the Solidarity of Health Against Charter Change, DR.

REGINALD
PAMUGAS of Health Action for Human Rights, Intervenors.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA

HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, Intervenors.

EN BANC x--------------------------------------------------------x

G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Intervenor.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH x ------------------------------------------------------- x

6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners,
vs. TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
x--------------------------------------------------------x
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, Intervenor.
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., Intervenor.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
x ------------------------------------------------------ x
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and CARLOS BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and
P. MEDINA, JR., Intervenors. AMADO GAT INCIONG, Intervenors.

x------------------------------------------------------ x x ------------------------------------------------------- x

ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, Intervenor. RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO
BAYA, Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo,
BAYAN MUNA represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo Lesaca, PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION
KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented by its Secretary General Joel (PTGWO) and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Intervenors.
Maglunsod, HEAD represented by its Secretary General Dr. Gene Alzona
Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito x -------------------------------------------------------- x
Cabillas, MIGRANTE represented by its Chairperson Concepcion
Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA represented by its Secretary General SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, MANUEL
Emerenciana de Jesus, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY represented by VILLAR, JR., Intervenor.
Sec. Gen. Cristina Palabay, ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS represented by x ------------------------------------------------------- x
Chair Vencer Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the League of
Concerned Professionals and Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO of
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Intervenor.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x DECISION

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A.

LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and RANDALL
TABAYOYONG, Intervenors.
CARPIO, J.:
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
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
x --------------------------------------------------------x initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.

SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and Antecedent Facts

SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY
ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO LACSON, Intervenors. On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino
and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups1 and
x -----------------------------------------------------x individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to
change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
PILIPINO, Intervenors. petition under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735
or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").
x -----------------------------------------------------x
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered
voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A.V. centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that
SAGUISAG, Petitioners, COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million
vs. individuals.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-
SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter 4 of Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled
Doe,, Respondent. "Transitory Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present
Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. The Lambino Group prayed 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 PRESENT BICAMERAL-
PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM,
AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative
COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory petitions to only one subject.
Provisions) of their initiative.7
The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26
The Ruling of the COMELEC September 2006. After receiving the parties' memoranda, the Court
considered the case submitted for resolution.
On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course
to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative The Issues
petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling
in Santiago v. Commission on Elections8 declaring RA 6735 inadequate to The petitions raise the following issues:
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.9
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2,
In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August people's initiative;
2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative
petition. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave 2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735
abuse of discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to
not a binding precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and
that Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and their petition deserves
cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people."
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
due course to the Lambino Group's petition.
In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require
respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be
The Ruling of the Court
cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and for
"entertaining" the Lambino Group's petition despite the permanent injunction
in Santiago. The Court treated the Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in- There is no merit to the petition.
intervention.
The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of
In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor General joined the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative. Thus, there is even no
causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based
the Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic
6735 and its implementing rules "as temporary devises to implement the requirements of the Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago,
system of initiative." no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.

Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of
or opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
intervenors10 uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave
abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional
intervenors11 hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding provision that allows a people's initiative to propose amendments to the
precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group's Constitution. This section states:
standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature gathering and
verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;12 (4) the nature of the least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of
proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under which every legislative district must be represented by at least
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group's three per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions
meaning of an amendment "directly proposed by the people through of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed
initiative upon a petition," thus: amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the
time constraint, to prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.
want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the
proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed14 the concept of people's
people when they are asked to sign? initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate
an initiative clause. In almost all States15 which allow initiative petitions, the
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President. unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of
the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full
and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft? text of the proposed amendments.16

MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President. The rationale for this requirement has been repeatedly explained in several
decisions of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission,
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit Court of
MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a
Appeals, declared:
draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to
propose this constitutional amendment.
[A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person
supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that
is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the
proposal and pass it around for signature.13 (Emphasis supplied)
subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A
person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the
proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting,
people "before" they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition
"before they sign there is already a draft shown to them." The framers also that might not be to the signer's liking. This danger seems
"envisioned" that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving the
proponents must "prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature." description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a
vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through qualify for the ballot.17 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a
petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,18 the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained:
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 purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to amendments by
the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose
of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient information so
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing the initiative petition."); x x x (publication of full text of amended
such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly constitutional provision required because it is "essential for the elector
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" only if the to have x x x the section which is proposed to be added to or
people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed subtracted from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must have this
amendments. knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote
in the dark.") (Emphasis supplied)
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of
the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of
Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of Signatures:
the nature and effect of that which is proposed" and failure to do so is
"deceptive and misleading" which renders the initiative void.19 PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES
VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A
petition must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments. However, the UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER
deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN
intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
In particular, the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO
reveal that the framers intended that the people must first see the full text ANOTHER?"
of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the people must
sign on a petition containing such full text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My
Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the Lambino Group signature herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the
invokes as valid, requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.
signatories."
Precinct Name Address Birthdate Signatur
The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
Number
proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public
officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially Last Name, First MM/DD/YY
explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to Name, M.I.
the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and 1
do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their 2
supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. 3
4
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional 5
requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of
6
proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering
the signatures - that the petition contained, or incorporated by 7
attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. 8
9
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a 10
copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The
_________________ _________________ ________
Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet20 after the
Barangay Official Witness Witness
oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on
(Print Name and Sign) (Print Name and Sign) (Print Nam
11 October 2006. The signature sheet with this Court during the oral
arguments was the signature sheet attached21 to the opposition in intervention
filed on 7 September 2006 by intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra. There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino
Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the
The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached
sheet attached to the Lambino Group's Memorandum are the same. We to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments
reproduce below the signature sheet in full: before this Court on 26 September 2006.

Province: City/Municipality: No. of The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a
Legislative District: Barangay: shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system
Verified of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft
of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature
sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the "petition" that the framers of the
Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section coalition of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in
2, Article XVII of the Constitution. October 2005;

Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature- WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter
gathering from February to August 2006, the Lambino Group circulated, Change created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the
together with the signature sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group's draft 1987 Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December
petition which they later filed on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC. When 2005;
asked if his group also circulated the draft of their amended petition filed on
30 August 2006 with the COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments
circulated both. However, Atty. Lambino changed his answer and stated that in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of
what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended amending the 1987 Constitution;
petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 petition.
WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and
The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent
of the 30 August 2006 amended petition almost seven months earlier in assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional
February 2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B. reform agenda through People's Initiative and Referendum without
Aumentado's "Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same;
as of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states
as follows: WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED,
THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE
my personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of the PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC)
Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S
Resolution No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE
the mass of signatories hereto. (Emphasis supplied) 1987 CONSTITUTION;

The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting
to the present petition. However, the "Official Website of the Union of Local held on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel,
Authorities of the Philippines"22 has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006- Manila.23 (Underscoring supplied)
02, which provides:
ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02 prepare the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August 2006 amended petition,
filed with the COMELEC. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 "support(s) the
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE porposals (sic) of the Consulatative (sic) Commission on Charter
PEOPLE'S CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER Change through people's initiative and referendum as a mode of amending
CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM the 1987 Constitution." The proposals of the Consultative
AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION Commission24 are vastly different from the proposed changes of the
Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 petition or 30 August 2006 amended
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the petition filed with the COMELEC.
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to
support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all
Charter Change; provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the Transitory
Provisions. The proposed revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of and the National Patrimony provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions
Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional that the Lambino Group's proposed changes do not touch. The Lambino
reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional Group's proposed changes purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the
Reforms signed by the members of the ULAP and the majority existing Constitution, including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions.
The ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on 14 January 2006 or more than The Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people "the
six months before the filing of the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC" appears an afterthought,
2006 amended petition with the COMELEC. However, ULAP Resolution No. made after the intervenors Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu City
2006-02 does not establish that ULAP or the Lambino Group caused the Chapter and Cebu Province Chapters) and Atty. Quadra had pointed out that
circulation of the draft petition, together with the signature sheets, six months the signature sheets did not contain the text of the proposed changes. In their
before the filing with the COMELEC. On the contrary, ULAP Resolution No. Consolidated Reply, the Lambino Group alleged that they circulated "the
2006-02 casts grave doubt on the Lambino Group's claim that they petition for initiative" but failed to mention the amended petition. This
circulated the draft petition together with the signature sheets. ULAP contradicts what Atty. Lambino finally stated during the oral arguments that
Resolution No. 2006-02 does not refer at all to the draft petition or to the what they circulated was the draft of the amended petition of 30 August
Lambino Group's proposed changes. 2006.

In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the COMELEC, The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a
the Lambino Group declared: signer who did not read the measure attached to a referendum
petition cannot question his signature on the ground that he did not
After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the understand the nature of the act." The Lambino Group quotes an authority that
proposed amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically, cites a proposed change attached to the petition signed by the people.
paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes requires that the proposed
Transitory Provisions were inaccurately stated and failed to correctly change must be attached to the petition. The same authority the Lambino
reflect their proposed amendments. Group quotes requires the people to sign on the petition itself.

The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the petition Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment
because the amended petition was what they had shown to the people during must be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the
the February to August 2006 signature-gathering. Instead, the Lambino Group people. In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed changes were
alleged that the petition of 25 August 2006 "inaccurately stated and failed to not incorporated with, or attached to, the signature sheets. The Lambino
correctly reflect their proposed amendments." Group's citation of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet.

The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated,
August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed from February to August 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft
copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. Likewise, the of the petition or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC. The
Lambino Group did not allege in their present petition before this Court that Lambino Group are less than candid with this Court in their belated claim that
they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or
sheets. The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft amended petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group
petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets. circulated the amended petition during the signature-gathering period,
the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very limited copies of the
It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that the petition.
Lambino Group first claimed that they circulated the "petition for initiative filed
with the COMELEC," thus: During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they
printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six
[T]here is persuasive authority to the effect that "(w)here there is not months later with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that he also asked
(sic) fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a other supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not
referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground state with certainty how many additional copies the other supporters
that he did not understand the nature of the act." [82 C.J.S. S128h. printed. Atty. Lambino could only assure this Court of the printing of
Mo. State v. Sullivan, 224, S.W. 327, 283 Mo. 546.] Thus, the 100,000 copies because he himself caused the printing of these 100,000
registered voters who signed the signature sheets circulated copies.
together with the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC
below, are presumed to have understood the proposition contained in Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the
the petition. (Emphasis supplied) Lambino Group expressly admits that "petitioner Lambino initiated the
printing and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own
x x x."25 This admission binds the Lambino Group and establishes term of office; 27
beyond any doubt that the Lambino Group failed to show the full text of
the proposed changes to the great majority of the people who signed the 3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the
signature sheets. interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments
or revisions to the Constitution.28
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have
received with certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100 percent These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the
distribution with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy Lambino Group's signature sheets. The people who signed the signature
of the petition to each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could sheets had no idea that they were proposing these amendments. These three
have circulated with the petition. Each signature sheet contains space for ten proposed changes are highly controversial. The people could not have
signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of these 100,000 signature inferred or divined these proposed changes merely from a reading or
sheets with the attached petition, the maximum number of people who saw rereading of the contents of the signature sheets.
the petition before they signed the signature sheets would not exceed
1,000,000. During the oral arguments, petitioner Atty. Lambino stated that he and his
group assured the people during the signature-gathering that the
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically elections for the regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 local
impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen elections if the proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local
the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable elections. However, the text of the proposed changes belies this.
conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million
signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in
one million signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature the amended petition, states:
sheets.
Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of
In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full text the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
of the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as simultaneously with the election of all local government officials.
attachment with an indication in the signature sheet of such x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino admitted this during the oral
arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This fact is
Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be
also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. This omission
held simultaneously with the 2007 local elections. This section merely requires
is fatal. The failure to so include the text of the proposed changes in the
that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be held simultaneously with
signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-compliance with the
the local elections without specifying the year.
constitutional requirement that the amendment must be "directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition." The signature sheet is
not the "petition" envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution. Petitioner Atty. Lambino, who claims to be the principal drafter of the proposed
changes, could have easily written the word "next" before the phrase "election
of all local government officials." This would have insured that the elections for
For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature
the regular Parliament would be held in the next local elections following the
sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They
ratification of the proposed changes. However, the absence of the word "next"
could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among
allows the interim Parliament to schedule the elections for the regular
which are:
Parliament simultaneously with any future local elections.
1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and
Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the expiration of their
thus members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;26
own term of office. This allows incumbent members of the House of
Representatives to hold office beyond their current three-year term of office,
2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its and possibly even beyond the five-year term of office of regular members of
members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, the Parliament. Certainly, this is contrary to the representations of Atty.
decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of Lambino and his group to the 6.3 million people who signed the
signature sheets. Atty. Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million very broadness of the proposal makes it impossible to state what it will
signatories, and even the entire nation. affect and effect and violates the requirement that proposed
amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied)
This lucidly shows the absolute need for the people to sign an initiative
petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments to avoid fraud Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v.
or misrepresentation. In the present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had McAlpine,30 the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against "inadvertence,
to rely on the verbal representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because stealth and fraud" in logrolling:
the signature sheets did not contain the full text of the proposed changes. The
result is a grand deception on the 6.3 million signatories who were led to Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the problems
believe that the proposed changes would require the holding in 2007 of that the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are exacerbated. There is
elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously with the local elections. a greater danger of logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling of issues to
increase the likelihood of an initiative's passage, and there is a greater
The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the people who opportunity for "inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in the enactment-by-
signed the signature sheets. The proposed changes mandate the interim initiative process. The drafters of an initiative operate independently of any
Parliament to make further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. The structured or supervised process. They often emphasize particular provisions
proposed Section 4(4), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, provides: of their proposition, while remaining silent on other (more complex or less
appealing) provisions, when communicating to the public. x x x Indeed,
Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these initiative promoters typically use simplistic advertising to present their
amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose initiative to potential petition-signers and eventual voters. Many voters
amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with will never read the full text of the initiative before the election. More
the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong importantly, there is no process for amending or splitting the several provisions
bureaucracy. (Emphasis supplied) in an initiative proposal. These difficulties clearly distinguish the initiative from
the legislative process. (Emphasis supplied)
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino stated that this provision is a
"surplusage" and the Court and the people should simply ignore it. Far from Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further
being a surplusage, this provision invalidates the Lambino Group's initiative. amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a
constituent assembly. The people who signed the signature sheets could not
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the have known that their signatures would be used to propose an
Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system. American amendment mandating the interim Parliament to
jurisprudence on initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - when the initiative propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This
puts the people in a dilemma since they can answer only either yes or no to Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4(4)
the entire proposition, forcing them to sign a petition that effectively contains to compel the interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution
two propositions, one of which they may find unacceptable. within 45 days from ratification of the proposed changes, or before the May
2007 elections. In the absence of the proposed Section 4(4), the interim
Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire Parliament has the discretion whether to amend or revise again the
proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine v. Constitution. With the proposed Section 4(4), the initiative proponents want
Firestone,29 the Supreme Court of Florida declared: the interim Parliament mandated to immediately amend or revise again the
Constitution.
Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes
"logrolling," which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in
anything, we cannot permit. The very broadness of the proposed amending or revising again so soon the Constitution. The signature sheets do
amendment amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know not also explain what specific amendments or revisions the initiative
what it is voting on - the amendment's proponents' simplistic proponents want the interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for
explanation reveals only the tip of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must such further amendments or revisions. The people are again left in the dark
give the electorate fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted to fathom the nature and effect of the proposed changes. Certainly, such
on. x x x x The ballot language in the instant case fails to do that. The
an initiative is not "directly proposed by the people" because the people do not the people before they sign the petition, not after they have signed the
even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes. petition.

There is another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group's amended In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it
petition of 30 August 2006. The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Provisions states: Constitution that the initiative must be "directly proposed by the people
through initiative upon a petition."
Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be
members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. 2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
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 A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment
Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no counterpart provision for of the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a
the present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of constitutional convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the
office will all end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the Constitution. Article XVII of the Constitution provides:
present Senators. Thus, all the present members of the House will remain
members of the interim Parliament after 30 June 2010. ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010. Thereafter, the
Prime Minister exercises all the powers of the President. If the interim Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June be proposed by:
2010, the Prime Minister will come only from the present members of the
House of Representatives to the exclusion of the present Senators. (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or

The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the (2) A constitutional convention.
Senators. The 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could
not have known that their signatures would be used to discriminate
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
against the Senators. They could not have known that their signatures
proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the interim Parliament's
choice of Prime Minister only to members of the existing House of
Representatives. Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the
Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all
its Members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to
third mode is through a people's initiative.
the people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception,
and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. That is why the
Constitution requires that an initiative must be "directly proposed by the Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to
people x x x in a petition" - meaning that the people must sign on a petition "[A]ny amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution." In contrast, Section 2
that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. On so vital an issue of Article XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to
as amending the nation's fundamental law, the writing of the text of the this Constitution." This distinction was intentional as shown by the following
proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom of the people May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the
even if the members of this Court do not personally know the people who sign Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we
the petition. However, this trust emanates from a fundamental submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
assumption: the full text of the proposed amendment is first shown to embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative.
This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's
With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2: proposed amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it
not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite Padilla when he made the distinction between the words
held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative "amendments" and "revision"?
upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report "revision" should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative
No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of is concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."
initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.31 (Emphasis supplied)
modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The
committee members felt that this system of initiative should be There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended,
limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend and wrote, a clear distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of the
to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a
the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment constitutional convention may propose revisions to the Constitution. The
or Revision. x x x x framers intended, and wrote, that a people's initiative may propose only
amendments to the Constitution. Where the intent and language of the
xxxx Constitution clearly withhold from the people the power to propose revisions
to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as they are
MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of empowered to propose amendments.
initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would
the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the United
realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead States. Thus, in McFadden v. Jordan,32 the Supreme Court of California
of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing ruled:
provision?
The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the adopting
while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of or rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the Constitution' and
amendment and should not expand into a revision which does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is
contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the thus clear that a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only
sense that was conveyed by the Committee. through ratification by the people of a revised constitution proposed by
a convention called for that purpose as outlined hereinabove.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to Consequently if the scope of the proposed initiative measure
distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to (hereinafter termed 'the measure') now before us is so broad that if
include the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation such measure became law a substantial revision of our present state
to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply to Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not properly be
amendments? submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a
constitutional convention, and the writ sought by petitioner should
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in issue. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
the Committee.
Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v. Appling:33
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in
xxxx which it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who
favor amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of
one of the specified means. The constitution itself recognizes that
 there is a difference between an amendment and a revision; and it is This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution,
obvious from an examination of the measure here in question that it is cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear
not an amendment as that term is generally understood and as it is command of the Constitution ― that a people's initiative may only amend,
used in Article IV, Section 1. The document appears to be based in never revise, the Constitution.
large part on the revision of the constitution drafted by the
'Commission for Constitutional Revision' authorized by the 1961 The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment
Legislative Assembly, x x x and submitted to the 1963 Legislative or revision of the Constitution? If the Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a
Assembly. It failed to receive in the Assembly the two-third's majority revision, then the present petition should be dismissed for being outside the
vote of both houses required by Article XVII, Section 2, and hence scope of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
failed of adoption, x x x.
Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a
While differing from that document in material respects, the measure revision of a constitution. One of the earliest cases that recognized the
sponsored by the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorough overhauling of distinction described the fundamental difference in this manner:
the present constitution x x x.
[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent
To call it an amendment is a misnomer. and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its
revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying
Whether it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a measure principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety
as can be submitted to the people through the initiative. If a revision, of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature.
it is subject to the requirements of Article XVII, Section 2(1); if a new On the other hand, the significance of the term "amendment" implies
constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention called in the such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument
manner provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which
it was framed.35 (Emphasis supplied)
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative
can only propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system
constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. A popular of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the
clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a deviation substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects
from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself. substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment
broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering
As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In re Initiative Petition No. 364:34 the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of
the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision
It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be being amended.
revised or amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument
itself, and that any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions
other than the one provided in the instrument is almost invariably to the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-
treated as extra-constitutional and revolutionary. x x x x "While it part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test
is universally conceded that the people are sovereign and that they asks whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to
have power to adopt a constitution and to change their own work at change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or
will, they must, in doing so, act in an orderly manner and according to alteration of numerous existing provisions."36 The court examines only the
the settled principles of constitutional law. And where the people, in number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.
adopting a constitution, have prescribed the method by which the
people may alter or amend it, an attempt to change the fundamental The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change
law in violation of the self-imposed restrictions, is unconstitutional." x in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish
x x x (Emphasis supplied) such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to
amount to a revision."37 Whether there is an alteration in the structure of
government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of
[the] basic governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework a unicameral system be because of its effect on other important
or the fundamental powers of its Branches."38 A change in the nature of the provisions of the Constitution.41 (Emphasis supplied)
basic governmental plan also includes changes that "jeopardize the traditional
form of government and the system of check and balances."39 In Adams v. Gunter,42 an initiative petition proposed the amendment of the
Florida State constitution to shift from a bicameral to a unicameral
Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's legislature. The issue turned on whether the initiative "was defective and
initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the unauthorized where [the] proposed amendment would x x x affect several
Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the other provisions of [the] Constitution." The Supreme Court of Florida, striking
Legislature and Article VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions down the initiative as outside the scope of the initiative clause, ruled as follows:
in the entire Constitution.40 Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter
substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, The proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968
and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only
many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a
A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as change in the form of the legislative branch of government, which
when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present has been in existence in the United States Congress and in all of the
Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in states of the nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be
the Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a difficult to visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of
Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging a House and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It
the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of would not only radically change the whole pattern of government
government. in this state and tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution,
but would even affect the physical facilities necessary to carry on
The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive government.
Power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the
Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters xxxx
the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a
revision of the Constitution. We conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment
were adopted by the people at the General Election and if the
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral- Legislature at its next session should fail to submit further
Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of amendments to revise and clarify the numerous inconsistencies and
the Office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is conflicts which would result, or if after submission of appropriate
beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the amendments the people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos
Lambino Group's proposed changes, it is readily apparent that the changes would prevail in the government of this State. The same result would
will radically alter the framework of government as set forth in the obtain from an amendment, for instance, of Section 1 of Article V, to
Constitution. Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading member of the provide for only a Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and there could
Constitutional Commission, writes: be other examples too numerous to detail. These examples point
unerringly to the answer.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable
provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to improve The purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men and
specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new women and many sessions of the Legislature in bringing about the
conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate inconsistencies and conflicts and
that are judged to be dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original to give the State a workable, accordant, homogenous and up-to-date
intention and plan contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or document. All of this could disappear very quickly if we were to hold
of provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the entire that it could be amended in the manner proposed in the initiative
document, to determine how and to what extent they should be altered. Thus, petition here.43 (Emphasis supplied)
for instance a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary
system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire The rationale of the Adams decision applies with greater force to the present
constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to petition. The Lambino Group's initiative not only seeks a shift from a bicameral
to a unicameral legislature, it also seeks to merge the executive and legislative Constitution. Thus, the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed
departments. The initiative in Adams did not even touch the executive changes in the present initiative constitute a revision if Congress or a
department. constitutional convention had drafted the changes. However, since the
Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the proposed changes, the
In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of the changes are merely amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group
Florida Constitution that would be affected by the shift from a bicameral to a trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental law of the land.
unicameral legislature. In the Lambino Group's present initiative, no less than
105 provisions of the Constitution would be affected based on the count The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the
of Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.44 There is no doubt that the Constitution contradict the Lambino Group's theory. Where the intent of the
Lambino Group's present initiative seeks far more radical changes in the framers and the language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated,
structure of government than the initiative in Adams. courts do not deviate from such categorical intent and language.45 Any theory
espousing a construction contrary to such intent and language deserves scant
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between "amendment" and consideration. More so, if such theory wreaks havoc by creating
"revision" is only one of procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group inconsistencies in the form of government established in the Constitution.
posits that when a deliberative body drafts and proposes changes to the Such a theory, devoid of any jurisprudential mooring and inviting
Constitution, substantive changes are called "revisions" because members of inconsistencies in the Constitution, only exposes the flimsiness of the Lambino
the deliberative body work full-time on the changes. However, the same Group's position. Any theory advocating that a proposed change involving a
substantive changes, when proposed through an initiative, are called radical structural change in government does not constitute a revision justly
"amendments" because the changes are made by ordinary people who do deserves rejection.
not make an "occupation, profession, or vocation" out of such endeavor.
The Lambino Group simply recycles a theory that initiative proponents in
Thus, the Lambino Group makes the following exposition of their theory in their American jurisdictions have attempted to advance without any success.
Memorandum: In Lowe v. Keisling,46 the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected this theory,
thus:
99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional
provisions expressly provide for both "amendment" and "revision" Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes
when it speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the to the constitution proposed by initiative. His theory is that Article
same provisions expressly provide only for "amendment" when it XVII, section 2 merely provides a procedure by which the
speaks of the people. It would seem that the apparent distinction is legislature can propose a revision of the constitution, but it does
based on the actual experience of the people, that on one hand the not affect proposed revisions initiated by the people.
common people in general are not expected to work full-time on the
matter of correcting the constitution because that is not their Plaintiffs argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a
occupation, profession or vocation; while on the other hand, the wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through
legislators and constitutional convention delegates are expected to the initiative process. They assert that the distinction between
work full-time on the same matter because that is their occupation, amendment and revision is determined by reviewing the scope and
profession or vocation. Thus, the difference between the words subject matter of the proposed enactment, and that revisions are not
"revision" and "amendment" pertain only to the process or limited to "a formal overhauling of the constitution." They argue that
procedure of coming up with the corrections, for purposes of this ballot measure proposes far reaching changes outside the lines of
interpreting the constitutional provisions. the original instrument, including profound impacts on existing
fundamental rights and radical restructuring of the government's
100. Stated otherwise, the difference between "amendment" and relationship with a defined group of citizens. Plaintiffs assert that,
"revision" cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the because the proposed ballot measure "will refashion the most basic
correction. x x x x (Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied) principles of Oregon constitutional law," the trial court correctly held
that it violated Article XVII, section 2, and cannot appear on the ballot
The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional without the prior approval of the legislature.
convention had drafted the same proposed changes that the Lambino Group
wrote in the present initiative, the changes would constitute a revision of the
 We first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2(1), of checks-and-balances among or within the three branches. These three
does not prohibit revisions instituted by initiative. In Holmes v. examples are located at the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far
Appling, x x x, the Supreme Court concluded that a revision of the red end where the revision sought by the present petition is located.
constitution may not be accomplished by initiative, because of the
provisions of Article XVII, section 2. After reviewing Article XVII, However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment
section1, relating to proposed amendments, the court said: or a revision. A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution
may be a revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the
"From the foregoing it appears that Article IV, Section 1, authorizes word "republican" with "monarchic" or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II50 of
the use of the initiative as a means of amending the Oregon the Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of government and the
Constitution, but it contains no similar sanction for its use as a means fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change
of revising the constitution." x x x x will have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other
provisions, as well as how it affects the structure of government, the carefully
It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said: crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis
"It is the only section of the constitution which provides the means for of the existing Constitution.
constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an individual,
through the initiative, may place such a measure before the Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions
electorate." x x x x of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best
suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only
Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, several provisions, but also the altered principles with those that remain
section 2, does not apply to constitutional revisions proposed by unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like
initiative. (Emphasis supplied) constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake revisions.
On the other hand, constitutions allow people's initiatives, which do not have
Similarly, this Court must reject the Lambino Group's theory which negates fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to
the express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution. undertake only amendments and not revisions.

We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed Section 2 of the
for amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of Transitory Provisions states:
the spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is
an amendment or revision. The present initiative is indisputably located at the Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
far end of the red spectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
a radical overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three co- 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
equal departments of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of
several sections and articles of the Constitution. Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall
Constitution without affecting any other section or article, the change may be amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
generally be considered an amendment and not a revision. For example, a government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
change reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15 years47 is an amendment
and not a revision. Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably
media companies from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a inconsistent with a prior law, the later law prevails. This rule also applies to
revision.48 Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional construction of constitutions. However, the Lambino Group's draft of Section
qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a 2 of the Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by
revision.49 stating that in case of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision
"shall be amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or government." The effect is to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the
articles of the Constitution other than the specific provision being amended. earlier one "shall be amended," which requires a future separate constitutional
These changes do not also affect the structure of government or the system amendment.
Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment, petitioner Atty. does not comply with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the
Lambino readily conceded during the oral arguments that the requirement of initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.
a future amendment is a "surplusage." In short, Atty. Lambino wants to
reinstate the rule of statutory construction so that the later provision This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a
automatically prevails in case of irreconcilable inconsistency. However, it is statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds.
not as simple as that. Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that
courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of the resolved on some other grounds.51
Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the
between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not
"Parliamentary system of government," and the inconsistency shall be change the result here because the present petition violates Section 2, Article
resolved in favor of a "unicameral parliamentary form of government." XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the present initiative must first
comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution even before complying
Now, what "unicameral parliamentary form of government" do the Lambino with RA 6735.
Group's proposed changes refer to ― the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli,
or New Zealand models, which are among the few countries with unicameral Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which
parliaments? The proposed changes could not possibly refer to the requires that the "petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have
traditional and well-known parliamentary forms of government ― the British, at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
French, Spanish, German, Italian, Canadian, Australian, or Malaysian models, signatories." Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people must sign
which have all bicameral parliaments. Did the people who signed the the "petition x x x as signatories."
signature sheets realize that they were adopting the Bangladeshi,
Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand parliamentary form of government? The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August 2006 or the
amended petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the COMELEC. Only Atty.
This drives home the point that the people's initiative is not meant for revisions Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed
of the Constitution but only for amendments. A shift from the present the petition and amended petition as counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and
Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires Erico B. Aumentado, Petitioners." In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group,
harmonizing several provisions in many articles of the Constitution. Revision claiming to act "together with" the 6.3 million signatories, merely attached the
of the Constitution through a people's initiative will only result in gross signature sheets to the petition and amended petition. Thus, the petition and
absurdities in the Constitution. amended petition filed with the COMELEC did not even comply with the basic
requirement of RA 6735 that the Lambino Group claims as valid.
In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's initiative is a
revision and not an amendment. Thus, the present initiative is void and The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA
unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution 6735 stating, "No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be
limiting the scope of a people's initiative to "[A]mendments to this submitted to the electorate; x x x." The proposed Section 4(4) of the
Constitution." Transitory Provisions, mandating the interim Parliament to propose further
amendments or revisions to the Constitution, is a subject matter totally
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary unrelated to the shift in the form of government. Since the present initiative
embraces more than one subject matter, RA 6735 prohibits submission of the
The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic initiative petition to the electorate. Thus, even if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino
requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and Group's initiative will still fail.
scope of a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to
revisit this Court's ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, 4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to cover the system Dismissing the Lambino Group's Initiative
of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal
of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc
Court must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's Initiative for
Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.52 For following prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people's
this Court's ruling, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the fundamental covenant that provides enduring stability to our society ―
COMELEC. On this ground alone, the present petition warrants outright becomes easily susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups
dismissal. Thus, this Court should reiterate its unanimous ruling in PIRMA: gathering signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to
be the bedrock of the nation's stability.
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice." However,
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, in
complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in G.R. the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that "ULAP maintains
No. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria
June 10, 1997. Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms." The Lambino Group thus admits
that their "people's" initiative is an "unqualified support to the agenda" of the
5. Conclusion incumbent President to change the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to
be wary of incantations of "people's voice" or "sovereign will" in the present
The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost initiative.
respect and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize
the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the
clearly specified modes of amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign will, is
Constitution itself. the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the
Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by
To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is
in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political to allow a desecration of the Constitution. To allow such alteration and
group of the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.
Constitution outside the constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the new
dominant political group that comes will demand its own set of changes in the WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
same cavalier and unconstitutional fashion. A revolving-door constitution does
not augur well for the rule of law in this country. SO ORDERED.

An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
the total votes cast53 − approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
on 11 February 1987. That approval is the unmistakable voice of the Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
people, the full expression of the people's sovereign will. That approval
included the prescribed modes for amending or revising the ____________________
Constitution.
EN BANC
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 G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
modes that the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they
ratified the Constitution. The alternative is an extra-constitutional change,
RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH
which means subverting the people's sovereign will and discarding the
6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ET
Constitution. This is one act the Court cannot and should never do. As the
AL.
ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn
duty to defend and protect the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign
will of the people. SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION

Incantations of "people's voice," "people's sovereign will," or "let the people PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
decide" cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as
Without the rule of law, there can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty. initiative on the Constitution. I completely agree with the inspired and
inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno and Mr. Justice
Beverley McLachlin 1 Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law on initiative,
Chief Justice of Canada sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments
to the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat nor
elaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en
After a deep reflection on the issues raised and a careful evaluation of the
banc rulings in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on
parties' respective arguments -- both oral and written -- as well as the
Elections, that "provisions for initiative . . . are (to be) liberally
enlightened and enlightening Opinions submitted by my esteemed colleagues,
construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not hamper the
I am fully convinced that the present Petition must be dismissed.
exercise by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia vs.
Comelec, that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's
I write, however, to show that my present disposition is completely consistent initiatives ought to be rejected."
with my previous Opinions and votes on the two extant Supreme Court cases
involving an initiative to change the Constitution.
"No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details.
In recognition of this, R.A. 6735 wisely empowered the Commission
In my Separate Opinion in Santiago v. Comelec,2 I opined "that taken together on Election "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto,
Sec. 2), Republic Act 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than the Comelec issued its Resolution 2300 on 16 January 1991. Such
sufficient Resolution, by its very words, was promulgated "to govern the conduct
of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on
__________________ national and local laws," not by the incumbent Commission on
Elections but by one then composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B.
'SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly Yorac, Comms. Alfredo
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per the Constitution."
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of __________________
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.'
E. Abueg, Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama
"With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and and Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed
all too extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we
exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. cannot ascribe any vile motive unto them, other than an honest,
What Citizen Delfin wants the Comelec to do we should reject. But we sincere and exemplary effort to give life to a cherished right of our
should not thereby preempt any future effort to exercise the right of people.
initiative correctly and judiciously. The fact that the Delfin Petition
proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper
"The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to
use. Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time
national laws and local legislations, it is void in reference to
and for the right reason.
constitutional amendments. There is no basis for such differentiation.
The source of and authority for the Resolution is the same law, R.A.
Taken Together and Interpreted Properly, 6735.
the Constitution, R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution
2300 Are Sufficient to Implement Constitutional Initiatives
"I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and
liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and
"While R.A. 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to
openly concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the
respectfully submit, it contains enough provisions to effectuate an Constitution.
 Petitioner Delfin and the Pedrosa discretion. Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only
Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled recourse open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have
constituted defiance of the Court and would have been struck down
"I am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary as grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this
restraining order issued by this Court on 18 December 1996 insofar as Court's supremacy as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies.
it prohibited Petitioner Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from
exercising their right of initiative. In fact, I believe that such restraining Second Issue:
order as against private respondents should not have been issued, in Sufficiency of RA 6735
the first place. While I agree that the Comelec should be stopped from
using public funds and government resources to help them gather "I repeat my firm legal position that RA 6735 is adequate to cover
signatures, I firmly believe that this Court has no power to restrain initiatives on the Constitution, and that whatever administrative
them from exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose details may have been omitted in said law are satisfactorily
amendments to the Constitution is really a species of the right of free provided by Comelec Resolution 2300. The promulgation of
speech and free assembly. And certainly, it would be tyrannical and Resolution 2300 is sanctioned by Section 2, Article IX-C of the
despotic to stop anyone from speaking freely and persuading others Constitution, which vests upon the Comelec the power to "enforce and
to conform to his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire once said, 'I may administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." The Omnibus
say it.' After all, freedom is not really for the thought we agree with, but Election Code likewise empowers the electoral body to "promulgate
as Justice Holmes wrote, 'freedom for the thought that we hate.' rules and regulations implementing the provisions of this Code or other
laws which the Commission is required to enforce and administer x x
Epilogue x." Finally and most relevantly, Section 20 of Ra 6735 specifically
authorizes Comelec "to promulgate rules and regulations as may be
"By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
Opinion. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured
feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are "In my dissent in Santiago, I wrote that "there is a right way to do
institutionalized legacies of the world-admired EDSA people power. the right thing at the right time and for the right reason." Let me
Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of explain further.
popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our people
to be used as The Right Thing

Six months after, in my Separate Opinion in People's Initiative for Reform, "A people's initiative is direct democracy in action. It is the right thing
Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. Comelec,3 I joined the rest of the that citizens may avail themselves of to articulate their will. It is a new
members of the Court in ruling "by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. Even the
discretion could be attributed to the Comelec in dismissing the petition filed by majority implicitly conceded its value and worth in our legal firmament
when it implored Congress "not to tarry any longer in complying with
__________________ the constitutional mandate to provide for implementation of the right
(of initiative) of the people x x x." Hence, in the en banc case of Subic
Constitution x x x." While concededly, petitioners in this case were not Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Comelec, [G.R. No. 125416,
direct parties in Santiago, nonetheless the Court's injunction against September 26, 1996], this Court unanimously held that "(l)ike
the Comelec covered ANY petition, not just the Delfin petition which elections, initiative and referendum are powerful and valuable modes
was the immediate subject of said case. As a dissenter in Santiago, of expressing popular
I believed, and still do, that the majority gravely erred in rendering
such a sweeping injunction, but I cannot fault the Comelec for PIRMA therein," since the Commission had "only complied" with
complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed with said the Santiago Decision.
decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec was directly
enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice but to __________________
obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of
sovereignty. And this Court as a matter of policy and doctrine will exert signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits
every effort to nurture, protect and promote their legitimate exercise." and voters' identification cards. In deciding whether the petition is
sufficient, the Comelec shall also determine if the proposition is proper
The Right Way for an initiative, i.e., if it consists of an amendment, not a revision, of
the Constitution. Any decision of the electoral body may be appealed
"From the outset, I have already maintained the view that "taken to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice.
together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution
(particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), RA 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 I added "that my position upholding the adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity
provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and of Comelec Resolution 2300 will not ipso
realize our people's power to amend the Constitution." Let me now
demonstrate the adequacy of RA 6735 by outlining, in concrete terms, __________________
the steps to be taken – the right way – to amend the Constitution
through a people's initiative. "Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, and after the
determination of its sufficiency, the Comelec shall publish the same in
"Pursuant to Section 3(f) of the law, the Comelec shall prescribe the Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local
form of the petition which shall contain the proposition and the required circulation, and set the date of the plebiscite. The conduct of the
number of signatories. Under Sec. 5(c) thereof, the petition shall state plebiscite should not be earlier than sixty (60) days, but not later than
the following: ninety (90) days after certification by the Comelec of the sufficiency of
the petition. The proposition, if approved by a majority of the votes cast
'c.1 contents or text of the [provision or provisions] sought to in the plebiscite, becomes effective as of the day of the plebiscite.
be x x x amended, x x x;
"From the foregoing, it should be clear that my position upholding the
c.2 the proposition [in full text]; adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 will
not ipso facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor [fully and clearly explained]; plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Far from it. Among others,
PIRMA must still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issues:
c.4 that it is not one of exceptions provided herein;
1. Does the proposed change – the lifting of the term limits of elective
officials -- constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
Constitution?
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one
2. Which registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the
hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed
petition? This question is relevant considering that under RA 8189, the
at the top of every page of the petition.'
old registry of voters used in the 1995 national elections was voided
after the barangay elections on May 12, 1997, while the new list may
"Section 8(f) of Comelec Resolution 2300 additionally requires that the be used starting only in the elections of May 1998.
petition include a formal designation of the duly authorized
representatives of the signatories.
3. Does the clamor for the proposed change in the Constitution really
emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiative? Or it is
"Being a constitutional requirement, the number of signatures the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such
becomes a condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is move to advance their own political self-interest?
jurisdictional. Without such requisite signatures, the Commission
shall motu proprio reject the petition.
4. Are the six million signatures genuine and verifiable? Do they really
belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at least 12% of the
"Where the initiators have substantially complied with the above registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is
requirements, they may thence file the petition with the Comelec which represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein?
is tasked to determine the sufficiency thereof and to verify the
 "I shall expound on the third question in the next section, The Right specified that 'initiative is entirely the work of the electorate x x x a
Reason. Question Nos. 1 and 2 above, while important, are basically process of lawmaking by the people themselves without the
legal in character and can be determined by argumentation and participation and against the wishes of their elected
memoranda. However, Question No. 4 involves not only legal issues representatives.' As ponente of Subic Bay, I stand foursquare on
but gargantuan hurdles of factual determination. This to my mind is the this principle: The right to amend through initiative belongs only
crucible, the litmus test, of a people's petition for initiative. If herein to the people – not to the government and its minions. This
petitioners, led by PIRMA, succeed in proving -- not just alleging -- that principle finds clear support from utterances of many constitutional
six million voters of this country indeed want to amend the commissioners like those quoted below:
Constitution, what power on earth can stop them? Not this Court, not
the Comelec, not even the President or Congress. "[Initiative is] a reserve power of the sovereign people, when they are
dissatisfied with the National Assembly x x x [and] precisely a fallback
facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a plebiscite to position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied." --
amend the Constitution. Far from it." I stressed that PIRMA must show the Commissioner Ople
following, among others:
"[Initiative is] a check on a legislative that is not responsive [and
__________________ resorted to] only if the legislature is not as responsive to the vital and
urgent needs of people." -- Commissioner Gascon
"It took only one million people to stage a peaceful revolution at EDSA,
and the very rafters and foundations of the martial law society (1) The proposed change -- the lifting of term limits of elective officials --
trembled, quaked and crumbled. On the other hand, PIRMA and its "constitute[s] a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution."
co-petitioners are claiming that they have gathered six million
signatures. If, as claimed by many, these six million signatures are _________________
fraudulent, then let them be exposed and damned for all history in a
signature-verification process conducted under our open system of "[Initiative is an] extraordinary power given to the people [and]
legal advocacy. reserved for the people [which] should not be frivolously resorted to."
-- Commissioner Romulo
"More than anything else, it is the truth that I, as a member of this Court
and as a citizen of this country, would like to seek: Are these six million "Indeed, if the powers-that-be desire to amend the Constitution, or
signatures real? By insisting on an entirely new doctrine of statutory even to revise it, our Charter itself provides them other ways of doing
inadequacy, the majority effectively suppressed the quest for that so, namely, by calling a constitutional convention or constituting
truth. Congress into a constituent assembly. These are officialdom's
weapons. But initiative belongs to the people.
The Right Reason
"In the present case, are PIRMA and its co-petitioners legitimate
"As mentioned, the third question that must be answered, even if the people's organizations or are they merely fronts for incumbents who
adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 want to extend their terms? This is a factual question which,
were upheld by the majority is: Does the clamor for the proposed unfortunately, cannot be judicially answered anymore, because the
change to the Constitution really emanate from the people who signed Supreme Court majority ruled that the law that implements it, RA 6735,
the petition for initiative? Or is it the beneficiaries of term extension is inadequate or insufficient insofar as initiatives to the Constitutions
who are in fact orchestrating such move to advance their own political are concerned. With such ruling, the majority effectively abrogated a
self-interests? In other words, is PIRMA's exercise of the right to constitutional right of our people. That is why in my Separate Opinion
initiative being done in accordance with our Constitution and our laws? in Santiago, I exclaimed that such precipitate action "is equivalent to
Is such attempted exercise legitimate? burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and to killing the
patient to relieve him of pain." I firmly maintain that to defeat PIRMA's
"In Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, we described initiative, along effort, there is no need to "burn" the constitutional right to initiative. If
with referendum, as the 'ultimate weapon of the people to negate PIRMA's exercise is not "legitimate," it can be exposed as such in the
government malfeasance and misfeasance.' In Subic Bay, we ways I have discussed – short of abrogating the right itself. On the
 other hand, if PIRMA's position is proven to be legitimate – if it hurdles person may question the authenticity of each and every signature,
the four issues I outlined earlier – by all means, we should allow and initially before the election registrar, then before the Comelec on
encourage it. But the majority's theory of statutory inadequacy has pre- appeal and finally, before this Court in a separate proceeding.
empted – unnecessarily and invalidly, in my view – any judicial Moreover, the plebiscite itself – assuming such stage can be reached
determination of such legitimacy or illegitimacy. It has silenced the – may be scheduled only after sixty (60) but not more than ninety (90)
quest for truth into the interstices of the PIRMA petition. days, from the time the Comelec and this Court, on appeal, finally
declare the petition to be sufficient.
The Right Time
"Meanwhile, under Comelec Resolution 2946, political parties, groups
"The Constitution itself sets a time limitation on when changes thereto organizations or coalitions may start selecting their official candidates
may be proposed. Section 2 of Article XVII precludes amendments for President, Vice President and Senators on November 27, 1997;
"within five years following [its] ratification x x x nor oftener than once the period for filing certificates of candidacy is from January 11 to
every five years thereafter." Since its ratification, the 1987 Constitution February 9, 1998; the election period and campaign for national
has never been amended. Hence, the five-year prohibition is now officials start on February 10, 1998, while the campaign period for
inoperative and amendments may theoretically be proposed at any other elective officials, on March 17, 1998. This means, by the time
time. PIRMA's proposition is ready – if ever – for submission directly to the
voters at large, it will have been overcome by the elections. Time will
"Be that as it may, I believe – given the present circumstances – that simply run out on PIRMA, if the intention is to lift term limits in time for
there is no more time to lift term limits to enable incumbents to seek the 1998 elections.
reelection in the May 11, 1998 polls. Between today and the next
national "That term limits may no longer be lifted prior to the 1998 elections via
a people's initiative does not detract one whit from (1) my firm
(2) The "six million signatures are genuine and verifiable"; and they "really conviction that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate to implement this
belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at constitutional right and, more important, (2) my faith in the power of
the people to initiate changes in local and national laws and the
Constitution. In fact, I think the Court can deliberate on these two items
__________________
even more serenely and wisely now that the debates will be free from
the din and distraction of the 1998 elections. After all, jurisprudence is
elections, less than eight (8) months remain. Santiago, where the not merely for the here and now but, more so, for the hereafter and the
single issue of the sufficiency of RA 6735 was resolved, took this Court morrow. Let me therefore stress, by way of epilogue, my unbending
three (3) months, and another two (2) months to decide the motion for credo in favor of our people's right to initiative.
reconsideration. The instant case, where the same issue is also raised
by the petitioners, took two months, not counting a possible motion for
least 12% of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district
reconsideration. These time spans could not be abbreviated any
is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein."
further, because due process requires that all parties be given
sufficient time to file their pleadings.
__________________
"Thus, even if the Court were to rule now in favor of the adequacy of
RA 6735 – as I believe it should – and allow the Comelec to act on the Epilogue
PIRMA petition, such eight-month period will not be enough to tackle
the four weighty issues I mentioned earlier, considering that two of "I believe in democracy – in our people's natural right to determine our
them involve tedious factual questions. The Comelec's decision on own destiny.
any of these issues can still be elevated to this Court for review, and
reconsiderations on our decisions on each of those issues may again "I believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of
be sought. enabling our people to express their will and chart their history.
Initiative is an alternative to bloody revolution, internal chaos and civil
"Comelec's herculean task alone of verifying each of the six million strife. It is an inherent right of the people – as basic as the right to
signatures is enormously time-consuming, considering that any elect, the right to self-determination and the right to individual liberties.
 I believe that Filipinos have the ability and the capacity to rise above No Grave Abuse
themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and maturely, and to
choose what is best for themselves and their posterity. of Discretion by Comelec

"Such beliefs, however, should not be equated with a desire to As in PIRMA, I find no grave abuse of discretion in Comelec's dismissal of the
perpetuate a particular official or group of officials in power. Far from Lambino Petition. After all, the Commission merely followed the holding
it. Such perpetuation is anathema to democracy. My firm conviction in Santiago permanently
that there is an adequate law implementing the constitutional right of
initiative does not ipso facto result in the victory of the PIRMA petition ____________________
or of any proposed constitutional change. There are, after all, sufficient
safeguards to guarantee the proper use of such constitutional right
"In the ultimate, the mission of the judiciary is to discover truth and to
and to forestall its misuse and abuse. First, initiative cannot be used
make it prevail. This mission is undertaken not only to resolve the
to revise the Constitution, only to amend it. Second, the petitioners'
vagaries of present events but also to build the pathways of tomorrow.
signatures must be validated against an existing list of voters and/or
The sum total of the entire process of adversarial litigation is the verity
voters' identification cards. Third, initiative is a reverse power of and
of facts and the application of law thereto. By the majority cop-out in
by the people, not of incumbent officials and their
this mission of discovery, our country and our people have been
machinators. Fourth and most important of all, the signatures must be
deprived not only of a basic constitutional right, as earlier noted, but
verified as real and genuine; not concocted, fictitious or fabricated. The
also of the judicial opportunity to verify the truth."
only legal way to do this is to enable the Commission on Elections to
conduct a nationwide verification process as mandated by the
Constitution and the law. Such verification, it bears stressing, is enjoining the poll body "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
subject to review by this Court. for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have
been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system."
"There were, by the most generous estimate, only a million people who
gathered at EDSA in 1986, and yet they changed the history of our Indeed, the Comelec did not violate the Constitution, the laws or any
country. PIRMA claims six times that number, not just from the jurisprudence.4 Neither can whim, caprice, arbitrariness or personal bias
National Capital Region but from all over the country. Is this claim be attributed to the Commission.5 Quite the contrary, it prudently followed
through the invention of its novel theory of statutory insufficiency, the this Court's jurisprudence in Santiago and PIRMA. Even assuming arguendo
Court's majority has stifled the only legal method of determining that Comelec erred in ruling on a very difficult and unsettled question of law,
whether PIRMA is real or not, whether there is indeed a popular clamor this Court still cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the poll body with
to lift term limits of elected officials, and whether six million voters want respect to that action.6
to initiate amendments to their most basic law. In suppressing a
judicial answer to such questions, the Court may have unwittingly The present Lambino Petition is in exactly the same situation as that of PIRMA
yielded to PIRMA the benefit of the legal presumption of legality and in 1997. The differences pointed out by Justice Reynato S. Puno are, with due
regularity. In its misplaced zeal to exterminate the rats, it burned down respect, superficial. It is argued that, unlike the present Lambino
the whole house. It unceremoniously divested the people of a basic Petition, PIRMA did not contain verified signatures. These are distinctions that
constitutional right. do not make a difference. Precisely, Justice Puno is urging a remand, because
the verification issue is "contentious" and remains unproven by
In both Opinions, I concluded that we must implement "the right thing petitioners. Clearly, both the PIRMA and the Lambino Petitions contain
[initiative] in the right way at the right time and for the right reason." unverified signatures. Therefore, they both deserve the same treatment:
DISMISSAL.
In the present case, I steadfastly stand by my foregoing Opinions
in Santiago and PIRMA. Tested against them, the present Petition of Raul Besides, the only reason given in the unanimous Resolution on PIRMA v.
Lambino and Erico Aumentado must be DISMISSED. Unfortunately, Comelec was that the Commission had "only complied" with this Court's
the right thing is being rushed in the wrong way and for the wrong Decision in Santiago, the same reason given by Comelec in this case. The
reasons. Let me explain. Separate Opinions in PIRMA gave no other reason. No one argued, even
remotely, that the PIRMA Petition should have been dismissed because
the signatures were unverified.
To stress, I adhere to my Opinion in PIRMA that, "[b]eing a constitutional cited the historical, philosophical and jurisprudential bases of their respective
requirement, the number of signatures becomes a condition precedent to the positions. I will not add to the woes of the reader by reiterating them here.
filing of the petition, and is jurisdictional.7 Without those signatures, the
Comelec shall motu proprio reject the petition." Suffice it to say that, to me, the practical test to differentiate an amendment
from a revision is found in the Constitution itself: a revision may be done only
So, until and unless Santiago is revisited and changed by this Court or the when the proposed change can be drafted, defined, articulated,
legal moorings of the exercise of the right are substantially changed, the discussed and agreed upon after a mature and democratic debate in a
Comelec cannot be faulted for acting in accord with this Court's deliberative body like Congress or a Convention. The changes proposed
pronouncements. Respondent Commission has no discretion, under any must necessarily be scrutinized, as their adoption or non-adoption must result
guise, to refuse enforcement of any final decision of this Court.8 The from an informed judgment.
refusal of the poll body to act on the Lambino Petition was its only recourse.
Any other mode of action would appear not only presumptuous, but also Indeed, the constitutional bodies that drafted the 1935, the 1972 and the 1987
contemptuous. It would have constituted defiance of the Court and would have Constitutions had to spend many months of purposeful discussions,
surely been struck down as grave abuse of discretion and contumacious democratic debates and rounds of voting before they could agree on the
disregard of the supremacy of this Court as the final arbiter of justiciable wordings covering the philosophy, the underlying principles, and the structure
controversies. of government of our Republic.

