and to change their own work at will, they must,
of the present constitution x x x. in doing so, act in an orderly manner and according to the settled
principles of constitutional law. And where the people, in adopting a
constitution, have prescribed the method by which the people may
To call it an amendment is a misnomer. alter or amend it, an attempt to change the fundamental law in
violation of the self-imposed restrictions, is unconstitutional." x x x x
(Emphasis supplied)
Whether it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a
This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the
measure as can be submitted to the people through the initiative. If
Constitution, cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure
a revision, it is subject to the requirements of Article XVII, Section
compliance with the clear command of the Constitution that a
2(1); if a new constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention
people's initiative may only amend, never revise, the Constitution.
called in the manner provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's
initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution since the The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an
Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no amendment or revision of the Constitution? If the Lambino Group's
deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the initiative constitutes a revision, then the present petition should be
Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million dismissed for being outside the scope of Section 2, Article XVII of
signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes the Constitution.
prescribed in the Constitution itself.

Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment

As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In re Initiative Petition and a revision of a constitution. One of the earliest cases that
No. 364:34 recognized the distinction described the fundamental difference in
this manner:

Page 21 of 30
[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the
and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the
revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles change will "accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of
upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision."37 Whether
instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper
other hand, the significance of the term "amendment" implies such subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic
an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework
will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which or the fundamental powers of its Branches."38 A change in the
it was framed.35 (Emphasis supplied) nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that
"jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
check and balances."39
constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the
system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change
alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino
change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the
Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment.
other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.
articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on the
Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while
Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being
Constitution.40 Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter
amended.
substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not
revisions to the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have
A change in the structure of government is a revision of the
developed a two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative
Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of
test. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is "so
government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This
extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial
alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the
entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
existing provisions."36 The court examines only the number of
system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and
provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.
executive branches is a radical change in the structure of
government.

Page 22 of 30
 on other important provisions of the Constitution.41 (Emphasis
supplied)
The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of
Executive Power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes In Adams v. Gunter,42 an initiative petition proposed the
a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one amendment of the Florida State constitution to shift from a
chamber of Congress alters the system of checks-and-balances bicameral to a unicameral legislature. The issue turned on whether
within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution. the initiative "was defective and unauthorized where [the] proposed
amendment would x x x affect several other provisions of [the]
Constitution." The Supreme Court of Florida, striking down the
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a initiative as outside the scope of the initiative clause, ruled as
Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, follows:
involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition
The proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968
of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere
Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only
amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group's proposed
many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a change
changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter
in the form of the legislative branch of government, which has been
the framework of government as set forth in the Constitution. Father
in existence in the United States Congress and in all of the states of
Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading member of the Constitutional
the nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be difficult
Commission, writes:
to visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of a House
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It would
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an not only radically change the whole pattern of government in this
amendment is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions state and tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution, but would
deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific even affect the physical facilities necessary to carry on government.
portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be
dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original intention and
plan contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of xxxx
provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the
entire document, to determine how and to what extent they should
be altered. Thus, for instance a switch from the presidential system We conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment
to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all were adopted by the people at the General Election and if the
impact on the entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from Legislature at its next session should fail to submit further
a bicameral system to a unicameral system be because of its effect amendments to revise and clarify the numerous inconsistencies and