Even assuming further that this Court rules, as I believe it should (for the Verily, even bills creating or changing the administrative structure of local
reasons given in my Opinions in Santiago and PIRMA), that Republic Act 6735 governments take several weeks or even months of drafting, reading, and
is indeed sufficient to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution, still, debating before Congress can approve them. How much more when it comes
no grave abuse of discretion can be attributed to the Comelec for merely to constitutional changes?
following prevailing jurisprudence extant at the time it rendered its ruling in
question. A change in the form of government of our country from presidential-bicameral
to parliamentary-unicameral is monumental. Even the initiative proponents
Only Amendments, admit this fact. So, why should a revision be rammed down our people's
throats without the benefit of intelligent discussion in a deliberative assembly?
Not Revisions
Added to the constitutional mandate barring revisions is the provision of RA
I reiterate that only amendments, not revisions, may be the proper subject 6735 expressly prohibiting petitions for initiative from "embracing more than
of an initiative to change the Constitution. This principle is crystal clear from one subject matter."10 The present initiative covers at least two subjects: (1)
even a layperson's reading of the basic law.9 the shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government; and (2) the
change from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.11 Thus, even under
I submit that changing the system of government from presidential to Republic Act 6735 -- the law that Justice Puno and I hold to be sufficient and
parliamentary and the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral valid -- the Lambino Petition deserves dismissal.
contemplates an overhaul of the structure of government. The ponencia
has amply demonstrated that the merger of the legislative and the executive 12 Percent and 3 Percent Thresholds
branches under a unicameral-parliamentary system, "[b]y any legal test and Not Proven by Petitioners
under any jurisdiction," will "radically alter the framework of government as set
forth in the Constitution." Indeed, the proposed changes have an overall The litmus test of a people's petition for initiative is its ability to muster the
implication on the entire Constitution; they effectively rewrite its most important constitutional requirement that it be supported by at least 12 percent of the
and basic provisions. The prolixity and complexity of the changes cannot be registered voters nationwide, of which at least 3 percent of the registered
categorized, even by semantic generosity, as "amendments." voters in every legislative district must be represented. As pointed out by
Intervenors One Voice, Inc., et al., however, records show that there was a
In addition, may I say that of the three modes of changing the Constitution, failure to meet the minimum percentages required.12
revisions (or amendments) may be proposed only through the first two: by
Congress or by a constitutional convention. Under the third mode -- people's
initiative -- only amendments are allowed. Many of the justices' Opinions have
Even Justice Puno concedes that the 12 percent and 3 percent constitutional · Jurisprudence (specifically, PIRMA v. Comelec, which dismissed the
requirements involve "contentious facts," which have not been proven by the Petition then under consideration on the ground that, by following
Lambino Petition. Thus, he is urging a remand to the Comelec. the Santiago ruling, the Comelec had not gravely abused its discretion).

But a remand is both imprudent and futile. It is imprudent because the I submit further that a remand of the Lambino Petition is both imprudent and
Constitution itself mandates the said requisites of an initiative petition. In other futile. More tellingly, it is a cop-out, a hand-washing already discredited 2000
words, a petition that does not show the required percentages is fatally years ago. Instead of finger-pointing, I believe we must confront the issues
defective and must be dismissed, as the Delfin Petition was, in Santiago. head on, because the people expect no less from this august and venerable
institution of supreme justice.
Furthermore, as the ponencia had discussed extensively, the present Petition
is void and unconstitutional. It points out that the Petition dismally fails to Epilogue
comply with the constitutional requirement that an initiative must be directly
proposed by the people. Specifically, the ponencia has amply established that At bottom, the issue in this case is simply the Rule of Law.13 Initiative, like
petitioners were unable to show that the Lambino Petition contained, or referendum and recall, is a treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional
incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed changes. system. It was born out of our world-admired and often-imitated People Power,
but its misuse and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Democracy must be
So, too, a remand is futile. Even if the required percentages are proven cherished, but mob rule vanquished.
before the Commission, the Petition must still be dismissed for
proposing a revision, not an amendment, in gross violation of the The Constitution is a sacred social compact, forged between the
Constitution. At the very least, it proposes more than one subject, in violation government and the people, between each individual and the rest of the
of Republic Act 6735. citizenry. Through it, the people have solemnly expressed their will that all of
them shall be governed by laws, and their rights limited by agreed-upon
Summation covenants to promote the common good. If we are to uphold the Rule of Law
and reject the rule of the mob, we must faithfully abide by the processes
Petitioners plead with this Court to hear the voice of the people because, in the Constitution has ordained in order to bring about a peaceful, just and
the words of Justice Puno who supports them, the "people's voice is sovereign humane society. Assuming arguendo that six million people allegedly gave
in a democracy." their assent to the proposed changes in the Constitution, they are
nevertheless still bound by the social covenant -- the present Constitution
I, too, believe in heeding the people's voice. I reiterate my Separate -- which was ratified by a far greater majority almost twenty years ago.14 I do
Opinion in PIRMA that "initiative is a democratic method of enabling our not denigrate the majesty of the sovereign will; rather, I elevate our society to
people to express their will and chart their history. x x x. I believe that Filipinos the loftiest perch, because our government must remain as one of laws
have the ability and the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of and not of men.
initiative wisely and maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and
their posterity." Upon assuming office, each of the justices of the Supreme Court took a
solemn oath to uphold the Constitution. Being the protectors of the
This belief will not, however, automatically and blindly result in an initiative to fundamental law as the highest expression of the sovereign will, they must
change the Constitution, because the present Petition violates the following: subject to the strictest scrutiny any attempt to change it, lest it be trivialized
and degraded by the assaults of the mob and of ill-conceived designs.
The Court must single-mindedly defend the Constitution from bogus
· The Constitution (specifically Article XVII, which allows only amendments,
efforts falsely attributed to the sovereign people.
not revisions, and requires definite percentages of verified signatures)
The judiciary may be the weakest branch of government. Nonetheless, when
· The law (specifically, Republic Act 6735, which prohibits petitions containing
ranged against incessant voices from the more powerful branches of
more than one subject)
government, it should never cower in submission. On the other hand, I daresay
that the same weakness of the Court becomes its strength when it speaks
independently through decisions that rightfully uphold the supremacy of the
Constitution and the Rule of Law. The strength of the judiciary lies not in its
lack of brute power, but in its moral courage to perform its constitutional duty FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
at all times against all odds. Its might is in its being right.15 SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents.

During the past weeks, media outfits have been ablaze with reports and x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
innuendoes about alleged carrots offered and sticks drawn by those interested
in the outcome of this case.16 There being no judicial proof of these allegations, SEPARATE OPINION
I shall not comment on them for the nonce, except to quote the Good Book,
which says, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
secret that will not be known and come to light."17
I agree with the opinion of our esteemed colleague, Justice Reynato Puno,
Verily, the Supreme Court is now on the crossroads of history. By its decision, that the Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC1 is not a binding precedent.
the Court and each of its members shall be judged by posterity. Ten years, However, it is my position that even if Santiago were reversed and Republic
fifty years, a hundred years -- or even a thousand years -- from now, what the Act No. 6735 (R.A. 6735) be held as sufficient law for the purpose of people's
Court did here, and how each justice opined and voted, will still be talked initiative to amend the Constitution, the petition for initiative in this case must
about, either in shame or in pride. Indeed, the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate, nonetheless be dismissed.
the abomination of Dred Scott, and the loathing of Javellana still linger and
haunt to this day.
There is absolutely no showing here that petitioners complied with R.A. 6735,
even as they blindly invoke the said law to justify their alleged people's
Let not this case fall into the same damnation. Rather, let this Court be known initiative. Section 5(b) of R.A. 6735 requires that "[a] petition for an
throughout the nation and the world for its independence, integrity, industry initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per
and intelligence. centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition. centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." On the other hand, Section
5(c)2 of the same law requires that the petition should state, among others, the
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN proposition3 or the "contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
Chief Justice approved or rejected, amended or repealed." If we were to apply Section 5(c)
to an initiative to amend the Constitution, as petitioners submit, the petition for
initiative signed by the required number of voters should incorporate therein a
____________________ text of the proposed changes to the Constitution. However, such requirement
was not followed in the case at bar.
EN BANC
During the oral arguments, petitioner Lambino admitted that they printed a
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 mere 100,000 copies of the text of the proposed changes to the Constitution.
According to him, these were subsequently distributed to their agents all over
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 the country, for attachment to the sheets of paper on which the signatures
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, were to be affixed. Upon being asked, however, if he in fact knew whether the
vs. text was actually attached to the signature sheets which were distributed for
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents. signing, he said that he merely assumed that they were. In other words, he
could not tell the Court for certain whether their representatives complied with
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 this requirement.

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A. Q. The petition filed with the COMELEC, as well as that which was shown to this
SAGUISAG, Petitioners, Court, indubitably establish that the full text of the proposed changes was not
vs. attached to the signature sheets. All that the signature sheets contained was
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. the general proposition and abstract, which falls short of the full text
ABALOS, JR. and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, requirement of R.A. 6735.
The necessity of setting forth the text of the proposed constitutional changes Needless to say, the requirement of setting forth the complete text of the
in the petition for initiative to be signed by the people cannot be seriously proposed changes in the petition for initiative is a safeguard against fraud and
disputed. To begin with, Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution deception. If the whole text of the proposed changes is contained in or
unequivocally states that "[a]mendments to this Constitution may likewise attached to the petition, intercalations and riders may be duly avoided. Only
be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at then can we be assured that the proposed changes are truly of the people and
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which that the signatories have been fully apprised of its implications.
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters therein." Evidently, for the people to propose If a statutory provision is essential to guard against fraud, corruption or
amendments to the Constitution, they must, in the first instance, know exactly deception in the initiative and referendum process, such provision must be
what they are proposing. It is not enough that they merely possess a general viewed as an indispensable requirement and failure to substantially comply
idea of the proposed changes, as the Constitution speaks of a "direct" therewith is fatal.5 The failure of petitioners in this case to comply with the full
proposal by the people. text requirement resultantly rendered their petition for initiative fatally
defective.
Although the framers of the Constitution left the matter of implementing the
constitutional right of initiative to Congress, it might be noted that they The petition for initiative is likewise irretrievably infirm because it violates the
themselves reasonably assumed that the draft of the proposed constitutional one subject rule under Section 10(a) of R.A. 6735:
amendments would be shown to the people during the process of signature
gathering. Thus – SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures.— The following cannot be the subject
of an initiative or referendum petition:
MR. RODRIGO. Section 2 of the complete committee report provides:
"upon petition of at least 10 percent of the registered voters." How will (a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to
we determine that 10 percent has been achieved? How will the voters the electorate; x x x
manifest their desire, is it by signature?
The one subject rule, as relating to an initiative to amend the Constitution, has
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, by signatures. the same object and purpose as the one subject-one bill rule embodied in
Article VI, Section 26(1)6 of the Constitution.7 To elaborate, the one subject-
MR. RODRIGO. Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters one bill rule was designed to do away with the practice of inserting two or more
want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the unrelated provisions in one bill, so that those favoring one provision would be
proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people compelled to adopt the others. By this process of log-rolling, the adoption of
when they are asked to sign? both provisions could be accomplished and ensured, when neither, if standing
alone, could succeed on its own merits.
MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
As applied to the initiative process, the one subject rule is essentially designed
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and to prevent surprise and fraud on the electorate. It is meant to safeguard the
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft? integrity of the initiative process by ensuring that no unrelated riders are
concealed within the terms of the proposed amendment. This in turn
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.4 guarantees that the signatories are fully aware of the nature, scope and
purpose of the proposed amendment.
It may thus be logically assumed that even without Section 5(c) of R.A. 6735,
the full text of the proposed changes must necessarily be stated in or attached Petitioners insist that the proposed changes embodied in their petition for
to the initiative petition. The signatories to the petition must be given an initiative relate only to one subject matter, that is – the shift from presidential
opportunity to fully comprehend the meaning and effect of the proposed to a parliamentary system of government. According to petitioners, all of the
changes to enable them to make a free, intelligent and well-informed choice other proposed changes are merely incidental to this main proposal and are
on the matter. reasonably germane and necessary thereto.8 An examination of the text of the
proposed changes reveals, however, that this is not the case.
The proposed changes to the Constitution cover other subjects that are "Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations
beyond the main proposal espoused by the petitioners. Apart from a shift from of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the
the presidential to a parliamentary form of government, the proposed changes rewriting either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or
include the abolition of one House of Congress,9 and the convening of a perhaps only some of its important provisions. But whatever results
constituent assembly to propose additional amendments to the the revision may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of
Constitution.10 Also included within its terms is an omnibus declaration that revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried
those constitutional provisions under Articles VI and VII, which are out. That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all
inconsistent with the unicameral-parliamentary form of government, shall be the provisions of the constitution to determine which one should be
deemed amended to conform thereto. altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be
replaced with an entirely new one.
It is not difficult to see that while the proposed changes appear to relate only
to a shift in the form of government, it actually seeks to affect other subjects The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a
that are not reasonably germane to the constitutional alteration that is change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
purportedly sought. For one, a shift to a parliamentary system of government amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
does not necessarily result in the adoption of a unicameral legislature. A constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to
parliamentary system can exist in many different "hybrid" forms of improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
government, which may or may not embrace unicameralism.11 In other words, provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
the shift from presidential to parliamentary structure and from a bicameral to suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or
a unicameral legislature is neither the cause nor effect of the other. misleading in their effect."12

I also fail to see the relation of convening a constituent assembly with the The foregoing traditional exposition of the difference between amendment and
proposed change in our system of government. As a subject matter, the revision has indeed guided us throughout our constitutional history. However,
convening of a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution presents a the distinction between the two terms is not, to my mind, as significant in the
range of issues that is far removed from the subject of a shift in government. context of our past constitutions, as it should be now under the 1987
Besides, the constituent assembly is supposed to convene and propose Constitution. The reason for this is apparent. Under our past constitutions, it
amendments to the Constitution after the proposed change in the system of was Congress alone, acting either as a constituent assembly or by calling out
government has already taken place. This only goes to show that the a constitutional convention, that exercised authority to either amend or revise
convening of the constituent assembly is not necessary to effectuate a change the Constitution through the procedures therein described. Although the
to a parliamentary system of government. distinction between the two terms was theoretically recognized under both the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the need to highlight the difference was not as
The omnibus statement that all provisions under Articles VI and VII which are material because it was only Congress that could effect constitutional changes
inconsistent with a unicameral-parliamentary system of government shall be by choosing between the two modalities.
deemed amended is equally bothersome. The statement does not specify
what these inconsistencies and amendments may be, such that everyone is However, it is different now under the 1987 Constitution. Apart from providing
left to guess the provisions that could eventually be affected by the proposed for the two modes of either Congress constituting itself as a constituent
changes. The subject and scope of these automatic amendments cannot even assembly or calling out for a constitutional convention, a third mode was
be spelled out with certainty. There is thus no reasonable measure of its introduced for proposing changes to the Constitution. This mode refers to the
impact on the other constitutional provisions. people's right to propose amendments to the fundamental law through the
filing of a petition for initiative.
The foregoing proposed changes cannot be the subject of a people's initiative
under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Taken together, the proposed Otherwise stated, our experience of what constitutes amendment or revision
changes indicate that the intendment is not simply to effect substantial under the past constitutions is not determinative of what the two terms mean
amendments to the Constitution, but a revision thereof. The distinction now, as related to the exercise of the right to propose either amendments or
between an amendment and revision was explained by Dean Vicente G. revision. The changes introduced to both the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973
Sinco, as follows: could have indeed been deemed an amendment or revision, but the
authority for effecting either would never have been questioned since
the same belonged solely to Congress. In contrast, the 1987 Constitution
clearly limits the right of the people to directly propose constitutional changes substantially altered, and four new topics would be introduced. However, it
to amendments only. We must consequently not be swayed by examples of went on to consider the qualitative effects that the proposed initiative measure
constitutional changes effected prior to the present fundamental law, in would have on California's basic plan of government. It observed that the
determining whether such changes are revisory or amendatory in nature. proposal would alter the checks and balances inherent in such plan, by
delegating far-reaching and mixed powers to an independent commission
In this regard, it should be noted that the distinction laid down by Justice Felix created under the proposed measure. Consequently, the proposal
Q. Antonio in Javellana v. Executive Secretary13 related to the procedure to in McFadden was not only deemed as broad and numerous in physical scope,
be followed in ratifying a completely new charter proposed by a constitutional but was also held as having a substantive effect on the fundamental
convention. The authority or right of the constitutional convention itself to effect governmental plan of the State of California.
such a revision was not put in issue in that case. As far as determining what
constitutes "amendments" for the purpose of a people's initiative, therefore, The dual aspect of the amendment/revision analysis was reiterated by the
we have neither relevant precedent nor prior experience. We must thus California Supreme Court in Raven v. Deukmeijan.15 Proposition 115, as the
confine ourselves to Dean Sinco's basic articulation of the two terms. initiative in that case was called, would vest in the United States Supreme
Court all judicial interpretative powers of the California courts over
It is clear from Dean Sinco's explanation that a revision may either be of the fundamental criminal defense rights in that state. It was observed that
whole or only part of the Constitution. The part need not be a substantial part although quantitatively, the proposition did "not seem so extensive as to
as a change may qualify as a revision even if it only involves some of the change directly the substantial entirety of the Constitution by the deletion or
important provisions. For as long as the intention and plan to be carried out alteration of numerous existing provisions," the same, nonetheless, "would
contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution "to substantially alter the substance and integrity of the state Constitution as a
determine which should be altered or suppressed, or whether the whole document of independent force and effect." Quoting Amador Valley Joint
document should be replaced with an entirely new one," the proposed change Union High School District v. State Board of
may be deemed a revision and not merely an amendment. Equalization,16 the Raven court said:

Thus, it is not by the sheer number alone of the proposed changes that the ". . . apart from a measure effecting widespread deletions, additions
same may be considered as either an amendment or revision. In so and amendments involving many constitutional articles, 'even a
determining, another overriding factor is the "original intention and plan relatively simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching
authorized to be carried out" by the proposed changes. If the same relates to changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to
a re-examination of the entire document to see which provisions remain a revision also…[A]n enactment which purported to vest all judicial
relevant or if it has far-reaching effects on the entire document, then the same power in the Legislature would amount to a revision without regard
constitutes a revision and not a mere amendment of the Constitution. either to the length or complexity of the measure or the number of
existing articles or sections affected by such change.'" (Underscoring
From the foregoing, it is readily apparent that a combination of the quantitative supplied and citations omitted)
and qualitative test is necessary in assessing what may be considered as an
amendment or revision. It is not enough that we focus simply on the physical Thus, in resolving the amendment/revision issue, the California Court
scope of the proposed changes, but also consider what it means in relation to examines both the quantitative and qualitative effects of a proposed measure
the entire document. No clear demarcation line can be drawn to distinguish on its constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could
the two terms and each circumstance must be judged on the basis of its own amount to a revision.17
peculiar conditions. The determination lies in assessing the impact that the
proposed changes may have on the entire instrument, and not simply on an I am persuaded that we can approach the present issue in the same manner.
arithmetical appraisal of the specific provisions which it seeks to affect. The experience of the courts in California is not far removed from the
standards expounded on by Dean Sinco when he set out to differentiate
In McFadden v. Jordan,14 the California Supreme Court laid down the between amendment and revision. It is actually consistent, not only with our
groundwork for the combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment of traditional concept of the two terms, but also with the mindset of our
proposed constitutional changes, in order to determine whether the same is constitutional framers when they referred to the disquisition of Justice Antonio
revisory or merely amendatory. In that case, the McFadden court found the in Javellana.18 We must thus consider whether the proposed changes in this
proposed changes extensive since at least 15 of the 25 articles contained in case affect our Constitution in both its substantial physical entirety and in its
the California Constitution would either be repealed in their entirety or basic plan of government.
The question posed is: do the proposed changes, regardless of whether that are traditionally delineated between the executive and legislature in a
these are simple or substantial, amount to a revision as to be excluded presidential form of government. Necessarily, the checks and balances
from the people's right to directly propose amendments to the inherent in the fundamental plan of our U.S.-style presidential system will be
fundamental law? eliminated. The workings of government shall instead be controlled by the
internal political dynamics prevailing in the parliament.
As indicated earlier, we may apply the quantitative/qualitative test in
determining the nature of the proposed changes. These tests are consistent Our present governmental system is built on the separation of powers among
with Dean Sinco's traditional concept of amendment and revision when he the three branches of government. The legislature is generally limited to the
explains that, quantitatively, revision "may result in the rewriting either of the enactment of laws, the executive to the enforcement of laws and the judiciary
whole constitution, or the greater part of it, or perhaps only some of its to the application of laws. This separation is intended to prevent a
provisions." In any case, he continues, "the factor that characterizes it as an concentration of authority in one person or group that might lead to an
act of revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out." irreversible error or abuse in its exercise to the detriment of our republican
Unmistakably, the latter statement refers to the qualitative effect of the institutions. In the words of Justice Laurel, the doctrine of separation of powers
proposed changes. is intended to secure action, to forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and
obtain efficiency.19
It may thus be conceded that, quantitatively, the changes espoused by the
proponents in this case will affect only two (2) out of the eighteen (18) articles In the proposed parliamentary system, there is an obvious lack of formal
of the 1987 Constitution, namely, Article VI (Legislative Department) and institutional checks on the legislative and executive powers of the state, since
Article VII (Executive Department), as well as provisions that will ensure the both the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet are drawn from
smooth transition from a presidential-bicameral system to a parliamentary- parliament. There are no effective limits to what the Prime Minister and
unicameral structure of government. The quantitative effect of the proposed parliament can do, except the will of the parliamentary majority. This goes
changes is neither broad nor extensive and will not affect the substantial against the central principle of our present constitutional scheme that
entirety of the 1987 Constitution. distributes the powers of government and provides for counteraction among
the three branches. Although both the presidential and parliamentary systems
However, it is my opinion that the proposed changes will have are theoretically consistent with constitutional democracy, the underlying
serious qualitative consequences on the Constitution. The initiative petition, if tenets and resulting governmental framework are nonetheless radically
successful, will undoubtedly alter, not only our basic governmental plan, but different.
also redefine our rights as citizens in relation to government. The proposed
changes will set into motion a ripple effect that will strike at the very foundation Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government
of our basic constitutional plan. It is therefore an impermissible constitutional cannot be regarded as anything but a drastic change. It will require a total
revision that may not be effected through a people's initiative. overhaul of our governmental structure and involve a re-orientation in the
cardinal doctrines that govern our constitutional set-up. As explained by Fr.
Petitioners' main proposal pertains to the shifting of our form of government Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary
from the presidential to the parliamentary system. An examination of their system would be a revision because of its over-all impact on the entire
proposal reveals that there will be a fusion of the executive and legislative constitutional structure.20 It cannot, by any standard, be deemed as a mere
departments into one parliament that will be elected on the basis of constitutional amendment.
proportional representation. No term limits are set for the members of
parliament except for those elected under the party-list system whose terms An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
and number shall be provided by law. There will be a President who shall be separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment
the head of state, but the head of government is the Prime Minister. The latter is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed
and his cabinet shall be elected from among the members of parliament and necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that
shall be responsible to parliament for the program of government. may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In
revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplates
The preceding proposal indicates that, under the proposed system, the a re-examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the
executive and legislature shall be one and the same, such that parliament will document which have over-all implications for the entire document, to
be the paramount governing institution. What this implies is that there will be determine how and to what extent they should be
no separation between the law-making and enforcement powers of the state, altered.21 (Underscoring supplied)
The inclusion of a proposal to convene a constituent assembly likewise shows twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
the intention of the proponents to effect even more far-reaching changes in every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
our fundamental law. If the original intent were to simply shift the form of centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
government to the parliamentary system, then there would have been no need section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
for the calling out of a constituent assembly to propose further amendments this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
to the Constitution. It should be noted that, once convened, a constituent
assembly can do away and replace any constitutional provision which may not The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
even have a bearing on the shift to a parliamentary system of government. this right.
The inclusion of such a proposal reveals the proponents' plan to consider all
provisions of the constitution, either to determine which of its provisions should xxxx
be altered or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced
with an entirely new one.
SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
Consequently, it is not true that only Articles VI and VII are covered by the cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
alleged people's initiative. The proposal to convene a constituent later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
assembly, which by its terms is mandatory, will practically jeopardize the revision.
future of the entire Constitution and place it on shaky grounds. The plan of the
proponents, as reflected in their proposed changes, goes beyond the shifting
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
of government from the presidential to the parliamentary system. Indeed, it
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
could even extend to the "fundamental nature of our state as a democratic and
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification
republican state."
by the Commission of Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
(Underscoring supplied)
To say that the proposed changes will affect only the constitution of
government is therefore a fallacy. To repeat, the combined effect of the
It is clear that the right of the people to directly propose changes to the
proposed changes to Articles VI and VII and those pertaining to the Transitory
Constitution is limited to amendments and does not include a revision thereof.
Provisions under Article XVIII indubitably establish the intent and plan of the
Otherwise, it would have been unnecessary to provide for Section 2 to
proponents to possibly affect even the constitutions of liberty and sovereignty.
distinguish its scope from the rights vested in Congress under Section 1. The
Indeed, no valid reason exists for authorizing further amendments or revisions
latter lucidly states that Congress may propose both amendments and a
to the Constitution if the intention of the proposed changes is truly what it
revision of the Constitution by either convening a constituent assembly or
purports to be.
calling for a constitutional convention. Section 2, on the other hand, textually
commits to the people the right to propose only amendments by direct action.
There is no question here that only amendments to the Constitution may be
undertaken through a people's initiative and not a revision, as textually
To hold, therefore, that Section 2 allows substantial amendments
reflected in the Constitution itself. This conclusion is inevitable especially from
amounting to revision obliterates the clear distinction in scope between
a comparative examination of Section 2 in relation to Sections 1 and 4 of
Sections 1 and 2. The intention, as may be seen from a cursory perusal of
Article XVII, which state:
the above provisions, is to provide differing fields of application for the three
modes of effecting changes to the Constitution. We need not even delve into
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may the intent of the constitutional framers to see that the distinction in scope is
be proposed by: definitely marked. We should thus apply these provisions with a discerning
regard for this distinction. Again, McFadden22 is instructive:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or ". . . The differentiation required is not merely between two words;
more accurately it is between two procedures and between their
(2) A constitutional convention. respective fields of application. Each procedure, if we follow
elementary principles of statutory construction, must be understood to
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly have a substantial field of application, not to be x x x a mere alternative
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least procedure in the same field. Each of the two words, then, must be
 understood to denote, respectively, not only a procedure but also a x x x Although by their constitutions the people have delegated the
field of application appropriate to its procedure. The people of this exercise of sovereign powers to the several departments, they have
state have spoken; they made it clear when they adopted article XVIII not thereby divested themselves of the sovereignty. They retain in their
and made amendment relatively simple but provided the formidable own hands, so far as they have thought it needful to do so, a power to
bulwark of a constitutional convention as a protection against control the governments they create, and the three departments are
improvident or hasty (or any other) revision, that they understood that responsible to and subject to be ordered, directed, changed or
there was a real difference between amendment and revision. We find abolished by them. But this control and direction must be exercised in
nothing whatsoever in the language of the initiative amendment of the legitimate mode previously agreed upon. The voice of the people,
1911 (art. IV, § 1) to effect a breaking down of that difference. On the acting in their sovereign capacity, can be of legal force only when
contrary, the distinction appears to be x x x scrupulously preserved by expressed at the times and under the conditions which they
the express declaration in the amendment x x x that the power to themselves have prescribed and pointed out by the Constitution, or
propose and vote on "amendments to the Constitution" is reserved which, consistently with the Constitution, have been prescribed and
directly to the people in initiative proceedings, while leaving pointed out for them by statute; and if by any portion of the people,
unmentioned the power and the procedure relative to constitutional however large, an attempt should be made to interfere with the regular
revision, which revisional power and procedure, it will be remembered, working of the agencies of government at any other time or in any
had already been specifically treated in section 2 of article other mode than as allowed by existing law, either constitutional or
XVIII. Intervenors' contention--that any change less than a total one is statutory, it would be revolutionary in character, and must be resisted
but amendatory--would reduce to the rubble of absurdity the bulwark and repressed by the officers who, for the time being, represent
so carefully erected and preserved. Each situation involving the legitimate government.25 (Underscoring supplied)
question of amendment, as contrasted with revision, of the
Constitution must, we think, be resolved upon its own facts." Consequently, there is here no case of "the spring rising above its source."
Nor is it one where the people's sovereign power has been relegated to a
Thus, our people too have spoken when they overwhelmingly ratified the 1987 lesser plane than that of Congress. In choosing to exercise self-limitation,
Constitution, with the provisions on amendments and revisions under Article there is no absence or lack of even a fraction of the sovereign power of the
XVII. The voice and will of our people cannot be any clearer when they limited people since self-limitation itself is an expression of that sovereign
people's initiative to mere amendments of the fundamental law and excluded power. The people have chosen to delegate and limit their sovereign power
revisions in its scope. In this regard, the task of the Court is to give effect to by virtue of the Constitution and are bound by the parameters that they
the people's voice, as expressed unequivocally through the Constitution. themselves have ordained. Otherwise, if the people choose to defy their self-
imposed constitutional restraints, we will be faced with a revolutionary
Article XVII on amendments and revisions is called a "constitution of situation.26
sovereignty" because it defines the constitutional meaning of "sovereignty of
the people." It is through these provisions that the sovereign people have It has repeatedly been emphasized that ours is a democratic and republican
allowed the expression of their sovereign will and have canalized their powers state.27 Even as we affirm, however, that aspect of direct democracy, we
which would otherwise be plenary. By approving these provisions, the should not forget that, first and foremost, we are a constitutional democracy.
sovereign people have decided to limit themselves and future generations in To uphold direct democracy at the expense of the fundamental law is to
the exercise of their sovereign power.23 They are thus bound by the sanction, not a constitutional, but an extra-constitutional recourse. This is
constitution and are powerless, whatever their numbers, to change or thwart clearly beyond the powers of the Court who, by sovereign mandate, is the
its mandates, except through the means prescribed by the Constitution itself.24 guardian and keeper of the Constitution.

It is thus misplaced to argue that the people may propose revisions to the IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No.
Constitution through people's initiative because their representatives, whose 174153.
power is merely delegated, may do so. While Section 1 of Article XVII may
be considered as a provision delegating the sovereign powers of
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
amendment and revision to Congress, Section 2, in contrast, is a self-
Associate Justice
limitation on that sovereign power. In the words of Cooley:

____________________
EN BANC MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. AND RENE A. Q.
SAGUISAG, petitioners,
G.R. NO. 174153 vs.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN
RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ENRICO B. AUMENTADO TOGETHER WITH BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR. AND COMMISSIONERS RESSURRECCION
6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR. ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE
vs. V. SARMIENTO AND JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, respondents.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), petitioners- x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
intervenors,
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO CONCURRING OPINION
BAYA, petitioners-intervenors,
SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner-intervenor, SANDOVAL–GUTIERREZ, J.:
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION
(PTGWO) AND VICTORINO F. BALAIS, petitioners-intervenors, Vox populi vox Dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God. Caution
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. should be exercised in choosing one's battlecry, lest it does more harm than
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE AND CARLOS good to one's cause. In its original context, the complete version of this Latin
P. MEDINA, JR., oppositors-intervenors, phrase means exactly the opposite of what it is frequently taken to mean. It
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., oppositor-intervenor, originated from a holy man, the monk Alcuin, who advised Charlemagne, "nec
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, oppositor-intervenor, audiendi qui solent dicere vox populi vox Dei quum tumultuositas vulgi
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL semper insaniae proxima sit," meaning, "And those people should not be
BISHOPS FROUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S listened to who keep on saying, 'The voice of the people is the voice of
PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS,LEONARDO God,' since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to
SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, AND DR. REGINALD madness."1 Perhaps, it is by providence that the true meaning of the Latin
PAMUGAS, oppositors-intervenors, phrase is revealed upon petitioners and their allies – that they may reflect upon
LORETA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESA the sincerity and authenticity of their "people's initiative."
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, oppositors-intervenors,
LUWALHATI ANTONINO, oppositor-intervenor,
History has been a witness to countless iniquities committed in the name of
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO
God. Wars were waged, despotism tolerated and oppressions justified – all
F.ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
these transpired as man boasted of God's imprimatur. Today, petitioners and
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS AND
their allies hum the same rallying call, convincing this Court that the people's
AMADO GAT INCION, oppositors-intervenors,
initiative is the "voice of the people" and, therefore, the "voice of God." After
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR. AND
a thorough consideration of the petitions, I have come to realize that man, with
SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P.
his ingenuity and arrogance, has perfected the craft of imitating the voice of
EJERCIRO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM, AND
God. It is against this kind of genius that the Court must guard itself.
PANFILO M. LACSON, oppositors-intervenors,
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG
PILIPINO, oppositors-intervenors, The facts of the case are undisputed.
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY AND CEBU
CHAPTER, oppositors-intervenors, In 1996, the Movement for People's Initiative sought to exercise the power of
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA TANYA KARINA A. initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution which reads:
LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR AND RANDALL C.
TABAYOYONG, oppostors-intervenors, Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
MANUEL VILLAR, JR., oppositor-intervenor; twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
G.R. NO. 174299 centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
 section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter, read as follows:

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in
exercise of this right. a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many
members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the
The exercise was thwarted by a petition for prohibition filed with this Court by provinces, representative districts, and cities in accordance with the
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, et al., entitled "Miriam Defensor Santiago, number of their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred
Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin, petitioners, v. Commission on thousand inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and
Elections (COMELEC), Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa, progressive ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable,
in their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative for Reforms, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents."2 The case was docketed as have at least one member.
G.R. No. 127325. On March 19, 1997, this Court rendered its Decision in favor
of petitioners, holding that Republic Act No. 6735 (R.A. No. 6735), An Act (2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
Therefor, is "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years
concerned." A majority of eight (8) Justices fully concurred with this ruling, without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the
while five (5) subscribed to the opposite view. One (1) opined that there is no party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number
need to rule on the adequacy of R.A. No. 6735. shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming
from the parliamentary districts.
On motion for reconsideration, two (2) of the eight (8) Justices reconsidered
their positions. One (1) filed an inhibition and the other one (1) joined the B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are
minority opinion. As a consequence, of the thirteen (13) Justices who hereby amended to read, as follows:
participated in the deliberation, six (6) voted in favor of the majority opinion,
while the other six (6) voted in favor of the minority opinion.3 Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State.
The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the
A few months thereafter, or on September 23, 1997, the Court dismissed a assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a
similar case, entitled People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action majority of all the Members of Parliament from among themselves. He
(PIRMA) v. Commission on Elections4 on the ground that the COMELEC did shall be responsible to the Parliament for the program of government.
not commit grave abuse of discretion when it dismissed PIRMA's Petition for
Initiative to Propose Amendments to the Constitution "it appearing that that C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the
it only complied with the dispositions in the Decision of the Court in G.R. bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of
no. 127325 (Santiago v. COMELEC) promulgated on March 19, 1997, and government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled
its Resolution of June 10, 1997." Seven (7) Justices voted that there was no "Transitory Provisions," which shall read, as follows:
need to re-examine its ruling, as regards the issue of the sufficiency of R.A.
No. 6735. Another Justice concurred, but on the different premise that the Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve
case at bar is not the proper vehicle for such re-examination. Five (5) Justice until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June
opined otherwise. 2010 and shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987
Constitution unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the
This time, another group known as Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with the members of the interim parliament.
Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), have gathered signatures
in support of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, which entail a (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from
change in the form of government from bicameral- office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall
presidential to unicameral-parliamentary, thus: succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability,
resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and
Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall
and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended. have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim
Parliament from among themselves.
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and (3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of
7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of
Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section (4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the
2, ad seriatium up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local
amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
"Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive,
Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament,
references therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the the members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the
"President" and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime various ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities
Minister." as may be delegated to him by the incumbent President."

Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of members of Parliament which shall be synchronized and held
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby be amended and simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. The
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other duty elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the
Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until
as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice
with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended President.
so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of
government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, and written on its upper right
"Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of
hand portion is the abstract of the proposed amendments, quoted as follows:
Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all
references therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or
"Member(s) of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Article VI and VII of the
as "Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present
"President" and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of
Minister." government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and
economy in government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory
Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?
Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall On August 25, 2006, Raul L. Lambino and Enrico B. Aumentado, herein
have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the petitioners, filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the
Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent Constitution.5 Five (5) days thereafter, they filed an Amended Petition alleging
Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments. that they are filing the petition in their own behalf and together with some
6.3 million registered voters who have affixed their signatures on the
signature sheets attached thereto. They claimed that the signatures of
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of
registered voters appearing on the signature sheets, constituting at least
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also
twelve per cent (12%) of all registered voters in the country, wherein each
be a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially
legislative district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the
convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for
registered voters, were verified by their respective city or municipal election positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to
officers. act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in
an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal
Several organizations opposed the petition. 6 hostility.8

In a Resolution dated August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to The Resolution of respondent COMELEC denying due course to the petition
the petition, citing as basis this Court's ruling in Santiago, permanently for initiative on the basis of a case (Santiago) decided by this Court cannot, in
enjoining it "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for any way, be characterized as "capricious or whimsical," "patent and
initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall gross," or "arbitrary and despotic." On the contrary, it was the most prudent
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the course to take. It must be stressed that in Santiago, this Court permanently
system." enjoins respondent COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of
any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
Hence, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus praying that this Court sufficient law shall have been validly enacted." It being a fact that
set aside the COMELEC Resolution and direct the latter tocomply with Section Congress has not enacted a sufficient law, respondent COMELEC has no
4, Article XVII of the Constitution, which provides: alternative but to adhere to Santiago. Otherwise, it is vulnerable to a citation
for contempt. As succinctly stated by Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban
(then Associate Justice) in his Separate Opinion in the subsequent case
Sec. 4 x x x
of PIRMA vs. COMELEC:9
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
x x x I cannot fault the Comelec for complying with the ruling even if it,
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
too, disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification
Comelec was directly enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had
by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
no choice but to obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of
discretion. Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse
I vote to dismiss the petition of Lambino, et al. in G.R. No. 174153 and grant open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have constituted
the petition of Mar-len Abigail Binay, et al. in G.R. No. 174299. Here, defiance of the Court and would have been struck down as grave
petitioners pray that the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners be abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's
required to show why they should not be punished for contempt7 of court for supremacy as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies.
disregarding the permanent injunction issued by this Court in Santiago.
It need not be emphasized that in our judicial hierarchy, this Court reigns
I supreme. All courts, tribunals and administrative bodies exercising quasi-
Respondent COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion judicial functions are obliged to conform to its pronouncements. It has the last
word on what the law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable
Without necessarily brushing aside the other important issues, I believe the controversy. In other words, there is only one Supreme Court from
resolution of the present petition hinges on this singular issue -- did the whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings.10 As a
COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Lambino, et al.'s warning to lower court judges who would not adhere to its rulings, this Court,
petition for initiative to amend the Constitution on the basis of this Court's in People v. Santos,11 held:
Decision in Santiago v. COMELEC?
Now, if a judge of a lower Court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission
In other words, regardless of how the other remaining issues are resolved, of deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by
still, the ultimate yardstick is the attendance of "grave abuse of discretion" on this Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his
the part of the COMELEC. conscience, he may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than
disposing of the case in accordance with his personal views he must
Jurisprudence teaches that an act of a court or tribunal may only be first think that it is his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the
considered as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was Highest Court of the Land, and that any deviation from a principle laid
performed in a capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of down by the latter would unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary
discretion must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a inconveniences, delays and expenses to the litigants. And if despite of
 what is here said, a Judge still believes that he cannot follow Our principle and apply it to all future cases in which the facts are
rulings, then he has no other alternative than to place himself in the substantially the same as in the earlier controversy."16
position that he could properly avoid the duty of having to render
judgment on the case concerned (Art. 9, C.C.), and he has only one There is considerable literature about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is
legal way to do that. a good or bad one, but the doctrine is usually justified by arguments which
focus on the desirability of stability and certainty in the law and also by notions
Clearly, respondent COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in of justice and fairness. Justice Benjamin Cardozo in his treatise, The Nature
dismissing the petition of Lambino, et al. for it merely followed this Court's of the Judicial Process stated:
ruling in Santiago.
It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of
Significantly, in PIRMA vs. COMELEC,12 a unanimous Court implicitly litigants and the opposite way between another. 'If a group of cases
recognized that its ruling in Santiago is the established doctrine and that the involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in invoking it, thus: would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite
principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when I
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of was a defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and
complied with the dispositions of this Court in G.R. No. 127325 moral, of my rights." Adherence to precedent must then be the rule
promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its resolution on June 10, 1997. rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-
handed administration of justice in the courts.17
Indeed, I cannot characterize as a "grave abuse of discretion" the COMELEC's
obedience and respect to the pronouncement of this Court in Santiago. That the doctrine of stare decisis is related to justice and fairness may be
appreciated by considering the observation of American philosopher William
II K. Frankena as to what constitutes injustice:
The doctrine of stare decisis
bars the re-examination of Santiago The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two
similar individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is
It cannot be denied that in Santiago, a majority of the members of this Court treated better or worse than the other. In this case, the cry of
or eight (8) Justices (as against five (5) Justices) concurred in declaring R.A. injustice rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and
No. 6735 an insufficient law. When the motion for reconsideration was denied unless that agent or group can establish that there is some relevant
via an equally-divided Court or a 6-6 vote, it does not mean that the Decision dissimilarity after all between the individuals concerned and their
was overturned. It only shows that the opposite view fails to muster enough circumstances, he or they will be guilty as charged.18
votes to modify or reverse the majority ruling. Therefore, the original Decision
was upheld.13 In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,14 this Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent re-examining and, if
Court ruled that the denial of a motion or reconsideration signifies that need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is x x x a fundamental jurisprudential
the ground relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though
without merit, as not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current
of the judgment or final order. justices. This policy x x x 'is based on the assumption that certainty,
predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal
With Santiago being the only impediment to the instant petition for initiative, system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and
petitioners persistently stress that the doctrine of stare decisis does not bar its enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing
re-examination. rules of law.19 Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a
rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number
of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of
I am not convinced. The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere translates
public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with
"stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled."15 As used in our
other related rules of law. Here, petitioners failed to discharge their task.
jurisprudence, it means that "once this Court has laid down a principle of
law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it would adhere to that
Santiago v. COMELEC was decided by this Court on March 19, 1997 or more The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized.
than nine (9) years ago. During that span of time, the Filipino people,
specifically the law practitioners, law professors, law students, the entire MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
judiciary and litigants have recognized this Court's Decision as a precedent.
In fact, the Santiago doctrine was applied by this Court in the subsequent case May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the
of PIRMA. Even the legislature has relied on said Decision, thus, several bills Commission that pursuant to the mandate given us last night, we
have been introduced in both Houses of Congress to cure the deficiency. I submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
cannot fathom why it should be overturned or set aside merely on the basis of embodies the proposed provision governing initiative. This is now
the petition of Lambino, et al. Indeed, this Court's conclusion in Santiago that covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the
R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
remains a precedent and must be upheld.
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite
held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative
III upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
The proposed constitutional changes constitute revisions and not mere
amendments
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report
No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of
Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution lays down the means for its amendment initiative which came about because of the extraordinary
and revision. Thus: developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional
modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may committee members felt that this system of initiative should be
be proposed by: limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend
to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment
members; or or Revision.

(2) A Constitutional Convention. xxx xxx xxx

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished proponent
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least of the amendment yield to a few questions?
twelve per centum of the total number of registered votes, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per MR. DAVIDE: With pleasure, Madam President.
centum of the registered voters therein. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question, Commissioner Davide's
At the outset, it must be underscored that initiative and referendum, as proposed amendment on line I refers to "amendments." Does it
means by which the people can directly propose changes to the Constitution, not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner
were not provided for in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Thus, under these Padilla when he made the distinction between the words
two (2) Constitutions, there was no demand to draw the distinction between "amendments" and "revision?"
an amendment and a revision, both being governed by a uniform process.
This is not so under our present Constitution. The distinction between an MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision"
amendment and a revision becomes crucial because only amendments are should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is
allowed under the system of people's initiative. Revisions are within the concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision"
exclusive domain of Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members,
or of a Constitutional Convention.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.20
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission is explicit that
Section 2, Article XVII covers only amendments, thus:
Considering that the initiative on the Constitution only permits amendments, it "Revision" implies a reexamination of the whole law and a redraft
is imperative to examine whether petitioners' proposed changes partake of the without obligation to maintain the form, scheme, or structure of
nature of amendments, not revisions. the old. As applied to fundamental law, such as a constitution or
charter, it suggests a convention to examine the whole subject and to
The petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC by Lambino, et al. sought to prepare and submit a new instrument whether the desired changes
amend the following provisions of the 1987 Constitution: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, from the old are few or many. Amendment implies continuance of
6, and 7 of Article VI (The Legislative Department); Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the general plan and purpose of the law, with corrections to better
Article VII (The Executive Department). It further includes Article XVIII accomplish its purpose. Basically, revision suggests fundamental
(Transitory Provisions) for the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from change, while amendment is a correction of detail.
the bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary form of government.
Although there are some authorities which indicate that a change in a city's
Succinctly, the proposals envision a change in the form of government, from form of government may be accomplished by a process of "amendment," the
bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary; conversion of the present cases which so hold seem to involve statutes which only distinguish between
Congress of the Philippines to an Interim National Assembly; change in the amendment and totally new charters.23 However, as in Maine law, where the
terms of Members of Parliament; and the election of a Prime Minister who shall statute authorizing the changes distinguishes between "charter amendment"
be vested with executive power. and "charter revision," it has been held that "(a) change in the form of
government of a home rule city may be made only by revision of the city
Petitioners contend that the proposed changes are in the nature of charter, not by its amendment."24
amendments, hence, within the coverage of a "people's initiative."
In summary, it would seem that any major change in governmental form and
I disagree. scheme would probably be interpreted as a "revision" and should be achieved
through the more thorough process of deliberation.
The noted constitutionalist, Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., who was also a
member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, characterized an amendment Although, at first glance, petitioners' proposed changes appear to cover
and a revision to the Constitution as follows: isolated and specific provisions only, however, upon careful scrutiny, it
becomes clear that the proposed changes will alter the very structure of
our government and create multifarious ramifications. In other words, the
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
proposed changes will have a "domino effect" or, more appropriately, "ripple
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an
effect" on other provisions of the Constitution.
amendment is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions
deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific
portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to be At this juncture, it must be emphasized that the power reserved to the people
dangerous. In revision however, the guiding original intention and to effect changes in the Constitution includes the power to amend anysection
plan contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of in such a manner that the proposed change, if approved, would "be complete
provisions of the document which have over-all implications for within itself, relate to one subject and not substantially affect any other
the document to determine how and to what extent they should section or article of the Constitution or require further amendments to
be altered.21 the Constitution to accomplish its purpose."25 This is clearly not the case
here.
Obviously, both "revision" and amendment" connote change; any distinction
between the two must be based upon the degree of change contemplated. Firstly, a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government affects
In Kelly v. Laing,22 the Supreme Court of Michigan made the following the well-enshrined doctrine of separation of powers of government, embodied
comparison of the two terms: in our Constitution, by providing for an Executive, Legislative and Judiciary
Branches. In a Parliamentary form of government, the Executive Branch is to
a certain degree, dependent on the direct or indirect support of the Parliament,
"Revision" and "amendment" have the common characteristics of
as expressed through a "vote of confidence." To my mind, this doctrine of
working changes in the charter, and are sometimes used in exactly the
separation of powers is so interwoven in the fabric of our Constitution,
same sense but there is an essential difference between them.
that any change affecting such doctrine must necessarily be a revision.
In McFadden vs. Jordan,26 the California Supreme Court ruled as follows: deemed amended so as to conform to a unicameral
Parliamentary system of government x x x x x x .
It is thus clear that that a revision of the Constitution may be
accomplished only through ratification by the people of a revised xxxxxxxxx
constitution proposed by a convention called for that purpose x x x.
Consequently, if the scope of the proposed initiative measure Section 4. (1) x x x
now before us is so broad that if such measure became law a
substantial revision of our present state Constitution would be (3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the
effected, then the measure may not properly be submitted to the Interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a revisions of, this Constitution, consistent with the principles of local
constitutional convention. x x x. autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.

Secondly, the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral form of government is not The above provisions will necessarily result in a "ripple effect" on the other
a mere amendment, but is in actuality a revision, as set forth in Adams v. provisions of the Constitution to make them conform to the qualities of
Gunter27: unicameral-parliamentary form of government. With one sweeping stroke,
these proposed provisions automatically revise some provisions of the
The proposal here to amend Section I of Article III of the 1968 Constitution. In McFadden, the same practice was considered by the Court to
Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not be in the nature of substantial revision, necessitating a constitutional
only many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a convention. I quote the pertinent portion of its ruling, thus:
change in the form of the legislative branch of government, which
has been in existence in the United States Congress and in all of the There is in the measure itself, no attempt to enumerate the various
states of the nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be and many articles and sections of our present Constitution which
difficult to visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of would be affected, replaced or repealed. It purports only to add one
a House and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It new article but its framers found it necessary to include the omnibus
would not only radically change the whole pattern of the provision (subdivision (7) of section XII) that "If any section,
government in this state and tear apart the whole fabric of the subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of the constitution is in conflict
Constitution, but would even affect the physical facilities with any of the provisions of this article, such section, subsection,
necessary to carry on government. sentence, clause, or phrase is to the extent of such conflict hereby
repealed. x x x Consequently, if the scope of the proposed intitiative
Thirdly, the proposed changes, on their face, signify revisions rather than measure now before us is so broad that if such measure become law
amendments, especially, with the inclusion of the following "omnibus a substantial revision of our present state Constitution would be be
provision": effected, then the measure may not properly be submitted to the
electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a constitutional
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral- convention.28
Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamnetary form of government, there
shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions" which shall Undoubtedly, the changes proposed by the petitioners are not mere
read, as follows: amendments which will only affect the Articles or Sections sought to be
changed. Rather, they are in the nature of revisions which will affect
xxxxxxxxx considerable portions of the Constitution resulting in the alteration of our form
of government. The proposed changes cannot be taken in isolation since
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President these are connected or "interlocked" with the other provisions of our
and Vice-President, with the exceptions of Section 1,2,3 and 4 of Constitution. Accordingly, it has been held that: "If the changes attempted
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended x x x x are so sweeping that it is necessary to include the provisions
x x and all other Sections of Article VII shall be retained and numbered interlocking them, then it is plain that the plan would constitute a
sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be recasting of the whole Constitution and this, we think, it was intended to
inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be be accomplished only by a convention under Section 2 which has not
yet been disturbed."29
I therefore conclude that since the proposed changes partake of the nature of The passage of time has done nothing to change the applicability of R.A. No.
a revision of the Constitution, then they cannot be the subject of an initiative. 6735. Congress neither amended it nor passed a new law to supply its
On this matter, Father Bernas expressed this insight: deficiencies.

But why limit initiative and referendum to simple amendments? The Notwithstanding so, this Court is being persuaded to take a 360-degree turn,
answer, which one can easily glean from the rather long deliberation enumerating three (3) justifications why R.A. No. 6735 must be considered a
on initiative and referendum in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, is sufficient law, thus:
practicality. In other words, who is to formulate the revision or how is
it to be formulated? Revision, as concretely being proposed now, is 1) The text of R.A. No. 6735 is replete with references to the right
nothing less than a rebuilding of the Philippine constitutional of people to initiate changes to the Constitution;
structure. Who were involved in formulating the structure? What
debates ensued? What records are there for future use in interpreting 2) The legislative history of R.A. No. 6735 reveals the clear intent of
the provisions which may be found to be unclear? the lawmakers to use it as instrument to implement the people's
initiative; and
In a deliberative body like Congress or a Constitutional Convention,
decisions are reached after much purifying debate. And while the 3) The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. No. 6735
deliberations proceed, the public has the opportunity to get involved. demonstrate the legislative intent to use it as instrument to
It is only after the work of an authorized body has been completed that implement people's initiative.
it is presented to the electorate for final judgment. Careful debate is
important because the electorate tends to accept what is
I regret to say that the foregoing justifications are wanting.
presented to it even sight unseen.30
A thorough reading of R.A. No. 6735 leads to the conclusion that it covers only
IV
initiatives on national and local legislation. Its references to initiatives on the
R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the People's initiative
Constitution are few, isolated and misplaced. Unlike in the initiatives on
national and local legislation, where R.A. No. 6735 provides a detailed, logical,
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution reads: and exhaustive enumeration on their implementation,31 however, as regards
initiative on the Constitution, the law merely:
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least (a) mentions the word "Constitution" in Section 2;32
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
(b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3;33
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter,
(c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an
initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
people;34
exercise of this right.
(d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of
On its face, Section 2 is not a self-executory provision. This means that an
voters who should sign the petition;35 and
enabling law is imperative for its implementation. Thus, Congress enacted
R.A. No. 6735 in order to breathe life into this constitutional provision.
However, as previously narrated, this Court struck the law in Santiago for (e) provides the date for the effectivity of the approved proposition.36
being incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is In other words, R.A. No. 6735 does not specify the procedure how initiative on
concerned. the Constitution may be accomplished. This is not the enabling law
contemplated by the Constitution. As pointed out by oppositor-intervenor
Alternative Law Groups Inc., since the promulgation of the Decision in
Santiago, various bills have been introduced in both Houses of Congress Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
providing for a complete and adequate process for people's initiative, such proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
as: least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
· Names, signatures and addresses of petitioners who shall be per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
registered voters; section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
· A statement of the provision of the Constitution or any part thereof
sought to be amended and the proposed amendment; The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right. (Underscoring supplied)
· The manner of initiation - in a congressional district through a petition
by any individual, group, political party or coalition with members in the The mandate of the above constitutional provisions is definite and categorical.
congressional district; For a people's initiative to prosper, the following requisites must be present:

· The language used: the petition should be printed in English and 1. It is "the people" themselves who must "directly propose"
translated in the local language; "amendments" to the Constitution;

· Signature stations to be provided for; 2. The proposed amendments must be contained in "a petition of
at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
· Provisions pertaining to the need and manner of posting, that is, after voters;" and
the signatures shall have been verified by the Commission, the verified
signatures shall be posted for at least thirty days in the respective 3. The required minimum of 12% of the total number of registered
municipal and city halls where the signatures were obtained; voters "must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters" of "every legislative district."
· Provisions pertaining to protests allowed any protest as to the
authenticity of the signatures to be filed with the COMELEC and In this case, however, the above requisites are not present.
decided within sixty (60) days from the filing of said protest.
The petition for initiative was filed with the COMELEC by petitioners Lambino
None of the above necessary details is provided by R.A. No. 6735, thus, and Aumentado, two registered voters. As shown in
demonstrating its incompleteness and inadequacy. the "Verification/Certification with Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping" contained
in their petition, they alleged under oath that they have caused the preparation
V of the petition in their personal capacity as registered voters "and as
Petitioners are not Proper Parties to representatives" of the supposed 6.3 million registered voters. This goes to
File the Petition for Initiative show that the questioned petition was not initiated directly by the 6.3 million
people who allegedly comprised at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters, as required by Section 2. Moreover, nowhere in the petition itself
VI
could be found the signatures of the 6.3 million registered voters. Only
The Petition for Initiative Filed with the COMELEC Does not Comply with
the signatures of petitioners Lambino and Aumentado were affixed therein "as
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735
representatives" of those 6.3 million people. Certainly, that is not the
petition for people's initiative contemplated by the Constitution.
I shall discuss the above issues together since they are interrelated and
inseparable. The determination of whether petitioners are proper parties to file
Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no authority whatsoever to file the
the petition for initiative in behalf of the alleged 6.3 million voters will require
petition "as representatives" of the alleged 6.3 million registered
an examination of whether they have complied with the provisions of
voters. Such act of representation is constitutionally proscribed. To
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
repeat, Section 2 strictly requires that amendments to the Constitution shall
be "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of
To reiterate, Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides: at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters."
Obviously, the phrase "directly proposed by the people" excludes any apportionment of suffrage rights led to the "Dorr Rebellion." Despairing of
person acting as representative or agent of the 12% of the total number of obtaining remedies for their disenfranchisement from the state government,
registered voters. The Constitution has bestowed upon the people the right suffrage reformers invoked their rights under the American Declaration of
to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Such right cannot be Independence to "alter or abolish" the government and to institute a new one.
usurped by anyone under the guise of being the people's representative. The reformers proceeded to call for and hold an extralegal constitutional
Simply put, Section 2 does not recognize acts of representation. For it is only convention, drafted a new State Constitution, submitted the document for
"the people" (comprising the minimum of 12% of the total number of registered popular ratification, and held elections under it. The State government,
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three however, refused to cede power, leading to an anomalous situation in that for
per centum of the registered voters therein) who are the proper parties to a few months in 1842, there were two opposing state governments contending
initiate a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution. Verily, the for legitimacy and possession of state of offices.
petition filed with the COMELEC by herein petitioners Lambino and
Aumentado is not a people's initiative. Necessarily, it must fail. The Rhode Island militia, under the authority of martial law, entered and
searched the house of Martin Luther, a Dorr supporter. He brought suit against
Cororarilly, the plea that this Court should "hear" and "heed" "the people's Luther Borden, a militiaman. Before the US Supreme Court, Luther's counsel
voice" is baseless and misleading. There is no people's voice to be heard argued that since the State's archaic Constitution prevented a fair and
and heeded as this petition for initiative is not truly theirs, but only of peaceful address of grievances through democratic processes, the people of
petitioners Lambino and Aumentado and their allies. Rhode Island had instead chosen to exercise their inherent right in popular
sovereignty of replacing what they saw as an oppressive government. The US
VII Supreme Court deemed the controversy as non-justiciable and
The issues at bar are not political questions. inappropriate for judicial resolution.

Lambino and Aumentado, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, vehemently argue In Colgrove v. Green,38 Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter, coined the phrase
that: (1) "the validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign people to "political thicket" to describe situations where Federal courts should not
amend the Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that over six intervene in political questions which they have neither the competence nor
million registered voters indicated their support of the Petition for initiative is the commission to decide. In Colgrove, the US Supreme Court, with a narrow
a purely political question;" and (2) "[t]he power to propose amendments to 4-3 vote branded the apportionment of legislative districts in Illinois "as a
the Constitution is a right explicitly bestowed upon the sovereign people. political question and that the invalidation of the districts might, in
Hence, the determination by the people to exercise their right to propose requiring statewide elections, create an evil greater than that sought to
amendments under the system of initiative is a sovereign act and falls squarely be remedied."
within the ambit of a political question."
While this Court has adopted the use of Frankfurter's "political thicket,"
The "political question doctrine" was first enunciated by the US Supreme Court nonetheless, it has sought to come up with a definition of the term "political
in Luther v. Borden.37 Faced with the difficult question of whether the Supreme question." Thus, in Vera v. Avelino,39 this Court ruled that properly, political
Court was the appropriate institution to define the substantive content of questions are "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
republicanism, the US Supreme Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Roger B. decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which
Taney, concluded that "the sovereignty in every State resides in the full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or
people, as to how and whether they exercised it, was under the executive branch of the government." In Tañada and Macapagal v.
circumstances of the case, a political question to be settled by the Cuenco,40 the Court held that the term political question connotes, in legal
political power." In other words, the responsibility of settling certain parlance, what it means in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy.
constitutional questions was left to the legislative and executive branches of It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of
the government. a particular measure.

The Luther case arose from the so-called "Dorr Rebellion" in the State of In Aquino v. Enrile,41 this Court adopted the following guidelines laid down
Rhode Island. Due to increased migration brought about by the Industrial in Baker v. Carr42 in determining whether a question before it is political, rather
Revolution, the urban population of Rhode Island increased. However, under than judicial in nature, to wit:
the 1663 Royal Charter which served as the State Constitution, voting rights
were largely limited to residents of the rural districts. This severe mal-
 1) there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the judicial certainty, whether they really understood what petitioners and their
issue to a coordinate political department; or group asked them to sign.

2) there is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards Let us not repeat the mistake committed by this Court in Javellana v. The
for resolving it; or Executive Secretary.45 The Court then ruled that "This being the vote of the
majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
3) there is the sheer impossibility of deciding the matter without an considered in force and effect," although it had notice that the Constitution
initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified by the
or people in accordance with the 1935 Constitution. The Court concluded, among
others, that the viva voce voting in the Citizens' Assemblies "was and is null
4) there is the sheer impossibility of the Court's undertaking an and void ab initio." That was during martial law when perhaps majority of the
independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due the justices were scared of the dictator. Luckily at present, we are not under a
coordinate branches of government; or martial law regime. There is, therefore, no reason why this Court should allow
itself to be used as a legitimizing authority by the so-called people's initiative
for those who want to perpetuate themselves in power.
5) there is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
decision already made; or
At this point, I can say without fear that there is nothing wrong with our present
government structure. Consequent1y, we must not change it. America has a
6) there exists the potentiality of embarrassment arising from
presidential type of government. Yet, it thrives ideally and has become a super
multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one
power. It is then safe to conclude that what we should change are some
question.
of the people running the government, NOT the SYSTEM.
None of the foregoing standards is present in the issues raised before this
According to petitioners, the proposed amendment would effect a more
Court. Accordingly, the issues are justiciable. What is at stake here is the
efficient, more economical and more responsive government.
legality and not the wisdom of the act complained of.
Is there hope that a new breed of politicians, more qualified and capable, may
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the issues raised before this Court
be elected as members and leaders of the unicameral-parliament? Or will the
are political in nature, it is not precluded from resolving them under its
present members of the Lower House continue to hold their respective
expanded jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 1, Article VIII of the
positions with limitless terms?
Constitution, following Daza v. Singson.43 As pointed out in Marcos v.
Manglapus,44 the present Constitution limits resort to the political question
doctrine and broadens the scope of judicial power which the Court, under Will the new government be more responsive to the needs of the poor and the
previous charters, would have normally and ordinarily left to the political marginalized? Will it be able to provide homes for the homeless, food for the
departments to decide. hungry, jobs for the jobless and protection for the weak?

CONCLUSION This is a defining moment in our history. The issue posed before us is crucial
with transcendental significance. And history will judge us on how we resolve
this issue – shall we allow the revision of our Constitution, of which we are
In fine, considering the political scenario in our country today, it is my view that
duty bound to guard and revere, on the basis of a doubtful people's initiative?
the so-called people's initiative to amend our Constitution from bicameral-
presidential to unicameral-parliamentary is actually not an initiative of the
people, but an initiative of some of our politicians. It has not been shown by Amending the Constitution involving a change of government system or
petitioners, during the oral arguments in this case, that the 6.3 million structure is a herculean task affecting the entire Filipino people and the future
registered voters who affixed their signatures understood what they signed. In generations. Let us, therefore, entrust this duty to more knowledgeable people
fact, petitioners admitted that the Constitutional provisions sought to be elected as members of a Constitutional Convention.
amended and the proposed amendments were not explained to all those
registered voters. Indeed, there will be no means of knowing, to the point of Yes, the voice of the people is the voice of God. But under the
circumstances in this case, the voice of God is not audible.
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE: A SHIFT FROM A BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIAL TO
to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174299. A UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT BY AMENDING
ARTICLES VI AND VII; AND PROVIDING TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR
THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL TO THE
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM." The case was docketed as EM (LD)-06-01. On
Associate Justice
August 30, 2006, petitioners filed an amended petition. For brevity, it is
referred to as the petition for initiative.
____________________
Petitioners alleged therein, inter alia, that they filed their petition in their own
EN BANC behalf and together with those who have affixed their signatures to the
signature sheets appended thereto who are Filipino citizens, residents and
G.R. No. 174153 registered voters of the Philippines, and they constitute at least twelve percent
(12%) of all the registered voters in the country, wherein each legislative
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 district is represented by at least three percent (3%) of all the registered voters
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, therein.
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. Petitioners further alleged therein that the filing of the petition for initiative is
based on their constitutional right to propose amendments to the 1987
G.R. No. 174299 Constitution by way of people's initiative, as recognized in Section 2, Article
XVII thereof, which provides:
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q.
SAGUISAG, petitioners, SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
vs. proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
SARMIENTO, and JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, respondents. section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right."
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
According to petitioners, while the above provision states that "(T)he Congress
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right," the provisions
of Section 5(b) and (c), along with Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) 6735,1 are
I am convinced beyond cavil that the respondent Commission on Elections sufficient enabling details for the people's exercise of the power. The said
(COMELEC) did not commit an abuse of its discretion in dismissing the sections of RA 6735 state:
amended petition before it. The proposals of petitioners incorporated in said
amended petition are for the revision of the 1987 Constitution. Further, the
Sec. 5. Requirements. – (a) To exercise the power x x x
amended petition before the respondent COMELEC is insufficient in
substance.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at
least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters
The Antecedents
as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
On August 25, 2006, petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years
filed with the COMELEC a petition entitled "IN THE MATTER OF from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five
PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION THROUGH A (5) years thereafter.
 (c) The petition shall state the following: Petitioners pray for such other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the
premises.
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may The Ruling of the respondent COMELEC
be;
On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC promulgated the assailed Resolution
c.2. the proposition; denying due course and dismissing the petition for initiative. The COMELEC
ruled that:
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
We agree with the petitioners that this Commission has the solemn
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein; Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative.
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred provisions of the Constitution particularly on initiative.
(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top
of every page of the petition. Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

xxxx "Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may, likewise, be

directly proposed by the people through initiative, upon a
Sec. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately represented by at least three per centum of the registered
preceding election. voters therein. x x x.

They also alleged that the COMELEC has the authority, mandate and The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
obligation to give due course to the petition for initiative, in compliance with exercise of this right."
the constitutional directive for the COMELEC to "enforce and administer all
laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, The aforequoted provision of the Constitution being a non-self-
referendum and recall."2 executory provision needed an enabling law for its implementation.
Thus, in order to breathe life into the constitutional right of the people
Petitioners incorporated in their petition for initiative the changes they under a system of initiative to directly propose, enact, approve or
proposed to be incorporated in the 1987 Constitution and prayed that the reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or
COMELEC issue an order: resolution, Congress enacted RA 6735.

1. Finding the Petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Santiago v.
XVII of the 1987 Constitution; Commission on Elections struck down the said law for being
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
2. Directing the publication of the Petition in Filipino and English at
least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
The Supreme Court, likewise, declared that this Commission should
be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
ninety days after the Certification by this Honorable Commission of the
sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
sufficiency of this Petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their
implementation of the system.
sovereign will on the proposition.
 Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet the THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC
required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters, COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO
of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per TAKE COGNIZANCE OF, AND IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE
centum of the registered voters therein, still the Petition cannot be COURSE TO THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE, THEREBY
given due course since the Supreme Court categorically declared RA VIOLATING AN EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND
6735 as inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments DISREGARDING AND CONTRAVENING THE WILL OF THE
to the Constitution. PEOPLE.

This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of A.

the right of the people under a system of initiative. However, neither
can we turn a blind eye to the pronouncement of the High Court that THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT
in the absence of a valid enabling law, this right of the people remains APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR INITIATIVE
nothing but an "empty right," and that this Commission is permanently FILED BY THE PETITIONERS.
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. (Citations omitted.) 1.

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to this Court on a petition THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION
for certiorari and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. INTENDED TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE POWER TO
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS AND THE PEOPLE
The Petitioners' Case THEMSELVES ARE NOW GIVING VIBRANT LIFE
TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION
In support of their petition, petitioners alleged, inter alia, that:
2.
I.
PRIOR TO THE QUESTIONED SANTIAGO RULING
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC OF 19 MARCH 1997, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO TO EXERCISE THE SOVEREIGN POWER OF
TAKE COGNIZANCE OF, AND TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE INITIATIVE AND RECALL HAS BEEN INVARIABLY
PETITION FOR INITIATIVE, BECAUSE THE CITED SANTIAGO UPHELD
RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE
MAJORITY OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT EN BANC, 3.
CONSIDERING THAT UPON ITS RECONSIDERATION AND FINAL
VOTING ON 10 JUNE 1997, NO MAJORITY VOTE WAS SECURED THE EXERCISE OF THE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE
TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735 AS INADEQUATE, AMENDMENTS IS A POLITICAL QUESTION WHICH
INCOMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENT IN STANDARD. SHALL BE DETERMINED SOLELY BY THE
SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.
II.
4.
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735, REPUBLIC
ACT NO. 8189 AND EXISTING APPROPRIATION OF THE BY SIGNING THE SIGNATURE SHEETS
COMELEC PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT DETAILS AND ATTACHED TO THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE
AUTHORITY FOR THE EXERCISE OF PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE, DULY VERIFIED BY THE ELECTION OFFICERS,
THUS, EXISTING LAWS TAKEN TOGETHER ARE ADEQUATE AND THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO PERFORM THIS
COMPLETE. SACRED EXERCISE OF THEIR SOVEREIGN
POWER.
III.
 B. and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph
THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT of Section 3, Rule 46.
APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR INITIATIVE
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS A writ for certiorari may issue only when the following requirements are set out
in the petition and established:
C.
(1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer
THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED IN SANTIAGO V. exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
COMELEC ONLY APPLIES TO THE DELFIN PETITION.
(2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
1. jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction; and
IT IS THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE
DECISION AND NOT OTHER STATEMENTS IN THE (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in
BODY OF THE DECISION THAT GOVERNS THE the ordinary course of law. x x x4
RIGHTS IN CONTROVERSY.
The Court has invariably defined "grave abuse of discretion," thus:
IV.
By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FAILED OR exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must
NEGLECTED TO ACT OR PERFORM A DUTY MANDATED BY LAW. be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.
For certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical
A. exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in
accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law
traditions.5
THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE COMELEC IS TO SET
THE INITIATIVE FOR PLEBISCITE.3
There is thus grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it
acts in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of
Petitioners Failed to Allege and Demonstrate All the Essential
its judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not
Facts To Establish the Right to a Writ of Certiorari
enough.6 The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess
thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary
Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court reads: remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is
exercised in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice
Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer or personal hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in of errors of jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.7 An error of judgment is
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion one in which the court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or error is reversible only by an appeal.8
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper In the present case, it appears from the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC
court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be that it denied the petition for initiative solely in obedience to the mandate of
rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, this Court in Santiago v. Commission on Elections.9 In said case, the Court En
board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice Banc permanently enjoined the COMELEC from entertaining or taking
may require. cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until
a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the implementation of the system. When the COMELEC denied the petition for
judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
initiative, there was as yet no valid law enacted by Congress to provide for the Delfin petition). They asked the COMELEC to issue an order fixing the time
implementation of the system. and date for signature gathering all over the country; causing the necessary
publications of said order and their petition in newspapers of general and local
It is a travesty for the Court to declare the act of the COMELEC in denying due circulation and instructing municipal election registrars in all regions all over
course to the petition for initiative as "capricious, despotic, oppressive or the country and to assist petitioners in establishing signing stations. Acting
whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." In fact, thereon, the COMELEC issued the order prayed for.
in so doing, the COMELEC merely followed or applied, as it ought to do, the
Court's ruling in Santiago to the effect that Section 2, Article XVII of the Senator Miriam Santiago, et al. forthwith filed with this Court a petition for
Constitution on the system of initiative is a non self-executory provision and prohibition to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing its order. The Court,
requires an enabling law for its implementation. In relation thereto, RA 6735 speaking through Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice), granted
was found by the Court to be "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential the petition as it declared:
terms and conditions" to implement the constitutional provision on initiative.
Consequently, the COMELEC was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or 1. RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for concerned";
the implementation of the system." The decision of the Court En Banc
interpreting RA 6735 forms part of the legal system of the Philippines.10 And 2. COMELEC Resolution No. 230015 invalid insofar as it prescribed rules and
no doctrine or principle laid down by the Court En Banc may be modified or regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution
reversed except by the Court En Banc,11 certainly not by the COMELEC. Until because the COMELEC is without authority to promulgate the rules and
the Court En Banc modifies or reverses its decision, the COMELEC is bound regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly
to follow the same.12 As succinctly held in Fulkerson v. Thompson:13 propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative; and

Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as 3. The Delfin petition insufficient as it did not contain the required number of
finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the judgment or decree signatures of registered voters.
as the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to
the mandate. The inferior court cannot vary it, or judicially examine it
The Court concluded in Santiago that "the COMELEC should be permanently
for any other purpose than execution. It can give no other or further
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
relief as to any matter decided by the Supreme Court even where there
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
is error apparent; or in any manner intermeddle with it further than to
enacted to provide for the implementation of the system." The dispositive
execute the mandate and settle such matters as have been remanded,
portion of the decision reads:
not adjudicated by the Supreme Court….
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
The principles above stated are, we think, conclusively established by
the authority of adjudged cases. And any further departure from them
would inevitably mar the harmony of the whole judiciary system, bring a) GRANTING the instant petition;
its parts into conflict, and produce therein disorganization, disorder,
and incalculable mischief and confusion. Besides, any rule allowing b) DECLARING RA 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative
the inferior courts to disregard the adjudications of the Supreme Court, on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide
or to refuse or omit to carry them into execution would be repugnant sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
to the principles established by the constitution, and therefore void.14
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the
At this point, it is well to recall the factual context of Santiago as well as the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the
pronouncement made by the Court therein. Like petitioners in the instant case, conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and
in Santiago, Atty. Jesus Delfin, the People's Initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA), et al., invoked Section 2, Article XVII of d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
the Constitution as they filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Delfin petition (UND-96-037).
Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, By People's Initiative" (the
 The Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 18, 1996 is Panganiban, JJ., opined that there was need for such a re-
made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is examination. x x x
LIFTED as against private respondents.16
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.18 (Underscoring supplied.)
The Court reiterated its ruling in Santiago in another petition which was filed
with the Court by PIRMA and the spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (who In the present case, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) takes the side
were parties in Santiago) docketed as PIRMA v. Commission on of petitioners and argues that the COMELEC should not have applied the
Elections.17 The said petitioners, undaunted by Santiago and claiming to have ruling in Santiago to the petition for initiative because the permanent injunction
gathered 5,793,213 signatures, filed a petition with the COMELEC therein referred only to the Delfin petition. The OSG buttresses this argument
praying, inter alia, that COMELEC officers be ordered to verify all the by pointing out that the Temporary Restraining Order dated December 18,
signatures collected in behalf of the petition and, after due hearing, that it 1996 that was made permanent in the dispositive portion referred only to the
(COMELEC) declare the petition sufficient for the purpose of scheduling a Delfin petition.
plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Like the Delfin petition in Santiago, the
PIRMA petition proposed to submit to the people in a plebiscite the The OSG's attempt to isolate the dispositive portion from the body of the
amendment to the Constitution on the lifting of the term limits of elected Court's decision in Santiago is futile. It bears stressing that the dispositive
officials. portion must not be read separately but in connection with the other portions
of the decision of which it forms a part. To get to the true intent and meaning
The opinion of the minority that there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court of a decision, no specific portion thereof should be resorted to but the same
in PIRMA has no basis. The COMELEC, in its Resolution dated July 8, 1997, must be considered in its entirety. Hence, a resolution or ruling may and does
dismissed the PIRMA petition citing the permanent restraining order issued appear in other parts of the decision and not merely in the fallo thereof.19
against it by the Court in Santiago. PIRMA and the spouses Pedrosa forthwith
elevated the matter to the Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part The pronouncement in the body of the decision in Santiago permanently
of the COMELEC in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over, and thereby enjoining the COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
dismissing, their petition for initiative to amend the Constitution. petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law
shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
The Court dismissed outright, by a unanimous vote, the petition filed by system" is thus as much a part of the Court's decision as its dispositive
PIRMA and the spouses Albert Pedrosa. The Court declared that the portion. The ruling of this Court is of the nature of an in rem judgment
COMELEC merely complied with the dispositions in the decision of the Court barring any and all Filipinos from filing a petition for initiative on
in Santiago and, hence, cannot be held to have committed a grave abuse of amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been
its discretion in dismissing the petition before it: validly enacted. Clearly, the COMELEC, in denying due course to the present
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution conformably with the
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of Court's ruling in Santiago did not commit grave abuse of discretion. On the
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in contrary, its actuation is in keeping with the salutary principle of hierarchy of
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only courts. For the Court to find the COMELEC to have abused its discretion when
complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. it dismissed the amended petition based on the ruling of this Court in Santiago
127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June would be sheer judicial apostasy.
10, 1997.
As eloquently put by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, "there is only one Supreme Court
The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to from whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings."20 This truism
resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the applies with equal force to the COMELEC as a quasi-judicial body for, after
Court re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the all, judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws or the Constitution "assume
Chief Justice and six (6) other members of the Court, namely, the same authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned,
Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted necessarily become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which
that there was no need to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was must control the actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but
no need for re-examination of said second issue since the case a bar also of those duty bound to enforce obedience thereto."21
is not the proper vehicle for that purpose. Five (5) other members of
the Court, namely, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima and
Petitioners Cannot Ascribe resolution dismissing the petition and to grant the motion for reconsideration
Grave Abuse of Discretion on and the petition. But the Court did not. The Court positively and unequivocally
the COMELEC Based on the declared that the COMELEC merely followed the ruling of the Court
Minority Opinion in Santiago in Santiago in dismissing the petition before it. No less than Senior Justice
Reynato S. Puno concurred with the resolution of the Court. It behooved
It is elementary that the opinion of the majority of the members of the Court, Justice Puno to dissent from the ruling of the Court on the motion for
not the opinion of the minority, prevails. As a corollary, the decision of the reconsideration of petitioners precisely on the ground that there was no
majority cannot be modified or reversed by the minority of the members of the doctrine enunciated by the Court in Santiago. He did not. Neither did Chief
Court. Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, who was a member of the Court.

However, to eschew the binding effect of Santiago, petitioners argue, albeit That RA 6735 has failed to validly implement the people's right to directly
unconvincingly, that the Court's declaration therein on the inadequacy, propose constitutional amendments through the system of initiative had
incompleteness and insufficiency of RA 6735 to implement the system of already been conclusively settled in Santiago as well as in PIRMA. Heeding
initiative to propose constitutional amendments did not constitute the majority these decisions, several lawmakers, including no less than Solicitor General
opinion. This contention is utterly baseless. Antonio Eduardo Nachura when he was then a member of the House of
Representatives,25 have filed separate bills to implement the system of
Santiago was concurred in, without any reservation, by eight Justices,22 or the initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
majority of the members of the Court, who actually took part in the
deliberations thereon. On the other hand, five Justices,23 while voting for the In the present Thirteenth (13th) Congress, at least seven (7) bills are pending.
dismissal of the Delfin petition on the ground of insufficiency, dissented from In the Senate, the three (3) pending bills are: Senate Bill No. 119 entitled An
the majority opinion as they maintained the view that RA 6735 was sufficient Act Providing for People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution introduced by
to implement the system of initiative. Senator Luisa "Loi" P. Ejercito Estrada; Senate Bill No. 2189 entitled An Act
Providing for People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution introduced by
Given that a clear majority of the members of the Court, eight Justices, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago; and Senate Bill No. 2247 entitled An Act
concurred in the decision in Santiago, the pronouncement therein that RA Providing for a System of People's Initiative to Propose Amendments to the
6735 is "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions Constitution introduced by Senator Richard Gordon.
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned"
constitutes a definitive ruling on the matter. In the House of Representatives, there are at least four (4) pending bills:
House Bill No. 05281 filed by Representative Carmen Cari, House Bill No.
In the Resolution dated June 10, 1997, the motions for reconsideration of 05017 filed by Representative Imee Marcos, House Bill No. 05025 filed by
the Santiago decision were denied with finality as only six Justices, or less Representative Roberto Cajes, and House Bill No. 05026 filed by
than the majority, voted to grant the same. The Resolution expressly stated Representative Edgardo Chatto. These House bills are similarly entitled An
that the motion for reconsideration failed "to persuade the requisite majority of Act Providing for People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution.
the Court to modify or reverse the Decision of 19 March 1977."24 In fine, the
pronouncement in Santiago as embodied in the Decision of March 19, 1997 The respective explanatory notes of the said Senate and House bills uniformly
remains the definitive ruling on the matter. recognize that there is, to date, no law to govern the process by which
constitutional amendments are introduced by the people directly through the
It bears stressing that in PIRMA, petitioners prayed for the Court to resolve system of initiative. Ten (10) years after Santiago and absent the occurrence
the issue posed by them and to re-examine its ruling as regards RA 6735. By of any compelling supervening event, i.e., passage of a law to implement the
a vote of seven members of the Court, including Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. system of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, that would
and Justice Jose C. Vitug, the Court voted that there was no need to resolve warrant the re-examination of the ruling therein, it behooves the Court to apply
the issue. Five members of the Court opined that there was a need for the re- to the present case the salutary and well-recognized doctrine of stare decisis.
examination of said ruling. Thus, the pronouncement of the Court As earlier shown, Congress and other government agencies have, in fact,
in Santiago remains the law of the case and binding on petitioners. abided by Santiago. The Court can do no less with respect to its own ruling.

If, as now claimed by the minorty, there was no doctrine enunciated by the Contrary to the stance taken by petitioners, the validity or constitutionality of a
Court in Santiago, the Court should have resolved to set aside its original law cannot be made to depend on the individual opinions of the members who
compose it – the Supreme Court, as an institution, has already determined RA without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the
6735 to be "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming
concerned" and therefore the same remains to be so regardless of any change from the parliamentary districts."
in the Court's composition.26 Indeed, it is vital that there be stability in the
courts in adhering to decisions deliberately made after ample B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are hereby
consideration. Parties should not be encouraged to seek re-examination of amended to read, as follows:
determined principles and speculate on fluctuation of the law with every
change in the expounders of it.27 "Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State.
The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the
Proposals to Revise the Constitution, assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a
As in the Case of the Petitioners' majority of all the Members of Parliament from among themselves. He
Proposal to Change the Form of shall be responsible to the Parliament for the program of government.
Government, Cannot be Effected
Through the System of Initiative, C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-
Which by Express Provision of Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, there
Section 2, Article XVII of the shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions," which shall
Constitution, is Limited to Amendments read as follows:

Even granting arguendo the Court, in the present case, abandons its Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve
pronouncement in Santiago and declares RA 6735, taken together with other until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June
extant laws, sufficient to implement the system of initiative, still, the amended 2010 and shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987
petition for initiative cannot prosper. Despite the denomination of their petition, Constitution unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the
the proposals of petitioners to change the form of government from the present members of the interim parliament.,
bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government
are actually for the revision of the Constitution.
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from
office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall
Petitioners propose to "amend" Articles VI and VII of the Constitution in this succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability,
manner: resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and
Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read as and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
follows:
Section 2. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
"Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of
provinces, representative districts, and cities in accordance with the Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
number of their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
thousand inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
progressive ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
have at least one member. "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "House of
Congress," "Senator[s] or "Member[s] of the House of
"(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the Representatives" and "House of Congress" shall be changed to read
Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a "Parliament"; that any and all references therein to "Member[s] of the
resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be House of Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member[s] of
elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years
Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" and or various ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities
"Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister." as may be delegated to him by the incumbent President."

Section 3. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and simultaneously with the election of all local government
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other officials. [Thereafter, the Vice-President, as Member of Parliament,
Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially shall immediately convene the Parliament and shall initially preside
as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent over its session for the purpose of electing the Prime Minister, who
with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended shall be elected by a majority vote of all its members, from among
so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of themselves.] The duly-elected Prime Minister shall continue to
government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of the
"Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the incumbent
Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all President and Vice President.28
references therein to "Member[s] of Congress," "Senator[s]" or
"Member[s] of the House of Parliament" and any and all references to Petitioners claim that the required number of signatures of registered voters
the "President" and of "Acting President" shall be changed to read have been complied with, i.e., the signatories to the petition constitute twelve
"Prime Minister." percent (12%) of all the registered voters in the country, wherein each
legislative district is represented by at least three percent (3%) of all the
Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these registered voters therein. Certifications allegedly executed by the respective
amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the COMELEC Election Registrars of each municipality and city verifying these
Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall signatures were attached to the petition for initiative. The verification was
have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the allegedly done on the basis of the list of registered voters contained in the
Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent official COMELEC list used in the immediately preceding election.
Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.
The proposition, as formulated by petitioners, to be submitted to the Filipino
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of people in a plebiscite to be called for the said purpose reads:
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also
be a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII
convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its session for OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-
have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM,
Parliament from among themselves. AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of OTHER?29
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
According to petitioners, the proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII would
(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the effect a more efficient, more economical and more responsive government.
interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or The parliamentary system would allegedly ensure harmony between the
revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local legislative and executive branches of government, promote greater
autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. consensus, and provide faster and more decisive governmental action.

"Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive, Sections 1 and 2 of Article XVII pertinently read:
shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament,
an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of Article XVII
the members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the
 SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may by Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the following
be proposed by: distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of an existing
Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution
envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act
(2) A constitutional convention. to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the
improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed
essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
times.
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. new political, social and economic concepts.

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two
terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing
amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.30
It can be readily gleaned that the above provisions set forth different modes
and procedures for proposals for the amendment and revision of the
Constitution: Further, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted the term "revision"
in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution because it was their intention to
reserve the power to propose a revision of the Constitution to Congress or the
1. Under Section 1, Article XVII, any amendment to, or revision of, the
constitutional convention. Stated in another manner, it was their manifest
Constitution may be proposed by –
intent that revision thereof shall not be undertaken through the system of
initiative. Instead, the revision of the Constitution shall be done either by
a. Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or Congress or by a constitutional convention.

b. A constitutional convention. It is significant to note that, originally, the provision on the system of initiative
was included in Section 1 of the draft Article on Amendment or Revision
2. Under Section 2, Article XVII, amendments to the Constitution may proposed by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. The
be likewise directly proposed by the people through initiative. original draft provided:

The framers of the Constitution deliberately adopted the terms "amendment" SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
and "revision" and provided for their respective modes and procedures for proposed:
effecting changes of the Constitution fully cognizant of the distinction between
the two concepts. Commissioner Jose E. Suarez, the Chairman of the (a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, explained: members; or

MR. SUAREZ. One more point, and we will be through. (b) by a constitutional convention; or

We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, (c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in
"amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms Article __ Section __ of the Constitution.31
– "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the
honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the
However, after deliberations and interpellations, the members of the
connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of
Commission agreed to remove the provision on the system of initiative from
our research, we came up with the observations made in the famous
Section 1 and, instead, put it under a separate provision, Section 2. It was
– or notorious – Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered
explained that the removal of the provision on initiative from the other MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this
"traditional modes" of changing the Constitution was precisely to limit the process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment.
former (system of initiative) to amendments to the Constitution. It was Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms
emphasized that the system of initiative should not extend to revision. of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1,
instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President. executing provision?

May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the MR SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a
Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of
submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates
embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense conveyed by
This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. the Committee.
With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include
held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend,
upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters. which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?