Page 23 of 30
conflicts which would result, or if after submission of appropriate
amendments the people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between
would prevail in the government of this State. The same result would
"amendment" and "revision" is only one of procedure, not of
obtain from an amendment, for instance, of Section 1 of Article V, to
substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative body
provide for only a Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and there could
drafts and proposes changes to the Constitution, substantive
be other examples too numerous to detail. These examples point
changes are called "revisions" because members of the deliberative
unerringly to the answer.
body work full-time on the changes. However, the same substantive
changes, when proposed through an initiative, are called
"amendments" because the changes are made by ordinary people
The purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men
who do not make an "occupation, profession, or vocation" out of
and women and many sessions of the Legislature in bringing about
such endeavor.
the Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate inconsistencies and
conflicts and to give the State a workable, accordant, homogenous
and up-to-date document. All of this could disappear very quickly if
Thus, the Lambino Group makes the following exposition of their
we were to hold that it could be amended in the manner proposed in
theory in their Memorandum:
the initiative petition here.43 (Emphasis supplied)
With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional
The rationale of the Adams decision applies with greater force to the
provisions expressly provide for both "amendment" and "revision"
present petition. The Lambino Group's initiative not only seeks a shift
when it speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the
from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature, it also seeks to merge
same provisions expressly provide only for "amendment" when it
the executive and legislative departments. The initiative in Adams
speaks of the people. It would seem that the apparent distinction is
did not even touch the executive department.
based on the actual experience of the people, that on one hand the
common people in general are not expected to work full-time on the
matter of correcting the constitution because that is not their
In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of
occupation, profession or vocation; while on the other hand, the
the Florida Constitution that would be affected by the shift from a
legislators and constitutional convention delegates are expected to
bicameral to a unicameral legislature. In the Lambino Group's
work full-time on the same matter because that is their occupation,
present initiative, no less than 105 provisions of the Constitution
profession or vocation. Thus, the difference between the words
would be affected based on the count of Associate Justice Romeo J.
"revision" and "amendment" pertain only to the process or procedure
Callejo, Sr.44 There is no doubt that the Lambino Group's present
of coming up with the corrections, for purposes of interpreting the
initiative seeks far more radical changes in the structure of
constitutional provisions.
government than the initiative in Adams.
Page 24 of 30
 The Lambino Group simply recycles a theory that initiative
proponents in American jurisdictions have attempted to advance
Stated otherwise, the difference between "amendment" and
without any success. In Lowe v. Keisling,46 the Supreme Court of
"revision" cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the
Oregon rejected this theory, thus:
correction. x x x x (Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied)
Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes
The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a
to the constitution proposed by initiative. His theory is that Article
constitutional convention had drafted the same proposed changes
XVII, section 2 merely provides a procedure by which the legislature
that the Lambino Group wrote in the present initiative, the changes
can propose a revision of the constitution, but it does not affect
would constitute a revision of the Constitution. Thus, the Lambino
proposed revisions initiated by the people.
Group concedes that the proposed changes in the present initiative
constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had
drafted the changes. However, since the Lambino Group as private
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a
individuals drafted the proposed changes, the changes are merely
wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through
amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group trivializes the
the initiative process. They assert that the distinction between
serious matter of changing the fundamental law of the land.
amendment and revision is determined by reviewing the scope and
subject matter of the proposed enactment, and that revisions are not
limited to "a formal overhauling of the constitution." They argue that
The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the
this ballot measure proposes far reaching changes outside the lines
Constitution contradict the Lambino Group's theory. Where the intent
of the original instrument, including profound impacts on existing
of the framers and the language of the Constitution are clear and
fundamental rights and radical restructuring of the government's
plainly stated, courts do not deviate from such categorical intent and
relationship with a defined group of citizens. Plaintiffs assert that,
language.45 Any theory espousing a construction contrary to such
because the proposed ballot measure "will refashion the most basic
intent and language deserves scant consideration. More so, if such
principles of Oregon constitutional law," the trial court correctly held
theory wreaks havoc by creating inconsistencies in the form of
that it violated Article XVII, section 2, and cannot appear on the
government established in the Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of
ballot without the prior approval of the legislature.
any jurisprudential mooring and inviting inconsistencies in the
Constitution, only exposes the flimsiness of the Lambino Group's
position. Any theory advocating that a proposed change involving a
We first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2(1),
radical structural change in government does not constitute a
does not prohibit revisions instituted by initiative. In Holmes v.
revision justly deserves rejection.
Appling, x x x, the Supreme Court concluded that a revision of the
constitution may not be accomplished by initiative, because of the
Page 25 of 30
provisions of Article XVII, section 2. After reviewing Article XVII,
section1, relating to proposed amendments, the court said:
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of
"From the foregoing it appears that Article IV, Section 1, authorizes the Constitution without affecting any other section or article, the
the use of the initiative as a means of amending the Oregon change may generally be considered an amendment and not a
Constitution, but it contains no similar sanction for its use as a revision. For example, a change reducing the voting age from 18
means of revising the constitution." x x x x years to 15 years47 is an amendment and not a revision. Similarly, a
change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from
It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and
100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision.48
said: "It is the only section of the constitution which provides the
Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional
means for constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an
qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not
individual, through the initiative, may place such a measure before
a revision.49
the electorate." x x x x

The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of

Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2,
sections or articles of the Constitution other than the specific
does not apply to constitutional revisions proposed by initiative.
provision being amended. These changes do not also affect the
(Emphasis supplied)
structure of government or the system of checks-and-balances
Similarly, this Court must reject the Lambino Group's theory which among or within the three branches. These three examples are
negates the express intent of the framers and the plain language of located at the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red
the Constitution. end where the revision sought by the present petition is located.

We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an
end green for amendments and at the other end red for revisions. amendment or a revision. A change in a single word of one sentence
Towards the middle of the spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment. For
in determining whether there is an amendment or revision. The example, the substitution of the word "republican" with "monarchic"
present initiative is indisputably located at the far end of the red or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II50 of the Constitution radically
spectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks a overhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental
radical overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will
three co-equal departments of government, requiring far-reaching have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects
amendments in several sections and articles of the Constitution. other provisions, as well as how it affects the structure of
Page 26 of 30
government, the carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, Lambino Group's draft of Section 2 of the Transitory Provisions turns
and the underlying ideological basis of the existing Constitution. on its head this rule of construction by stating that in case of such
irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision "shall be amended
to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government."
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several The effect is to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the
provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded earlier one "shall be amended," which requires a future separate
proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision constitutional amendment.
requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered
principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions
normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment,
constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, petitioner Atty. Lambino readily conceded during the oral arguments
constitutions allow people's initiatives, which do not have fixed and that the requirement of a future amendment is a "surplusage." In
identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to short, Atty. Lambino wants to reinstate the rule of statutory
undertake only amendments and not revisions. construction so that the later provision automatically prevails in case
of irreconcilable inconsistency. However, it is not as simple as that.