This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned by the
No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of Committee.33
initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional Then Commissioner Hilario P. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice) also made the
modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The clarification with respect to the observation of Commissioner Regalado
committee members felt that this system of initiative should be limited Maambong:
to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to the
revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's
of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. x x x32 proposed amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not
cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when
The intention to exclude "revision" of the Constitution as a mode that may be he made the distinction between the words "amendments" and
undertaken through the system of initiative was reiterated and made clear by "revision"?
Commissioner Suarez in response to a suggestion of Commissioner Felicitas
Aquino: MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision"
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned,
MR. SUAREZ. Section 2 must be interpreted together with the it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."34
provisions of Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently
drafted, there is no take-off date for the 60-day and 90-day periods. After several amendments, the Commission voted in favor of the following
wording of Section 2:
MS. AQUINO. Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative
mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution which would AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE
further require the process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE
it is not self-executing. UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS OF WHICH EVERY
MR. SUAREZ. No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST
period. THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO
AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED
WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS
 CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS to amend is not the change of the entire constitution, but only the
THEREAFTER. improvement of specific parts of the existing constitution of the addition
of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT. unresponsive to the needs of the times. The 1973 Constitution is not
a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It is a completely new
Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII as eventually worded read: fundamental charter embodying new political, social and economic
concepts.36
Article XVII
Other elucidation on the distinction between "amendment" and "revision" is
enlightening. For example, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, an eminent authority on
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
political law, distinguished the two terms in this manner:
be proposed by:
Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations
(3) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the
rewriting either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or
(4) A constitutional convention. perhaps only some of its important provisions. But whatever results
the revisions may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out.
proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition of at least That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which provisions of the constitution to determine which one should be altered
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this with an entirely new one.
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a
change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to
The final text of Article XVII on Amendments or Revisions clearly makes a improve the specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
substantial differentiation not only between the two terms but also between provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
two procedures and their respective fields of application. Ineluctably, the suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or dangerous, or
system of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII as a mode of effecting misleading in their effect.37
changes in the Constitution is strictly limited to amendments – not to a revision
– thereof. In the United States, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Wheeler v. Board of
Trustees38 had the occasion to make the distinction between the two terms
As opined earlier, the framers of the Constitution, in providing for "amendment" with respect to Ga.L. 1945, an instrument which "amended" the 1877
and "revision" as different modes of changing the fundamental law, were Constitution of Georgia. It explained the term "amendment:"
cognizant of the distinction between the two terms. They particularly relied on
the distinction made by Justice Felix Antonio in his concurring opinion "Amendment" of a statute implies its survival and not destruction. It
in Javellana v. Executive Secretary,35 the controversial decision which gave repeals or changes some provision, or adds something thereto. A law
imprimatur to the 1973 Constitution of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, is amended when it is in whole or in part permitted to remain, and
as follows: something is added to or taken from it, or it is in some way changed
or altered to make it more complete or perfect, or to fit it the better to
There is clearly a distinction between revision and amendment of an accomplish the object or purpose for which it was made, or some other
existing constitution. Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole object or purpose.39
constitution. The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand,
envisages a change of only specific provisions. The intention of an act
On the other hand, the term "revision" was explained by the said US appellate through the crucible of sustained sometimes passionate and often exhilarating
court: debates that intersected all dimensions of the national life."42

x x x When a house is completely demolished and another is erected Evidently, the framers of the Constitution believed that a revision thereof
on the same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered should, in like manner, be a product of the same extensive and intensive study
house, or do you have a new house? Some of the materials contained and debates. Consequently, while providing for a system of initiative where
in the old house may be used again, some of the rooms may be the people would directly propose amendments to the Constitution, they
constructed the same, but this does not alter the fact that you have entrusted the formidable task of its revision to a deliberative body, the
altogether another or a new house. We conclude that the instrument Congress or Constituent Assembly.
as contained in Ga.L. 1945, pp. 8 to 89, inclusive, is not an amendment
to the constitution of 1877; but on the contrary it is a completely revised The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state, containing the principles
or new constitution.40 upon which the government is founded, and regulating the division of
sovereign powers, directing to what persons each of those powers is to be
Fairly recently, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a member of the Constitutional confided and the manner in which it is to be exercised.43 The Philippines has
Commission, expounded on the distinction between the two terms thus: followed the American constitutional legal system in the sense that the
term constitution is given a more restricted meaning, i.e., as a written organic
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and instrument, under which governmental powers are both conferred and
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment circumscribed.44
is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed
necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that The Constitution received its force from the express will of the people. An
may have become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In overwhelming 16,622,111, out of 21,785,216 votes cast during the
revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplate plebiscite, or 76.30% ratified the present Constitution on February 2,
a re-examination of the entire document – or of provisions of the 1987.45 In expressing that will, the Filipino people have incorporated therein
document (which have overall implications for the entire document or the method and manner by which the same can be amended and revised, and
for the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the document) – to when the electorate have incorporated into the fundamental law the particular
determine how and to what extent it should be altered. Thus, for manner in which the same may be altered or changed, then any course which
instance, a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary disregards that express will is a direct violation of the fundamental law.46
system would be a revision because of its overall impact on the entire
constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to Further, these provisions having been incorporated in the Constitution, where
a unicameral system because of its effect on other important the validity of a constitutional amendment or revision depends upon whether
provisions of the Constitution. such provisions have been complied with, such question presents for
consideration and determination a judicial question, and the courts are the
It is thus clear that what distinguishes revision from amendment is not only tribunals vested with power under the Constitution to determine such
the quantum of change in the document. Rather, it is the fundamental question.47
qualitative alteration that effects revision. Hence, I must reject the
puerile argument that the use of the plural form of "amendments" Earlier, it was mentioned that Article XVII, by the use of the terms
means that a revision can be achieved by the introduction of a "amendment" and "revision," clearly makes a differentiation not only between
multiplicity of amendments!41 the two terms but also between two procedures and their respective fields of
application. On this point, the case of McFadden v. Jordan48 is instructive. In
Given that revision necessarily entails a more complex, substantial and far- that case, a "purported initiative amendment" (referred to as the proposed
reaching effects on the Constitution, the framers thereof wisely withheld the measure) to the State Constitution of California, then being proposed to be
said mode from the system of initiative. It should be recalled that it took the submitted to the electors for ratification, was sought to be enjoined. The
framers of the present Constitution four months from June 2, 1986 until proposed measure, denominated as "California Bill of Rights," comprised a
October 15, 1986 to come up with the draft Constitution which, as described single new article with some 208 subsections which would repeal or
by the venerable Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, the President of the substantially alter at least 15 of the 25 articles of the California State
Constitutional Commission of 1986, "gradually and painstakingly took shape Constitution and add at least four new topics. Among the likely effects of the
proposed measure were to curtail legislative and judicial functions, legalize
gaming, completely revise the taxation system and reduce the powers of 1. Section 19 of Article III (Bill of Rights) on the power of Congress to
cities, counties and courts. The proposed measure also included diverse impose the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous
matters as ministers, mines, civic centers, liquor control and naturopaths. crimes;

The Supreme Court of California enjoined the submission of the proposed 2. Section 2 of Article V (Suffrage) on the power of Congress to provide
measure to the electors for ratification because it was not an "amendment" but for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system
a "revision" which could only be proposed by a convention. It held that from for absentee voting;
an examination of the proposed measure itself, considered in relation to the
terms of the California State Constitution, it was clear that the proposed 3. All 32 Sections of Article VI on the Legislative Department;
initiative enactment amounted substantially to an attempted revision, rather
than amendment, thereof; and that inasmuch as the California State 4. All 23 Sections of Article VII on the Executive Department;
Constitution specifies (Article XVIII §2 thereof) that it may be revised by means
of constitutional convention but does not provide for revision by initiative
5. The following Sections of Article VIII (Judicial Department):
measure, the submission of the proposed measure to the electorate for
ratification must be enjoined.
- Section 2 on power of Congress to define, prescribe and
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts;
As piercingly enunciated by the California State Supreme Court in McFadden,
the differentiation required (between amendment and revision) is not merely
between two words; more accurately it is between two procedures and - Section 7 on the power of Congress to prescribe the
between their respective fields of application. Each procedure, if we follow qualifications of judges of lower courts;
elementary principles of statutory construction, must be understood to have a
substantial field of application, not to be a mere alternative procedure in the - Section 8 on the composition of Judicial Bar Council (JBC)
same field. Each of the two words, then, must be understood to denote, which includes representatives of Congress as ex officio
respectively, not only a procedure but also a field of application appropriate to members and on the power of the President to appoint the
its procedure.49 regular members of the JBC;

Provisions regulating the time and mode of effecting organic changes are in - Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the
the nature of safety-valves – they must not be so adjusted as to discharge members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts;
their peculiar function with too great facility, lest they become the ordinary
escape-pipes of party passion; nor, on the other hand, must they discharge it - Section 16 on duty of Supreme Court to make annual report
with such difficulty that the force needed to induce action is sufficient also to to the President and Congress.
explode the machine. Hence, the problem of the Constitution maker is, in this
particular, one of the most difficult in our whole system, to reconcile the 6. The following Sections of Article IX (Constitutional Commissions);
requisites for progress with the requisites for safety.50
- (B) Section 3 on duty of Civil Service Commission to make
Like in McFadden, the present petition for initiative on amendments to the annual report to the President and Congress;
Constitution is, despite its denomination, one for its revision. It purports to seek
the amendment only of Articles VI and VII of the Constitution as well as to - (B) Section 5 on power of Congress to provide by law for the
provide transitory provisions. However, as will be shown shortly, the standardization of compensation of government officials;
amendment of these two provisions will necessarily affect other numerous
provisions of the Constitution particularly those pertaining to the specific
- (B) Section 8 which provides in part that "no public officer
powers of Congress and the President. These powers would have to be
shall accept, without the consent of Congress, any present,
transferred to the Parliament and the Prime Minister and/or President, as the
emolument, etc. x x x"
case may be. More than one hundred (100) sections will be affected or altered
thereby:
- (C) Section 1 on the power of the President to appoint the
Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on
 Elections with the consent of the Commission on - Section 11 on the power of Congress to create special
Appointments; metropolitan political subdivisions;

- (C) Section 2 (7) on the power of the COMELEC to - Section 14 on the power of the President to provide for
recommend to Congress measures to minimize election regional development councils x x x;
spending x x x;
- Section 16 on the power of the President to exercise general
- (C) Section 2 (8) on the duty of the COMELEC to recommend supervision over autonomous regions;
to the President the removal of any officer or employee it has
deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action x - Section 18 on the power of Congress to enact organic act for
x x; each autonomous region as well as the power of the President
to appoint the representatives to the regional consultative
- (C) Section 2 (9) on the duty of the COMELEC to submit to commission;
the President and Congress a report on the conduct of
election, plebiscite, etc.; - Section 19 on the duty of the first Congress elected under the
Constitution to pass the organic act for autonomous regions in
- (C) Section 5 on the power of the President, with the Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
favorable recommendation of the COMELEC, to grant pardon,
amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for violation of 8. The following Sections of Article XI (Accountability of Public
election laws, rules and regulations; Officers):

- (C) Section 7 which recognizes as valid votes cast in favor of - Section 2 on the impeachable officers (President, Vice-
organization registered under party-list system; President, etc.);

- (C) Section 8 on political parties, organizations or coalitions - Section 3 on impeachment proceedings (exclusive power of
under the party-list system; the House to initiate complaint and sole power of the Senate
to try and decide impeachment cases);
- (D) Section 1 (2) on the power of the President to appoint the
Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on Audit - Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the
(COA) with the consent of the Commission of Appointments; Ombudsman and his deputies;

- Section 4 on duty of the COA to make annual report to the - Section 16 which provides in part that "x x x no loans or
President and Congress. guaranty shall be granted to the President, Vice-President,
etc.
7. The following Sections of Article X (Local Government):
- Section 17 on mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities
- Section 3 on the power of Congress to enact a local by public officials including the President, Vice-President, etc.
government code;
9. The following Sections of Article XII (National Economy and
- Section 4 on the power of the President to exercise general Patrimony):
supervision over local government units (LGUs);
- Section 2 on the power of Congress to allow, by law, small-
- Section 5 on the power of LGUs to create their own sources scale utilization of natural resources and power of the
of income x x x, subject to such guidelines as Congress may President to enter into agreements with foreign-owned
provide; corporations and duty to notify Congress of every contract;
 - Section 3 on the power of Congress to determine size of - Section 19 on the power of Congress to provide for other
lands of public domain; cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission on
Human Rights.
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to determine specific
limits of forest lands; 11. The following Sections of Article XIV (Education, Science and
Technology, etc.):
- Section 5 on the power of Congress to provide for
applicability of customary laws; - Section 4 on the power of Congress to increase Filipino
equity participation in educational institutions;
- Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish an
independent economic and planning agency to be headed by - Section 6 which provides that subject to law and as Congress
the President; may provide, the Government shall sustain the use of Filipino
as medium of official communication;
- Section 10 on the power of Congress to reserve to Filipino
citizens or domestic corporations(at least 60% Filipino-owned) - Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish a national
certain areas of investment; language commission;

- Section 11 on the sole power of Congress to grant franchise - Section 11 on the power of Congress to provide for incentives
for public utilities; to promote scientific research.

- Section 15 on the power of Congress to create an agency to 12. The following Sections of Article XVI (General Provisions):
promote viability of cooperatives;
- Section 2 on the power of Congress to adopt new name for
- Section 16 which provides that Congress shall not, except by the country, new national anthem, etc.;
general law, form private corporations;
- Section 5 (7) on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff which
- Section 17 on the salaries of the President, Vice-President, may be extended by the President in times of war or national
etc. and the power of Congress to adjust the same; emergency declared by Congress;

- Section 20 on the power of Congress to establish central - Section 11 on the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit
monetary authority. monopolies in mass media;

10. The following Sections of Article XIII (Social Justice and Human - Section 12 on the power of Congress to create consultative
Rights): body to advise the President on indigenous cultural
communities.
- Section 1 on the mandate of Congress to give highest priority
to enactment of measures that protect and enhance the right 13. The following Sections of Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions):
of people x x x
- Section 1 on the amendment or revision of Constitution by
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to prescribe retention Congress;
limits in agrarian reform;
- Section 2 on the duty of Congress to provide for the
- Section 18 (6) on the duty of the Commission on Human implementation of the system of initiative;
Rights to recommend to Congress effective measures to
promote human rights; - Section 3 on the power of Congress to call constitutional
convention to amend or revise the Constitution.
 14. All 27 Sections of Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions). Constitution. The tripartite system ordained by our fundamental law divides
governmental powers into three distinct but co-equal branches: the legislative,
The foregoing enumeration negates the claim that "the big bulk of the 1987 executive and judicial. Legislative power, vested in Congress which is a
Constitution will not be affected."51 Petitioners' proposition, while purportedly bicameral body consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is
seeking to amend only Articles VI and VII of the Constitution and providing the power to make laws and to alter them at discretion. Executive power,
transitory provisions, will, in fact, affect, alter, replace or repeal other vested in the President who is directly elected by the people, is the power to
numerous articles and sections thereof. More than the quantitative effects, see that the laws are duly executed and enforced. Judicial power, vested in
however, the revisory character of petitioners' proposition is apparent from the the Supreme Court and the lower courts, is the power to construe and apply
qualitative effects it will have on the fundamental law. the law when controversies arise concerning what has been done or omitted
under it. This separation of powers furnishes a system of checks and balances
I am not impervious to the commentary of Dean Vicente G. Sinco that the which guards against the establishment of an arbitrary or tyrannical
revision of a constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of government.
the entire constitution and the procedure for effecting such change;
while amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added to or to be Under a unicameral-parliamentary system, however, the tripartite separation
altered in a constitution.52 of power is dissolved as there is a fusion between the executive and legislative
powers. Essentially, the President becomes a mere "symbolic head of State"
For clarity and accuracy, however, it is necessary to reiterate below Dean while the Prime Minister becomes the head of government who is elected, not
Sinco's more comprehensive differentiation of the terms: by direct vote of the people, but by the members of the Parliament. The
Parliament is a unicameral body whose members are elected by legislative
districts. The Prime Minister, as head of government, does not have a fixed
Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations
term of office and may only be removed by a vote of confidence of the
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the
Parliament. Under this form of government, the system of checks and
rewriting either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or
balances is emasculated.
perhaps only some of its important provisions. But whatever results
the revisions may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of
revision is the original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. Considering the encompassing scope and depth of the changes that would be
That intention and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the effected, not to mention that the Constitution's basic plan and substance of a
provisions of the constitution to determine which one should be altered tripartite system of government and the principle of separation of powers
or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced underlying the same would be altered, if not entirely destroyed, there can be
with an entirely new one. no other conclusion than that the proposition of petitioners Lambino, et al.
would constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment or
"such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will
The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a
effect an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was
change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
framed."54 As has been shown, the effect of the adoption of the petitioners'
amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
proposition, rather than to "within the lines of the original instrument" constitute
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to
"an improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed," is
improve the specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
to "substantially alter the purpose and to attain objectives clearly beyond the
provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
lines of the Constitution as now cast."55
suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or dangerous, or
misleading in their effect.53
To paraphrase McFadden, petitioners' contention that any change less than a
total one is amendatory would reduce to the rubble of absurdity the bulwark
A change in the form of government from bicameral-presidential to
so carefully erected and preserved. A case might, conceivably, be presented
unicameral-parliamentary, following the above distinction, entails a revision of
where the question would be occasion to undertake to define with nicety the
the Constitution as it will involve "alteration of different portions of the entire
line of demarcation; but we have no case or occasion here.
document" and "may result in the rewriting of the whole constitution, or the
greater portion of it, or perhaps only some of its important provisions."
As succinctly by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, "a switch from the presidential system to
a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its overall impact on
More importantly, such shift in the form of government will, without doubt,
the entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system
fundamentally change the basic plan and substance of the present
to a unicameral system because of its effect on other important provisions of The law mandates upon the election registrar to personally verify the
the Constitution. It is thus clear that what distinguishes revision from signatures. This is a solemn and important duty imposed on the election
amendment is not the quantum of change in the document. Rather, it is the registrar which he cannot delegate to any other person, even
fundamental qualitative alteration that effects revision."56 to barangay officials. Hence, a verification of signatures made by persons
other than the election registrars has no legal effect.
The petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution filed by petitioners
Lambino, et al., being in truth and in fact a proposal for the revision thereof, is In patent violation of the law, several certifications submitted by petitioners
barred from the system of initiative upon any legally permissible construction showed that the verification of signatures was made, not by the election
of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. registrars, but by barangay officials. For example, the certification of the
election officer in Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur reads in full:
The Petition for Initiative on
Amendments to the Constitution LOCAL ELECTION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION57
is, on its Face, Insufficient in
Form and Substance THIS IS TO CERTIFY that based on the verifications made by the
Barangay Officials in this City/Municipality, as attested to by two (2)
Again, even granting arguendo RA 6735 is declared sufficient to implement witnesses from the same Barangays, which is part of the
the system of initiative and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, as it 2nd Legislative District of the Province of Lanao del Sur, the names
prescribed rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments appearing on the attached signature sheets relative to the proposed
to the Constitution, is valid, still, the petition for initiative on amendments to initiative on Amendments to the 1987 Constitution, are those
the Constitution must be dismissed for being insufficient in form and of bonafide resident of the said Barangays and correspond to the
substance. names found in the official list of registered voters of the Commission
on Elections and/or voters' affidavit and/or voters' identification cards.
Section 5 of RA 6735 requires that a petition for initiative on the Constitution
must state the following: It is further certified that the total number of signatures of the registered
voters for the City/Municipality of LUMBATAN, LANAO DEL SUR as
1. Contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, appearing in the affixed signatures sheets is ONE THOUSAND ONE
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be; HUNDRED EIGHTY (1,180).

2. The proposition; April 2, 2006

3. The reason or reasons therefor; IBRAHIM M. MACADATO

Election Officer
4. That it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
(Underscoring supplied)
5. Signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
The ineffective verification in almost all the legislative districts in the
6. An abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) alone is shown by the
(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every certifications, similarly worded as above-quoted, of the election registrars of
page of the petition. Buldon, Maguindanao;58 Cotabato City (Special Province);59 Datu Odin
Sinsuat, Maguindanao;60 Matanog, Maguindanao;61 Parang,
Maguindanao; Kabantalan, Maguindanao; Upi, Maguinadano;64 Barira,
62 63
Section 7 thereof requires that the signatures be verified in this wise:
Maguindanao;65 Sultan, Mastura;66 Ampatuan, Maguindanao;67 Buluan,
Maguindanao; Datu
68 Paglas, Maguindanao;69 Datu Piang,
SEC. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify Maguindanao; Shariff
70 Aguak, Maguindanao;71 Pagalungan,
the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' Maguindanao;72 Talayan, Maguindanao;73 Gen. S.K. Pendatun,
affidavits and voters' identification cards used in the immediately Maguindanao; Mamasapano,
74 Maguindanao;75 Talitay,
preceding election. Maguindanao;76 Guindulungan, Maguindanao;77 Datu Saudi Ampatuan,
Maguindanao;78 Datu Unsay, Maguindanao;79 Pagagawan, act or duty is one which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts,
Maguindanao; Rajah Buayan, Maguindanao;81 Indanan, Sulu;82 Jolo,
80 in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a legal authority,
Sulu;83 Maimbung, Sulu;84 Hadji Panglima, Sulu;85 Pangutaran, without regard to or the exercise of his own judgment upon the propriety or
Sulu; Parang, Sulu; Kalingalan Caluang, Sulu; Luuk, Sulu;89 Panamao,
86 87 88 impropriety of the act done. If the law imposes a duty upon a public official and
Sulu;90 Pata, Sulu;91 Siasi, Sulu;92 Tapul, Sulu;93 Panglima Estino, gives him the right to decide how or when the duty should be performed, such
Sulu; Lugus, Sulu; and Pandami, Sulu.
94 95 96 duty is discretionary and not ministerial. The duty is ministerial only when the
discharge of the same requires neither the exercise of an official discretion nor
Section 7 of RA 6735 is clear that the verification of signatures shall be done judgment.100
by the election registrar, and by no one else, including the barangay officials.
The foregoing certifications submitted by petitioners, instead of aiding their To stress, in a petition for mandamus, petitioner must show a well defined,
cause, justify the outright dismissal of their petition for initiative. Because of clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.101 In this case, petitioners
the illegal verifications made by barangay officials in the above-mentioned failed to establish their right to a writ of mandamus as shown by the foregoing
legislative districts, it necessarily follows that the petition for initiative has failed disquisitions.
to comply with the requisite number of signatures, i.e., at least twelve percent
(12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative Remand of the Case to the
district must be represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered COMELEC is Not Authorized by
voters therein. RA 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300

Petitioners cannot disclaim the veracity of these damaging certifications The dissenting opinion posits that the issue of whether or not the petition for
because they themselves submitted the same to the COMELEC and to the initiative has complied with the requisite number of signatures of at least
Court in the present case to support their contention that the requirements of twelve percent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every
RA 6735 had been complied with and that their petition for initiative is on its legislative district must be represented by at least three percent (3%) of the
face sufficient in form and substance. They are in the nature of judicial registered voters therein, involves contentious facts. The dissenting opinion
admissions which are conclusive and binding on petitioners.97 This being the cites the petitioners' claim that they have complied with the same while the
case, the Court must forthwith order the dismissal of the petition for initiative oppositors-intervenors have vigorously refuted this claim by alleging, inter alia,
for being, on its face, insufficient in form and substance. The Court should that the signatures were not properly verified or were not verified at all. Other
make the adjudication entailed by the facts here and now, without further oppositors-intervenors have alleged that the signatories did not fully
proceedings, as it has done in other cases.98 understand what they have signed as they were misled into signing the
signature sheets.
It is argued by petitioners that, assuming arguendo that the COMELEC is
correct in relying on Santiago that RA 6735 is inadequate to cover initiative to According to the dissenting opinion, the sufficiency of the petition for initiative
the Constitution, this cannot be used to legitimize its refusal to heed the and its compliance with the requirements of RA 6735 on initiative and its
people's will. The fact that there is no enabling law should not prejudice the implementing rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at
right of the sovereign people to propose amendments to the Constitution, the first instance. It thus remands the case to the COMELEC for further
which right has already been exercised by 6,327,952 voters. The collective proceedings.
and resounding act of the particles of sovereignty must not be set aside.
Hence, the COMELEC should be ordered to comply with Section 4, Article To my mind, the remand of the case to the COMELEC is not warranted. There
XVII of the 1987 Constitution via a writ of mandamus. The submission of is nothing in RA 6735, as well as in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, granting
petitioners, however, is unpersuasive. that it is valid to implement the former statute, that authorizes the COMELEC
to conduct any kind of hearing, whether full-blown or trial-type hearing,
Mandamus is a proper recourse for citizens who act to enforce a public right summary hearing or administrative hearing, on a petition for initiative.
and to compel the persons of a public duty most especially when mandated
by the Constitution.99 However, under Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Section 41 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 provides that "[a]n initiative
Court, for a petition for mandamus to prosper, it must be shown that the shall be conducted under the control and supervision of the Commission in
subject of the petition is a ministerial act or duty and not purely discretionary accordance with Article III hereof." Pertinently, Sections 30, 31 and 32 of
on the part of the board, officer or person, and that petitioner has a well- Article III of the said implementing rules provide as follows:
defined, clear and certain right to warrant the grant thereof. A purely ministerial
 Sec. 30. Verification of signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify other department or particular office of the government, with discretionary
the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' power to act.103
affidavits and voters' identification cards used in the immediately
preceding election. In his concurring and dissenting opinion in Arroyo v. De Venecia,104 Senior
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno explained the doctrine of political question
Sec. 31. Determination by the Commission. – The Commission shall vis-à-vis the express mandate of the present Constitution for the courts to
act on the findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the
initiative or referendum. part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government:

If it should appear that the required number of signatures has not been In the Philippine setting, there is more compelling reason for courts to
obtained, the petition shall be deemed defeated and the Commission categorically reject the political question defense when its interposition
shall issue a declaration to that effect. will cover up abuse of power. For Section 1, Article VIII of our
Constitution was intentionally cobbled to empower courts "... to
If it should appear that the required number of signatures has been determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
obtained, the Commission shall set the initiative or referendum in amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch
accordance with the succeeding sections. or instrumentality of the government." This power is new and was not
granted to our courts in the 1935 and 1972 Constitutions. It was also
Sec. 32. Appeal. – The decision of the Commission on the findings of not xeroxed from the US Constitution or any foreign state constitution.
the sufficiency and insufficiency of the petition for initiative or The CONCOM [Constitutional Commission] granted this enormous
referendum may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty (30) power to our courts in view of our experience under martial law where
days from notice hereof. abusive exercises of state power were shielded from judicial scrutiny
by the misuse of the political question doctrine. Led by the eminent
former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, the CONCOM expanded
Clearly, following the foregoing procedural rules, the COMELEC is not
and sharpened the checking powers of the judiciary vis-à-vis the
authorized to conduct any kind of hearing to receive any evidence for or
Executive and the Legislative departments of government. In cases
against the sufficiency of the petition for initiative. Rather, the foregoing rules
involving the proclamation of martial law and suspension of the
require of the COMELEC to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the
privilege of habeas corpus, it is now beyond dubiety that the
petition for initiative on its face. And it has already been shown, by the annexes
government can no longer invoke the political question defense.
submitted by the petitioners themselves, their petition is, on its face,
insufficient in form and substance. The remand of the case to the COMELEC
for reception of evidence of the parties on the contentious factual issues is, in xxxx
effect, an amendment of the abovequoted rules of the COMELEC by this Court
which the Court is not empowered to do. To a great degree, it diminished its [political question doctrine] use as
a shield to protect other abuses of government by allowing courts to
The Present Petition Presents a penetrate the shield with new power to review acts of any branch or
Justiciable Controversy; Hence, instrumentality of the government ". . . to determine whether or not
a Non-Political Question. Further, there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
the People, Acting in their Sovereign of jurisdiction."
Capacity, Have Bound Themselves
to Abide by the Constitution Even if the present petition involves the act, not of a governmental body, but
of purportedly more than six million registered voters who have signified their
Political questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are assent to the proposal to amend the Constitution, the same still constitutes a
to be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which justiciable controversy, hence, a non-political question. There is no doubt that
full discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive the Constitution, under Article XVII, has explicitly provided for the manner or
branch of government.102 A political question has two aspects: (1) those method to effect amendments thereto, or revision thereof. The question,
matters that are to be exercised by the people in their primary political therefore, of whether there has been compliance with the terms of the
capacity; and (2) matters which have been specifically designated to some Constitution is for the Court to pass upon.105
In the United States, in In re McConaughy,106 the State Supreme Court of under which the electors of the state may change the same, and, unless such
Minnesota exercised jurisdiction over the petition questioning the result of the course is pursued, the mere fact that a majority of the electors are in favor of
general election holding that "an examination of the decisions shows that the a change and have so expressed themselves, does not work a change. Such
courts have almost uniformly exercised the authority to determine the validity a course would be revolutionary, and the Constitution of the state would
of the proposal, submission, or ratification of constitutional amendments." The become a mere matter of form.116
cases cited were Dayton v. St. Paul,107 Rice v. Palmer,108 Bott v.
Wurtz,109 State v. Powell,110 among other cases. The very term Constitution implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding
nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicated the will
There is no denying that "the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding
them."111 However, I find to be tenuous the asseveration that "the argument nature.117
that the people through initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to
change the Constitution turns sovereignty in its head. At the very least, the The Filipino people have incorporated the safety valves of amendment and
submission constricts the democratic space for the exercise of the direct revision in Article XVII of the Constitution. The Court is mandated to ensure
sovereignty of the people."112 In effect, it is theorized that despite the that these safety valves embodied in the Constitution to guard against
unambiguous text of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution withholding the improvident and hasty changes thereof are not easily trifled with. To be sure,
power to revise it from the system of initiative, the people, in their sovereign by having overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution, the Filipino people believed
capacity, can conveniently disregard the said provision. that it is "a good Constitution" and in the words of the learned Judge Cooley:

I strongly take exception to the view that the people, in their sovereign x x x should be beyond the reach of temporary excitement and popular
capacity, can disregard the Constitution altogether. Such a view directly caprice or passion. It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must
contravenes the fundamental constitutional theory that while indeed "the yield to the thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the
ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom springs all legitimate thought evolved in excitement or hot blood, but the sober second
authority"; nonetheless, "by the Constitution which they establish, they not thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be allowed
only tie up the hands of their official agencies, but their own hands as well; efficiency. Changes in government are to be feared unless the benefit
and neither the officers of the state, nor the whole people as an aggregate is certain. As Montaign says: "All great mutations shake and disorder
body, are at liberty to take action in opposition to this fundamental law."113 The a state. Good does not necessarily succeed evil; another evil may
Constitution, it should be remembered, "is the protector of the people, placed succeed and worse.118
on guard by them to save the rights of the people against injury by the
people."114 This is the essence of constitutionalism: Indisputably, the issues posed in the present case are of transcendental
importance. Accordingly, I have approached and grappled with them with full
Through constitutionalism we placed limits on both our political appreciation of the responsibilities involved in the present case, and have
institutions and ourselves, hoping that democracies, historically given to its consideration the earnest attention which its importance demands.
always turbulent, chaotic and even despotic, might now become I have sought to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution at whatever
restrained, principled, thoughtful and just. So we bound ourselves over hazard. I share the concern of Chief Justice Day in Koehler v. Hill:119 "it is for
to a law that we made and promised to keep. And though a the protection of minorities that constitutions are framed. Sometimes
government of laws did not displace governance by men, it did mean constitutions must be interposed for the protection of majorities even against
that now men, democratic men, would try to live by their word.115 themselves. Constitutions are adopted in times of public repose, when sober
reason holds her citadel, and are designed to check the surging passions in
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the system of initiative is limited times of popular excitement. But if courts could be coerced by popular
only to proposals to amend to the Constitution, and does not extend to its majorities into a disregard of their provisions, constitutions would become
revision. The Filipino people have bound themselves to observe the manner mere 'ropes of sand,' and there would be an end of social security and of
and method to effect the changes of the Constitution. They opted to limit the constitutional freedom. The cause of temperance can sustain no injury from
exercise of the right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution the loss of this amendment which would be at all comparable to the injury to
through initiative, but did not extend the same to the revision thereof. The republican institutions which a violation of the constitution would inflict. That
petition for initiative, as it proposes to effect the revision thereof, contravenes large and respectable class of moral reformers which so justly demands the
the Constitution. The fundamental law of the state prescribes the limitations observance and enforcement of law, cannot afford to take its first reformatory
step by a violation of the constitution. How can it consistently demand of others (2) A constitutional convention.
obedience to a constitution which it violates itself? The people can in a short
time re-enact the amendment. In the manner of a great moral reform, the loss Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
of a few years is nothing. The constitution is the palladium of republican proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
freedom. The young men coming forward upon the stage of political action twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
must be educated to venerate it; those already upon the stage must be taught every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
to obey it. Whatever interest may be advanced or may suffer, whoever or centum of the registered votes therein. No amendment under this
whatever may be 'voted up or voted down,' no sacrilegious hand must be laid section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
upon the constitution."120 this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174299. this right.

ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members,
Associate Justice call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.
____________________
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
EN BANC Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
G.R. No. 174153 (RAUL LAMBINO, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
ELECTIONS, ET AL.) and revision.

G.R. No. 174299 (MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
ELECTIONS, ET AL.). a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

SEPARATE OPINION This Article states the procedure for changing the Constitution.

AZCUNA, J.: Constitutions have three parts – the Constitution of Liberty, which states the
fundamental rights of the people; the Constitution of Government, which
"Why, friends, you go to do you know not what." establishes the structure of government, its branches and their operation; and
the Constitution of Sovereignty, which provides how the Constitution may be
-- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2. changed.

Article XVII of the Constitution states: Article XVII is the Constitution of Sovereignty.

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS As a result, the powers therein provided are called constituent powers. So
when Congress acts under this provision, it acts not as a legislature exercising
legislative powers. It acts as a constituent body exercising constituent powers.
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
The rules, therefore, governing the exercise of legislative powers do not apply,
or do not apply strictly, to the actions taken under Article XVII.
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
Accordingly, since Article XVII states that Congress shall provide for the Nevertheless, this democratic nature of our polity is that of a democracy under
implementation of the exercise of the people's right directly to propose the rule of law. This equally important point is emphasized in the very
amendments to the Constitution through initiative, the act of Congress Preamble to the Constitution, which states:
pursuant thereto is not strictly a legislative action but partakes of a constituent
act. ". . . the blessings of . . . democracy under the rule of law . . . ."

As a result, Republic Act No. 6735, the act that provides for the exercise of Such is the case with respect to the power to initiate changes in the
the people of the right to propose a law or amendments to the Constitution is, Constitution. The power is subject to limitations under the Constitution itself,
with respect to the right to propose amendments to the Constitution, a thus: The power could not be exercised for the first five years after the
constituent measure, not a mere legislative one. Constitution took effect and thereafter can only be exercised once every five
years; the power only extends to proposing amendments but not revisions;
The consequence of this special character of the enactment, insofar as it and the power needs an act of Congress providing for its implementation,
relates to proposing amendments to the Constitution, is that the requirements which act is directed and mandated.
for statutory enactments, such as sufficiency of standards and the like, do not
and should not strictly apply. As long as there is a sufficient and clear intent to The question, therefore, arises whether the proposed changes in the
provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right, it should be Constitution set forth in the petition for initiative herein involved are mere
sustained, as it is simply a compliance of the mandate placed on Congress by amendments or rather are revisions.
the Constitution.
Revisions are changes that affect the entire Constitution and not mere parts
Seen in this light, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 relating to the of it.
procedure for proposing amendments to the Constitution, can and should be
upheld, despite shortcomings perhaps in legislative headings and standards. The reason why revisions are not allowed through direct proposals by the
people through initiative is a practical one, namely, there is no one to draft
For this reason, I concur in the view that Santiago v. Comelec1 should be re- such extensive changes, since 6.3 million people cannot conceivably come up
examined and, after doing so, that the pronouncement therein regarding the with a single extensive document through a direct proposal from each of them.
insufficiency or inadequacy of the measure to sustain a people's initiative to Someone would have to draft it and that is not authorized as it would not be a
amend the Constitution should be reconsidered in favor of allowing the direct proposal from the people. Such indirect proposals can only take the
exercise of this sovereign right. form of proposals from Congress as a Constituent Assembly under Article
XVII, or a Constitutional Convention created under the same provision.
And applying the doctrine stated in Senarillos v. Hermosisima,2 penned by Furthermore, there is a need for such deliberative bodies for revisions
Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in relation to Article 8 of the Civil Code, that a decision because their proceedings and debates are duly and officially recorded, so
of this Court interpreting a law forms part of the law interpreted as of the time that future cases of interpretations can be properly aided by resort to the
of its enactment, Republic Act No. 6735 should be deemed sufficient and record of their proceedings.
adequate from the start.
Even a cursory reading of the proposed changes contained in the petition for
This next point to address, there being a sufficient law, is whether the petition initiative herein involved will show on its face that the proposed changes
for initiative herein involved complies with the requirements of that law as well constitute a revision of the Constitution. The proposal is to change the system
as those stated in Article XVII of the Constitution. of government from that which is bicameral-presidential to one that is
unicameral-parliamentary.
True it is that ours is a democratic state, as explicitated in the Declaration of
Principles, to emphasize precisely that there are instances recognized and While purportedly only Articles VI, VII, and XVIII are involved, the fact is, as
provided for in the Constitution where our people directly exercise their the petition and text of the proposed changes themselves state, every
sovereign powers, new features set forth in this People Power Charter, provision of the Constitution will have to be examined to see if they conform
namely, the powers of recall, initiative and referendum. to the nature of a unicameral-parliamentary form of government and changed
accordingly if they do not so conform to it. For example, Article VIII on Judicial
Department cannot stand as is, in a parliamentary system, for under such a
system, the Parliament is supreme, and thus the Court's power to declare its Such proposal, moreover, complies with the intention and rationale behind the
act a grave abuse of discretion and thus void would be an anomaly. present initiative, which is to provide for simplicity and economy in government
and reduce the stalemates that often prevent needed legislation.
Now, who is to do such examination and who is to do such changes and how
should the changes be worded? The proposed initiative does not say who nor For the nonce, therefore, I vote to DISMISS the petition, without prejudice to
how. the filing of an appropriate initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution to change Congress into a unicameral body. This is not say that
Not only, therefore, is the proposed initiative, on this score, a prohibited I favor such a change. Rather, such a proposal would come within the purview
revision but it also suffers from being incomplete and insufficient on its very of an initiative allowed under Article XVII of the Constitution and its
face. implementing Republic Act, and should, therefore, be submitted to our people
in a plebiscite for them to decide in their sovereign capacity. After all is said
It, therefore, in that form, cannot pass muster the very limits contained in and done, this is what democracy under the rule of law is about.
providing for the power under the Constitution.
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Neither does it comply with Republic Act No. 6735, which states in Section 10 Associate Justice
that not more than one subject shall be proposed as an amendment or
amendments to the Constitution. The petition herein would propose at the very
____________________
least two subjects – a unicameral legislature and a parliamentary form of
government. Again, for this clear and patent violation of the very act that
provides for the exercise of the power, the proposed initiative cannot lie. EN BANC

This does not mean, however, that all is lost for petitioners. G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

For the proposed changes can be separated and are, in my view, separable RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
in nature – a unicameral legislature is one; a parliamentary form of government REGISTERED VOTERS
is another. The first is a mere amendment and contains only one subject vs.
matter. The second is clearly a revision that affects every article and every THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
provision in the Constitution to an extent not even the proponents could at
present fully articulate. Petitioners Lambino, et al. thus go about proposing G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006
changes the nature and extent of which they do not as yet know exactly what.
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
The proposal, therefore, contained in the petition for initiative, regarding a SAGUISAG
change in the legislature from a bicameral or two-chamber body to that of a vs.
unicameral or one-chamber body, is sustainable. The text of the changes COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
needed to carry it out are perfunctory and ministerial in nature. Once it is ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA,
limited to this proposal, the changes are simply one of deletion and insertions, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
the wordings of which are practically automatic and non-discretionary. SARMIENTO, and NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe

As an example, I attach to this opinion an Appendix "A" showing how the x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
Constitution would read if we were to change Congress from one consisting
of the Senate and the House of Representatives to one consisting only of the "It is a Constitution we are expounding…"1
House of Representatives. It only affects Article VI on the Legislative
Department, some provisions on Article VII on the Executive Department, as – Chief Justice John Marshall
well as Article XI on the Accountability of Public Officers, and Article XVIII on
Transitory Provisions. These are mere amendments, substantial ones indeed DISSENTING OPINION
but still only amendments, and they address only one subject matter.
PUNO, J.: this Court, seeking to restrain the COMELEC from further considering the
Delfin Petition. They impleaded as respondents the COMELEC, Delfin, and
The petition at bar is not a fight over molehills. At the crux of the controversy Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (Pedrosas) in their capacities as founding
is the critical understanding of the first and foremost of our constitutional members of the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action
principles — "the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. (PIRMA) which was likewise engaged in signature gathering to support an
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from initiative to amend the Constitution. They argued that the constitutional
them."2 Constitutionalism dictates that this creed must be respected with provision on people's initiative may only be implemented by a law passed by
deeds; our belief in its validity must be backed by behavior. Congress; that no such law has yet been enacted by Congress; that Republic
Act No. 6735 relied upon by Delfin does not cover the initiative to amend the
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to set aside the resolution of Constitution; and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, the implementing rules
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated August 31, 2006, adopted by the COMELEC on the conduct of initiative, was ultra vires insofar
denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by petitioners Raul L. as the initiative to amend the Constitution was concerned. The case was
Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in their own behalf and together with docketed as G.R. No. 127325, entitled Santiago v. Commission on Elections.3
some 6.3 million registered voters who have affixed their signatures
thereon, and praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel Pending resolution of the case, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
respondent COMELEC to set the date of the plebiscite for the ratification of enjoining the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and the
the proposed amendments to the Constitution in accordance with Section 2, Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend
Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. the Constitution.

First, a flashback of the proceedings of yesteryears. In 1996, the On March 19, 1997, the Court rendered its decision on the petition for
Movement for People's Initiative sought to exercise the sovereign people's prohibition. The Court ruled that the constitutional provision granting the
power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative people the power to directly amend the Constitution through initiative is not
under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Its founding member, self-executory. An enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the
Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, filed with the COMELEC on December 6, 1996, a people's right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, a majority of eight (8)
"Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by members of the Court held that said law was "incomplete, inadequate, or
People's Initiative" (Delfin Petition). It proposed to amend Sections 4 and 7 of wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 amendments to the Constitution is concerned,"4 and thus voided portions
Constitution by deleting the provisions on the term limits for all elective of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules and regulations on the
officials. conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. It was also held that
even if R.A. 6735 sufficiently covered the initiative to amend the Constitution
The Delfin Petition stated that the Petition for Initiative would first be and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was valid, the Delfin Petition should still
submitted to the people and would be formally filed with the COMELEC after be dismissed as it was not the proper initiatory pleading contemplated by
it is signed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered law. Under Section 2, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution and Section 5(b) of
voters in the country. It thus sought the assistance of the COMELEC in R.A. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least
gathering the required signatures by fixing the dates and time therefor twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every
and setting up signature stations on the assigned dates and time. The legislative district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the
petition prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order (1) fixing the dates and registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition did not contain signatures of
time for signature gathering all over the country; (2) causing the publication of the required number of voters. The decision stated:
said Order and the petition for initiative in newspapers of general and local
circulation; and, (3) instructing the municipal election registrars in all the CONCLUSION
regions of the Philippines to assist petitioner and the volunteers in establishing
signing stations on the dates and time designated for the purpose. This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
The COMELEC conducted a hearing on the Delfin Petition. petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander implementation of the system.
Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition before
 We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments After deliberating on the motions for reconsideration, six (6)7 of the eight
to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be (8) majority members maintained their position that R.A. 6735 was inadequate
given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry to implement the provision on the initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for Justice Torres filed an inhibition, while Justice Hermosisima submitted a
the implementation of the right of the people under that system. Separate Opinion adopting the position of the minority that R.A. 6735
sufficiently covers the initiative to amend the Constitution. Hence, of the
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered thirteen (13) members of the Court who participated in the deliberation, six (6)
members, namely, Chief Justice Narvasa and Associate Justices Regalado,
a) GRANTING the instant petition; Davide, Romero, Bellosillo and Kapunan voted to deny the motions for lack of
merit; and six (6) members, namely, Associate Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza,
Francisco, Hermosisima and Panganiban voted to grant the same. Justice
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system
Vitug maintained his opinion that the matter was not ripe for judicial
of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have
adjudication. The motions for reconsideration were therefore denied for lack
failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
of sufficient votes to modify or reverse the decision of March 19, 1997.8
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the
On June 23, 1997, PIRMA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on
Propose Amendments to the Constitution (PIRMA Petition). The PIRMA
the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution;
Petition was supported by around five (5) million signatures in compliance with
and
R.A. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, and prayed that the
COMELEC, among others: (1) cause the publication of the petition in Filipino
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; (2)
DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037). order all election officers to verify the signatures collected in support of the
petition and submit these to the Commission; and (3) set the holding of a
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is plebiscite where the following proposition would be submitted to the people for
made permanent against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED ratification:
as against private respondents.5
Do you approve amendments to the 1987 Constitution giving the
Eight (8) members of the Court, namely, then Associate Justice Hilario G. President the chance to be reelected for another term, similarly with
Davide, Jr. (ponente), Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, and Associate the Vice-President, so that both the highest officials of the land can
Justices Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, serve for two consecutive terms of six years each, and also to lift the
Santiago M. Kapunan, Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres, fully term limits for all other elective government officials, thus giving
concurred in the majority opinion. Filipino voters the freedom of choice, amending for that purpose,
Section 4 of Article VII, Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI and Section 8 of
While all the members of the Court who participated in the deliberation6 agreed Article X, respectively?
that the Delfin Petition should be dismissed for lack of the required
signatures, five (5) members, namely, Associate Justices Jose A.R. Melo, The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA Petition in view of the permanent
Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo J. Francisco and Artemio V. restraining order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC.
Panganiban, held that R.A. 6735 was sufficient and adequate to implement
the people's right to amend the Constitution through initiative, and that PIRMA filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari seeking
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 validly provided the details for the actual to set aside the COMELEC Resolution dismissing its petition for initiative.
exercise of such right. Justice Jose C. Vitug, on the other hand, opined that PIRMA argued that the Court's decision on the Delfin Petition did not bar the
the Court should confine itself to resolving the issue of whether the Delfin COMELEC from acting on the PIRMA Petition as said ruling was not definitive
Petition sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law on initiative, based on the deadlocked voting on the motions for reconsideration, and
and there was no need to rule on the adequacy of R.A. 6735. because there was no identity of parties and subject matter between the two
petitions. PIRMA also urged the Court to reexamine its ruling in Santiago v.
The COMELEC, Delfin and the Pedrosas filed separate motions for COMELEC.
reconsideration of the Court's decision.
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and certiorari in its inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants
resolution dated September 23, 1997. It explained: per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in at least one member.
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. (2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen
127325 promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of
10, 1997. the election, a resident of his district for at least one year prior
thereto, and shall be elected by the qualified voters of his
The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to district for a term of five years without limitation as to the
resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the number thereof, except those under the party-list system
Court re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the which shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be
Chief Justice and six (6) other members of the Court, namely, equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming
Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted from the parliamentary districts.
that there was no need to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was
no need for re-examination of said second issue since the case at bar B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are
is not the proper vehicle for that purpose. Five (5) other members of hereby amended to read, as follows:
the Court, namely, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima, and
Panganiban, JJ., opined that there was a need for such a re- Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head
examination x x x x9 of State. The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime
Minister, with the assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime
In their Separate Opinions, Justice (later Chief Justice) Davide and Justice Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of
Bellosillo stated that the PIRMA petition was dismissed on the ground of res Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible
judicata. to the Parliament for the program of government.

Now, almost a decade later, another group, Sigaw ng Bayan, seeks to utilize C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the
anew the system of initiative to amend the Constitution, this time to change bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of
the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral- government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled
parliamentary system. "Transitory Provisions," which shall read, as follows:

Let us look at the facts of the petition at bar with clear eyes. Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President
shall serve until the expiration of their term at noon on the
On February 15, 2006, Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with Union of Local thirtieth day of June 2010 and shall continue to exercise their
Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), embarked on a nationwide drive to powers under the 1987 Constitution unless impeached by a
gather signatures to support the move to adopt the parliamentary form of vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim parliament.
government in the country through charter change. They proposed to amend
the Constitution as follows: (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or
removal from office of the incumbent President, the incumbent
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to Vice President shall succeed as President. In case of death,
read as follows: permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of both
the incumbent President and Vice President, the interim Prime
Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be Minister shall assume all the powers and responsibilities of
vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
as many members as may be provided by law, to be
apportioned among the provinces, representative districts, and Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
cities in accordance with the number of their respective President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which a ministry. He shall initially convene the interim Parliament and
shall hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24 which shall shall preside over its sessions for the election of the interim
be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby retained Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have been elected
and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to by a majority vote of all the members of the interim Parliament
26, unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system from among themselves.
of government, in which case, they shall be amended to
conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government; (3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be
provided, however, that any and all references therein to Members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June
"Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and 2010.
"Houses of Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;"
that any and all references therein to "Member(s) of (4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these
Congress," "Senator(s)" or "Member(s) of the House of amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member(s) of amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent
Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a
and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime strong bureaucracy.
Minister."
Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections interim Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be
1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are elected by a majority vote of the members thereof. The interim
hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and shall
are hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be perform such powers and responsibilities as may be delegated
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad to him by the incumbent President."
seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with
Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
amended so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
System of government; provided, however, that any all
simultaneously with the election of all local government
references therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of
officials. The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to
Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall be changed
exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities
to read "Parliament;" that any and all references therein to
of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of
"Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or "Member(s) of the
the incumbent President and Vice President.10
House of Representatives" shall be changed to read as
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the
"President" and or "Acting President" shall be changed to read Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, on the upper portions of which
"Prime Minister." were written the abstract of the proposed amendments, to wit:

Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of
amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the
the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system
and shall have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and economy in government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory
the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?
executive departments.
The signature sheets were distributed nationwide to affiliated non-government
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a organizations and volunteers of Sigaw ng Bayan, as well as to the local
Member of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June officials. Copies of the draft petition for initiative containing the proposition
2010. He shall also be a member of the cabinet and shall head were also circulated to the local officials and multi-sectoral groups.
Sigaw ng Bayan alleged that it also held barangay assemblies which Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan
culminated on March 24, 25 and 26, 2006, to inform the people and explain to V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc., Senate
them the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Thereafter, they Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby
circulated the signature sheets for signing. A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada,
and Jinggoy Estrada; Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo
The signature sheets were then submitted to the local election officers for Aguja, and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno,
verification based on the voters' registration record. Upon completion of the Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party,
verification process, the respective local election officers issued Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda,
certifications to attest that the signature sheets have been verified. The Drs. Darby Santiago and Reginald Pamugas; Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra,
verified signature sheets were subsequently transmitted to the office of Sigaw Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L.
ng Bayan for the counting of the signatures. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong.

On August 25, 2006, herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the Petition for
Aumentado filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Initiative. It cited this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC11 permanently
Constitution entitled "In the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 enjoining the Commission from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
Constitution through a People's Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral Presidential petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law
to a Unicameral Parliamentary Government by Amending Articles VI and VII; shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
and Providing Transitory Provisions for the Orderly Shift from the Presidential system.
to the Parliamentary System." They filed an Amended Petition on August 30,
2006 to reflect the text of the proposed amendment that was actually Forthwith, petitioners filed with this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and
presented to the people. They alleged that they were filing the petition in their Mandamus praying that the Court set aside the August 31, 2006 resolution of
own behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered voters who have the COMELEC, direct respondent COMELEC to comply with Section 4, Article
affixed their signatures on the signature sheets attached thereto. Petitioners XVII of the Constitution, and set the date of the plebiscite. They state the
appended to the petition signature sheets bearing the signatures of registered following grounds in support of the petition:
voters which they claimed to have been verified by the respective city or
municipal election officers, and allegedly constituting at least twelve per cent I.
(12%) of all registered voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is
represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse
of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and to give due course
As basis for the filing of their petition for initiative, petitioners averred to the petition for initiative, because the cited Santiago ruling of 19
that Section 5 (b) and (c), together with Section 7 of R.A. 6735, provide March 1997 cannot be considered the majority opinion of the Supreme
sufficient enabling details for the people's exercise of the power. Court en banc, considering that upon its reconsideration and final
Hence, petitioners prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order: voting on 10 June 1997, no majority vote was secured to declare
Republic Act No. 6735 as inadequate, incomplete and insufficient in
1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article standard.
XVII of the 1987 Constitution;
II.
2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at
least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and The 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 6735, Republic Act No. 8189
and existing appropriation of the COMELEC provide for sufficient
3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than details and authority for the exercise of people's initiative, thus,
ninety days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency existing laws taken together are adequate and complete.
of the petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign
will on the proposition. III.

Several groups filed with the COMELEC their respective oppositions to The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse
the petition for initiative, among them ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and in refusing to give
due course to the petition for initiative, thereby violating an express 1.
constitutional mandate and disregarding and contravening the will of
the people. It is the dispositive portion of the decision and not other
statements in the body of the decision that governs the
A. rights in controversy.

Assuming in arguendo that there is no enabling law, IV.

respondent COMELEC cannot ignore the will of the sovereign
people and must accordingly act on the petition for initiative. The Honorable public respondent failed or neglected
to act or perform a duty mandated by law.
1.
A.
The framers of the Constitution intended to give the
people the power to propose amendments and the The ministerial duty of the COMELEC is to set
people themselves are now giving vibrant life to this the initiative for plebiscite.12
constitutional provision.
The oppositors-intervenors, ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene
2. B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and
Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo
Prior to the questioned Santiago ruling of 19 March Uno, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante Gabriela, Gabriela Women's
1997, the right of the people to exercise the sovereign Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo
power of initiative and recall has been invariably Pineda, Dr. Darby Santiago, and Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Senate Minority
upheld. Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S.
Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and
3. Jinggoy Estrada; Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja,
and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel; and Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose
The exercise of the initiative to propose amendments Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L.
is a political question which shall be determined solely Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong moved to intervene in this case and
by the sovereign people. filed their respective Oppositions/Comments-in-Intervention.

4. The Philippine Constitution Association, Conrado F. Estrella, Tomas C.

Toledo, Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, Jr.,
Fortunato P. Aguas, and Amado Gat Inciong; the Integrated Bar of the
By signing the signature sheets attached to the petition
Philippines Cebu City and Cebu Province Chapters; former President Joseph
for initiative duly verified by the election officers, the
Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino; and the Senate of the
people have chosen to perform this sacred exercise of
Philippines, represented by Senate President Manuel Villar, Jr., also filed their
their sovereign power.
respective motions for intervention and Comments-in-Intervention.
B.
The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Sulongbayan Movement
Foundation, Inc., Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo Baya,
The Santiago ruling of 19 March 1997 is not applicable to the Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization, and Victorino F.
instant petition for initiative filed by the petitioners. Balais likewise moved to intervene and submitted to the Court a Petition-in-
Intervention. All interventions and oppositions were granted by the Court.
C.
The oppositors-intervenors essentially submit that the COMELEC did not
The permanent injunction issued in Santiago vs. commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the petition for
COMELEC only applies to the Delfin petition.
initiative as it merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC as 2. Whether the Petitions for Initiative filed before the Commission on
affirmed in the case of PIRMA v. COMELEC, based on the principle of stare Elections complied with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
decisis; that there is no sufficient law providing for the authority and the details
for the exercise of people's initiative to amend the Constitution; that the 3. Whether the Court's decision in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No.
proposed changes to the Constitution are actually revisions, not mere 127325, March 19, 1997) bars the present petition.
amendments; that the petition for initiative does not meet the required number
of signatories under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; that it was 4. Whether the Court should re-examine the ruling in Santiago v.
not shown that the people have been informed of the proposed amendments COMELEC that there is no sufficient law implementing or authorizing
as there was disparity between the proposal presented to them and the the exercise of people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
proposed amendments attached to the petition for initiative, if indeed there
was; that the verification process was done ex parte, thus rendering dubious
5. Assuming R.A. 6735 is sufficient, whether the Petitions for Initiative
the signatures attached to the petition for initiative; and that petitioners
filed with the COMELEC have complied with its provisions.
Lambino and Aumentado have no legal capacity to represent the signatories
in the petition for initiative.
5.1 Whether the said petitions are sufficient in form and
substance.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance with the Court's
resolution of September 5, 2006, filed its Comment to the petition. Affirming
the position of the petitioners, the OSG prayed that the Court grant the petition 5.2 Whether the proposed changes embrace more than one
at bar and render judgment: (1) declaring R.A. 6735 as adequate to cover or subject matter.
as reasonably sufficient to implement the system of initiative on amendments
to the Constitution and as having provided sufficient standards for subordinate 6. Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or
legislation; (2) declaring as valid the provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. revision of the Constitution.
2300 on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; (3) setting
aside the assailed resolution of the COMELEC for having been rendered with 6.1 Whether the proposed changes are the proper subject of
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, (4) an initiative.
directing the COMELEC to grant the petition for initiative and set the
corresponding plebiscite pursuant to R.A. 6735, COMELEC Resolution No. 7. Whether the exercise of an initiative to propose amendments to the
2300, and other pertinent election laws and regulations. Constitution is a political question to be determined solely by the
sovereign people.
The COMELEC filed its own Comment stating that its resolution denying the
petition for initiative is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it merely 8. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of
adhered to the ruling of this Court in Santiago v. COMELEC which declared discretion in dismissing the Petitions for Initiative filed before it.
that R.A. 6735 does not adequately implement the constitutional provision on
initiative to amend the Constitution. It invoked the permanent injunction issued With humility, I offer the following views to these issues as profiled:
by the Court against the COMELEC from taking cognizance of petitions for
initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a valid enabling law shall
I
have been passed by Congress. It asserted that the permanent injunction
covers not only the Delfin Petition, but also all other petitions involving
constitutional initiatives. Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the
present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who
allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution.
On September 26, 2006, the Court heard the case. The parties were
required to argue on the following issues:13
Oppositors-intervenors contend that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are
not the proper parties to file the instant petition as they were not authorized by
1. Whether petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to
the signatories in the petition for initiative.
file the present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters
who allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution.
The argument deserves scant attention. The Constitution requires that the
petition for initiative should be filed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of all
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means "stand by the
least three per cent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. The petition for thing and do not disturb the calm." The doctrine started with the English
initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado before the COMELEC was Courts.15 Blackstone observed that at the beginning of the 18th century, "it is
accompanied by voluminous signature sheets which prima facie show the an established rule to abide by former precedents where the same points
intent of the signatories to support the filing of said petition. Stated above their come again in litigation."16 As the rule evolved, early limits to its application
signatures in the signature sheets is the following: were recognized: (1) it would not be followed if it were "plainly unreasonable;"
(2) where courts of equal authority developed conflicting decisions; and, (3)
x x x My signature herein which shall form part of the petition for the binding force of the decision was the "actual principle or principles
initiative to amend the Constitution signifies my support for the filing necessary for the decision; not the words or reasoning used to reach the
thereof.14 decision."17

There is thus no need for the more than six (6) million signatories to execute The doctrine migrated to the United States. It was recognized by
separate documents to authorize petitioners to file the petition for initiative in the framers of the U.S. Constitution.18 According to Hamilton, "strict rules
their behalf. and precedents" are necessary to prevent "arbitrary discretion in the
courts."19 Madison agreed but stressed that "x x x once the precedent
Neither is it necessary for said signatories to authorize Lambino and ventures into the realm of altering or repealing the law, it should be
Aumentado to file the petition for certiorari and mandamus before this Court. rejected."20 Prof. Consovoy well noted that Hamilton and
Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides who may file a petition Madison "disagree about the countervailing policy considerations that would
for certiorari and mandamus. Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65 read: allow a judge to abandon a precedent."21 He added that their ideas "reveal a
deep internal conflict between the concreteness required by the rule of law
and the flexibility demanded in error correction. It is this internal conflict that
SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or
the Supreme Court has attempted to deal with for over two centuries."22
officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without
or in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor Indeed, two centuries of American case law will confirm Prof. Consovoy's
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of observation although stare decisis developed its own life in the United
law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the States. Two strains of stare decisis have been isolated by legal
proper court x x x x. scholars.23 The first, known as vertical stare decisis deals with the duty of
lower courts to apply the decisions of the higher courts to cases involving
the same facts. The second, known as horizontal stare decisis requires
SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation,
that high courts must follow its own precedents. Prof. Consovoy correctly
board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
observes that vertical stare decisis has been viewed as
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
an obligation, while horizontal stare decisis, has been viewed as
trust, or station x x x and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
a policy, imposing choice but not a command.24 Indeed, stare decisis is not
remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
one of the precepts set in stone in our Constitution.
may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x x.
It is also instructive to distinguish the two kinds of horizontal stare
Thus, any person aggrieved by the act or inaction of the respondent tribunal,
decisis — constitutional stare decisis and statutory stare
board or officer may file a petition for certiorari or mandamus before the
decisis.25 Constitutional stare decisis involves judicial interpretations of the
appropriate court. Certainly, Lambino and Aumentado, as among the
Constitution while statutory stare decisis involves interpretations of statutes.
proponents of the petition for initiative dismissed by the COMELEC, have the
The distinction is important for courts enjoy more flexibility in refusing to
standing to file the petition at bar.
apply stare decisis in constitutional litigations. Justice Brandeis' view on the
binding effect of the doctrine in constitutional litigations still holds sway today.
II In soothing prose, Brandeis stated: "Stare decisis is not . . . a universal and
inexorable command. The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible. Whether it
The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of shall be followed or departed from, is a question entirely within the
Santiago. discretion of the court, which is again called upon to consider a question
once decided."26 In the same vein, the venerable Justice Frankfurter opined:
"the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not consider whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a
what we have said about it."27 In contrast, the application of stare decisis on special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the
judicial interpretation of statutes is more inflexible. As Justice cost of repudiation; (3) determine whether related principles of law have so
Stevens explains: "after a statute has been construed, either by this Court or far developed as to have the old rule no more than a remnant of an
by a consistent course of decision by other federal judges and agencies, it abandoned doctrine; and, (4) find out whether facts have so changed or
acquires a meaning that should be as clear as if the judicial gloss had been come to be seen differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant
drafted by the Congress itself."28 This stance reflects both respect for application or justification.
Congress' role and the need to preserve the courts' limited resources.
Following these guidelines, I submit that the stare decisis rule should
In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of not bar the reexamination of Santiago. On the factor of intolerability, the
reasons,29 viz: (1) it legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it promotes judicial six (6) justices in Santiago held R.A. 6735 to be insufficient as it provided no
economy; and, (3) it allows for predictability. Contrariwise, courts refuse to standard to guide COMELEC in issuing its implementing rules.
be bound by the stare decisis rule where30 (1) its application perpetuates The Santiago ruling that R.A. 6735 is insufficient but without striking it down
illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings; (2) it cannot accommodate changing as unconstitutional is an intolerable aberration, the only one of its kind in our
social and political understandings; (3) it leaves the power to overturn bad planet. It improperly assails the ability of legislators to write laws. It usurps the
constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and, (4) activist judges can exclusive right of legislators to determine how far laws implementing
dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare decisis are constitutional mandates should be crafted. It is elementary that courts cannot
stuck agreeing with them. dictate on Congress the style of writing good laws, anymore than Congress
can tell courts how to write literate decisions. The doctrine of separation of
In its 200-year history, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to follow powers forbids this Court to invade the exclusive lawmaking domain of
the stare decisis rule and reversed its decisions in 192 cases.31 The most Congress for courts can construe laws but cannot construct them. The
famous of these reversals is Brown v. Board of Education32 which end result of the ruling of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 is insufficient is
junked Plessy v. Ferguson's33 "separate but equal doctrine." Plessy upheld intolerable for it rendered lifeless the sovereign right of the people to amend
as constitutional a state law requirement that races be segregated on public the Constitution via an initiative.
transportation. In Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court, unanimously held that
"separate . . . is inherently unequal." Thus, by freeing itself from the On the factor of reliance, the ruling of the six (6) justices in Santiago did not
shackles of stare decisis, the U.S. Supreme Court freed the colored induce any expectation from the people. On the contrary, the ruling smothered
Americans from the chains of inequality. In the Philippine setting, this Court the hope of the people that they could amend the Constitution by direct action.
has likewise refused to be straitjacketed by the stare decisis rule in order to Moreover, reliance is a non-factor in the case at bar for it is more appropriate
promote public welfare. In La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. to consider in decisions involving contracts where private rights are
Ramos,34 we reversed our original ruling that certain provisions of the Mining adjudicated. The case at bar involves no private rights but the sovereignty of
Law are unconstitutional. Similarly, in Secretary of Justice v. Lantion,35 we the people.
overturned our first ruling and held, on motion for reconsideration, that a
private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the On the factor of changes in law and in facts, certain realities on ground
evaluation stage of the extradition process. cannot be blinked away. The urgent need to adjust certain provisions of the
1987 Constitution to enable the country to compete in the new millennium is
An examination of decisions on stare decisis in major countries will given. The only point of contention is the mode to effect the change - - -
show that courts are agreed on the factors that should be considered whether through constituent assembly, constitutional convention or people's
before overturning prior rulings. These are workability, reliance, initiative. Petitioners claim that they have gathered over six (6) million
intervening developments in the law and changes in fact. In addition, registered voters who want to amend the Constitution through people's
courts put in the balance the following determinants: closeness of the initiative and that their signatures have been verified by registrars of the
voting, age of the prior decision and its merits.36 COMELEC. The six (6) justices who ruled that R.A. 6735 is insufficient to
implement the direct right of the people to amend the Constitution
The leading case in deciding whether a court should follow the stare through an initiative cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people who are
decisis rule in constitutional litigations is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.37 It the bearers of our sovereignty and from whom all government authority
established a 4-pronged test. The court should (1) determine whether the emanates. New developments in our internal and external social, economic,
rule has proved to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability; (2) and political settings demand the reexamination of
the Santiago case. The stare decisis rule is no reason for this Court to (2) That "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after
allow the people to step into the future with a blindfold. five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only
once every five (5) years thereafter."39
III
It fixes the effectivity date of the amendment under Section 9(b) which
A reexamination of R.A. 6735 will show that it is sufficient to provides that "(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by
implement the people's initiative. a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the
day of the plebiscite."
Let us reexamine the validity of the view of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735
is insufficient to implement Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution Second. The legislative history of R.A. 6735 also reveals the clear intent of the
allowing amendments to the Constitution to be directly proposed by the people lawmakers to use it as the instrument to implement people's initiative. No less
through initiative. than former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the ponente in Santiago,
concedes:40
When laws are challenged as unconstitutional, courts are counseled to give
life to the intent of legislators. In enacting R.A. 6735, it is daylight luminous We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to
that Congress intended the said law to implement the right of the people, thru cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is
initiative, to propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action. This all- a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17 x x x x
important intent is palpable from the following: The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No.
17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently
First. The text of R.A. 6735 is replete with references to the right of the people approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of
to initiate changes to the Constitution: Representatives. This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.

The policy statement declares: Third. The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. 6735 similarly
demonstrate beyond doubt this intent. In his sponsorship remarks, the
late Senator Raul Roco (then a Member of the House of Representatives)
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. -- The power of the people under a system
emphasized the intent to make initiative as a mode whereby the people can
of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or
propose amendments to the Constitution. We quote his relevant remarks:41
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or
resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the
requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and SPONSORSHIP REMAKRS OF REP. ROCO
guaranteed. (emphasis supplied)
MR. ROCO. Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the committee, we
It defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose amendments wish to speak in support of House Bill No. 497, entitled: INITIATIVE
to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election AND REFERENDUM ACT OF 1987, which later on may be called
called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which Initiative and Referendum Act of 1989.
an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people."
As a background, we want to point out the constitutional basis of this
It provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the particular bill. The grant of plenary legislative power upon the
Constitution, viz: Philippine Congress by the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, Mr.
Speaker, was based on the principle that any power deemed to be
legislative by usage and tradition is necessarily possessed by the
(1) That "(a) petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must
Philippine Congress unless the Organic Act has lodged it elsewhere.
have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
This was a citation from Vera vs. Avelino (1946).
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein;"38 and The presidential system introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the
application of the principle of separation of powers. While under the
parliamentary system of the 1973 Constitution the principle remained
applicable, Amendment 6 or the 1981 amendments to the 1973
Constitution ensured presidential dominance over the Batasang In other words, Mr. Speaker, in Section 1 of Article VI which describes
Pambansa. legislative power, there are reserved powers given to the people. In
Section 32, we are specifically told to pass at the soonest possible
Our constitutional history saw the shifting and sharing of legislative time a bill on referendum and initiative. We are specifically mandated
power between the legislature and the executive. to share the legislative powers of Congress with the people.

Transcending such changes in the exercise of legislative power is the Of course, another applicable provision in the Constitution is Section
declaration in the Philippine Constitution that he Philippines is a 2, Article XVII, Mr. Speaker. Under the provision on amending the
Republican State where sovereignty resides in the people and all Constitution, the section reads, and I quote:
government authority emanates from them.
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
In a Republic, Mr. Speaker, the power to govern is vested in its citizens proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
participating through the right of suffrage and indicating thereby their least twelve per centum of the total number of registered
choice of lawmakers. voters, of which every legislative district must be represented
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
Under the 1987 Constitution, lawmaking power is still preserved in No amendment under this section shall be authorized within
Congress. However, to institutionalize direct action of the people as five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, there is a practical recognition of oftener than once every five years thereafter.
what we refer to as people's sovereign power. This is the recognition
of a system of initiative and referendum. We in Congress therefore, Mr. Speaker, are charged with the duty to
implement the exercise by the people of the right of initiative and
Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, and I quote: referendum.

The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the House Bill No. 21505, as reported out by the Committee on Suffrage
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and House of and Electoral Reforms last December 14, 1988, Mr. Speaker, is the
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people response to such a constitutional duty.
by the provision on initiative and referendum.
Mr. Speaker, if only to allay apprehensions, allow me to show where
In other words, Mr. Speaker, under the 1987 Constitution, Congress initiative and referendum under Philippine law has occurred.
does not have plenary powers. There is a reserved legislative power
given to the people expressly. Mr. Speaker, the system of initiative and referendum is not new. In a
very limited extent, the system is provided for in our Local Government
Section 32, the implementing provision of the same article of the Code today. On initiative, for instance, Section 99 of the said code
Constitution provides, and I quote: vests in the barangay assembly the power to initiate legislative
processes, to hold plebiscites and to hear reports of the sangguniang
barangay. There are variations of initiative and referendum. The
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a system
barangay assembly is composed of all persons who have been actual
of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom,
residents of the barangay for at least six months, who are at least 15
whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or
years of age and citizens of the Philippines. The holding of barangay
approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the
plebiscites and referendum is also provided in Sections 100 and 101
Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a
of the same Code.
petition therefor signed by at least ten per centum of the total
number of registered voters, or which every legislative district
must be represented by at least three per centum of the Mr. Speaker, for brevity I will not read the pertinent quotations but will
registered voters thereof. just submit the same to the Secretary to be incorporated as part of my
speech.
To continue, Mr. Speaker these same principles are extensively With the legislative powers of the President gone, we alone, together
applied by the Local Government Code as it is now mandated by the with the Senators when they are minded to agree with us, are left with
1987 Constitution. the burden of enacting the needed legislation.

In other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, we have ample examples of Let me now bring our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to the process
initiative and referendum similar to what is now contained in House Bill advocated by the bill.
No. 21505. As in the 1987 Constitutions and House Bill No. 21505, the
various constitutions of the states in the United States recognize the First, initiative and referendum, Mr. Speaker, is defined. Initiative
right of registered voters to initiate the enactment of any statute or to essentially is what the term connotes. It means that the people, on
reject any existing law or parts thereof in a referendum. These states their own political judgment, submit fore the consideration and voting
are Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Massachusetts, Dakota, Oklahoma, of the general electorate a bill or a piece of legislation.
Oregon, and practically all other states.
Under House Bill No. 21505, there are three kinds of initiative. One is
In certain American states, the kind of laws to which initiative and an initiative to amend the Constitution. This can occur once every five
referendum applies is also without ay limitation, except for emergency years. Another is an initiative to amend statutes that we may have
measures, which is likewise incorporated in Section 7(b) of House Bill approved. Had this bill been an existing law, Mr. Speaker, it is most
No. 21505. likely that an overwhelming majority of the barangays in the Philippines
would have approved by initiative the matter of direct voting.
The procedure provided by the House bill – from the filing of the
petition, the requirement of a certain percentage of supporters to The third mode of initiative, Mr. Speaker, refers to a petition proposing
present a proposition to submission to electors – is substantially to enact regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay laws or
similar to those of many American laws. Mr. Speaker, those among us ordinances. It comes from the people and it must be submitted directly
who may have been in the United States, particularly in California, to the electorate. The bill gives a definite procedure and allows the
during election time or last November during the election would have COMELEC to define rules and regulations to give teeth to the power
noticed different propositions posted in the city walls. They were of initiative.
propositions submitted by the people for incorporation during the
voting. These were in the nature of initiative, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, referendum, Mr. Speaker, is the power of the
people to approve or reject something that Congress has already
Although an infant then in Philippine political structure, initiative and approved.
referendum is a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and
House Bill No. 21505 through the various consolidated bills is For instance, Mr. Speaker, when we divide the municipalities or the
patterned after American experience in a great respect. barangays into two or three, we must first get the consent of the people
affected through plebiscite or referendum.
What does the bill essentially say, Mr. Speaker? Allow me to try to
bring our colleagues slowly through the bill. The bill has basically only Referendum is a mode of plebiscite, Mr. Speaker. However,
12 sections. The constitutional Commissioners, Mr. Speaker, saw this referendum can also be petitioned by the people if, for instance, they
system of initiative and referendum as an instrument which can be do not life the bill on direct elections and it is approved subsequently
used should the legislature show itself indifferent to the needs of the by the Senate. If this bill had already become a law, then the people
people. That is why, Mr. Speaker, it may be timely, since we seem to could petition that a referendum be conducted so that the acts of
be amply criticized, as regards our responsiveness, to pass this bill on Congress can be appropriately approved or rebuffed.
referendum and initiative now. While indifference would not be an
appropriate term to use at this time, and surely it is not the case
The initial stage, Mr. Speaker, is what we call the petition. As
although we are so criticized, one must note that it is a felt necessity
envisioned in the bill, the initiative comes from the people, from
of our times that laws need to be proposed and adopted at the soonest
registered voters of the country, by presenting a proposition so that
possible time to spur economic development, safeguard individual
the people can then submit a petition, which is a piece of paper that
rights and liberties, and share governmental power with the people.
contains the proposition. The proposition in the example I have been
citing is whether there should be direct elections during the barangay
elections. So the petition must be filed in the appropriate agency and least to respond to the need of our people to participate directly in the
the proposition must be clear stated. It can be tedious but that is how work of legislation.
an effort to have direct democracy operates.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge and implore our colleagues
Section 4 of the bill gives requirements, Mr. Speaker. It will not be all to approve House Bill No. 21505 as incorporated in Committee Report
that easy to have referendum or initiative petitioned by the people. No. 423 of the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms.
Under Section 4 of the committee report, we are given certain
limitations. For instance, to exercise the power of initiative or In closing, Mr. Speaker, I also request that the prepared text of my
referendum, at least 10 percent of the total number of registered speech, together with the footnotes since they contain many
voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3 references to statutory history and foreign jurisdiction, be reproduced
percent of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition. These as part of the Record for future purposes.
numbers, Mr. Speaker, are not taken from the air. They are mandated
by the Constitution. There must be a requirement of 10 percent for Equally unequivocal on the intent of R.A. 6735 is the sponsorship speech of
ordinary laws and 3 percent representing all districts. The same former Representative Salvador Escudero III, viz:42
requirement is mutatis mutandis or appropriately modified and applied
to the different sections. So if it is, for instance, a petition on initiative
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF REP. ESCUDERO
or referendum for a barangay, there is a 10 percent or a certain
number required of the voters of the barangay. If it is for a district, there
is also a certain number required of all towns of the district that must MR. ESCUDERO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
seek the petition. If it is for a province then again a certain percentage
of the provincial electors is required. All these are based with reference Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues: Events in recent years
to the constitutional mandate. highlighted the need to heed the clamor of the people for a truly
popular democracy. One recalls the impatience of those who actively
The conduct of the initiative and referendum shall be supervised and participated in the parliament of the streets, some of whom are now
shall be upon the call of the Commission on Elections. However, within distinguished Members of this Chamber. A substantial segment of the
a period of 30 days from receipt of the petition, the COMELEC shall population feel increasingly that under the system, the people have
determine the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same and set the the form but not the reality or substance of democracy because of the
date of the referendum which shall not be earlier than 45 days but not increasingly elitist approach of their chosen Representatives to many
later than 90 days from the determination by the commission of the questions vitally affecting their lives. There have been complaints, not
sufficiency of the petition. Why is this so, Mr. Speaker? The petition altogether unfounded, that many candidates easily forge their
must first be determined by the commission as to its sufficiency campaign promises to the people once elected to office. The 1986
because our Constitution requires that no bill can be approved unless Constitutional Commission deemed it wise and proper to provide for a
it contains one subject matter. It is conceivable that in the fervor of an means whereby the people can exercise the reserve power to legislate
initiative or referendum, Mr. Speaker, there may be more than two or propose amendments to the Constitution directly in case their chose
topics sought to be approved and that cannot be allowed. In fact, that Representatives fail to live up to their expectations. That reserve
is one of the prohibitions under this referendum and initiative bill. When power known as initiative is explicitly recognized in three articles and
a matter under initiative or referendum is approved by the required four sections of the 1987 Constitution, namely: Article VI Section 1; the
number of votes, Mr. Speaker, it shall become effective 15 days same article, Section 312; Article X, Section 3; and Article XVII,
following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette. Section 2. May I request that he explicit provisions of these three
Effectively then, Mr. Speaker, all the bill seeks to do is to enlarge and articles and four sections be made part of my sponsorship speech, Mr.
recognize the legislative powers of the Filipino people. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress, particularly this House, cannot These constitutional provisions are, however, not self-executory.
ignore or cannot be insensitive to the call for initiative and referendum. There is a need for an implementing law that will give meaning and
We should have done it in 1987 but that is past. Maybe we should substance to the process of initiative and referendum which are
have done it in 1988 but that too had already passed, but it is only considered valuable adjuncts to representative democracy. It is
February 1989, Mr. Speaker, and we have enough time this year at needless to state that this bill when enacted into law will probably open
the door to strong competition of the people, like pressure groups,
 vested interests, farmers' group, labor groups, urban dwellers, the Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle
urban poor and the like, with Congress in the field of legislation. III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution.

Such probability, however, pales in significance when we consider that To say the least, these alleged omissions are too weak a reason to throttle
through this bill we can hasten the politization of the Filipino which in the right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution through initiative.
turn will aid government in forming an enlightened public opinion, and R.A. 6735 clearly expressed the legislative policy for the people to propose
hopefully produce better and more responsive and acceptable amendments to the Constitution by direct action. The fact that the legislature
legislations. may have omitted certain details in implementing the people's initiative in
R.A. 6735, does not justify the conclusion that, ergo, the law is insufficient.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this would give the parliamentarians of the What were omitted were mere details and not fundamental policies which
streets and cause-oriented groups an opportunity to articulate their Congress alone can and has determined. Implementing details of a law can
ideas in a truly democratic forum, thus, the competition which they will be delegated to the COMELEC and can be the subject of its rule-making
offer to Congress will hopefully be a healthy one. Anyway, in an power. Under Section 2(1), Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC has
atmosphere of competition there are common interests dear to all the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
Filipinos, and the pursuit of each side's competitive goals can still take conduct of initiatives. Its rule-making power has long been recognized by this
place in an atmosphere of reason and moderation. Court. In ruling R.A. 6735 insufficient but without striking it down as
unconstitutional, the six (6) justices failed to give due recognition to the
Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues, when the distinguished indefeasible right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution.
Gentleman from Camarines Sur and this Representation filed our
respective versions of the bill in 1987, we were hoping that the bill IV
would be approved early enough so that our people could immediately
use the agrarian reform bill as an initial subject matter or as a take-off The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are
point. mere amendments and can be undertaken through people's
initiative.
However, in view of the very heavy agenda of the Committee on Local
Government, it took sometime before the committee could act on Oppositors-intervenors contend that Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII of the 1987
these. But as they say in Tagalog, huli man daw at magaling ay Constitution, only allow the use of people's initiative to amend and not to revise
naihahabol din. The passage of this bill therefore, my dear colleagues, the Constitution. They theorize that the changes proposed by petitioners
could be one of our finest hours when we can set aside our personal are substantial and thus constitute a revision which cannot be done through
and political consideration for the greater good of our people. I people's initiative.
therefore respectfully urge and plead that this bill be immediately
approved. In support of the thesis that the Constitution bars the people from
proposing substantial amendments amounting to revision, the oppositors-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. intervenors cite the following deliberations during the Constitutional
Commission, viz:44
We cannot dodge the duty to give effect to this intent for the "[c]ourts have
the duty to interpret the law as legislated and when possible, to honor the clear MR. SUAREZ: x x x x This proposal was suggested on the theory that
meaning of statutes as revealed by its language, purpose and history."43 this matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional
The tragedy is that while conceding this intent, the six (6) justices, modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The
nevertheless, ruled that "x x x R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or Committee members felt that this system of initiative should not extend
wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the
to the Constitution is concerned" for the following reasons: (1) Section 2 of the operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or
Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution; (2) the Revision.
Act does not provide for the contents of the petition for initiative on the
Constitution; and (3) while the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and xxxxxxxxxxxx
 MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this MR. OPLE. How is that again?
process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment.
Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms MR. AZCUNA. It was not our intention to allow a revision of the
of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, Constitution by initiative but merely by amendments.
instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-
executing provision? MR. BENGZON. Only by amendments.

MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a MR. AZCUNA. I remember that was taken on the floor.
while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of
amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates
MR. RODRIGO. Yes, just amendments.
a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was
conveyed by the Committee.
The oppositors-intervenors then point out that by their proposals, petitioners
will "change the very system of government from presidential to parliamentary,
MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to
and the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral," among others.
distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include
They allegedly seek other major revisions like the inclusion of a minimum
the process of revision; whereas the process of initiation to amend,
number of inhabitants per district, a change in the period for a term of a
which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
Member of Parliament, the removal of the limits on the number of terms, the
election of a Prime Minister who shall exercise the executive power, and so
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the on and so forth.47 In sum, oppositors-intervenors submit that "the proposed
Committee. changes to the Constitution effect major changes in the political structure and
system, the fundamental powers and duties of the branches of the
Commissioner (later Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., espoused the same government, the political rights of the people, and the modes by which political
view:45 rights may be exercised."48 They conclude that they are substantial
amendments which cannot be done through people's initiative. In other
MR. DAVIDE. x x x x We are limiting the right of the people, by words, they posit the thesis that only simple but not substantial
initiative, to submit a proposal for amendment only, not for revision, amendments can be done through people's initiative.
only once every five years x x x x
With due respect, I disagree. To start with, the words "simple" and
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's "substantial" are not subject to any accurate quantitative or qualitative test.
proposed amendment on line 1 refers to "amendment." Does it cover Obviously, relying on the quantitative test, oppositors-intervenors assert that
the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the amendments will result in some one hundred (100) changes in the
the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision?" Constitution. Using the same test, however, it is also arguable that
petitioners seek to change basically only two (2) out of the eighteen (18)
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" articles of the 1987 Constitution, i.e. Article VI (Legislative Department) and
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, Article VII (Executive Department), together with the complementary
it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision." provisions for a smooth transition from a presidential bicameral system to a
parliamentary unicameral structure. The big bulk of the 1987 Constitution
Commissioner (now a distinguished Associate Justice of this Court) Adolfo S. will not be affected including Articles I (National Territory), II (Declaration of
Azcuna also clarified this point46 - Principles and State Policies), III (Bill of Rights), IV (Citizenship), V (Suffrage),
VIII (Judicial Department), IX (Constitutional Commissions), X (Local
Government), XI (Accountability of Public Officers), XII (National Economy
MR. OPLE. To more closely reflect the intent of Section 2, may I
and Patrimony), XIII (Social Justice and Human Rights), XIV (Education,
suggest that we add to "Amendments" "OR REVISIONS OF" to read:
Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports), XV (The Family), XVI
"Amendments OR REVISION OF this Constitution."
(General Provisions), and even XVII (Amendments or Revisions). In fine, we
stand on unsafe ground if we use simple arithmetic to determine whether
MR. AZCUNA. I think it was not allowed to revise the Constitution by the proposed changes are "simple" or "substantial."
initiative.
Nor can this Court be surefooted if it applies the qualitative test to Philippines College of Law, (later President of the U.P. and delegate to the
determine whether the said changes are "simple" or "substantial" as to Constitutional Convention of 1971) similarly spelled out the difference
amount to a revision of the Constitution. The well-regarded political between "amendment" and "revision." He opined: "the revision of a
scientist, Garner, says that a good constitution should contain at least three constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of
(3) sets of provisions: the constitution of liberty which sets forth the the entire constitution and the procedure for effecting such change;
fundamental rights of the people and imposes certain limitations on the powers while amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added to or to be
of the government as a means of securing the enjoyment of these rights; altered in a constitution."58
the constitution of government which deals with the framework of
government and its powers, laying down certain rules for its administration and Our people were guided by this traditional distinction when they effected
defining the electorate; and, the constitution of sovereignty which changes in our 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. In 1940, the changes to the
prescribes the mode or procedure for amending or revising the 1935 Constitution which included the conversion from a unicameral
constitution.49 It is plain that the proposed changes will basically affect system to a bicameral structure, the shortening of the tenure of the
only the constitution of government. The constitutions of liberty and President and Vice-President from a six-year term without reelection to a four-
sovereignty remain unaffected. Indeed, the proposed changes will not year term with one reelection, and the establishment of the COMELEC,
change the fundamental nature of our state as "x x x a democratic and together with the complementary constitutional provisions to effect the
republican state."50 It is self-evident that a unicameral-parliamentary form of changes, were considered amendments only, not a revision.
government will not make our State any less democratic or any less republican
in character. Hence, neither will the use of the qualitative test resolve the The replacement of the 1935 Constitution by the 1973 Constitution was,
issue of whether the proposed changes are "simple" or "substantial." however, considered a revision since the 1973 Constitution was
"a completely new fundamental charter embodying new political, social and
For this reason and more, our Constitutions did not adopt any quantitative economic concepts."59 Among those adopted under the 1973 Constitution
or qualitative test to determine whether an "amendment" is were: the parliamentary system in place of the presidential system, with the
"simple" or "substantial." Nor did they provide that "substantial" leadership in legislation and administration vested with the Prime Minister and
amendments are beyond the power of the people to propose to change his Cabinet; the reversion to a single-chambered lawmaking body instead of
the Constitution. Instead, our Constitutions carried the traditional the two-chambered, which would be more suitable to a parliamentary system
distinction between "amendment" and "revision," i.e., "amendment" means of government; the enfranchisement of the youth beginning eighteen (18)
change, including complex changes while "revision" means complete years of age instead of twenty-one (21), and the abolition of literacy, property,
change, including the adoption of an entirely new covenant. The legal and other substantial requirements to widen the basis for the electorate and
dictionaries express this traditional difference between "amendment" and expand democracy; the strengthening of the judiciary, the civil service system,
"revision." Black's Law Dictionary defines "amendment" as "[a] formal and the Commission on Elections; the complete nationalization of the
revision or addition proposed or made to a statute, constitution, pleading, ownership and management of mass media; the giving of control to Philippine
order, or other instrument; specifically, a change made by addition, deletion, citizens of all telecommunications; the prohibition against alien individuals to
or correction."51 Black's also refers to "amendment" as "the process of making own educational institutions, and the strengthening of the government as a
such a revision."52 Revision, on the other hand, is defined as "[a] whole to improve the conditions of the masses.60
reexamination or careful review for correction or improvement."53 In
parliamentary law, it is described as "[a] general and thorough rewriting of a The 1973 Constitution in turn underwent a series of significant changes in
governing document, in which the entire document is open to 1976, 1980, 1981, and 1984. The two significant innovations introduced
amendment."54 Similarly, Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines "amendment" in 1976 were (1) the creation of an interim Batasang Pambansa, in place of
– as "[a] correction or revision of a writing to correct errors or better to state its the interim National Assembly, and (2) Amendment No. 6 which conferred on
intended purpose"55 and "amendment of constitution" as "[a] process of the President the power to issue decrees, orders, or letters of instruction,
proposing, passing, and ratifying amendments to the x x x constitution."56 In whenever the Batasang Pambansa fails to act adequately on any matter for
contrast, "revision," when applied to a statute (or constitution), "contemplates any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, or there is grave
the re-examination of the same subject matter contained in the statute (or emergency or threat or imminence thereof, with such decrees, or letters of
constitution), and the substitution of a new, and what is believed to be, a still instruction to form part of the law of the land. In 1980, the retirement age of
more perfect rule."57 seventy (70) for justices and judges was restored. In 1981, the presidential
system with parliamentary features was installed. The transfer of private land
One of the most authoritative constitutionalists of his time to whom we owe a for use as residence to natural-born citizens who had lost their citizenship was
lot of intellectual debt, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, of the University of the
also allowed. Then, in 1984, the membership of the Batasang Pambansa was votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who
reapportioned by provinces, cities, or districts in Metro Manila instead of by did not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the
regions; the Office of the Vice-President was created while the executive polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law.'"63 Indeed, a careful
committee was abolished; and, urban land reform and social housing perusal of the debates of the Constitutional Commissioners can likewise
programs were strengthened.61 These substantial changes were simply lead to the conclusion that there was no abandonment of the traditional
considered as mere amendments. distinction between "amendment" and "revision." For during the debates,
some of the commissioners referred to the concurring opinion of former Justice
In 1986, Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency, and repudiated the Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. The Executive Secretary,64 that stressed
1973 Constitution. She governed under Proclamation No. 3, known as the the traditional distinction between amendment and revision, thus:65
Freedom Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: We mentioned the possible use of only one term and
In February 1987, the new constitution was ratified by the people in a that is, "amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use
plebiscite and superseded the Provisional or Freedom Constitution. Retired the terms – "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called
Justice Isagani Cruz underscored the outstanding features of the 1987 by the honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the
Constitution which consists of eighteen articles and is excessively long connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of
compared to the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973, on which it was largely our research, we came up with the observations made in the famous
based. Many of the original provisions of the 1935 Constitution, particularly – or notorious – Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered
those pertaining to the legislative and executive departments, have been by Honorable Justice Makasiar,66 wherein he made the following
restored because of the revival of the bicameral Congress of the Philippines distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of an existing
and the strictly presidential system. The independence of the judiciary has Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole
been strengthened, with new provisions for appointment thereto and an Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution
increase in its authority, which now covers even political questions formerly envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act
beyond its jurisdiction. While many provisions of the 1973 Constitution were to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the
retained, like those on the Constitutional Commissions and local governments, improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed
still the new 1987 Constitution was deemed as a revision of the 1973 essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of
Constitution. parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the
times.
It is now contended that this traditional distinction between amendment and
revision was abrogated by the 1987 Constitution. It is urged that Section 1 of The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935
Article XVII gives the power to amend or revise to Congress acting as a Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying
constituent assembly, and to a Constitutional Convention duly called by new political, social and economic concepts.
Congress for the purpose. Section 2 of the same Article, it is said, limited the
people's right to change the Constitution via initiative through simple So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two
amendments. In other words, the people cannot propose substantial terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing
amendments amounting to revision. amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.