In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed Section 2 of

the Transitory Provisions states: The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2
of the Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
the 1987 Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes. The
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3,
inconsistency is between a provision in Article VI of the 1987
4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall
Constitution and the "Parliamentary system of government," and the
hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted,
inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a "unicameral
all other Sections of Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered
parliamentary form of government."
sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are
inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of government, in which
case, they shall be amended to conform with a unicameral
Now, what "unicameral parliamentary form of government" do the
parliamentary form of government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Lambino Group's proposed changes refer to - the Bangladeshi,
The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand models, which are among the
irreconcilably inconsistent with a prior law, the later law prevails. few countries with unicameral parliaments? The proposed changes
This rule also applies to construction of constitutions. However, the could not possibly refer to the traditional and well-known

Page 27 of 30
parliamentary forms of government - the British, French, Spanish, not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court
German, Italian, Canadian, Australian, or Malaysian models, which must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735
have all bicameral parliaments. Did the people who signed the does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to
signature sheets realize that they were adopting the Bangladeshi, implement the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.
Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand parliamentary form of
government?
This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the
constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be
This drives home the point that the people's initiative is not meant resolved on some other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical
for revisions of the Constitution but only for amendments. A shift consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass
from the present Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral- upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on
Parliamentary system requires harmonizing several provisions in some other grounds.51
many articles of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution
through a people's initiative will only result in gross absurdities in the
Constitution. Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the
constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this
will not change the result here because the present petition violates
In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the
initiative is a revision and not an amendment. Thus, the present present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
initiative is void and unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.
Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a people's
initiative to "[A]mendments to this Constitution."
Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735
A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
which requires that the "petition for an initiative on the 1987
The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total
basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on number of registered voters as signatories." Section 5(b) of RA 6735
the conduct and scope of a people's initiative to amend the requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories."
Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court's ruling in
Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative to The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August
amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will 2006 or the amended petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the

Page 28 of 30
COMELEC. Only Atty. Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed the petition and amended petition as discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, Petitioners." dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it
In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group, claiming to act "together with" only complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in
the 6.3 million signatories, merely attached the signature sheets to G.R. No. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution
the petition and amended petition. Thus, the petition and amended of June 10, 1997.
petition filed with the COMELEC did not even comply with the basic
Conclusion
requirement of RA 6735 that the Lambino Group claims as valid.
The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the
utmost respect and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No
The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) one can trivialize the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising
of RA 6735 stating, "No petition embracing more than one (1) it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of amendment
subject shall be submitted to the electorate; x x x." The proposed and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.
Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions, mandating the interim
Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the
Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the
form of government. Since the present initiative embraces more than Constitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every
one subject matter, RA 6735 prohibits submission of the initiative dominant political group of the day. If this Court allows today a
petition to the electorate. Thus, even if RA 6735 is valid, the cavalier change in the Constitution outside the constitutionally
Lambino Group's initiative will still fail. prescribed modes, tomorrow the new dominant political group that
comes will demand its own set of changes in the same cavalier and
The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in
unconstitutional fashion. A revolving-door constitution does not
Dismissing the Lambino Group's Initiative
augur well for the rule of law in this country.
In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC
en banc merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's
Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. An overwhelming majority - 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3
COMELEC.52 For following this Court's ruling, no grave abuse of percent of the total votes cast53 - approved our Constitution in a
discretion is attributable to the COMELEC. On this ground alone, the national plebiscite held on 11 February 1987. That approval is the
present petition warrants outright dismissal. Thus, this Court should unmistakable voice of the people, the full expression of the people's
reiterate its unanimous ruling in PIRMA: sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed modes for
amending or revising the Constitution.

Page 29 of 30
 wary of incantations of "people's voice" or "sovereign will" in the
present initiative.
No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures
gathered by the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution
contrary to the specific modes that the people, in their sovereign
This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect
capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The
the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people's
alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means
sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend
subverting the people's sovereign will and discarding the
and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm
Constitution. This is one act the Court cannot and should never do.
initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic
As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn to
principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
perform its solemn duty to defend and protect the Constitution,
Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this
which embodies the real sovereign will of the people.
Court's raison d'etre.

Incantations of "people's voice," "people's sovereign will," or "let the

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
people decide" cannot override the specific modes of changing the
Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the
Constitution the people's fundamental covenant that provides
SO ORDERED.
enduring stability to our society becomes easily susceptible to
manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures
through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the
bedrock of the nation's stability.

The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice."
However, the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution
No. 2006-02, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC,
that "ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her
Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional
reforms." The Lambino Group thus admits that their "people's"
initiative is an "unqualified support to the agenda" of the incumbent
President to change the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be
Page 30 of 30