With due respect, I do not agree. As aforestated, the oppositors-intervenors To further explain "revision," former Justice Antonio, in his concurring opinion,
who peddle the above proposition rely on the opinions of some used an analogy – "When a house is completely demolished and another is
Commissioners expressed in the course of the debate on how to frame the erected on the same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered
amendment/revision provisions of the 1987 Constitution. It is familiar house, or do you have a new house? Some of the material contained in the
learning, however, that opinions in a constitutional convention, especially if old house may be used again, some of the rooms may be constructed the
inconclusive of an issue, are of very limited value as explaining doubtful same, but this does not alter the fact that you have altogether another or a
phrases, and are an unsafe guide (to the intent of the people) since the new house."67
constitution derives its force as a fundamental law, not from the action of the
convention but from the powers (of the people) who have ratified and adopted Hence, it is arguable that when the framers of the 1987 Constitution used the
it.62 "Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of value as showing the word "revision," they had in mind the "rewriting of the whole Constitution,"
views of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their or the "total overhaul of the Constitution." Anything less is an
"amendment" or just "a change of specific provisions only," the intention being authority emanates from them." In a republican state, the power of the
"not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific sovereign people is exercised and delegated to their
parts or the addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new representatives. Thus in Metropolitan Transportation Service v. Paredes, this
conditions or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or Court held that "a republican state, like the Philippines x x x (is) derived from
unresponsive to the needs of the times." Under this view, "substantial" the will of the people themselves in freely creating a government 'of the
amendments are still "amendments" and thus can be proposed by the people, by the people, and for the people' – a representative government
people via an initiative. through which they have agreed to exercise the powers and discharge the
duties of their sovereignty for the common good and general welfare."72
As we cannot be guided with certainty by the inconclusive opinions of
the Commissioners on the difference between "simple" and "substantial" In both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the sovereign people delegated to
amendments or whether "substantial" amendments amounting to revision are Congress or to a convention, the power to amend or revise our fundamental
covered by people's initiative, it behooves us to follow the cardinal rule in law. History informs us how this delegated power to amend or revise the
interpreting Constitutions, i.e., construe them to give effect to the intention Constitution was abused particularly during the Marcos regime. The
of the people who adopted it. The illustrious Cooley explains its rationale Constitution was changed several times to satisfy the power requirements of
well, viz:68 the regime. Indeed, Amendment No. 6 was passed giving unprecedented
legislative powers to then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. A conspiracy of
x x x the constitution does not derive its force from the convention circumstances from above and below, however, brought down the Marcos
which framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be regime through an extra constitutional revolution, albeit a peaceful one by
arrived at is that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they the people. A main reason for the people's revolution was the failure of
have looked for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, the representatives of the people to effectuate timely changes in the
but rather that they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to Constitution either by acting as a constituent assembly or by calling a
the common understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief constitutional convention. When the representatives of the
that that was the sense designed to be conveyed. These proceedings people defaulted in using this last peaceful process of constitutional
therefore are less conclusive of the proper construction of the change, the sovereign people themselves took matters in their own
instrument than are legislative proceedings of the proper construction hands. They revolted and replaced the 1973 Constitution with the 1987
of a statute; since in the latter case it is the intent of the legislature we Constitution.
seek, while in the former we are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of
the people through the discussion and deliberations of their It is significant to note that the people modified the ideology of the 1987
representatives. The history of the calling of the convention, the Constitution as it stressed the power of the people to act directly in their
causes which led to it, and the discussions and issues before the capacity as sovereign people. Correspondingly, the power of the
people at the time of the election of the delegates, will sometimes be legislators to act as representatives of the people in the matter of
quite as instructive and satisfactory as anything to be gathered form amending or revising the Constitution was diminished for the spring
the proceedings of the convention. cannot rise above its source. To reflect this significant shift, Section 1,
Article II of the 1987 Constitution was reworded. It now reads: "the
Corollarily, a constitution is not to be interpreted on narrow or technical Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Sovereignty resides in the
principles, but liberally and on broad general lines, to accomplish the people and all government authority emanates from them." The
object of its establishment and carry out the great principles of commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained the addition
government – not to defeat them.69 One of these great principles is the of the word "democratic," in our first Declaration of Principles, viz:
sovereignty of the people.
MR. NOLLEDO. I am putting the word "democratic" because of the provisions
Let us now determine the intent of the people when they adopted initiative that we are now adopting which are covering consultations with the people.
as a mode to amend the 1987 Constitution. We start with the Declaration of For example, we have provisions on recall, initiative, the right of the people
Principles and State Policies which Sinco describes as "the basic political even to participate in lawmaking and other instances that recognize the validity
creed of the nation"70 as it "lays down the policies that government is bound to of interference by the people through people's organizations x x x x73
observe."71 Section 1, Article II of the 1935 Constitution and Section 1, Article
II of the 1973 Constitution, similarly provide that "the Philippines is
a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
 MR. OPLE. x x x x The Committee added the word "democratic" to to emphasize the democratic portion of republicanism, of
"republican," and, therefore, the first sentence states: "The Philippines representative democracy as well. So, we want to add the word
is a republican and democratic state x x x x "democratic" to emphasize that in this new Constitution there are
instances where the people would act directly, and not through
May I know from the committee the reason for adding the word their representatives. (emphasis supplied)
"democratic" to "republican"? The constitutional framers of the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions were content with "republican." Was this done Consistent with the stress on direct democracy, the systems of initiative,
merely for the sake of emphasis? referendum, and recall were enthroned as polestars in the 1987 Constitution.
Thus, Commissioner Blas F. Ople who introduced the provision on people's
MR. NOLLEDO. x x x x "democratic" was added because of the initiative said:76
need to emphasize people power and the many provisions in the
Constitution that we have approved related to recall, people's MR. OPLE. x x x x I think this is just the correct time in history when
organizations, initiative and the like, which recognize the we should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to
participation of the people in policy-making in certain the Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the
circumstances x x x x right to formulate and propose their own amendments and
revisions of the Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon
MR. OPLE. I thank the Commissioner. That is a very clear answer and the government. It is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the
I think it does meet a need x x x x people for amending a constitution will be needed frequently in the
future, but it is good to know that the ultimate reserves of
MR. NOLLEDO. According to Commissioner Rosario Braid, sovereign power still rest upon the people and that in the
"democracy" here is understood as participatory exercise of that power, they can propose amendments or revision
democracy. 74 (emphasis supplied) to the Constitution. (emphasis supplied)

The following exchange between Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento Commissioner Jose E. Suarez also explained the people's initiative as a
and Adolfo S. Azcuna is of the same import:75 safety valve, as a peaceful way for the people to change their Constitution, by
citing our experiences under the Marcos government, viz:77
MR. SARMIENTO. When we speak of republican democratic state,
are we referring to representative democracy? MR. SUAREZ. We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular
provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the
sovereign will of the people through this initiative system.
MR. AZCUNA. That is right.
MR. BENGZON. Is Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), not sufficient
MR. SARMIENTO. So, why do we not retain the old formulation under
channel for expression of the will of the people, particularly in the
the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions which used the words "republican
amendment or revision of the Constitution?
state" because "republican state" would refer to a democratic state
where people choose their representatives?
MR. SUAREZ. Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what
happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration.
MR. AZCUNA. We wanted to emphasize the participation of the
So, if the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating
people in government.
under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case
may be, and the required number of votes could not be obtained, we
MR. SARMIENTO. But even in the concept "republican state," we are would have to provide for a safety valve in order that the people could
stressing the participation of the people x x x x So the word ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire for amendment to the
"republican" will suffice to cover popular representation. Constitution.

MR. AZCUNA. Yes, the Commissioner is right. However, the It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the
committee felt that in view of the introduction of the aspects of direct National Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly
democracy such as initiative, referendum or recall, it was necessary or to call a constitutional convention, the members thereof would
 not heed the people's desire and clamor. So this is a third James Wilson, regarded by many as the most brilliant, scholarly, and
avenue that we are providing for the implementation of what is now visionary lawyer in the United States in the 1780s, laid down the first principles
popularly known as people's power. (emphasis supplied) of popular sovereignty during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention of the
1787 Constitution of the United States:82
Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong opined that the people's initiative
could avert a revolution, viz:78 There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which
there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed
MR. MAAMBONG. x x x x the amending process of the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable.
Constitution could actually avert a revolution by providing a safety
valve in bringing about changes in the Constitution through pacific x x x x Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient
means. This, in effect, operationalizes what political law authors call accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our
the "prescription of sovereignty." (emphasis supplied) governments, the supreme power was vested in the constitutions x x
x x This opinion approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not
The end result is Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution which reach it. The truth is, that in our governments, the supreme,
expressed the right of the sovereign people to propose amendments to the absolute, and uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our
Constitution by direct action or through initiative. To that extent, the delegated constitutions are superior to our legislatures, so the people are
power of Congress to amend or revise the Constitution has to be superior to our constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last
adjusted downward. Thus, Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution has instance, is much greater; for the people possess over our constitution,
to be reminted and now provides: "The legislative power shall be vested in control in act, as well as right. (emphasis supplied)
the Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House
of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the I wish to reiterate that in a democratic and republican state, only the
provision on initiative and referendum." people is sovereign - - - not the elected President, not the elected Congress,
not this unelected Court. Indeed, the sovereignty of the people which
Prescinding from these baseline premises, the argument that the people is indivisible cannot be reposed in any organ of government. Only its
through initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to change exercise may be delegated to any of them. In our case, the people
the Constitution turns sovereignty on its head. At the very least, delegated to Congress the exercise of the sovereign power to amend or
the submission constricts the democratic space for the exercise of the revise the Constitution. If Congress, as delegate, can exercise this power to
direct sovereignty of the people. It also denigrates the sovereign people who amend or revise the Constitution, can it be argued that the sovereign people
they claim can only be trusted with the power to propose "simple" but not who delegated the power has no power to substantially amend the
"substantial" amendments to the Constitution. According to Sinco, the Constitution by direct action? If the sovereign people do not have this power
concept of sovereignty should be strictly understood in its legal meaning as it to make substantial amendments to the Constitution, what did it delegate to
was originally developed in law.79 Legal sovereignty, he explained, is "the Congress? How can the people lack this fraction of a power to substantially
possession of unlimited power to make laws. Its possessor is the legal amend the Constitution when by their sovereignty, all power emanates from
sovereign. It implies the absence of any other party endowed with legally them? It will take some mumbo jumbo to argue that the whole is lesser than
superior powers and privileges. It is not subject to law 'for it is the author its part. Let Sinco clinch the point:83
and source of law.' Legal sovereignty is thus the equivalent of legal
omnipotence."80 But although possession may not be delegated, the exercise of
sovereignty often is. It is delegated to the organs and agents of the
To be sure, sovereignty or popular sovereignty, emphasizes the supremacy of state which constitute its government, for it is only through this
the people's will over the state which they themselves have created. The state instrumentality that the state ordinarily functions. However ample and
is created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all complete this delegation may be, it is nevertheless subject to
political power. Rightly, we have ruled that "the sovereignty of our people is withdrawal at any time by the state. On this point Willoughby says:
not a kabalistic principle whose dimensions are buried in mysticism. Its metes
and bounds are familiar to the framers of our Constitutions. They knew that in Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete
its broadest sense, sovereignty is meant to be supreme, the jus summi imperu, autonomy of government and reserve to themselves a right to
the absolute right to govern."81 control of so slight and so negative a character as to make its
exercise a rare and improbable occurrence; yet so long as
 such right of control is recognized to exist, and the autonomy wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing
of the colonies is conceded to be founded upon a grant and amendments to the Constitution, but his constitutional authority to
continuing consent of the mother countries the sovereignty of perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly.
those mother countries over them is complete and they are to Whether the amending process confers on the President that power
be considered as possessing only administrative autonomy to propose amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question.
and not political independence. Should the contrary be found, the actuation of the President would
merely be a brutum fulmen. If the Constitution provides how it may be
At the very least, the power to propose substantial amendments to the amended, the judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can
Constitution is shared with the people. We should accord the most declare whether the procedure followed or the authority assumed was
benign treatment to the sovereign power of the people to propose valid or not.
substantial amendments to the Constitution especially when the
proposed amendments will adversely affect the interest of some We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his
members of Congress. A contrary approach will suborn the public weal theory of non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority
to private interest and worse, will enable Congress (the delegate) to to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted
frustrate the power of the people to determine their destiny (the for submission of the proposals to the people ultimately lie in the
principal). judgment of the latter. A clear Descartes fallacy of vicious cycle. Is it
not that the people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the
All told, the teaching of the ages is that constitutional clauses acknowledging authority and procedure for the amending process when they ratified
the right of the people to exercise initiative and referendum are liberally and the present Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, that
generously construed in favor of the people.84 Initiative and referendum constitutional provision has been followed or not is indisputably a
powers must be broadly construed to maintain maximum power in the proper subject of inquiry, not by the people themselves – of course –
people.85 We followed this orientation in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. who exercise no power of judicial review, but by the Supreme Court in
Commission on Elections.86 There is not an iota of reason to depart from it. whom the people themselves vested that power, a power which
includes the competence to determine whether the constitutional
V norms for amendments have been observed or not. And, this inquiry
must be done a priori not a posteriori, i.e., before the submission to
and ratification by the people.
The issues at bar are not political questions.
In the instant case, the Constitution sets in black and white the requirements
Petitioners submit that "[t]he validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign
for the exercise of the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The
people to amend the Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that
amendments must be proposed by the people "upon a petition of at least
over six million registered voters indicated their support of the Petition for
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
Initiative, is a purely political question which is beyond even the very long
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
arm of this Honorable Court's power of judicial review. Whether or not the 1987
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
Constitution should be amended is a matter which the people and the people
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
alone must resolve in their sovereign capacity."87 They argue that "[t]he power
oftener than once every five years thereafter."90 Compliance with these
to propose amendments to the Constitution is a right explicitly bestowed upon
requirements is clearly a justiciable and not a political question. Be that as it
the sovereign people. Hence, the determination by the people to exercise their
may, how the issue will be resolved by the people is addressed to them and
right to propose amendments under the system of initiative is a sovereign act
to them alone.
and falls squarely within the ambit of a 'political question.'"88
VI
The petitioners cannot be sustained. This issue has long been interred
by Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, viz:89
Whether the Petition for Initiative filed before the COMELEC complied
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. 6735 involves
Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the
contentious issues of fact which should first be resolved by the
legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers
COMELEC.
to the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely
justiciable or non-political. What is in the heels of the Court is not the
Oppositors-intervenors impugn the Petition for Initiative as it allegedly lacks yield only a total of 8,676 signatures which falls short of the three per cent
the required number of signatures under Section 2, Article XVII of the (3%) requirement for the district.
Constitution. Said provision requires that the petition for initiative be supported
by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent likewise submitted to this Court a certification issued by Atty. Stalin A. Baguio,
(3%) of the registered voters therein. Oppositors-intervenors contend that no City Election Officer IV, Cagayan de Oro City, stating that the list of names
proper verification of signatures was done in several legislative districts. appearing on the signature sheets corresponds to the names of registered
They assert that mere verification of the names listed on the signature sheets voters in the city, thereby implying that they have not actually verified the
without verifying the signatures reduces the signatures submitted for their signatures.94
respective legislative districts to mere scribbles on a piece of paper.
The argument against the sufficiency of the signatures is further bolstered by
Oppositor-intervenor ONEVOICE, Inc., submitted to this Court a certification Alternative Law Groups, Inc., which submitted copies of similarly worded
dated August 23, 2006 issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, Election Officer certifications from the election officers from Zamboanga del Sur95 and from
IV, Third District and OIC, First and Second District, Davao City, stating that Compostela Valley.96 Alternative Law Groups, Inc., further assails the
his office has not verified the signatures submitted by the proponents of the regularity of the verification process as it alleged that verification in some areas
people's initiative. The certification reads: were conducted by Barangay officials and not by COMELEC election officers.
It filed with this Court copies of certifications from Sulu and Sultan Kudarat
This is to CERTIFY that this office (First, Second and Third District, showing that the verification was conducted by local officials instead of
Davao City) HAS NOT VERIFIED the signatures of registered voters COMELEC personnel.97
as per documents submitted in this office by the proponents of the
People's Initiative. Consequently, NO ELECTION DOCUMENTS Petitioners, on the other hand, maintain that the verification conducted by
AND/OR ORDER ISSUED BY HIGHER SUPERIORS used as basis the election officers sufficiently complied with the requirements of the
for such verification of signatures.91 Constitution and the law on initiative.

Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., among others, further clarified Contravening the allegations of oppositors-intervenors on the lack of
that although Atty. Casquejo and Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Acting Election verification in Davao City and in Polomolok, South Cotabato, petitioner
Officer IV, First District, Davao City, later issued certifications stating that the Aumentado claimed that the same election officers cited by the oppositors-
Office of the City Election Officer has examined the list of individuals appearing intervenors also issued certifications showing that they have verified the
in the signature sheets,92 the certifications reveal that the office had verified signatures submitted by the proponents of the people's initiative. He presented
only the names of the signatories, but not their signatures. Oppositors- copies of the certifications issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo for the Second
intervenors submit that not only the names of the signatories should be and Third Legislative Districts of Davao City stating that he verified the
verified, but also their signatures to ensure the identities of the persons affixing signatures of the proponents of the people's initiative. His certification for the
their signatures on the signature sheets. Second District states:

Oppositor-intervenor Luwalhati Antonino also alleged that petitioners failed to This is to CERTIFY that this Office has examined the list of individuals
obtain the signatures of at least three per cent (3%) of the total number of as appearing in the Signature Sheets of the Registered Voters of
registered voters in the First Legislative District of South Cotabato. For the District II, Davao City, submitted on April 7, 2006 by MR. NONATO
First District of South Cotabato, petitioners submitted 3,182 signatures for BOLOS, Punong Barangay, Centro, Davao City for verification which
General Santos City, 2,186 signatures for Tupi, 3,308 signatures for consists of THIRTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO
Tampakan and 10,301 signatures for Polomolok, or 18,977 signatures out of (30,662) signatures.
359,488 registered voters of said district. Antonino, however, submitted to this
Court a copy of the certification by Glory D. Rubio, Election Officer III, Anent thereto, it appears that of the THIRTY THOUSAND SIX
Polomolok, dated May 8, 2006, showing that the signatures from Polomolok HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (30,662) individuals, only TWENTY-TWO
were not verified because the Book of Voters for the whole municipality was THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT (22,668) individuals were
in the custody of the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, found to be REGISTERED VOTERS, in the Computerized List of
Polomolok, South Cotabato.93 Excluding the signatures from Polomolok from Voters of SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DAVAO CITY.98
the total number of signatures from the First District of South Cotabato would
It was also shown that Atty. Casquejo had issued a clarificatory certification signatures allegedly "passed" COMELEC's initial scrutiny. However,
regarding the verification process conducted in Davao City. It reads: upon examination of the signature sheets by Atty. Mar-len Abigail
Binay, the said 7,186 signatures could not be accounted for. Atty.
Regarding the verification of the signatures of registered voters, this Binay manually counted 2,793 signatures marked with the word "OK"
Office has previously issued two (2) separate certifications for the and 3,443 signatures marked with a check, giving only 6,236
2nd and 3rd Districts of Davao City on April 20, 2006 and April 26, 2006, "apparently verified signatures." Before the COMELEC officer issued
respectively, specifically relating to the voters who supported the the Certification, Atty. Binay already submitted to the said office not
people's initiative. It was stated therein that the names submitted, less than 55 letters of "signature withdrawal," but no action was ever
comprising 22,668 individual voters in the 2nd District and 18,469 taken thereon;
individual voters in the 3rd District, were found [to] be registered voters
of the respective districts mentioned as verified by this Office based (3) In District 2, 29,411 signatures were submitted for verification.
on the Computerized List of Voters. 23,521 alleged voters' signatures (80% of those submitted) were
rejected outright. Of the 5,890 signatures which allegedly passed the
It must be clarified that the August 23, 2006 Certification was issued COMELEC's initial scrutiny, some more will surely fail upon closer
in error and by mistake for the reason that the signature verification examination;
has not been fully completed as of that date.
(4) In the absence of clear, transparent, and uniform rules the
I hereby CERTIFY that this Office has examined the signatures of the COMELEC personnel did not know how to treat the objections and
voters as appearing in the signature sheets and has compared these other observations coming from the camp of Mayor Binay. The
with the signatures appearing in the book of voters and computerized oppositors too did not know where to go for their remedy when the
list of voters x x x 99 COMELEC personnel merely "listened" to their objections and other
observations. As mentioned earlier, the COMELEC personnel did not
Petitioner Aumentado also submitted a copy of the certification dated May 8, even know what to do with the many "letters of signature withdrawal"
2006 issued by Polomolok Election Officer Glory D. Rubio to support their submitted to it;
claim that said officer had conducted a verification of signatures in said area.
The certification states: (5) Signatures of people long dead, in prison, abroad, and other
forgeries appear on the Sigaw ng Bayan Signature Sheets. There is
This is to certify further, that the total 68,359 registered voters of this even a 15-year old alleged signatory;
municipality, as of the May 10, 2004 elections, 10,804 names with
signatures were submitted for verification and out of which 10,301 (6) There are Signature Sheets obviously signed by one person;
were found to be legitimate voters as per official list of registered
voters, which is equivalent to 15.07% of the total number of registered (7) A Calara M. Roberto and a Roberto M. Calara both allegedly
voters of this Municipality.100 signed the Signature Sheets.101

In addition to the lack of proper verification of the signatures in numerous Also, there are allegations that many of the signatories did not understand
legislative districts, allegations of fraud and irregularities in the collection of what they have signed as they were merely misled into signing the signature
signatures in Makati City were cited by Senator Pimentel, among others, to wit: sheets. Opposed to these allegations are rulings that a person who affixes his
signature on a document raises the presumption that the person so signing
(1) No notice was given to the public, for the benefit of those who may has knowledge of what the document contains. Courts have recognized that
be concerned, by the Makati COMELEC Office that signature sheets there is great value in the stability of records, so to speak, that no one should
have already been submitted to it for "verification." The camp of Mayor commit herself or himself to something in writing unless she or he is fully aware
Binay was able to witness the "verification process" only because of and cognizant of the effect it may have upon her on him.102 In the same vein,
their pro-active stance; we have held that a person is presumed to have knowledge of the contents of
a document he has signed.103 But as this Court is not a trier of facts, it cannot
(2) In District 1, the proponents of charter change submitted 43,405 resolve the issue.
signatures for verification. 36,219 alleged voters' signatures (83% of
the number of signatures submitted) were rejected outright. 7,186
In sum, the issue of whether the petitioners have complied with the justice108 abstained from voting on the issue holding that unless and until a
constitutional requirement that the petition for initiative be signed by at least proper initiatory pleading is filed, the said issue is not ripe for adjudication.109
twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the Within the reglementary period, the respondents filed their motion for
registered voters therein, involves contentious facts. Its resolution will reconsideration. On June 10, 1997, the Court denied the motion. Only thirteen
require presentation of evidence and their calibration by the COMELEC (13) justices resolved the motion for Justice Torres inhibited himself.110 Of the
according to its rules. During the oral argument on this case, the COMELEC, original majority of eight (8) justices, only six (6) reiterated their ruling
through Director Alioden Dalaig of its Law Department, admitted that it has that R.A. 6735 was an insufficient law. Justice Hermosisima, originally part
not examined the documents submitted by the petitioners in support of the of the majority of eight (8) justices, changed his vote and joined the minority
petition for initiative, as well as the documents filed by the oppositors to of five (5) justices. He opined without any equivocation that R.A. 6735 was a
buttress their claim that the required number of signatures has not been met. sufficient law, thus:
The exchanges during the oral argument likewise clearly show the need for
further clarification and presentation of evidence to prove certain material It is one thing to utter a happy phrase from a protected cluster; another
facts.104 to think under fire – to think for action upon which great interests
depend." So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and so I am guided
The only basis used by the COMELEC to dismiss the petition for initiative as I reconsider my concurrence to the holding of the majority that "R.A.
was this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC that R.A. 6735 was No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
insufficient. It has yet to rule on the sufficiency of the form and substance amendments to the Constitution and to have failed to provide sufficient
of the petition. I respectfully submit that this issue should be properly standard for subordinate legislation" and now to interpose my dissent
litigated before the COMELEC where both parties will be given full thereto.
opportunity to prove their allegations.
xxx
For the same reasons, the sufficiency of the Petition for Initiative and its
compliance with the requirements of R.A. 6735 on initiative and its WHEREFORE, I vote to dismiss the Delfin petition.
implementing rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at
the first instance, as it is the body that is mandated by the Constitution to
I vote, however, to declare R.A. No. 6735 as adequately providing
administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
the legal basis for the exercise by the people of their right to
plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall.105
amend the Constitution through initiative proceedings and to
uphold the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 insofar as it
VII does not sanction the filing of the initiatory petition for initiative
proceedings to amend the Constitution without the required names
COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due and/or signatures of at least 12% of all the registered voters, of which
course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition. every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein. (emphasis supplied)
In denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition,
COMELEC relied on this Court's ruling in Santiago permanently enjoining it Justice Vitug remained steadfast in refusing to rule on the sufficiency of R.A.
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on 6735. In fine, the final vote on whether R.A. 6735 is a sufficient law was 6-
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly 6 with one (1) justice inhibiting himself and another justice refusing to rule on
enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. the ground that the issue was not ripe for adjudication.

Again, I respectfully submit that COMELEC's reliance on Santiago constitutes It ought to be beyond debate that the six (6) justices who voted that R.A. 6735
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. is an insufficient law failed to establish a doctrine that could serve as a
The Santiago case did not establish the firm doctrine that R.A. 6735 is not precedent. Under any alchemy of law, a deadlocked vote of six (6) is not a
a sufficient law to implement the constitutional provision allowing people's majority and a non-majority cannot write a rule with precedential value. The
initiative to amend the Constitution. To recapitulate, the records show that in opinion of the late Justice Ricardo J. Francisco is instructive, viz:
the original decision, eight (8) justices106 voted that R.A. 6735 was not a
sufficient law; five (5) justices107 voted that said law was sufficient; and one (1)
 As it stands, of the thirteen justices who took part in the deliberations 6 L. Ed. 419 (1826). As was later elaborated in such cases, it is the
on the issue of whether the motion for reconsideration of the March appellant or petitioner who asks the Court to overturn a lower court's
19, 1997 decision should be granted or not, only the following justices decree. "If the judges are divided, the reversal cannot be had, for no
sided with Mr. Justice Davide, namely: Chief Justice Narvasa, and order can be made. The judgment of the court below, therefore, stands
Justices Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo and Kapunan. Justices Melo, in full force. It is indeed, the settled practice in such case to enter a
Puno, Mendoza, Hermosisima, Panganiban and the undersigned judgment of affirmance; but this is only the most convenient mode of
voted to grant the motion; while Justice Vitug "maintained his opinion expressing the fact that the cause is finally disposed of in conformity
that the matter was not ripe for judicial adjudication." In other words, with the action of the court below, and that that court can proceed to
only five, out of the other twelve justices, joined Mr. Justice Davide's enforce its judgment. The legal effect would be the same if the appeal,
June 10, 1997 ponencia finding R.A. No. 6735 unconstitutional for its or writ of error, were dismissed." Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107,
failure to pass the so called "completeness and sufficiency standards" 112, 19 L. Ed. 154 (1869). Nor is an affirmance by an equally divided
tests. The "concurrence of a majority of the members who actually Court entitled to precedential weight. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364
took part in the deliberations" which Article VII, Section 4(2) of the U.S. 263, 264, 80 S. Ct. 1463, 1464, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1708 (1960).xxx"
Constitution requires to declare a law unconstitutional was, beyond
dispute, not complied with. And even assuming, for the sake of This doctrine established in Neil has not been overturned and has been cited
argument, that the constitutional requirement on the concurrence of with approval in a number of subsequent cases,112 and has been applied in
the "majority" was initially reached in the March 19, 1997 ponencia, various state jurisdictions.
the same is inconclusive as it was still open for review by way of a
motion for reconsideration. It was only on June 10, 1997 that the In the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Erin G., a Minor
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6735 was settled with finality, sans the Child,113 wherein a putative father sought to set aside a decree granting
constitutionally required "majority." The Court's declaration, therefore, petition for adoption of an Indian child on grounds of noncompliance with the
is manifestly grafted with infirmity and wanting in force necessitating, requirements of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), the Supreme Court of
in my view, the reexamination of the Court's decision in G.R. No. Alaska held that its decision in In re Adoption of T.N.F. (T.N.F.),114 which
127325. It behooves the Court "not to tarry any longer" nor waste this lacked majority opinion supporting holding that an action such as the
opportunity accorded by this new petition (G.R. No. 129754) to relieve putative father's would be governed by the state's one-year statute of
the Court's pronouncement from constitutional infirmity. limitations, was not entitled to stare decisis effect. In T.N.F., a majority of the
justices sitting did not agree on a common rationale, as two of four
The jurisprudence that an equally divided Court can never set a precedent is participating justices agreed that the state's one-year statute of limitations
well-settled. Thus, in the United States, an affirmance in the Federal applied, one justice concurred in the result only, and one justice dissented.
Supreme Court upon equal division of opinion is not an authority for the There was no "narrower" reasoning agreed upon by all three affirming justices.
determination of other cases, either in that Court or in the inferior federal The concurring justice expressed no opinion on the statute of limitations issue,
courts. In Neil v. Biggers,111 which was a habeas corpus state proceeding by and in agreeing with the result, he reasoned that ICWA did not give the plaintiff
a state prisoner, the U.S. Supreme Court held that its equally divided standing to sue.115 The two-justice plurality, though agreeing that the state's
affirmance of petitioner's state court conviction was not an "actual one-year statute of limitations applied, specifically disagreed with the
adjudication" barring subsequent consideration by the district court on habeas concurring justice on the standing issue.116 Because a majority of the
corpus. In discussing the non-binding effect of an equal division ruling, the participating justices in T.N.F. did not agree on any one ground for affirmance,
Court reviewed the history of cases explicating the disposition "affirmed by an it was not accorded stare decisis effect by the state Supreme Court.
equally divided Court:"
The Supreme Court of Michigan likewise ruled that the doctrine of stare
In this light, we review our cases explicating the disposition "affirmed decisis does not apply to plurality decisions in which no majority of the
by an equally divided Court." On what was apparently the first justices participating agree to the reasoning and as such are not authoritative
occasion of an equal division, The Antelope, 10 Wheat, 66, 6 L. Ed. interpretations binding on the Supreme Court.117
268 (1825), the Court simply affirmed on the point of division without
much discussion. Id., at 126-127. Faced with a similar division during In State ex rel. Landis v. Williams,118 the Supreme Court of Florida, in
the next Term, the Court again affirmed, Chief Justice Marshall an equally divided opinion on the matter,119 held that chapter 15938, Acts of
explaining that "the principles of law which have been argued, cannot 1933 must be allowed to stand, dismissing a quo warranto suit without
be settled; but the judgment is affirmed, the court being divided in prejudice. The Court held:
opinion upon it." Etting v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 59, 78,
 In a cause of original jurisdiction in this court a statute cannot be judges recused themselves and the remaining members of the Court were so
declared unconstitutional nor its enforcement nor operation judicially divided, it was impossible to secure the concurrence of four judges as is
interfered with, except by the concurrence of a majority of the constitutionally required. The Court followed the procedure employed by the
members of the Supreme Court sitting in the cause wherein the U.S. Supreme Court when the Justices of that Court are equally
constitutionality of the statute is brought in question or judicial relief divided, i.e. affirm the judgment of the court that was before it for review. The
sought against its enforcement. Section 4 of Article 5, state affirmance is a conclusive determination and adjudication as between the
Constitution. parties to the immediate case, it is not authority for the determination of other
cases, either in the Supreme Court or in any other court. It is not "entitled to
Therefore in this case the concurrence of a majority of the members precedential weight." The legal effect of such an affirmance is the same as if
of this court in holding unconstitutional said chapter 15938, supra, not the appeal was dismissed.125
having been had, it follows that the statute in controversy must be
allowed to stand and accordingly be permitted to be enforced as a The same rule is settled in the English Courts. Under English
presumptively valid act of the Legislature, and that this proceeding precedents,126 an affirmance by an equally divided Court is, as between the
in quo warranto must be dismissed without prejudice. Spencer v. parties, a conclusive determination and adjudication of the matter adjudged;
Hunt (Fla.) 147 So. 282. This decision is not to be regarded as a but the principles of law involved not having been agreed upon by a majority
judicial precedent on the question of constitutional law involved of the court sitting prevents the case from becoming an authority for the
concerning the constitutionality vel non of chapter 15938. State ex rel. determination of other cases, either in that or in inferior courts.
Hampton v. McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51.
After a tour of these cases, we can safely conclude that the prevailing doctrine
Quo warranto proceeding dismissed without prejudice by equal is that, the affirmance by an equally divided court merely disposes of the
division of the court on question of constitutionality of statute involved. present controversy as between the parties and settles no issue of law; the
affirmance leaves unsettled the principle of law presented by the case and is
In U.S. v. Pink,120 the Court held that the affirmance by the U.S. Supreme not entitled to precedential weight or value. In other words, the decision only
Court by an equally divided vote of a decision of the New York Court of has res judicata and not stare decisis effect. It is not conclusive and binding
Appeals that property of a New York branch of a Russian insurance company upon other parties as respects the controversies in other actions.
was outside the scope of the Russian Soviet government's decrees
terminating existence of insurance companies in Russia and seizing their Let us now examine the patent differences between the petition at bar and
assets, while conclusive and binding upon the parties as respects the the Delfin Petition in the Santiago case which will prevent the Santiago ruling
controversy in that action, did not constitute an authoritative "precedent." from binding the present petitioners. To start with, the parties are different.
More importantly, the Delfin Petition did not contain the signatures of the
In Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.,121 the U.S. Court of Appeals Second required number of registered voters under the Constitution: the requirement
Circuit, in holding that printed lyrics which had the same meter as plaintiffs' that twelve per cent (12%) of all the registered voters in the country wherein
lyrics, but which were in form a parody of the latter, did not constitute each legislative district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the
infringement of plaintiffs' copyrights, ruled that the prior case of Benny v. registered voters therein was not complied with. For this reason, we ruled
Loew's, Inc.,122 which was affirmed by an equally divided court, was not unanimously that it was not the initiatory petition which the COMELEC could
binding upon it, viz: properly take cognizance of. In contrast, the present petition appears to be
accompanied by the signatures of the required number of registered voters.
Under the precedents of this court, and, as seems justified by reason Thus, while the Delfin Petition prayed that an Order be issued fixing the time
as well as by authority, an affirmance by an equally divided court is as and dates for signature gathering all over the country, the Lambino and
between the parties, a conclusive determination and adjudication of Aumentado petition, prayed for the calling of a plebiscite to allow the Filipino
the matter adjudged; but the principles of law involved not having been people to express their sovereign will on the proposition. COMELEC cannot
agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting prevents the case from close its eyes to these material differences.
becoming an authority for the determination of other cases, either in
this or in inferior courts.123 Plainly, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
of jurisdiction in denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition
In Perlman v. First National Bank of Chicago,124 the Supreme Court of on the basis of its mistaken notion that Santiago established the doctrine that
Illinois dismissed the appeal as it was unable to reach a decision because two R.A. 6735 was an insufficient law. As aforestressed, that ruling of six (6)
justices who do not represent the majority lacks precedential status and is operation of the principle of res judicata, which needs no further
non-binding on the present petitioners. elaboration. (emphasis supplied)

The Court's dismissal of the PIRMA petition is of no moment. Suffice it to say Justice Josue N. Bellosillo adds:
that we dismissed the PIRMA petition on the principle of res judicata. This
was stressed by former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., viz: The essential requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment
must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having
The following are my reasons as to why this petition must be summarily jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a
dismissed: judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and
second actions identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and
First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed identity of causes of action.127
here and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997)
may plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially Applying these principles in the instant case, we hold that all the
identical to the latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the elements of res judicata are present. For sure, our Decision in
principal parties and inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable, Santiago v. COMELEC, which was promulgated on 19 March 1997,
parties in the present petition. But plainly, the same issues and reliefs and the motions for reconsideration thereof denied with finality on 10
are raised and prayed for in both cases. June 1997, is undoubtedly final. The said Decision was rendered by
this Court which had jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition under
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR Rule 65. Our judgment therein was on the merits, i.e., rendered only
REFORM, MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and spouses after considering the evidence presented by the parties as well as their
ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self- arguments in support of their respective claims and defenses. And, as
described as "a non-stock, non-profit organization duly organized and between Santiago v. COMELEC case and COMELEC Special Matter
existing under Philippine laws with office address at Suite 403, No. 97-001 subject of the present petition, there is identity of parties,
Fedman Suites, 199 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City," subject matter and causes of action.
with "ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA" as among its
"officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were made respondents as Petitioners contend that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC are not
founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the body of the identical to the parties in the instant case as some of the petitioners in
petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a the latter case were not parties to the former case. However, a perusal
people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the of the records reveals that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC
PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of included the COMELEC, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, spouses Alberto and
PIRMA. Carmen Pedrosa, in their capacities as founding members of PIRMA,
as well as Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra, another founding member of
The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly PIRMA, representing PIRMA, as respondents. In the instant case,
represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In Atty. Delfin was never removed, and the spouses Alberto and Carmen
short, PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his Pedrosa were joined by several others who were made parties to the
petition that he was a founding member of the Movement for People's petition. In other words, what petitioners did was to make it appear that
Initiative, and under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that the PIRMA Petition was filed by an entirely separate and distinct group
said movement was "[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for by removing some of the parties involved in Santiago v. COMELEC
Reforms, Modernization and Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their and adding new parties. But as we said in Geralde v. Sabido128-
Comment to the petition in Santiago, the PEDROSAS did not deny
that they were founding members of PIRMA, and by their arguments, A party may not evade the application of the rule of res judicata
demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had joined Delfin by simply including additional parties in the subsequent case
or his cause. or by not including as parties in the later case persons who
were parties in the previous suit. The joining of new parties
No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA does not remove the case from the operation of the rule on res
and the PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the judicata if the party against whom the judgment is offered in
 evidence was a party in the first action; otherwise, the parties journey towards the amendment of the Constitution. Lest it be missed, the
might renew the litigation by simply joining new parties. case at bar involves but a proposal to amend the Constitution. The
proposal will still be debated by the people and at this time, there is yet no
The fact that some persons or entities joined as parties in the PIRMA fail-safe method of telling what will be the result of the debate. There will still
petition but were not parties in Santiago v. COMELEC does not affect be a last step to the process of amendment which is the ratification of the
the operation of the prior judgment against those parties to the PIRMA proposal by a majority of the people in a plebiscite called for the
Petition who were likewise parties in Santiago v. COMELEC, as they purpose. Only when the proposal is approved by a majority of the people
are bound by such prior judgment. in the plebiscite will it become an amendment to the Constitution. All the
way, we cannot tie the tongues of the people. It is the people who decide
Needless to state, the dismissal of the PIRMA petition which was based on res for the people are not an obscure footnote in our Constitution.
judicata binds only PIRMA but not the petitioners.
The people's voice is sovereign in a democracy. Let us hear them. Let
VIII us heed them. Let us not only sing paens to the people's sovereignty.
Yes, it is neither too soon nor too late to let the people speak.
Finally, let the people speak.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the resolution of
the Commission on Elections dated August 31, 2006, denying due course to
"It is a Constitution we are expounding" solemnly intoned the great Chief
the Petition for Initiative filed by Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in
Justice John Marshall of the United States in the 1819 case of M'cCulloch
their own behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered voters who
v. Maryland.129 Our Constitution is not a mere collection of slogans. Every
affixed their signatures thereon and to REMAND the petition at bar to the
syllable of our Constitution is suffused with significance and requires our full
Commission on Elections for further proceedings.
fealty. Indeed, the rule of law will wither if we allow the commands of our
Constitution to underrule us.
REYNATO S. PUNO
The first principle enthroned by blood in our Constitution is the sovereignty Associate Justice
of the people. We ought to be concerned with this first principle, i.e., the
inherent right of the sovereign people to decide whether to amend the ____________________
Constitution. Stripped of its abstractions, democracy is all about who has the
sovereign right to make decisions for the people and our Constitution clearly
EN BANC
and categorically says it is no other than the people themselves from whom
all government authority emanates. This right of the people to make
decisions is the essence of sovereignty, and it cannot receive any G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
minimalist interpretation from this Court. If there is any principle in the
Constitution that cannot be diluted and is non-negotiable, it is this sovereign RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
right of the people to decide. REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners
vs.
This Court should always be in lockstep with the people in the exercise THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent; TRADE UNION
of their sovereignty. Let them who will diminish or destroy the sovereign right CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. ADAMAT,
of the people to decide be warned. Let not their sovereignty be diminished by ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN
those who belittle their brains to comprehend changes in the Constitution as if MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND
the people themselves are not the source and author of our Constitution. Let GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F.
not their sovereignty be destroyed by the masters of manipulation who BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
misrepresent themselves as the spokesmen of the people. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T.
TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.,
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA,
Be it remembered that a petition for people's initiative that complies with the
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL
requirement that it "must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of
BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S
registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least
PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO
3% of the registered voters therein" is but the first step in a long
SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD well as statutory and constitutional limitations on the conduct of the People's
PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA Initiative.
THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO,
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. 2. It must be stressed that no less than the present Constitution itself
ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. empowers the people to "directly" propose amendments through their own
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and "initiative." The subject of the instant petition is by way of exercising that
AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. initiative in order to change our form of government from presidential to
PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S. parliamentary. Much has been written about the fulsome powers of the people
MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, in a democracy. But the most basic concerns the idea that sovereignty resides
ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO in the people and that all government authority emanates from them. Clearly,
ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF by the power of popular initiative, the people have the sovereign right to
THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE change the present Constitution. Whether the initial moves are done by a
ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, Constitutional Convention, a Constitutional Assembly, or a People's Initiative,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF in the end every amendment -- however insubstantial or radical -- must be
THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, submitted to a plebiscite. Thus, it is the ultimate will of the people expressed
JR., Oppositors-Intervenors; in the ballot, that matters.2

G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 3. I cannot fault the COMELEC, frankly, for turning down the petition of
Messrs. Lambino, et al. For the COMELEC was just relying on precedents,
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. with the common understanding that, pursuant to the cases of Santiago v.
SAGUISAG, Petitioners COMELEC3 and PIRMA v. COMELEC,4 the COMELEC had been
vs. permanently enjoined from entertaining any petition for a people's initiative to
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. amend the Constitution by no less than this Court. In denying due course
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, below to Messrs. Lambino and Aumentado's petition, I could not hold the
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. COMELEC liable for grave abuse of discretion when they merely relied on this
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents. Court's unequivocal rulings. Of course, the Santiago and
the PIRMA decisions could be reviewed and reversed by this Court, as J.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x Reynato S. Puno submits now. But until the Court does so, the COMELEC
was duty bound to respect and obey this Court's mandate, for the rule of law
SEPARATE OPINION to prevail.

QUISUMBING, J.: 4. Lastly, I see no objection to the remand to the COMELEC of the petition of
Messrs. Lambino and Aumentado and 6.327 million voters, for further
examination of the factual requisites before a plebiscite is conducted. On page
1. With due respect to the main opinion written by J. Antonio T. Carpio, and
4 of the assailed Resolution of the respondent dated August 31, 2006, the
the dissent of J. Reynato S. Puno, I view the matter before us in this petition
COMELEC tentatively expressed its view that "even if the signatures in the
as one mainly involving a complex political question.1 While admittedly the
instant Petition appear to meet the required minimum per centum of the total
present Constitution lays down certain numerical requirements for the conduct
number of registered voters", the COMELEC could not give the Petition due
of a People's Initiative, such as the percentages of signatures – being 12% of
course because of our view that R.A. No. 6735 was inadequate. That,
the total number of registered voters, provided each legislative district is
however, is now refuted by Mr. Justice Puno's scholarly ponencia. Now that
represented by at least 3% – they are not the main points of controversy.
we have revisited the Santiago v. COMELEC decision, there is only one clear
Stated in simple terms, what this Court must decide is whether the
task for COMELEC. In my view, the only doable option left for the COMELEC,
Commission on Elections gravely abused its discretion when it denied the
once factual issues are heard and resolved, is to give due course to the
petition to submit the proposed changes to the Constitution directly to the vote
petition for the initiative to amend our Constitution so that the sovereign people
of the sovereign people in a plebiscite. Technical questions, e.g. whether
can vote on whether a parliamentary system of government should replace
petitioners should have filed a Motion for Reconsideration before coming to
the present presidential system.
us, are of no moment in the face of the transcendental issue at hand. What
deserve our full attention are the issues concerning the applicable rules as
5. I am therefore in favor of letting the sovereign people speak on their choice to affirm the right of the people to participate directly in the process of
of the form of government as a political question soonest. (This I say without introducing changes to their fundamental law. These petitions present such an
fear of media opinion that our judicial independence has been tainted or opportunity. Thus, this is an opportune time for this Court to uphold the
imperiled, for it is not.) Thus I vote for the remand of the petition. Thereafter, sovereign rights of the people.
as prayed for, COMELEC should forthwith certify the Petition as sufficient in
form and substance and call for the holding of a plebiscite within the period I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato Puno who has sufficiently
mandated by the basic law, not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days explained the rationale for upholding the people's initiative. However, I wish to
from said certification. Only a credible plebiscite itself, conducted peacefully share my own thoughts on certain matters I deem material and significant.
and honestly, can bring closure to the instant political controversy.
Santiago Does Not Apply to This Case But Only to the 1997 Delfin
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Petition
Associate Justice
The COMELEC denied the petition for initiative filed by petitioners purportedly
on the basis of this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC2 that: (1) RA 6753
____________________
was inadequate to cover the system of initiative regarding amendments to the
Constitution and (2) the COMELEC was permanently enjoined from
EN BANC entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative regarding
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law was validly enacted to
G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 provide for the implementation of the initiative provision.

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 However, Santiago should not apply to this case but only to the petition of
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, Delfin in 1997. It would be unreasonable to make it apply to all petitions which
vs. were yet unforeseen in 1997. The fact is that Santiago was focused on the
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. Delfin petition alone.

G. R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 Those who oppose the exercise of the people's right to initiate changes to the
Constitution via initiative claim that Santiago barred any and all future petitions
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q. for initiative by virtue of the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata. The
SAGUISAG, petitioners, argument is flawed.
vs.
HE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN The ponencia of Mr. Justice Puno has amply discussed the arguments relating
S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, to stare decisis. Hence, I will address the argument from the viewpoint of res
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. judicata.
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, respondents.
Res judicata is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their
privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action
DISSENTING OPINION involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.3 It has the following
requisites: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must have been
CORONA, J.: rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment or order on the merits and (4) there must be identity
The life of the law is not logic but experience.1 Our collective experience as a of parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action between the first and
nation breathes life to our system of laws, especially to the Constitution. These second actions.4
cases promise to significantly contribute to our collective experience as a
nation. Fealty to the primary constitutional principle that the Philippines is not There is no identity of parties in Santiago and the instant case. While the
merely a republican State but a democratic one as well behooves this Court COMELEC was also the respondent in Santiago, the petitioners in that case
and those in this case are different. More significantly, there is no identity of
causes of action in the two cases. Santiago involved amendments to Sections is no reason why the supreme body politic itself – the people – may not do
4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII and Section 8 of Article X of the so directly.
Constitution while the present petition seeks to amend Sections 1to 7 of Article
VI and Sections 1 to 4 of the 1987 Constitution. Clearly, therefore, the Resort to initiative to amend the constitution or enact a statute is an exercise
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion when it ruled that the present of "direct democracy" as opposed to "representative democracy." The system
petition for initiative was barred by Santiago and, on that ground, dismissed of initiative allows citizens to directly propose constitutional amendments for
the petition. the general electorate to adopt or reject at the polls, particularly in a plebiscite.
While representative government was envisioned to "refine and enlarge the
The present petition and that in Santiago are materially different from each public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of
other. They are not based on the same facts. There is thus no cogent reason citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and
to frustrate and defeat the present direct action of the people to exercise their whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to
sovereignty by proposing changes to their fundamental law. temporary or partial considerations,"7 the exercise of "direct democracy"
through initiative reserves direct lawmaking power to the people by providing
People's Initiative Should Not them a method to make new laws via the constitution, or alternatively by
Be Subjected to Conditions enacting statutes.8 Efforts of the represented to control their representatives
through initiative have been described as curing the problems of democracy
People's initiative is an option reserved by the people for themselves with more democracy.9
exclusively. Neither Congress nor the COMELEC has the power to curtail or
defeat this exclusive power of the people to change the Constitution. Neither The Constitution celebrates the sovereign right of the people and declares that
should the exercise of this power be made subject to any conditions, as some "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
would have us accept. from them."10 Unless the present petition is granted, this constitutional
principle will be nothing but empty rhetoric, devoid of substance for those
Oppositors to the people's initiative point out that this Court ruled whom it seeks to empower.
in Santiago that RA 6735 was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution and, thus, no law existed to enable the people The right of the people to pass legislation and to introduce changes to the
to directly propose changes to the Constitution. This reasoning is seriously Constitution is a fundamental right and must be jealously guarded.11 The
objectionable. people should be allowed to directly seek redress of the problems of society
and representative democracy with the constitutional tools they have reserved
The pronouncement on the insufficiency of RA 6735 was, to my mind, out of for their use alone.
place. It was unprecedented and dangerously transgressed the domain
reserved to the legislature. Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174513.

While the legislature is authorized to establish procedures for determining the RENATO C. CORONA
validity and sufficiency of a petition to amend the constitution,5 that procedure Associate Justice
cannot unnecessarily restrict the initiative privilege.6 In the same vein, this
Court cannot unnecessarily and unreasonably restrain the people's right to
directly propose changes to the Constitution by declaring a law inadequate ____________________
simply for lack of a sub-heading and other grammatical but insignificant
omissions. Otherwise, the constitutional intent to empower the people will be EN BANC
severely emasculated, if not rendered illusory.
G. R. No. 174153
People's Right and Power to Propose Changes to the Constitution
Directly Should not be Unreasonably Curtailed RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners
If Congress and a constitutional convention, both of which are vs.
mere representative bodies, can propose changes to the Constitution, there THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent;
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L.
ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN derives from the fundamental democratic ordinance that sovereignty resides
MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND in the people, and it seeks to effectuate that principle through the actual
GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. empowerment of the sovereign people. Justice Puno's opinion will in the short
BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. term engender reactions on its impact on present attempts to amend the
MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. Constitution, but once the political passion of the times have been shorn, it will
TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., endure as an unequivocal message to the taongbayan that they are to be
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, trusted to chart the course of their future.
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL
BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S Nothing that I inscribe will improve on Justice Puno's opinion. I only write
PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO separately to highlight a few other points which also inform my vote to grant
SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD the petitions.
PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA
THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO, I.
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
I agree with Justice Puno that Santiago v. COMELEC1 and PIRMA v.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and
COMELEC2 had not acquired value as precedent and should be reversed in
AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P.
any case. I add that the Court has long been mindful of the rule that it
PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S.
necessitates a majority, and not merely a plurality, in order that a decision can
MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
stand as precedent. That principle has informed the members of this Court as
ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO
they deliberated and voted upon contentious petitions, even if this
ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF
consideration is not ultimately reflected on the final draft released for
THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE
promulgation.
ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANOTNIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, The curious twist to Santiago and PIRMA is that for all the denigration heaped
JR., Oppositors-Intervenors; upon Rep. Act No. 6735 in those cases, the Court did not invalidate any
provision of the statute. All the Court said then was that the law was
"inadequate". Since this "inadequate" law was not annulled by the Court, or
G.R. No. 174299 entitled
repealed by Congress, it remained part of the statute books.3
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
I maintain that even if Rep. Act No. 6735 is truly "inadequate", the Court
SAGUISAG, Petitioners
in Santiago should not have simply let the insufficiency stand given that it was
vs.
not minded to invalidate the law itself. Article 9 of the Civil Code provides that
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
"[n]o judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws."4 As explained by the Court recently
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
in Reyes v. Lim,5 "[Article 9] calls for the application of equity, which[, in the
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents.
revered Justice Cardozo's words,] 'fills the open spaces in the law.'"6 Certainly,
any court that refuses to rule on an action premised on Rep. Act No. 6735 on
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x the ground that the law is "inadequate" would have been found in grave abuse
of discretion. The previous failure by the Court to "fill the open spaces"
SEPARATE OPINION in Santiago further highlights that decision's status as an unfortunate
aberration.
TINGA, J:
I am mindful of the need to respect stare decisis, to the point of having recently
I join in full the opinion of Senior Associate Justice Puno. Its enviable sang- decried a majority ruling that was clearly minded to reverse several precedents
froid, inimitable lucidity, and luminous scholarship are all so characteristic of but refused to explicitly say so.7 Yet the principle is not immutable.8 The
the author that it is hardly a waste of pen and ink to write separately if only to passionate words of Chief Justice Panganiban in Osmeña v. COMELEC9 bear
express my deep admiration for his disquisition. It is compelling because it quoting:
 Before I close, a word about stare decisis. In the present case, the Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 classifies as a "prohibited measure," a petition
Court is maintaining the ad ban to be consistent with its previous submitted to the electorate that embraces more than one subject.18 On this
holding in NPC vs. Comelec. Thus, respondent urges reverence for point, reliance is apparently placed on the array of provisions which are to be
the stability of judicial doctrines. I submit, however, that more affected by the amendments proposed in the initiative petition.
important than consistency and stability are the verity, integrity and
correctness of jurisprudence. As Dean Roscoe Pound explains, "Law Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is a reflection of the long-enshrined
must be stable but it cannot stand still." Verily, it must correct itself and constitutional principle that the laws passed by Congress "shall embrace only
move in cadence with the march of the electronic age. Error and illogic one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof".19 The one-subject
should not be perpetuated. After all, the Supreme Court, in many requirement under the Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are
cases, has deviated from stare decisis and reversed previous related, and are germane to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as
doctrines and decisions.10 It should do no less in the present case.11 long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject and
title.20 An act having a single general subject, indicated in the title, may contain
Santiago established a tenet that the Supreme Court may affirm a law as any number of provisions, no matter how diverse they may be, so long as they
constitutional, yet declare its provisions as inadequate to accomplish the are not inconsistent with or foreign to the general subject, and may be
legislative purpose, then barred the enforcement of the law. That ruling is considered in furtherance of such subject by providing for the method and
erroneous, illogical, and should not be perpetuated. means of carrying out the general object.21

II. The precedents governing the one-subject, one-title rule under the
Constitution should apply as well in the interpretation of Section 10 of Rep. Act
Following Justice Puno's clear demonstration why Santiago should not be No. 6735. For as long as it can be established that an initiative petition
respected as precedent, I agree that the COMELEC's failure to take embraces a single general subject, the petition may be allowed no matter the
cognizance of the petitions as mandated by Rep. Act No. 6735 constitutes number of constitutional provisions proposed for amendment if the
grave abuse of discretion correctible through the petitions before this Court. amendments are germane to the subject of the petition.

The Court has consistently held in cases such as Abes v. Both the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Lambino initiative petitions expressly
COMELEC12, Sanchez v. COMELEC13, and Sambarani v. COMELEC14 that propose the changing of the form of government from bicameral-presidential
"the functions of the COMELEC under the Constitution are essentially to unicameral-parliamentary. Such a proposal may strike as comprehensive,
executive and administrative in nature".15 More pertinently, in Buac v. necessitating as it will the reorganization of the executive and legislative
COMELEC16, the Court held that the jurisdiction of the COMELEC relative to branches of government, nevertheless it ineluctably encompasses only a
the enforcement and administration of a law relative to a plebiscite fell under single general subject still.
the jurisdiction of the poll body under its constitutional mandate "to enforce
and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of a xxx The 1987 Constitution (or any constitution for that matter) is susceptible to
plebiscite".17 division into several general spheres. To cite the broadest of these spheres
by way of example, Article III enumerates the guaranteed rights of the people
Rep. Act No. 6735 is a law relative to the conduct of a plebiscite. The primary under the Bill of Rights; Articles VI, VII and VIII provide for the organizational
task of the COMELEC under Rep. Act No. 6735 is to enforce and administer structure of government; while Articles II, XII, XIII & XIV, XV and XVI enunciate
the said law, functions that are essentially executive and administrative in policy principles of the State. What would clearly be prohibited under Section
nature. Even the subsequent duty of the COMELEC of determining the 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is an initiative petition that seeks to amend provisions
sufficiency of the petitions after they have been filed is administrative in which do not belong to the same sphere. For example, had a single initiative
character. By any measure, the COMELEC's failure to perform its executive petition sought not only to change the form of government from presidential to
and administrative functions under Rep. Act No. 6735 constitutes grave abuse parliamentary but also to amend the Bill of Rights, said petition would arguably
of discretion. have been barred under Section 10, as that petition ostensibly embraces more
than one subject, with each subject bearing no functional relation to the other.
III. But that is not the case with the present initiative petitions.

It has been argued that the subject petitions for initiative are barred under Neither can it be argued that the initiative petitions embrace more than one
Republic Act No. 6735 as they allegedly embrace more than one subject. subject since the proposed amendments seek to affect two separate branches
of government. The very purpose of the initiative petitions is to fuse the powers This argument clearly proceeds from a premise that accords supreme value
of the executive and legislative branches of government; hence, the to the record of deliberations of a constitutional convention or commission in
amendments intended to effect such general intent necessarily affects the two the interpretation of the charter. Yet if the absence of a record of deliberations
branches. If it required that to propose a shift in government from presidential stands as so serious a flaw as to invalidate or constrict processes which
to parliamentary, the amendments to Article VII (Executive Branch) have to be change a constitution or its provisions, then the entire initiative process
segregated to a different petition from that which would propose amendments authorized by the Constitution should be scarlet-marked as well.
to Article VI (Legislative Branch), then the result would be two initiative
petitions ─ both subject to separate authentications, consideration and even Even if this position can be given any weight in the consideration of these
plebiscites, all to effect one general proposition. This scenario, which petitions, I would like to point out that resort to the records of deliberations is
entertains the possibility that one petition would ultimately fail while the other only one of many aids to constitutional construction. For one, it should be
succeeds, could thus allow for the risk that the executive branch could be abhorred if the provision under study is itself clear, plain, and free from
abolished without transferring executive power to the legislative branch. An ambiguity. As the Court held in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary:23
absurd result, indeed.
While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and
I am not even entirely comfortable with the theoretical underpinnings of proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the
Section 10. The Constitution indubitably grants the people the right to seek reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may
amendment of the charter through initiative, and mandates Congress to be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless
"provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right." In doing so, to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear.
Congress may not restrict the right to initiative on grounds that are not Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as showing the
provided for in the Constitution. If for example the implementing law also views of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their
provides that certain provisions of the Constitution may not be amended votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority
through initiative, that prohibition should not be sustained. Congress is tasked who did not talk . . . We think it safer to construe the constitution from
with the implementation, and not the restriction of the right to initiative. what appears upon its face."24

The one-subject requirement under Section 10 is not provided for as a bar to Even if there is need to refer to extrinsic sources in aid of constitutional
amendment under the Constitution. Arguments can be supplied for the merit interpretation, the constitutional record does not provide the exclusive or
of such a requirement, since it would afford a measure of orderliness when definitive answer on how to interpret the provision. The intent of a
the vital question of amending the Constitution arises. The one-subject constitutional convention is not controlling by itself, and while the historical
requirement does allow the voters focus when deliberating whether or not to discussion on the floor of the constitutional convention is valuable, it is not
vote for the amendments. These factors of desirability nonetheless fail to necessarily decisive. The Court has even held in Vera v. Avelino25 that "the
detract from the fact that the one-subject requirement imposes an additional proceedings of the [constitutional] convention are less conclusive of the proper
restriction on the right to initiative not contemplated by the Constitution. Short construction of the fundamental law than are legislative proceedings of the
of invalidating the requirement, a better course of action would be to insist proper construction of a statute, since in the latter case it is the intent of the
upon its liberal interpretation. After all, the Court has consistently adhered to legislature that courts seek, while in the former courts are endeavoring to
a liberal interpretation of the one-subject, one-title rule.22 There is no cause to arrive at the intent of the people through the discussions and deliberations of
adopt a stricter interpretative rule with regard to the one-subject rule under their representatives."26 The proper interpretation of a constitution depends
Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735. more on how it was understood by the people adopting it than the framers'
understanding thereof.27
IV.
If there is fear in the absence of a constitutional record as guide for
During the hearing on the petitions, the argument was raised that provisions interpretation of any amendments adopted via initiative, such absence would
of the Constitution amended through initiative would not have the benefit of a not preclude the courts from interpreting such amendments in a manner
reference source from the record of a deliberative body such as Congress or consistent with how courts generally construe the Constitution. For example,
a constitutional convention. It was submitted that this consideration influenced reliance will be placed on the other provisions of the Constitution to arrive at a
the Constitutional Commission as it drafted Section 2, Article XVII, which harmonized and holistic constitutional framework. The constitutional record is
expressly provided that only amendments, and not revisions, may be the hardly the Rosetta Stone that unlocks the meaning of the Constitution.
subject of initiative petitions.
V. VI.

I fully agree with Justice Puno that all issues relating to the sufficiency of the The worst position this Court could find itself in is to acquiesce to a plea that it
initiative petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC. Rep. Act No. 6735 make the choice whether to amend the Constitution or not. This is a matter
clearly reposes on the COMELEC the task of determining the sufficiency of which should not be left to fifteen magistrates who have not been elected by
the petitions, including the ascertainment of whether twelve percent (12%) of the people to make the choice for them.
all registered voters, including three percent (3%) of registered voters in every
legislative district have indeed signed the initiative petitions.28 It should be A vote to grant the petitions is not a vote to amend the 1987 Constitution. It is
remembered that the COMELEC had dismissed the initiative petitions outright, merely a vote to allow the people to directly exercise that option. In fact, the
and had yet to undertake the determination of sufficiency as required by law. position of Justice Puno which I share would not even guarantee that the
Lambino and Sigaw ng Bayan initiative petitions would be submitted to the
It has been suggested to the end of leading the Court to stifle the initiative people in a referendum. The COMELEC will still have to determine the
petitions that the Court may at this juncture pronounce the initiative petitions sufficiency of the petition. Among the questions which still have to be
as insufficient. The derivation of the factual predicates leading to the determined by the poll body in considering the sufficiency of the petitions is
suggestion is uncertain, considering that the trier of facts, the COMELEC in whether twelve percent (12%) of all registered voters nationwide, including
this instance, has yet to undertake the necessary determination. Still, the three percent (3%) of registered voters in every legislative district, have indeed
premise has been floated that petitioners have made sufficient admissions signed the initiative petitions.31
before this Court that purportedly established the petitions are insufficient.
And even should the COMELEC find the initiative petitions sufficient, the
That premise is highly dubitable. Yet the more fundamental question that we matter of whether the Constitution should be amended would still depend on
should ask, I submit, is whether it serves well on the Court to usurp trier of the choice of the electorate. The oppositors are clearly queasy about some of
facts even before the latter exercises its functions? If the Court, at this stage, the amendments proposed, or the imputed motives behind the amendments.
were to declare the petitions as insufficient, it would be akin to the Court A referendum, should the COMELEC find the petitions as sufficient, would
pronouncing an accused as guilty even before the lower court trial had began. allow them to convey their uneasiness to the public at large, as well as for the
proponents of the amendment to defend their proposal. The campaign period
Matugas v. COMELEC29 inveighs against the propriety of the Court alone would allow the public to be involved in the significant deliberation on
uncharacteristically assuming the role of trier of facts, and resolving factual the course our nation should take, with the ensuing net benefit of a more
questions not previously adjudicated by the lower courts or tribunals: informed, more politically aware populace. And of course, the choice on
whether the Constitution should be amended would lie directly with the people.
[P]etitioner in this case cannot "enervate" the COMELEC's findings by The initiative process involves participatory democracy at its most elemental;
introducing new evidence before this Court, which in any case is wherein the consequential debate would not be confined to the august halls
not a trier of facts, and then ask it to substitute its own judgment of Congress or the hallowed chambers of this Court, as it would spill over to
and discretion for that of the COMELEC. the public squares and town halls, the academic yards and the Internet
blogosphere, the dining areas in the homes of the affluent and the
impoverished alike.
The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be
raised for the first time on appeal, and documents forming no part of
the proofs before the appellate court will not be considered in The prospect of informed and widespread discussion on constitutional change
disposing of the issues of an action. This is true whether the decision engaged in by a people who are actually empowered in having a say whether
elevated for review originated from a regular court or an administrative these changes should be enacted, gives fruition to the original vision of pure
agency or quasi-judicial body, and whether it was rendered in a civil democracy, as formulated in Athens two and a half millennia ago. The great
case, a special proceeding, or a criminal case. Piecemeal presentation hero of Athenian democracy, Pericles, was recorded as saying in his famed
of evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice.30 Funeral Oration, "We differ from other states in regarding the man who keeps
aloof from public life not as 'private' but as useless; we decide or debate,
carefully and in person all matters of policy, and we hold, not that words
Any present determination by the Court on the sufficiency of the petitions
and deeds go ill together, but that acts are foredoomed to failure when
constitutes in effect a trial de novo, the Justices of the Supreme Court virtually
undertaken undiscussed."32
descending to the level of trial court judges. This is an unbecoming recourse,
and it simply is not done.
Unfortunately, given the highly politicized charge of the times, it has been By allowing the sovereign people to directly propose and enact constitutional
peddled that an act or vote that assists the initiative process is one for the amendments, the initiative process should be acknowledged as the purest
willful extinction of democracy or democratic institutions. Such a consideration implement of democratic rule under law. This right granted to over sixty million
should of course properly play its course in the public debates and Filipinos cannot be denied by the votes of less than eight magistrates for
deliberations attendant to the initiative process. Yet as a result of the harum- reasons that bear no cogitation on the Constitution.
scarum, the temptation lies heavy for a member of this Court perturbed with
the prospect of constitutional change to relieve those anxieties by simply I VOTE to GRANT the petitions.
voting to enjoin any legal procedure that initiates the amendment or revision
of the fundamental law, even at the expense of the people's will or what the
Constitution allows. A vote so oriented takes the conservative path of least DANTE O. TINGA
resistance, even as it may gain the admiration of those who do not want to see Associate Justice
the Constitution amended.
____________________
Still, the biases we should enforce as magistrates are those of the Constitution
and the elements of democracy on which our rule of law is founded. Direct EN BANC
democracy, as embodied in the initiative process, is but a culmination of the
evolution over the centuries of democratic rights of choice and self- G. R. No. 174153
governance. The reemergence of the Athenian democratic ideal after
centuries of tyrannical rules arrived very slowly, the benefits parceled out at
RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
first only to favored classes. The Magna Carta granted limited rights to self-
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners
determination and self-governance only to a few English nobles; the American
vs.
Constitution was originally intended to give a meaningful voice only to free
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent;
men, mostly Caucasian, who met the property-holding requirements set by the
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L.
states for voting. Yet even the very idea of popular voting, limited as it may
ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN
have already been within the first few years of the American Union, met
MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND
resistance from no less a revered figure as Alexander Hamilton, to whom the
GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F.
progressive historian Howard Zinn attributes these disconcerting words:
BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T.
The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.,
however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA,
true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL
or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S
share in the government… Can a democratic assembly who annually PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO
revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD
public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA
imprudence of democracy…33 THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO,
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F.
This utterly paternalistic and bigoted view has not survived into the present ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
age of modern democracy where a person's poverty, color, or gender no BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and
longer impedes the exercise of full democratic rights. Yet a democracy that AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P.
merely guarantees its citizens the right to live their lives freely is incomplete if PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S.
there is no corresponding allowance for a means by which the people have a MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
direct choice in determining their country's direction. Initiative as a mode of ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO
amending a constitution may seem incompatible with representative ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF
democracy, yet it embodies an even purer form of democracy. Initiative, which THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE
our 1987 Constitution saw fit to grant to the people, is a progressive measure ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
that is but a continuation of the line of evolution of the democratic ideal. ANOTNIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, amend the Constitution inherently resides in the sovereign people whose will
JR., Oppositors-Intervenors; it is supposed to express and embody. The Constitution itself, under Article
XVII, provides for the means by which the revision or amendment of the
G.R. No. 174299 Constitution may be proposed and ratified.

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. Under Section 1 of the said Article, proposals to amend or revise the
SAGUISAG, Petitioners Constitution may be made (a) by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all
vs. its Members, or (b) by constitutional convention. The Congress and the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. constitutional convention possess the power to propose amendments to, or
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, revisions of, the Constitution not simply because the Constitution so provides,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. but because the sovereign people had chosen to delegate their inherent right
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents. to make such proposals to their representatives either through Congress or
through a constitutional convention.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
On the other hand, the sovereign people, well-inspired and greatly empowered
DISSENTING OPINION by the People Power Revolution of 1986, reserved to themselves the right to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, to wit –
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
creature of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
irresistible power to make or unmake, resides only in the whole body of the
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
people; not in any subdivision of them."
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
-- Marshall, C.J., Cohens v. Virginia (1821, US) 6 Wheat 264, 389, 5 L ed. 257,
287.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right.2
I express my concurrence in the discussions and conclusions presented in the
persuasive and erudite dissent of Justice Reynato S. Puno. However, I make
The afore-quoted section does not confer on the Filipino people the right to
some additional observations in connection with my concurrence.
amend the Constitution because, as previously discussed, such right is
inherent in them. The section only reduces into writing this right to initiate
While it is but proper to accord great respect and reverence to the Philippine amendments to the Constitution where they collectively and willfully agreed in
Constitution of 1987 for being the supreme law of the land, we should not lose the manner by which they shall exercise this right: (a) through the filing of a
sight of the truth that there is an ultimate authority to which the Constitution is petition; (b) supported by at least twelve percent (12%) of the total number of
also subordinate – the will of the people. No less than its very first paragraph, registered voters nationwide; (c) with each legislative district represented by
the Preamble,1 expressly recognizes that the Constitution came to be because at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters therein; (d) subject to the
it was ordained and promulgated by the sovereign Filipino people. It is a limitation that no such petition may be filed within five years after the
principle reiterated yet again in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, which ratification of the Constitution, and not oftener than once every five years
explicitly declares that "[t]he Philippines is a democratic and republican State. thereafter; and (e) a delegation to Congress of the authority to provide the
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from formal requirements and other details for the implementation of the right.
them." Thus, the resolution of the issues and controversies raised by the
instant Petition should be guided accordingly by the foregoing principle.
It is my earnest opinion that the right of the sovereign people to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative is more superior
If the Constitution is the expression of the will of the sovereign people, then, than the power they delegated to Congress or to a constitutional convention
in the event that the people change their will, so must the Constitution be to amend or revise the Constitution. The initiative process gives the sovereign
revised or amended to reflect such change. Resultantly, the right to revise or people the voice to express their collective will, and when the people speak,
we must be ready to listen. Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments
recognizes and guarantees the sovereign people's right to initiative, rather to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be
than limits it. The enabling law which Congress has been tasked to enact must given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry
give life to the said provision and make the exercise of the right to initiative any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for
possible, not regulate, limit, or restrict it in any way that would render the the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
people's option of resorting to initiative to amend the Constitution more
stringent, difficult, and less feasible, as compared to the other constitutional WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
means to amend or revise the Constitution. In fact, it is worth recalling that
under Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution, the legislative power of a) GRANTING the instant petition;
Congress is limited to the extent reserved to the people by the
provisions on initiative and referendum.
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to
It is with this frame of mind that I review the issues raised in the instant provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
Petitions, and which has led me to the conclusions, in support of the dissent
of Justice Puno, that (a) The Commission on Election (COMELEC) had indeed
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the
committed grave abuse of discretion in summarily dismissing the petition for
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the
initiative to amend the Constitution filed by herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and
and Erico B. Aumentado; (b) The Court should revisit the pronouncements it
made in Santiago v. Commission on Elections;3 (c) It is the sovereign people's
inherent right to propose changes to the Constitution, regardless of whether d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
they constitute merely amendments or a total revision thereof; and (d) The DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
COMELEC should take cognizance of Lambino and Aumentado's petition for
initiative and, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, determine the factual issues The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is
raised by the oppositors before this Court. made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is
LIFTED as against private respondents.
I
Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
The COMELEC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when it
summarily dismissed Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative entirely It is clear from the fallo, as it is reproduced above, that the Court made
on the basis of the Santiago case which, allegedly, permanently enjoined it permanent the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) it issued on 18 December
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative to amend 1996 against the COMELEC. The said TRO enjoined the COMELEC from
the Constitution in the absence of a sufficient law. proceeding with the Delfin Petition, and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from
conducting a signature drive for people's initiative.5 It was this restraining
After a careful reading, however, of the Santiago case, I believe in earnest that order, more particularly the portion thereof referring to the Delfin Petition,
the permanent injunction actually issued by this Court against the COMELEC which was expressly made permanent by the Court. It would seem to me that
pertains only to the petition for initiative filed by Jesus S. Delfin, and not to all the COMELEC and all other oppositors to Lambino and Aumentado's petition
subsequent petitions for initiative to amend the Constitution. for initiative gave unwarranted significance and weight to the first paragraph
of the Conclusion in the Santiago case. The first and second paragraphs of
the Conclusion, preceding the dispositive portion, merely express the
The Conclusion4 in the majority opinion in the Santiago case reads –
opinion of the ponente; while the definite orders of the Court for
implementation are found in the dispositive portion.
CONCLUSION
We have previously held that –
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
The dispositive portion or the fallo is what actually constitutes the
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
resolution of the court and which is the subject of execution, although
sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
the other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine
implementation of the system.
 the ratio decidendi for such a resolution. Where there is conflict Fedman Suites, 199 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City,"
between the dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in with "ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA" as among its
the text of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the "officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were made respondents as
theory that the dispositive portion is the final order while the opinion is founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the body of the
merely a statement ordering nothing. Hence execution must conform petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a
more particularly to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the
of the decision.6 PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of
PIRMA.
Is there a conflict between the first paragraph of the Conclusion and the
dispositive portion of the Santiago case? Apparently, there is. The first The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly
paragraph of the Conclusion states that the COMELEC should be permanently represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on short, PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his
amendments to the Constitution until the enactment of a valid law. On the petition that he was a founding member of the Movement for People's
other hand, the fallo only makes permanent the TRO7 against COMELEC Initiative, and under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that
enjoining it from proceeding with the Delfin Petition. While the permanent said movement was "[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for
injunction contemplated in the Conclusion encompasses all petitions for Reforms, Modernization and Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, the fallo is expressly limited to Comment to the petition in Santiago, the PEDROSA'S did not deny
the Delfin Petition. To resolve the conflict, the final order of the Court as it is that they were founding members of PIRMA, and by their arguments,
stated in the dispositive portion or the fallo should be controlling. demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had joined Delfin
or his cause.
Neither can the COMELEC dismiss Lambino and Aumentado's petition for
initiative on the basis of this Court's Resolution, dated 23 September 1997, in No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA
the case of People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) and the PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the
v. The Commission on Elections, et al.8 The Court therein found that the operation of the principle of res judicata, which needs no further
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the PIRMA elaboration.9
Petition for initiative to amend the Constitution for it only complied with the
Decision in the Santiago case. While the Santiago case bars the PIRMA case because of res judicata, the
same cannot be said to the Petition at bar. Res judicata is an absolute bar to
It is only proper that the Santiago case should also bar the PIRMA Petition on a subsequent action for the same cause; and its requisites are: (a) the former
the basis of res judicata because PIRMA participated in the proceedings of judgment or order must be final; (b) the judgment or order must be one on the
the said case, and had knowledge of and, thus, must be bound by the merits; (c) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the
judgment of the Court therein. As explained by former Chief Justice Hilario G. subject matter and parties; and (d) there must be between the first and second
Davide, Jr. in his separate opinion to the Resolution in the PIRMA case – actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.10

First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed Even though it is conceded that the first three requisites are present herein,
here and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997) the last has not been complied with. Undoubtedly, the Santiago case and the
may plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially present Petition involve different parties, subject matter, and causes of action,
identical to the latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the and the former should not bar the latter.
principal parties and inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable,
parties in the present petition. But plainly, the same issues and reliefs In the Santiago case, the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution was
are raised and prayed for in both cases. filed by Delfin alone. His petition does not qualify as the initiatory pleading over
which the COMELEC can acquire jurisdiction, being unsupported by the
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR required number of registered voters, and actually imposing upon the
REFORM, MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and Spouses COMELEC the task of gathering the voters' signatures. In the case before us,
ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self- the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution was filed by Lambino and
described as "a non-stock, non-profit organization duly organized and Aumentado, on behalf of the 6.3 million registered voters who affixed their
existing under Philippine laws with office address at Suite 403,
signatures on the signature sheets attached thereto. Their petition prays that As a rule, the word "shall" commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is
the COMELEC issue an Order – inconsistent with the idea of discretion, and that the presumption is that the
word "shall" when used, is mandatory.11 Under the above-quoted
1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article constitutional provision, it is the mandatory or imperative obligation of the
XVII of the 1987 Constitution; COMELEC to (a) determine the sufficiency of the petition for initiative on
amendments to the Constitution and issue a certification on its findings; and
2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at (b) in case such petition is found to be sufficient, to set the date for the
least twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and plebiscite on the proposed amendments not earlier than 60 days nor later than
90 days after its certification. The COMELEC should not be allowed to shun
its constitutional mandate under the second paragraph of Article XVII, Section
3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than
4, through the summary dismissal of the petition for initiative filed by Lambino
ninety days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency
and Aumentado, when such petition is supported by 6.3 million signatures of
of the petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign
registered voters. Should all of these signatures be authentic and
will on the proposition.
representative of the required percentages of registered voters for every
legislative district and the whole nation, then the initiative is a true and
Although both cases involve the right of the people to initiate amendments to legitimate expression of the will of the people to amend the Constitution, and
the Constitution, the personalities concerned and the other factual COMELEC had caused them grave injustice by silencing their voice based on
circumstances attendant in the two cases differ. Also dissimilar are the a patently inapplicable permanent injunction.
particular prayer and reliefs sought by the parties from the COMELEC, as well
as from this Court. For these reasons, I find that the COMELEC acted with
II
grave abuse of discretion when it summarily dismissed the petition for initiative
filed by Lambino and Aumentado. It behooves the COMELEC to accord due
course to a petition which on its face complies with the rudiments of the law. We should likewise take the opportunity to revisit the pronouncements made
COMELEC was openly negligent in summarily dismissing the Lambino and by the Court in its Decision in the Santiago case, especially as regards the
Aumentado petition. The haste by which the instant Petition was struck down supposed insufficiency or inadequacy of Republic Act No. 6735 as the
is characteristic of bad faith, which, to my mind, is a patent and gross evasion enabling law for the implementation of the people's right to initiative on
of COMELEC's positive duty. It has so obviously copped out of its duty and amendments to the Constitution.
responsibility to determine the sufficiency thereof and sought protection and
justification for its craven decision in the supposed permanent injunction The declaration of the Court that Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient or
issued against it by the Court in the Santiago case. The COMELEC had inadequate actually gave rise to more questions rather than answers, due to
seemingly expanded the scope and application of the said permanent the fact that there has never been a judicial precedent wherein the Court
injunction, reading into it more than what it actually states, which is surprising, invalidated a law for insufficiency or inadequacy. The confusion over such a
considering that the Chairman and majority of the members of COMELEC are declaration thereby impelled former Chief Justice Davide, Jr., the ponente in
lawyers who should be able to understand and appreciate, more than a lay the Santiago case, to provide the following clarification in his separate opinion
person, the legal consequences and intricacies of the pronouncements made to the Resolution in the PIRMA case, thus –
by the Court in the Santiago case and the permanent injunction issued therein.
Simply put, Santiago did, in reality, declare as unconstitutional that
No less than the Constitution itself, under the second paragraph of Article XVII, portion of R.A. No. 6735 relating to Constitutional initiatives for failure
Section 4, imposes upon the COMELEC the mandate to set a date for to comply with the "completeness and sufficient standard tests" with
plebiscite after a positive determination of the sufficiency of a petition for respect to permissible delegation of legislative power or subordinate
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, viz – legislation. However petitioners attempt to twist the language in
Santiago, the conclusion is inevitable; the portion of R.A. No. 6735
SEC. 4. x x x was held to be unconstitutional.

Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by It is important to note, however, that while the Decision in the Santiago case
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not pronounced repeatedly that Republic Act No. 6735 was insufficient and
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification inadequate, there is no categorical declaration therein that the said statute
by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. was unconstitutional. The express finding that Republic Act No. 6735 is
unconstitutional can only be found in the separate opinion of former Chief any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act
Justice Davide to the Resolution in the PIRMA case, which was not concurred is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed." Spread out all over
in by the other members of the Court. R.A. No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to
the COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations from overflowing.
Even assuming arguendo that the declaration in the Santiago case, that Thus, the law states the number of signatures necessary to start a
Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient and inadequate, is already tantamount to people's initiative, directs how initiative proceeding is commenced,
a declaration that the statute is unconstitutional, it was rendered in violation of what the COMELEC should do upon filing of the petition for initiative,
established rules in statutory construction, which state that – how a proposition is approved, when a plebiscite may be held, when
the amendment takes effect, and what matters may not be the subject
[A]ll presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who of any initiative. By any measure, these standards are adequate.
attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity
beyond a reasonable doubt (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' III
Union, 59 SCRA 54 [19741). In fact, this Court does not decide
questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly The dissent of Justice Puno has already a well-presented discourse on the
raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a difference between an "amendment" and a "revision" of the Constitution. Allow
determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be lis me also to articulate my additional thoughts on the matter.
mota presented (Tropical Homes v. National Housing Authority, 152
SCRA 540 [1987]). Oppositors to Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative argue that the
proposed changes therein to the provisions of the Constitution already amount
First, the Court, in the Santiago case, could have very well avoided the issue to a revision thereof, which is not allowed to be done through people's
of constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 by ordering the COMELEC to initiative; Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution on people's initiative refers
dismiss the Delfin petition for the simple reason that it does not constitute an only to proposals for amendments to the Constitution. They assert the
initiatory pleading over which the COMELEC could acquire jurisdiction. And traditional distinction between an amendment and a revision, with amendment
second, the unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 has not been referring to isolated or piecemeal change only, while revision as a revamp or
adequately shown. It was by and large merely inferred or deduced from the rewriting of the whole instrument.13
way Republic Act No. 6735 was worded and the provisions thereof arranged
and organized by Congress. The dissenting opinions rendered by several However, as pointed out by Justice Puno in his dissent, there is no quantitative
Justices in the Santiago case reveal the other side to the argument, adopting or qualitative test that can establish with definiteness the distinction between
the more liberal interpretation that would allow the Court to sustain the an amendment and a revision, or between a substantial and simple change of
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735. It would seem that the majority in the Constitution.
the Santiago case failed to heed the rule that all presumptions should be
resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the statute. The changes proposed to the Constitution by Lambino and Aumentado's
petition for initiative basically affect only Article VI on the Legislative
The Court, acting en banc on the Petition at bar, can revisit its Decision in Department and Article VII on the Executive Department. While the proposed
the Santiago case and again open to judicial review the constitutionality of changes will drastically alter the constitution of our government by vesting both
Republic Act No. 6735; in which case, I shall cast my vote in favor of its legislative and executive powers in a unicameral Parliament, with the
constitutionality, having satisfied the completeness and sufficiency of President as the Head of State and the Prime Minister exercising the executive
standards tests for the valid delegation of legislative power. I fully agree in the power; they would not essentially affect the other 16 Articles of the
conclusion made by Justice Puno on this matter in his dissenting opinion 12 in Constitution. The 100 or so changes counted by the oppositors to the other
the Santiago case, that reads – provisions of the Constitution are constituted mostly of the nominal substitution
of one word for the other, such as Parliament for Congress, or Prime Minister
R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide for President. As eloquently pointed out in the dissent of Justice Puno, the
the COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and changes proposed to transform our form of government from bicameral-
regulations of the law. As aforestated, Section 2 spells out the policy presidential to unicameral-parliamentary, would not affect the fundamental
of the law; viz: "The power of the people under a system of initiative nature of our state as a democratic and republican state. It will still be a
and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole representative government where officials continue to be accountable to the
or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by
people and the people maintain control over the government through the jurisdiction, and that the Petition be remanded to the COMELEC for further
election of members of the Parliament. proceedings.

Furthermore, should the people themselves wish to change a substantial In short, I vote to GRANT the petition for Initiative of Lambino and Aumentado.
portion or even the whole of the Constitution, what or who is to stop them?
Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution which, by the way it is worded, refers
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
only to their right to initiative on amendments of the Constitution? The
Associate Justice
delegates to the Constitutional Convention who, according to their
deliberations, purposely limited Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution to
amendments? This Court which has the jurisdiction to interpret the provision? ____________________
Bearing in mind my earlier declaration that the will of the sovereign people is
supreme, there is nothing or no one that can preclude them from initiating EN BANC
changes to the Constitution if they choose to do so. To reiterate, the
Constitution is supposed to be the expression and embodiment of the people's G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
will, and should the people's will clamor for a revision of the Constitution, it is
their will which should prevail. Even the fact that the people ratified the 1987
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952
Constitution, including Article XVII, Section 2 thereof, as it is worded, should
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON
not prevent the exercise by the sovereign people of their inherent right to
ELECTIONS, respondent.
change the Constitution, even if such change would be tantamount to a
substantial amendment or revision thereof, for their actual exercise of the said
right should be a clear renunciation of the limitation which the said provision G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006
imposes upon it. It is the inherent right of the people as sovereign to change
the Constitution, regardless of the extent thereof. MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
SAGUISAG, petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented
IV by Chairman BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, JR., and Commissioners
RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A.
BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe,
Lastly, I fail to see the injustice in allowing the COMELEC to give due course
respondents.
to and take cognizance of Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative to
amend the Constitution. I reiterate that it would be a greater evil if one such
petition which is ostensibly supported by the required number of registered x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
voters all over the country, be summarily dismissed.
SEPARATE OPINION
Giving due course and taking cognizance of the petition would not necessarily
mean that the same would be found sufficient and set for plebiscite. The VELASCO, JR., J.:
COMELEC still faces the task of reviewing the petition to determine whether it
complies with the requirements for a valid exercise of the right to initiative. Introduction
Questions raised by the oppositors to the petition, such as those on the
authenticity of the registered voters' signatures or compliance with the The fate of every democracy, of every government
requisite number of registered voters for every legislative district, are already based on the Sovereignty of the people, depends on
factual in nature and require the reception and evaluation of evidence of the the choices it makes between these opposite
parties. Such questions are best presented and resolved before the principles: absolute power on the one hand, and on the
COMELEC since this Court is not a trier of facts. other the restraints of legality and the authority of
tradition.
In view of the foregoing, I am of the position that the Resolution of the —John Acton
COMELEC dated 31 August 2006 denying due course to the Petition for
Initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado be reversed and set aside for
having been issued in grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of
In this thorny matter of the people's initiative, I concur with the erudite and However, it was included, and it should not be excluded by the Court via a
highly persuasive opinion of Justice Reynato S. Puno upholding the people's strained analysis of the law. The difficult construction of the law should not
initiative and raise some points of my own. serve to frustrate the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution: to give the
people the power to propose amendments as they saw fit. It is a basic precept
The issue of the people's power to propose amendments to the Constitution in statutory construction that the intent of the legislature is the controlling factor
was once discussed in the landmark case of Santiago v. COMELEC.1 Almost in the interpretation of a statute.3 The intent of the legislature was clear, and
a decade later, the issue is once again before the Court, and I firmly believe it yet RA 6735 was declared inadequate. It was not specifically struck down or
is time to reevaluate the pronouncements made in that case. declared unconstitutional, merely incomplete. The Court focused on what RA
6735 was not, and lost sight of what RA 6735 was.
The issue of Charter Change is one that has sharply divided the nation, and
its proponents and opponents will understandably take all measures to It is my view that the reading of RA 6735 in Santiago should have been more
advance their position and defeat that of their opponents. The wisdom or folly flexible. It is also a basic precept of statutory construction that statutes should
of Charter Change does not concern the Court. The only thing that the Court be construed not so much according to the letter that killeth but in line with the
must review is the validity of the present step taken by the proponents of purpose for which they have been enacted.4 The reading of the law should not
Charter Change, which is the People's Initiative, as set down in Article XVII, have been with the view of its defeat, but with the goal of upholding it,
Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution: especially with its avowed noble purpose.

Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by Congress has done its part in empowering the people themselves to propose
the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per amendments to the Constitution, in accordance with the Constitution itself. It
centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every should not be the Supreme Court that stifles the people, and lets their cries for
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of change go unheard, especially when the Constitution itself grants them that
the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall power.
be authorized within five years following the ratification of this
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The court's ruling in the Santiago case does not bar the present petition
because the fallo in the Santiago case is limited to the Delfin petition.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
this right. The Santiago case involved a petition for prohibition filed by Miriam Defensor-
Santiago, et al., against the COMELEC, et al., which sought to prevent the
In the Santiago case, the Court discussed whether the second paragraph of COMELEC from entertaining the "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift
that section had been fulfilled. It determined that Congress had not provided Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" filed by Atty. Jesus
for the implementation of the exercise of the people's initiative, when it held Delfin. In the body of the judgment, the Court made the following conclusion,
that Republic Act No. 6735, or "The Initiative and Referendum Act," was viz:
"inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate This petition must then be granted and the COMELEC should be
legislation."2 permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
petition or initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a
With all due respect to those Justices who made that declaration, I must sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
disagree. implementation of the system (emphasis supplied).

Republic Act No. 6735 is the proper law for proposing constitutional We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments
amendments and it should not have been considered inadequate. to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be
given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry
The decision in Santiago focused on what it perceived to be fatal flaws in the any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for
drafting of the law, in the failings of the way the law was structured, to come the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
to the conclusion that the law was inadequate. The Court itself recognized the
legislators' intent, but disregarded this intent. The law was found wanting. The In the said case, the Court's fallo states as follows:
Court then saw the inclusion of the Constitution in RA 6735 as an afterthought.
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered and generalities which do not bear on the issues or are apparently opposed to
the otherwise sound and considered result reached by the court as expressed
a) GRANTING the instant petition; in the dispositive part, so called, of the decision.7

b) DECLARING R. A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative Applying the foregoing argument to the Santiago case, it immediately
on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide becomes apparent that the disposition in the latter case categorically made
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation; permanent the December 18, 1996 Temporary Restraining Order issued
against the COMELEC in the Delfin petition but did NOT formally incorporate
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300 of the therein any directive PERMANENTLY enjoining the COMELEC "from
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments."
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and Undeniably, the perpetual proscription against the COMELEC from assuming
jurisdiction over any other petition on Charter Change through a People's
Initiative is just a conclusion and cannot bind the poll body, for such unending
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
ban would trench on its constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws
DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum and recall under Section 2, Article IX of the Constitution. RA 6735
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is gave the COMELEC the jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of the petition
made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is on the initiative under Section 8, Rule 11 and the form of the petition under
LIFTED against private respondents. Section 3, Rule I; hence, it cannot be barred from entertaining any such
petition.
Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
In sum, the COMELEC still retains its jurisdiction to take cognizance of any
SO ORDERED. petition on initiative under RA 6735 and it can rule on the petition and its action
can only be passed upon by the Court when the same is elevated through a
The question now is if the ruling in Santiago is decisive in this case. It is petition for certiorari. COMELEC cannot be barred from acting on said
elementary that when there is conflict between the dispositive portion petitions since jurisdiction is conferred by law (RA 6735) and said law has not
or fallo of the decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or been declared unconstitutional and hence still valid though considered
body of the judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution inadequate in the Santiago case.
is based on the disposition, not on the body, of the decision.5 The dispositive
portion is its decisive resolution; thus, it is the subject of execution. The other Respondents, however, claim that the Court in the subsequent case of PIRMA
parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio v. Commission on Elections8 confirmed the statement of the Court in
decidendi for the disposition. Where there is conflict between the the Santiago case that the COMELEC was "permanently enjoined from
dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments."
of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the theory that Much reliance is placed on the ruling contained in a Minute Resolution which
the dispositive portion is the final order, while the opinion is merely a reads:
statement ordering nothing. Hence, the execution must conform with that
which is ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion of the decision.6 The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
Discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is an informal Dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order Complied with the DISPOSITIONS in the Decision of this Court in G.R.
or decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion No. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of
forms no part of the judgment. So there is a distinction between the findings June 10, 1997.
and conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its
decision and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment Take note that the Court specifically referred to "dispositions" in the March 19,
itself. It is not infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact 1997 Decision. To reiterate, the dispositions in the Santiago case decision
views of the court, especially those of concurring justices in a collegiate court. refer specifically to the December 18, 1996 TRO being made permanent
We often encounter in judicial decisions lapses, findings, loose statements against the COMELEC but do not pertain to a permanent injunction against
any other petition for initiative on amendment. Thus, what was confirmed or liberal interpretation favoring the people's right to exercise their sovereign
even affirmed in the Minute Resolution in the PIRMA case pertains solely to power.
the December 18, 1996 TRO which became permanent, the declaration of the
inadequacy of RA 6735, and the annulment of certain parts of Resolution No. Conclusion
2300 but certainly not the alleged perpetual injunction against the initiative
petition. Thus, the resolution in the PIRMA case cannot be considered res Sovereignty residing in the people is the highest form of sovereignty and thus
judicata to the Lambino petition. deserves the highest respect even from the courts. It is not something that can
be overruled, set aside, ignored or stomped over by whatever amount of
Amendment or Revision technicalities, blurred or vague provisions of the law.

One last matter to be considered is whether the petition may be allowed under As I find RA 6735 to be adequate as the implementing law for the People's
RA 6735, since only amendments to the Constitution may be the subject of a Initiative, I vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and dismiss the
people's initiative. petition in G.R. No. 174299. The Amended Petition for Initiative filed by
petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado should be remanded to
The Lambino petition cannot be considered an act of revising the Constitution; the COMELEC for determination whether or not the petition is sufficient under
it is merely an attempt to amend it. The term amendment has to be liberally RA 6735, and if the petition is sufficient, to schedule and hold the necessary
construed so as to effectuate the people's efforts to amend the Constitution. plebiscite as required by RA 6735.

As an eminent constitutionalist, Dean Vicente G. Sinco,9 explained: It is time to let the people's voice be heard once again as it was twenty years
ago. And should this voice demand a change in the Constitution, the Supreme
Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations Court should not be one to stand in its way.
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the
rewriting either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
perhaps only some of its important provisions. But whatever results Associate Justice
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 Footnotes
provisions of the constitution to determine which one should be altered
or suppressed or whether the whole document should be replaced 1Including Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines
with an entirely new one. (ULAP).

The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a 2 This provision states: "Requirements. — x x x x
change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire (b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters
improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it as signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented
provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein.
suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or Initiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years
misleading in their effect. from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five
(5) years thereafter.
In this case, the Lambino petition is not concerned with rewriting the entire
Constitution. It was never its intention to revise the whole Constitution. It (c) The petition shall state the following:
merely concerns itself with amending a few provisions in our fundamental
charter. c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
When there are gray areas in legislation, especially in matters that pertain to
the sovereign people's political rights, courts must lean more towards a more
 c.2. the proposition; 6 Sections 1-5 of the Transitory Provisions read:

c.3. the reason or reasons therefor; Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve until
the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 and shall
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein; continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution unless
impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim parliament.
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall
which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability,
petition." resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and
Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers
and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
3This provision states: "Verification of Signatures. — The Election Registrar
shall verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters'
affidavits and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
election." and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and
7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other sections of
4 Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI will be changed thus:
Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
provinces, representative districts, and cities in accordance with the "Congress", "Senate", "House of Representatives" and "Houses of
number of their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all
thousand inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and references therein to "Member[s] of Congress", "Senator[s]" or
progressive ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, "Member[s] of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must as "Member[s] of Parliament" and any and all references to the
have at least one member. "President" and or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime
Minister".
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and
without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other
party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially
shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent
from the parliamentary districts. with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended
so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of
5 Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII will be changed thus: government; provided however that any and all references therein to
"Congress", "Senate", "House of Representatives" and "Houses of
Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all
executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the assistance of references therein to "Member[s] of Congress", "Senator[s]" or
the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the "Member[s] of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read
Members of Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible to as "Member[s] of Parliament" and any and all references to the
the Parliament for the program of government. "President" and or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime
Minister".
 Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these xxxx
amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall Section 5. x x x x
have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the
Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments. members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. The
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also powers, duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until
be a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice
convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for President.
the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall
have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim 8 336 Phil. 848 (1997); Resolution dated 10 June 1997.
Parliament from among themselves.
9 The COMELEC held:
(3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the
interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
We agree with the Petitioners that this Commission has the solemn
revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local
Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative.
Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive,
This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other
shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament,
provisions of the Constitution particularly on initiative.
an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of
the members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the
various ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
as may be delegated to him by the incumbent President.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition of at least
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
Thereafter, the Vice President, as Member of Parliament, shall centum of the registered voters therein. x x x.
immediately convene the Parliament and shall initially preside over its
session for the purpose of electing the Prime Minister, who shall be The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
elected by a majority vote of all this right.

its members, from among themselves. The duly elected Prime Minister The afore-quoted provision of the Constitution being a non self-
shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and executory provision needed an enabling law for its implementation.
responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the Thus, in order to breathe life into the constitutional right of the people
term of incumbent President and Vice President. under a system of initiative to directly propose, enact, approve or
reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or
7As revised, Article XVIII contained a new paragraph in Section 4 (paragraph resolution, Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6735.
3) and a modified paragraph 2, Section 5, thus:
However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Santiago vs.
Section 4. x x x x Commission on Elections struck down the said law for being
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
 The Supreme Court likewise declared that this Commission should be 12This provision states: "Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
implementation of the system. registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet the oftener than once every five years."
required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters,
of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per 13 I RECORD, 387-388.
centum of the registered voters therein, still the Petition cannot be
given due course since the Supreme Court categorically declared R.A. During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner
14

No. 6735 as inadequate to cover the system of initiative on Rene V. Sarmiento made the following report (I RECORD 389):
amendments to the Constitution.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the Committee
This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of on Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided to retain the
the right of the people under a system of initiative. However, neither system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution. I made a
can we turn a blind eye to the pronouncement of the High Court that survey of American constitutions and I discovered that 13 States
in the absence of a valid enabling law, this right of the people remains provide for a system of initiative as a mode of amending the
nothing but an "empty right", and that this Commission is permanently Constitution — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado,
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota,
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon. The initiative for ordinary laws only is
used in Idaho, Maine, Montana and South Dakota. So, I am happy that
Considering the foregoing, We are therefore constrained not to this was accepted or retained by the Committee.
entertain or give due course to the instant Petition.
xxxx
10Arturo M. De Castro; Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo
Baya; Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO); The Americans in turn copied the concept of initiatives from the Swiss
Trade Union Congress of the Philippines; Sulong Bayan Movement beginning in 1898 when South Dakota adopted the initiative in its
Foundation, Inc. constitution. The Swiss cantons experimented with initiatives in the
1830s. In 1891, the Swiss incorporated the initiative as a mode of
11Onevoice Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, amending their national constitution. Initiatives promote "direct
Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative democracy" by allowing the people to directly propose amendments to
Law Groups, Inc.; Atty. Pete Quirino Quadra; Bayan, Bayan Muna, Kilusang the constitution. In contrast, the traditional mode of changing the
Mayo Uno, Head, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela constitution is known as "indirect democracy" because the
Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Jojo Pineda, Dr. amendments are referred to the voters by the legislature or the
Darby Santiago, Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Loretta Ann P. Rosales, and Mario constitutional convention.
Joyo Aguja, Ana Theresa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Luwalhati Ricasa Antonino;
Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA), Conrado F. Estrella, 15Florida requires only that the title and summary of the proposed amendment
Tomas C. Toledo, Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, are "printed in clear and unambiguous language." Advisory Opinion to the
Jr., Fortunato P. Aguas, and Amado Gat Inciong; Senate of the Philippines; Attorney General RE Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, No.
Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. 90160, 22 January 1998, Supreme Court of Florida.
Salvador and Randall C. Tabayoyong, Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cebu
City and Cebu Province Chapters; Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. 16State ex. rel Patton v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 95, 186 N.E. 872 (1933); Whitman
Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio R. Osmeňa III, Jamby Madrigal, Jinggoy v. Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 125 P.2d 445 (1942); Heidtman v. City of Shaker
Estrada, Alfredo S. Lim and Panfilo Lacson; Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Heights, 99 Ohio App. 415, 119 N.E. 2d 644 (1954); Christen v. Baker, 138
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. Colo. 27, 328 P.2d 951 (1958); Stop the Pay Hike Committee v. Town Council
of Town of Irvington, 166 N.J. Super. 197, 399 A.2d 336 (1979); State ex rel
Evans v. Blackwell, Slip copy, 2006 WL 1102804 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.), 2006- 31 I RECORD 386, 392, 402-403.
Ohio-2076.
32196 P.2d 787, 790 (1948). See also Lowe v. Keisling, 130 Or.App. 1, 882
17
407 Mass. 949, 955 (1990). Affirmed by the District Court of Massachusetts P.2d 91 (1994).
in Henry v. Conolly, 743 F. Supp. 922 (1990) and by the Court of Appeals,
First Circuit, in Henry v. Conolly, 9109 F. 2d. 1000 (1990), and cited in Marino 33 392 P.2d 636, 638 (1964).
v. Town Council of Southbridge, 13 Mass.L.Rptr. 14 (2001).
34 930 P.2d 186, 196 (1996), internal citations omitted.
18 89 P.3d 1227, 1235 (2004).
35 Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113, 118-119 (1894).
19 Stumpf v. Law, 839 P. 2d 120, 124 (1992).
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of
36
20 Exhibit "B" of the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006. Equalization, 583 P.2d 1281, 1286 (1978).

Annex "B" of the Comment/Opposition in Intervention of Atty. Pete Quirino-

21 37 Id.
Quadra filed on 7 September 2006.
38 Legislature of the State of California v. EU, 54 Cal.3d 492, 509 (1991).
22 www.ulap.gov.ph.
39California Association of Retail Tobacconists v. State, 109 Cal.App.4th 792,
23 www.ulap.gov.ph/reso2006-02.html. 836 (2003).

The full text of the proposals of the Consultative Commission on Charter

24 40 See note 44, infra.
Change can be downloaded at its official website at www.concom.ph.
Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
41
25 The Lambino Group's Memorandum, p. 5. Commentary, p. 1294 (2003).
26Under the proposed Section 1(2), Article VI of the Constitution, members of 42 238 So.2d 824 (1970).
Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years "without limitation as to the
number thereof." 43 Id. at 830-832.
27Under the proposed Section 4(1), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the As stated by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. during the 26
44
Constitution, the interim Parliament "shall continue until the Members of the September 2006 oral arguments.
regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified." Also,
under the proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII, of the same Transitory 45
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November
Provisions, the interim Parliament "shall provide for the election of the
2003, 415 SCRA 44; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,
members of Parliament."
142 Phil. 393 (1970); Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil.
259 (1938).
28Under the proposed Section 4(3), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the
Constitution, the interim Parliament, within 45 days from ratification of the 46882 P.2d 91, 96-97 (1994). On the merits, the Court in Lowe v. Keisling
proposed changes, "shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of,
found the amendment in question was not a revision.
this Constitution."
47 Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.
29 448 So.2d 984, 994 (1984), internal citations omitted.
48 Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution.
30 698 P.2d 1173, 1184 (1985).
49 Section 2, Article VII of the Constitution. "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
50This section provides: "The Philippines is a democratic and republican the registered voters in the Philippines with at least 3% in every
State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority legislative district — no public funds may be spent and no government
emanates from them." resources may be used in an initiative to amend the Constitution.
Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent such
51Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 760 (2001); Intia Jr. v. COA, signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority's
366 Phil. 273 (1999). two other rulings. Let me explain.

52 G.R. No. 129754, Resolution dated 23 September 1997. "Under the above restrictive holdings espoused by the Court's
majority, the Constitution cannot be amended at all through a people's
initiative. Not by Delfin, not by PIRMA, not by anyone, not even by all
53Presidential Proclamation No. 58 dated February 11, 1987, entitled
the voters of the country acting together. This decision will effectively
"Proclaiming the Ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the
but unnecessarily curtail, nullify, abrogate and render inutile the
Philippines Adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the
people's right to change the basic law. At the very least, the majority
Ordinance Appended thereto."
holds the right hostage to congressional discretion on whether to pass
a new law to implement it, when there is already one existing at
PANGANIBAN, CJ.: present. This right to amend through initiative, it bears stressing, is
guaranteed by Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, as follows:
1 Chief Justice McLachlin spoke on "Liberty, Prosperity and the Rule of Law"
in her speech before the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity held on their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction,
October 18-20, 2006 in Manila. She further stated: "Without the rule of law, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments
government officials are not bound by standards of conduct. Without the rule to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their
of law, the dignity and equality of all people is not affirmed and their ability to chosen leaders. While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must
seek redress for grievances and societal commitments is limited. Without the be resolutely struck down, on the other, their legitimate exercise
rule of law, we have no means of ensuring meaningful participation by people should be carefully nurtured and zealously protected.
in formulating and enacting the norms and standards which organize the kinds
of societies in which we want to live."
"WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition of Sen. Miriam D.
Santiago et al. and to DIRECT Respondent Commission on Elections
2GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 336 Phil. 848. For ease of reference, my to DISMISS the Delfin Petition on the ground of prematurity, but not
Separate Opinion is reproduced in full: on the other grounds relied upon by the majority. I also vote to LIFT
the temporary restraining order issued on 18 December 1996 insofar
"Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing as it prohibits Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa
for the majority, holds that: from exercising their right to free speech in proposing amendments to
the Constitution."
'(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion in entertaining the 'initiatory' Delfin Petition. 3GR No. 129754, September 23, 1997 (still unpublished in the Philippine
Reports or in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated). Again, for ease of
'(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to 'be directly proposed reference, I reproduce my Separate Opinion in full:
by the people through initiative,' there is no implementing law for the
purpose. RA 6735 is 'incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential "Petitioners assail the July 8, 1997 Resolution of Respondent
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Commission dismissing their petition for a people's initiative to amend
Constitution is concerned.' the Constitution. Said petition before the Comelec (henceforth, PIRMA
petition) was backed up by nearly six (6) million signatures constituting
'(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2300, 'insofar as it prescribes rules and about 16% of the registered voters of the country with at least 3% in
regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the each legislative district. The petition now before us presents two
Constitution, is void.' grounds:
 "1. In refusing to act on the PIRMA petition, the Comelec allegedly 742 Am. Jr. 2d, §26, citing Birmingham Gas Co. v. Bessemer; 250 Ala 137,
acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of 33 So 2d 475, 250 Ala 137; Tacker v. Board of Comrs., 127 Fla 248, 170 So
jurisdiction; and 458; Hoxie V. Scott, 45 Neb 199, 63 NW 387; Gill v. Board of Comrs., 160 NC
176, 76, SE 204.
"2. In declaring R.A. 6735 "inadequate to cover its system of initiative
on amendments to the Constitution" and "declaring void those parts of 8 Partido ng Manggagawa v. Comelec, GR No. 164702, March 15, 2006.
Resolution 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and
regulations on the conduct of [an] initiative [on] amendments to the 9 Article XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)
Constitution," the Supreme Court's Decision in G.R. No. 127325
entitled Miriam Defensor Santiago vs. Commission on "SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
Elections (hereafter referred to as Santiago) should be reexamined proposed by:
because said Decision is allegedly "unconstitutional," and because, in
any event, the Supreme Court itself, in reconsidering the said issue
(1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its
per its June 10, 1997 Resolution, was deadlocked at six votes one
Members; or
each side.
(2) A constitutional convention.
"The following in my position on each of these two issues:
"SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
First Issue:
proposed by the people though initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
No Grave Abuse of Discretion in Comelec's Refusal to Act every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
"The Respondent Commission's refusal to act on the "prayers" of the section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
PIRMA petition cannot in any wise be branded as "grave abuse of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
discretion." Be it remembered that the Court's Decision in Santiago
permanently enjoined the Comelec "from entertaining or taking "SEC. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members,
cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its
Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
4 Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735, December 14, 2001. convention.

5Well-entrenched is this definition of grave abuse of discretion. Id.; Benito v. "SEC. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
Comelec, 349 SCRA 705, January 19, 2001; Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
Jr., 359 Phil. 276, November 18, 1998; and Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
Confesor, 231 SCRA 41, March 10, 1994. later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or
revision.
6 In PIRMA, I submitted as follows: "I believed, and still do, that the majority
gravely erred in rendering such a sweeping injunction [that covered ANY "Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified
petition, not just the Delfin petition], but I cannot fault the Comelec for by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed with said decision's ratio earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification
decidendi. Respondent Comelec was directly enjoined by the highest Court of by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition."
the land. It had no choice but to obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave
abuse of discretion. Regusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only 10 Republic Act 6735, Sec. 10, provides:
recourse open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have
constituted defiance of the Court and would have been struck down as grave
"SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures. – The following cannot be the subject
abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's supremacy as
of an initiative or referendum petition:
the final arbiter of justiciable controversies."
 (a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be becomes meaningless. A government of laws, not of men, excludes the
submitted to the electorate; and exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.
Under this system, judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought 'to protect
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment of and enforce it without fear or favor,' resist encroachments by governments,
which are specifically vested in Congress by the Constitution, political parties, or even the interference of their own personal beliefs." (249
cannot be subject to referendum until ninety (90) days after its SCRA 244, October 13, 1995, per Kapunan, J.)
effectivity."
14An American professor on legal philosophy, A. Altman, puts it thus: "By
11The principle of separation of powers operates at the core of a presidential ratifying the constitution that included an explicit amendment process, the
form of government. Thus, legislative power is given to the legislature; sovereign people committed themselves to following the rule of law, even
executive power, to a separate executive (from whose prominent position in when they wished to make changes in the basic system of government." A.
the system, the presidential nomenclature is derived); and judicial power, to ALTMAN, ARGUING ABOUT LAW 94 (2001).
an independent judiciary. This system embodies interdependence by
separation. See my Separate Opinion in Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, 415
15

SCRA 45, November 10, 2003.

On the other hand, a parliamentary system personifies interdependence by
integration, its essential features being the following: "(1) The members of the 16See, for instance, the front page Malaya report entitled "Lobbyists soil dignity
government or cabinet or the executive arm are, as a rule, simultaneously of Supreme Court" (October 23, 2006).
members of the legislature. (2) The government or cabinet, consisting of the
political leaders of the majority party or of a coalition who are also members 17 Lk 8:17.
of the legislative, is in effect a committee of the legislature. (3) The government
or cabinet has a pyramidal structure, at the apex of which is the Prime Minister YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
or his equivalent. (4) The government or cabinet remains in power only for as
long as it enjoys the support of the majority of the legislature. (5) Both 1 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
government and legislature are possessed of control devices with which each
can demand of the other immediate political responsibility." These control
devices are a vote of no-confidence (censure), whereby the government may
2 SEC. 5. Requirements.— x x x
be ousted by the legislature; and the power of the government to dissolve the
legislature and call for new elections. (J. BERNAS, THE CONSTITUTION OF (c) The petition shall state the following:
THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES A COMMENTARY, Vol. II, 17-18
(1988 ed.). c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be;
With respect to the transformation from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature, the change involves the form of representation and the lawmaking c.2. the proposition;
process.
c.3. the reason or reasons therefore;
12Attached to the Opposition-in-Intervention of Intervenors OneVoice Inc.,
etc., is a photocopy of the Certification dated August 23, 2006, issued by Atty. c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
Marlon S. Casquejo, the election officer for the 3rd District and the officer-in-
charge for the 1st and the 2nd Districts of Davao City. The Certification states c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
that "this office (First, Second and Third District, Davao City) has not verified
the signatures of registered voters x x x." c.6. an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred
(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every
13In People v. Veneracion, the Court held: "Obedience to the rule of law forms page of the petition.
the bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guide of religious or
political beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within
which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law
3SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.— For purposes of this Act, the following terms 12Philippine Political Law [1954 ed.], Vicente G. Sinco, pp. 43-44, quoted in
shall mean: x x x Separate Opinion of J. Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in PIRMA v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
129754, September 23, 1997, p. 7.
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by the voters.
13 151-A Phil. 35 (1973).
4 I Record, Constitutional Commission 387-389 (July 9, 1986).
14 196 P. 2d 787 (Cal. 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918 (1949).
5Community Gas and Service Company, Inc. v. Walbaum, 404 P.2d 1014,
1965 OK 118 (1965). 15 801 P. 2d 1077 (Cal. 1990).

6Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one 16 583 P. 2d 1281 (Cal. 1982).
subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
17Raven v. Deukmeijan, supra, citing Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P. 2d 274 (Cal.
7
The late Senator (then Congressman) Raul S. Roco stated this fact in his 1982).
sponsorship presentation of H.B. No. 21505, thus:
18Supra note 13. It may well be pointed out that in making the distinction
xxxx between amendment and revision, Justice Antonio relied not only in the
analogy presented in Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 37 S.E. 2d 322, but cited
D. Prohibited Subjects. also the seminal ruling of the California Supreme Court in McFadden v.
Jordan, supra.
The bill provides for two kinds of measures which cannot be the
subject of an initiative or referendum petition. A petition that embraces Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed., Justice Isagani A. Cruz, p. 71, citing
19

more than one subject cannot be submitted to the electorate as it Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. PSC, 40 O.G., 8th Supp. 57.
would be violative of the constitutional proscription on passing bills
containing more than one subject, and statutes involving emergency 20The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., Fr.
measures cannot be subject to referendum until 90 days after its Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., p. 1161.
effectivity. [Journal and record of the house of representatives,
Second Regular Session, Vol. 6, p. 975 (February 14, 1989).] 21 Id.

8 Memorandum of petitioner Aumentado, p. 117. 22 Supra note 14.

9 The proposed Section 4(3) of Article XVIII of the Constitution states that 23The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1st ed., Fr.
Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members of parliament Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., p. 567, citing B. Schwartz, I The Powers of
until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. No counterpart provision was Government (1963).
provided for members of the House of Representatives who, as members of
the interim parliament under the proposed changes, shall schedule the 24 16 C.J.S. §3 at 24.
elections for the regular parliament in its discretion.
25 14 T.M. Cooley, II Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed. (1927), p. 1349.
10The proposed Section 4(3), Article XVIII of the Constitution states that the
interim parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, 26A bogus revolution, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 11, 2006, Fr.
the Constitution within 45 days from ratification of the proposed changes.
Joaquin Bernas, S.J., p. A15.
11The United Kingdom, for instance, has a two-house parliament, the House 27 Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
of Lords and the House of Commons.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1 Works, Letter 164. personnel. He could not appreciate 1) that Sigaw had no choice
but to get the constitutionality-required 3% in every district, [-
2 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. Const., Art. VII, Sec. 2] friendly or otherwise, including
administration critics' turfs, and 2) that falsus in 36,319 (93.30%)
3 Resolution dated June 10, 1997, G.R. No. 127325. falsus in omnibus, in an exercise that could never be free,
orderly, honest and credible, another constitutional
requirement. [Nothing has been heard about probing and prosecuting
4 G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. Joining PIRMA as petitioners were
the falsifiers.]
its founding members, spouses Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa.
xxxxxxxxx
5 Entitled "In the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution
through a People's Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral Presidential to a
Unicameral Parliamentary Government by Amending Articles VI and VII; and 3.2. It was excessively obvious to undersigned and other observers
Providing Transitory Provisions for the Orderly Shift from the Presidential to that respondent Chairman, straining at the leash, was lawyering for
the Parliamentary System." Sigaw ng Bayan in the Senate! It was discomfiting that he would
gloss over the seeming wholesale falsification of 96.30% of the
signatures in an exercise with no credibility! Even had he been
6Among them ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel
asked, he should have pled to be excused from answering as the
L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina,
matter could come up before the Comelec for an official collegial
Jr., Alternative Law Groups, Inc., Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel,
position (different from conceding that it is enjoined).
Jr., and Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim,
Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada,
Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana Theresia xxxxxxxxx
Hontiveros-Baraquel, Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops
Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of 4. Respondents Commissioners Borra and Romeo A. Brawner,
Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda, Drs. Darby Santiago and for their part, even issued widely-publicized written directives to
Reginald Pamugas, and Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, the field, [Annex C, as to Commissioner Brawner; that as to
Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall Commissioner Borra will follow.] while the Commission itself was
C. Tabayoyong. trying to be careful not to be explicit in what it was abetting
implicitly, in hypocritical defiance of the injunction of 1997.
7 "Grounds for contempt
8Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
3. From the time the so-called People's Initiative (hereafter PI) now No. 72424, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 246.
subject of Lambino v. Comelec, was initiated, respondents did
nothing to stop what was clearly lawless, and even arguably 9 Supra.
winked at, as it were, if not condoned and allowed, the waste and
misuse of its personnel, time, facilities and resources on an 10Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA
enterprise that had no legal basis and in fact was permanently 59; Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI), L-26364, May 29,
enjoined by this Honorable Court in 1997. Seemingly mesmerized, 1968, 23 SCRA 948.
it is time to disenthrall them.
1156 O.G. 3546 cited in Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI),
3.1. For instance, undersigned counsel happened to be in the Senate id.
on August 29, 2006 (on other business) when respondent Chair
sought to be stopped by the body from commenting on PI out of 12 Supra.
prudential considerations, could not be restrained. On contentious
issues, he volunteered that Sigaw ng Bayan would not cheat in Separate Opinion of Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, G.R. No. 129754,
13
Makati as it was the opposition territory and that the fact that out September 23, 1997.
of 43,405 signatures, only 7,186 were found authentic in one
Makati District, to him, showed the "efficiency" of Comelec
14 G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234. 32Section 2. Statement of Policy. – The power of the people under a system
of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in
Philippine National Bank v. Palma, G.R. No. 157279, August 9, 2005, 466
15 whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by
CSRA 307, citing Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary (1988), 3rd ed. (citing any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is
Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397, [1947]). hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.

16Id., citing Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126183, March 25, 1999, 33 Section 3. Definition of terms.-
305 SCRA 303, citing Government v. Jalandoni, No. 837-R, August 30, 1947,
44 O.G. 1840. xxx

17Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven and a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing
London: Yale University Press, 1921), pp. 33-34. amendments to the Constitution;

18William K. Frankena, Ethics, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall xxx
Inc.,) 1973, p. 49.
34 See Section 3(e).
19 Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.
35Section 5 (b) – A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have
20 July 9, 1986. Records of the Constitutional Commission, No. 26. at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least
Bernas, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
21 OF THE PHILIPPINES: A three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the
COMMENTARY, 1996 Ed., p. 1161. Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of
the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
22 242 N. W. 891 259 Mich 212.
xxx
23State v. Orange [Tex. x. Civ. App.] 300 SW 2d 705, People v. Perkins 137,
p. 55. 36Section 9 (b) – The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved
by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to
18 City of Midland v. Arbury 38 Mich. App. 771, 197 N.W. 2d 134. the day of the plebiscite.

25 Adams v. Gunter Fla, 238 So. 2d 824.

37 7 How (48 US) 1 (1849).

26 196 P.2d 787.

38 328 US 549 (1946).

27 Adams v. Gunter Fla. 238 So.2d 824.

39 77 Phil. 192 (1946).

28 Mc Fadden v. Jordan, supra.

40 103 Phi. 1051 (1957).

29 Rivera-Cruz v. Gray, 104 So.2d 501, p. 505 (Fla. 1958).

41 G.R. No. 35546, September 17, 1974, 50 SCRA 559.

Joaquin Bernas, Sounding Board: AMENDMENT OR REVISION, Philippine

30
42 369 US 186 (1962).
Daily Inquirer, September 25, 2006.
43 G.R. No. 85344, December 21, 1989, 180 SCRA 496.
31See Sections 8-12 for national initiative and referendum, and sections 13-
19 for local initiative and referendum. 44 G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 668.
45Nos. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, and L-36283, March 31, 1973, 17 G.R. No. 129754.
50 SCRA 30.
18 Minute Resolution, September 23, 1997, pp. 1-2.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
19 Republic v. De los Angeles, No. L-26112, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 422.
1Entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and
Appropriating Funds Therefor. Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila, No. L-26364, May 29, 1968, 23
20

SCRA 948.
2 Section 2(1), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution.
21Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August
3 Petition, pp. 12-14. 19, 1994, 235 SCRA 506.

4Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368, August 22Then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Florenz D. Regalado,
25, 2003, 409 SCRA 455, 480. Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan and Justo
P. Torres, Jr. fully concurred in the ponencia of Justice Davide.
5Rodson Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appears, G.R. No. 141857, June 9, 2004,
431 SCRA 469, 480. 23Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Vicente V. Mendoza, Reynato S. Puno, Ricardo J.
Francisco, Jr. and Artemio V. Panganiban (now Chief Justice).
6People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA
610. 24The voting on the motion for reconsideration was as follows: Six Justices,
namely, Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
7Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Galauran & Pilares Construction Co., Bellosillo and Kapunan, voted to deny the motions for lack of merit; and six
G.R. No. L-35630, November 25, 1982, 118 SCRA 664. Justices, namely, Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Francisco, Jr., Regino C.
Hermosisima and Panganiban voted to grant the same. Justice Vitug
8 People v. Court of Appeals, supra. maintained his opinion that the matter was not ripe for judicial adjudication.
Justices Teodoro R. Padilla and Torres inhibited from participation in the
deliberations.
9 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
25 House Bill No. 457 filed by then Rep. Nachura during the Twelfth Congress.
10Article 8, New Civil Code provides that "[j]udicial decisions applying or
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of
the Philippines."
26See Pagdayawon v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 154569, September 23,
2002, 389 SCRA 480.
11Suson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126749, August 27, 1997, 278 SCRA
284.
27London Street Tramways Co., Ltd. v. London County Council, [1898] A.C.
375, cited in COOLEY, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 117-118.
12 Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992, 208 SCRA 254. 28 Amended Petition for Initiative, pp. 4-7.
13 974 S.W.2d 451 (1998). 29 Id. at 7.
14 Id. at 453.
30 I Records of the Constitutional Commission 373.
15Entitled In Re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative in
the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws.
31 Id. at 371.

16 Supra note 10, p. 157.

32 Id. at 386.
33 Id. at 392. 55 Id. at 799.

34 Id. at 402-403. 56 Supra note 41.

35 No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30. 57 Annex "1363."

36 Id. at 367. 58 Annex "1368."

37 SINCO, Philippine Political Law 43-44. 59 Annex "1369."

38 37 S.E.2d 322 (1946). 60 Annex "1370."

39 Id. at 330. 61 Annex "1371."

40 Id. 62 Annex "1372."

41 Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 3, 2006. 63 Annex "1374."

42 Introduction to the Journal of the Constitutional Commission. 64 Annex "1375."

43 BLACK, Constitutional Law 1-2, citing 1 BOUV. INST. 9. 65 Annex "1376."

44 SCHWARTZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1. 66 Annex "1377."

45 Proclamation No. 58, 83 O.G. No. 23, pp. 2703-2704, June 8, 1987. 67 Annex "1378."

46 See McBee v. Brady, 15 Idaho 761, 100 P. 97 (1909). 68 Annex "1379."

47 Id. 69 Annex "1380."

48 196 P.2d 787 (1948). 70 Annex "1381."

49 Id. at 798. 71 Annex "1382."

50 Ellingham v. Dye, 99 N.E. 1 (1912). 72 Annex "1383."

51 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno, p. 36. 73 Annex "1385."

52 Id. at 39. 74 Annex "1387."

53 Supra note 38. 75 Annex "1388."

54 McFadden v. Jordan, supra note 48. 76 Annex "1389."

77 Annex "1391." Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001, 370
99

SCRA 394.
78 Annex "1392."
Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002, 393
100

79 Annex "1393." SCRA 639.

80 Annex "1395." 101 Teope v. People, G.R. No. 149687, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 540.

81 Annex "1396." 102 Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).

82 Annex "1397." 103 Id.

83 Annex "1398." 104 G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268, 311-312.

84 Annex "1399." Dissenting Opinion of Justice Fernando in Javellana v. Executive

105

Secretary, supra note 36.

85 Annex "1400."
106 119 N.W. 408 (1909).
86 Annex "1401."
107 22 Minn. 400 (1876).
87 Annex "1402."
108 96 S.W. 396 (1906).
88 Annex "1404."
109
63 N.J. Law 289.
89 Annex "1405."
110 77 Miss. 543 (1900).
90 Annex "1406."
111 Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.
91 Annex "1407."
112 Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno, p. 49.
92 Annex "1408."
113COOLEY, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 56, cited in Ellingham
93 Annex "1409." v. Dye, supra.

94 Annex "1410."
114 Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal. Co., 154 N.W. 1037 (1915).

95 Annex "1411." ALTMAN, ARGUING ABOUT THE LAW 94 (2001), citing AGRESTO, THE
115

SUPREME COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY (1984)

96 Annex "1412." 116 McBee v. Brady, 100 P. 97 (1909).
97 Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran, G.R. No. 147012, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 423. 117 McFadden v. Jordan, supra note 48.
98See, for example, Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, No. L-62089, March 9,
1988, 158 SCRA 508.
118
Cooley, Am.Law.Rev. 1889, p. 311, cited in Ellingham v. Dye, supra.
119 15 N.W. 609 (1883). 16 Ibid.

120 Id. at 630. 17 Id. at 1913.

AZCUNA, J.: 18Consovoy, The Rehnquist Court and the End of Constitutional Stare Decisis:
Casey, Dickerson and the Consequences of Pragmatic Adjudication, 53 Utah
1 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 and June 10, 1997. Law Rev. 53, 67 (2002).

2 100 Phil. 501 (1956). 19 Id. at 68.

PUNO, J.: 20 Id. at 69.

1 M'cCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 407 (1819). 21 Id. at 67.

2 Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution. 22 Id. at 69.

3 270 SCRA 106, March 19, 1997. 23 Consovoy, supra note 18, at 57.

4 Id. at 153. 24 Id. at 58.

5 Id. at 157. 25 Id. at 64.

6Justice Teodoro R. Padilla did not take part in the deliberation as he was 26Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 405-06 (1932) (Justice
related to a co-petitioner and co-counsel of petitioners. Brandeis, dissenting).

7Justice Davide (ponente), Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Regalado, 27Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 491-492 (Justice
Romero, Bellosillo, and Kapunan. Frankfurter, concurring).

8 Resolution dated June 10, 1997, G.R. No. 127325. 28Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fink, 483 U.S. 89 (1987) (Justice
Stevens, dissenting).
9People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. 29 Barnhart, supra note 15, at 1922.

10
Amended Petition for Initiative, pp. 4-7. 30
Id. at 1921.

11 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. 31Filippatos, The Doctrine of Stare Decisis and the Protection of Civil Rights
and Liberties in the Rehnquist Court, 11 Boston College Third World Law
12 Petition, pp. 12-14. Journal, 335, 343 (Summer 1991).

13 Advisory issued by Court, dated September 22, 2006.

32 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

14 Exhibit "B," Memorandum of Petitioner Lambino.

33 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

Barnhart, Principled Pragmatic Stare Decisis in Constitutional Cases, 80

15
34 G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004, 445 SCRA 1.
Notre Dame Law Rev., 1911-1912, (May 2005).
35 G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000, 343 SCRA 377. 57 Id. at 1115.

36 Barnhart, supra note 15, at 1915. 58 Vicente G. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 2nd ed., p. 46.

37 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992). Concurring Opinion of Mr. Justice Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. The
59

Executive Secretary, No. L-361432, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 367-368.
38 Section 5(b).
60 J. M. Aruego, The New Philippine Constitution Explained, iii-iv (1973).
39 Ibid.
61E. Quisumbing-Fernando, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp. 422-425
40 Santiago v. Commission on Elections, supra note 11, at 145. (1984).

41 85 Record of the House of Representatives 140-142 (February 14, 1989). 62 N. Gonzales, Philippine Political Law 30 (1969 ed.).

42 85 Record of the house of representatives 142-143 (February 14, 1989). 63Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, February 22,
1991, 194 SCRA 317, 337 quoting Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111 Pa. 365, 3
43 Zeringue v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 467 So. 2d 1358. Alt. 220 (1886).

44 I RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 386, 392 (July 9, 1986).

64 L-36142, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 367.

45 Id. at 400, 402-403.

65 i record, constitutional commission 373 (July 8, 1986).

46 v record, constitutional commission 806 (October 10, 1986).

66 The opinion was actually made by Justice Felix Antonio.

47 Opposition-in-Intervention filed by ONEVOICE, p. 39.

67Javellana v. Executive Secretary, supra note 64, citing Wheeler v. Board of
Trustees, 37 S.E.2d 322, 327 (1946).
48 Opposition-in-Intervention filed by Alternative Law Groups, Inc., p. 30. 68T. M. Cooley, I A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations 143-144 (8th ed.
1927).
49 Introduction to Political Science, pp. 397-398.
69H.C. Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law S. 47, p. 67 (2nd ed.
50 Section 1, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.
1897).
51 Eighth Edition, p. 89 (2004). 70 V. Sinco, supra note 58.
52 Ibid. 71 Ibid.
53 Id. at 1346. 72 No. L-1232, 79 Phil. 819, 826 (1948).
54 Ibid. 73IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 735 (September 17,
1986).
55 Third Edition, p. 67 (1969).
74 Id. at 752.
56 Id. at 68.
75 Id. at 769.
76 Id. at 767-769. Annex "10-A," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Joseph Ejercito
94

Estrada, et al.
77 Id. at 377.
Annexes 1-29, Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Alternative Law
95

78 Id. at 395. Groups, Inc.

79 Sinco, supra note 58, at 22. 96 Annexes 30-31, Id.

80 Id. at 20-21. 97 Annexes 44-64, Id.

Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996, 257
81 98 Consolidated Reply of Petitioner Aumentado, p. 54.
SCRA 727.
99 Exhibit "E," Memorandum of Petitioner Lambino.
82
G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 530.
100 Annex "A," Consolidated Response of Petitioner Aumentado.
83 Sinco, supra note 58, at 29.
101 Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Pimentel, et al., pp. 12-13.
State v. Moore, 103 Ark 48, 145 SW 199 (1912); Whittemore v. Seydel, 74
84

Cal App 2d 109 (1946). 102 Helvey v. Wiseman, 199 F. Supp. 200, 8 A.F.T.2d 5576 (1961).

85 Town of Whitehall v. Preece, 1998 MT 53 (1998). 103 BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc., 448 So.2d 1329 (1984).

G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996, 262 SCRA 492, 516-517, citing 42
86 104 ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
Am. Jur. 2d, p. 653.
How many copies of the petition, that you mention(ed), did you print?
87 Memorandum for petitioner Aumentado, pp. 151-152.
ATTY. LAMBINO:
88 Id. at 153-154.
We printed 100 thousand of this petition last February and we
89 L-44640, October 12, 1976, 73 SCRA 333, 360-361.
distributed to the different organizations that were volunteering to
90 Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution. support us.

Annex
91
"3," Opposition-In-Intervention of Oppositors-Intervenors ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
ONEVOICE, INC., et al.
So, you are sure that you personally can say to us that 100 thousand
92Certification dated April 21, 2006 issued by Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Annex of
"B," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intervenor Pimentel, et al.; Certification dated
April 20, 2006 issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, Annex "C," Memorandum these were printed?
of Oppositor-Intervenor Pimentel, et al.; Certification dated April 26, 2006
issued by Atty. Marlon S. Cascuejo, Annex "D," Memorandum of Oppositor- ATTY. LAMBINO:
Intervenor Pimentel, et al.
It could be more than that, Your Honor.
93 Annex "1," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Antonino.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO: August 25, now you are changing your mind, you're saying what you
circulated was the petition of August 30, is that correct?
But you asked your friends or your associates to re-print, if they can(?)
ATTY. LAMBINO:
ATTY. LAMBINO:
In effect, yes, Your Honor.
Yes, Your Honor.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
So, you circulated the petition of August 30, but what you filed in the
Okay, so you got 6.3 Million signatures, but you only printed 100
COMELEC on August 25 was a different petition, that's why you have
thousand. So you're saying, how many did your friends print of the to amend it?
petition?
ATTY. LAMBINO:
ATTY. LAMBINO:
We have to amend it, because there was an oversight, Your Honor,
I can no longer give a specific answer to that, Your Honor. I relied that

only to the assurances of the people who are volunteering that they we have omitted one very important paragraph in Section 4 of our
are going to proposition.

reproduce the signature sheets as well as the draft petition that we xxxxxxxxxxxx
have given them, Your Honor.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Okay, let's be clear. What did you circulate when you gathered the
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
signatures, the August 25 which you said you circulated or the August
Did you also show this amended petition to the people? 30?

ATTY. LAMBINO: ATTY. LAMBINO:

Your Honor, the amended petition reflects the copy of the original Both the August 25 petition that included all the provisions, Your

petition that we circulated, because in the original petition that we filed Honor, and as amended on August 30. Because we have to include
before the COMELEC, we omitted a certain paragraph that is, Section the one that
4 paragraph 3 which were part of the original petition that we circulated
and so we have to correct that oversight because that is what we have we have inadvertently omitted in the August 25 petition, Your Honor.
circulated to the people and we have to correct that…
xxxxxxxxxxxx
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
But you just stated now that what you circulated was the petition of
And (you cannot tell that) you can only say for certain that you printed
 100 thousand copies? 114 781 P. 2d 973 (Alaska, 1989).

ATTY. LAMBINO: 115 Id. at 982-84 (Compton, J., concurring).

That was the original printed matter that we have circulated by the 116 Id. at 975-78.

month of February, Your Honor, until some parts of March, Your 117 Negri v. Slotkin, 244 N.W. 2d 98 (1976).
Honor.
118 112 Fla. 734, 151 So. 284 (1933).
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
119 Penned by Justice Whitfield, and concurred in by Chief Justice Davis and
That is all you can assure us? Justice Terrell; Justices Ellis, Brown and Buford are of the opinion that chapter
15938, Acts of 1933, is a special or local law not duly advertised before its
ATTY. LAMBINO: passage, as required by sections 20 and 21 of article 3 of the state
Constitution, and therefore invalid. This evenly divided vote resulted in the
That is all I can assure you, Your Honor, except that I have asked affirmance of the validity of the statute but did not constitute a binding
some precedent on the Court.

friends, like for example (like) Mr. Liberato Laos to help me print out
120 62 S. Ct. 552 (1942).
some more of this petition… (TSN, September 26, 2006, pp. 7-17)
121 329 F. 2d 541 (1964).
105 Section 2 (1), Article IX – C, 1987 Constitution.
122 239 F. 2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956).
106
Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr.,
Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago 123 Citing Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205, 30 S. Ct. 621 (1910).
M. Kapunan, Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres.
124 331 N.E. 2d 65 (1975).
107Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo
J. Francisco and Artemio V. Panganiban. 125 Neil v. Biggers, supra note 108.

108 Justice Jose C. Vitug. Catherwood v. Caslon, 13 Mees. & W. 261; Beamish v. Beamish, 9 H. L.
126

Cas. 274.
109Only fourteen (14) justices participated in the deliberations as Justice
Teodoro R. Padilla took no part on account of his relationship with the lawyer Maglalang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85692, July 31, 1989, 175 SCRA
127

of one of the parties. 808, 811, 812; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pundogar, G.R. No.
96921, January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 118.
110 Citing conscience as ground.
No. L-35440, August 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 839, citing Anticamara v. Ong,
128

111 409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972). No. L-29689, April 14, 1978, 82 SCRA 337.

112Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 97 S. Ct. 2264 (1977); Arkansas 129 Supra note 1.
Writers' Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 107 S. Ct. 1722, 1730 n. 7, 95 L. Ed. 2d
(1987); France v. Nelson, 292 Ark. 219, 729 S.W. 2d 161 (1987). QUISUMBING, J.:

113 40 P. 3d 886 (2006).

1 Political questions have been defined as "Questions of which the courts of 10 Sec. 1, Article II, Constitution.
justice will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely
political character, or because their determination would involve an 11In re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669, 899 P.2d 1145 (Okla.
encroachment upon the executive or legislative powers; e.g., what sort of 1995).
government exists in a state…." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1319 citing Kenneth
v. Chambers, 14 How. 38, 14 L.Ed. 316. TINGA, J.:
2 See 1987 Const., Art. XVII, Sec. 2. 1 G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
3 G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. 2 G.R. No. 129754, 23 September 1997.
4 G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. 3 Petitioner Aumentado aptly refers to the comment of the late Senator Raul
Roco that the Santiago ruling "created a third specie of invalid laws, a mongrel
CORONA, J.: type of constitutional but inadequate and, therefore, invalid law."
Memorandum for Aumentado, p. 54.
1 Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616.
4 See Civil Code, Art. 9.
2 336 Phil. 848 (1997).
5 456 Phil. 1 (2003).
3Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134787, 15 November 2005, 475 SCRA
1. 6Id., at 10; citing I Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines 43 (1990)
and Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 113
4 Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, vol. I, 2001 edition, p. 419. (1921).

5Sec. 30, Petitions and initiatives by the people, 16 Am Jur 2d 380, citing State 7 See Dissenting Opinion, Manila International Airport Authority v. City of
ex rel. Stenberg v. Beermann, 240 Neb. 754, 485 N.W. 2d 151 (1992). Parañaque, G.R. No. 155650, 20 July 2006. In my ponencia in Globe Telecom
v. NTC, G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, I further observed
6Id. citing Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 83 Ill. 2d that while an administrative agency was not enslaved to obey its own
236, 47 Ill. Dec. 363, 415 N.E. 2d 368 (1980). precedent, it was "essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty,
that if an administrative agency decides inconsistently with previous action,
7 Balitzer, Alfred, The Initiative and Referendum: A Study and Evaluation of that it explain thoroughly why a different result is warranted, or if need be, why
Direct Legislation, The California Roundtable 13 (1981). The American the previous standards should no longer apply or should be overturned." Id.,
Founding Fathers recognized that direct democracy posed a profound threat at 144. Happily, Justice Puno's present opinion expressly elucidates
to individual rights and liberty. The U.S. Constitution was "designed to provide why Santiago should be reversed.
a system of government that would prevent either a tyranny of the majority or
a tyranny of the few." James Madison "warned against the power of a majority 8 As Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "We recognize that stare
or a minority of the population 'united and actuated by some common impulse decisis embodies an important social policy. It represents an element of
of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the continuity in law, and is rooted in the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable
permanent and aggregate interest of the community.' expectations. But stare decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical
formula of adherence to the latest decision, however recent and questionable,
8Gilbert Hahn & Steven C. Morton, Initiative and Referendum – Do They when such adherence involves collision with a prior doctrine more embracing
Encourage or Impair Better State Government? 5 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 925, in its scope, intrinsically sounder, and verified by experience… This Court,
927 (1977). unlike the House of Lords, has from the beginning rejected a doctrine of
disability at self-correction." Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119-121
(1940).
9
Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, Initiatives and
Referenda: Issues in Citizen Lawmaking (1986).
9 351 Phil. 692 (1998). 19See 1987 Const., Art. VI, Sec. 26(1). See also Section 19[1]. 1987 Const,
Art. VIII.
10As Chief Justice Panganiban then cited: "For instance, Ebralinag vs.
Davision Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256, March 1, 1993, 20
See e.g., Sumulong v. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288, 291 (1941); Cordero v. Hon.
reversed the Court's 34-year-old doctrine laid down in Gerona vs. Secretary Jose Cabatuando, et al., 116 Phil. 736, 741 (1962).
of Education, 106 Phil 2, August 12, 1959, and upheld the right of Jehovah's
Witnesses "to refuse to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious 21 See Tio v. VRB, G.R. No. L-75697, 18 June 1987, 151 SCRA 208, 214-215;
beliefs." Similarly, Olaguer vs. Military Commission, 150 SCRA 144, May 22, citing Public Service Co., Recktenwald, 290 Ill. 314, 8 A.L.R. 466, 470. See
1987, abandoned the 12-year-old ruling in Aquino Jr. vs. Military Commission, also Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, 10
63 SCRA 546, May 9, 1975, which recognized the jurisdiction of military December 2003, 417 SCRA 503, 519.
tribunals to try civilians for offenses allegedly committed during martial law.
The Court likewise reversed itself in EPZA vs. Dulay, 149 SCRA 305, April 29, 22"As a policy, this Court has adopted a liberal construction of the one title -
1987, when it vacated its earlier ruling in National Housing Authority vs. Reyes, one subject rule." Tatad v. Secretary of Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321,
123 SCRA 245, June 29, 1983, on the validity of certain presidential decrees 359 (1997).
regarding the determination of just compensation. In the much earlier case of
Philippine Trust Co. vs. Mitchell, 59 Phil. 30, December 8, 1933, the Court 23Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 83896 & 83815; 22
revoked its holding in Involuntary Insolvency of Mariano Velasco & Co., 55
February 1991, 194 SCRA 317.
Phil 353, November 29, 1930, regarding the relation of the insolvency law with
the then Code of Civil Procedure and with the Civil Code. Just recently, the
Court, in Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, July 17, 1995, also
24 Id. at 337. I have previously expressed my own doubts in relying on the
abandoned the earlier grant of standing to petitioner-organization in constitutional or legislative deliberations as a definitive source of construction.
Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110, May 5, 1994." Id., at 780. "It is easy to selectively cite passages, sometimes out of their proper context,
in order to assert a misleading interpretation. The effect can be dangerous.
Minority or solitary views, anecdotal ruminations, or even the occasional crude
11 Ibid.
witticisms, may improperly acquire the mantle of legislative intent by the sole
virtue of their publication in the authoritative congressional record. Hence,
12 129 Phil. 507, 516 (1967). resort to legislative deliberations is allowable when the statute is crafted in
such a manner as to leave room for doubt on the real intent of the legislature."
13G.R. Nos. L-78461, L-79146, & L-79212, 12 August 1987, 153 SCRA 67, Southern Cross Cement Corporation v. Phil. Cement Manufacturers, G.R. No.
75. G.R. No. 158540, 8 July 2004, 434 SCRA 65, 95.
14 G.R. No. 160427, 15 September 2004, 438 SCRA 319, 326. 25 77 Phil. 192 (1946).

15 Ibid. 26 Id. at 215.

16 G.R. No. 155855, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 92. Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, supra note 23, at 338; citing
27

Household Finance Corporation v. Shaffner, 203 S.W. 2d 734, 356 Mo. 808.
17Id., at 104. Relatedly, the Court held that "[c] ontests which do not involve
the election, returns and qualifications of elected officials are not subjected to 28See Sections 5(b) & 8, Rep. Act No. 6735. See also 1987 Const., Sec. 2,
the exercise of the judicial or quasi-judicial powers of courts or administrative Art. XVI.
agencies". Ibid.
29 G.R. No. 151944, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 365.
18See e.g., Memorandum of Oppositors-Intervenors Senators Pimentel, Jr.,
et. al., pp. 19-22; Memorandum for Intervenor Senate of the Philippines, pp. 30 Id., at 377. Emphasis supplied.
34-35.
31See Sections 5(b) & 8, Rep. Act No. 6735. See also 1987 Const., Sec. 2,
Art. XVI.
 From the "Funeral Oration" by Pericles, as recorded by Thucydides in the
32 13 Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed., p. 352.
History of the Peloponnesian War.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
33
H. Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980 ed.), at 95.
1 G.R. No. 127535, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
2 Id.
1 The full text of the Preamble reads:
3Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No.
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, 141386, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 196, 202.
in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the 4 United Harbor Pilots' Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Association of
common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to International Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 133763, November 13, 2002, 391
ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and SCRA 522, 533.
democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice,
freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this 5PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Carlos M. Farrales, G. R. No.
Constitution. 109648, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 155, 166-167.
2 Article XVII, Constitution. 6 Id.
3 G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997, 270 SCRA 106. 7Florentino v. Rivera, et al., G. R. No. 167968, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA
522, 529.
4 Id. at 157.
8 G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997.
5 Id. at 124.
9 V. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, Principles and Concept 46 (1962).
6Olac v. Rivera, G.R. No. 84256, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 321, 328-
329; See also the more recent cases of Republic v. Nolasco, G.R. No. 155108,
27 April 2005, 457 SCRA 400; and PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
421 Phil. 821 (2001).

7 Supra note 2 at 124.

8 G.R. No. 129754.

9Separate Opinion of former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. to the

Resolution, dated 23 September 1997, in G.R. No. 129754, PIRMA v.
COMELEC, pp. 2-3.

10 Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 628, 650 (1999).

11Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118651, 16 October

1997.

12 Santiago v. Comelec, supra note 2 at 170-171.