Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B.G.R. No. 174153
AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952REGISTERED VOTERS,
Petitioners,
- versus -
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
Intervenor.
cralaw

x ------------------------------------------------------ x
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN,
MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN
T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and
CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.,
Intervenors.
x------------------------------------------------------ x
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,
Intervenor.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson
Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN MUNA
represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented
by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD
represented by its Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas,
MIGRANTE represented by its Chairperson
Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA
represented by its Secretary General
Emerenciana de Jesus, GABRIELA WOMENS
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina Palabay,
ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS represented by Chair Vencer
CrisostomoPalabay,JOJO PINEDAofthe
Leagueof ConcernedProfessionalsand
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO
of the Solidarity ofHealth Against Charter
Change,DR. REGINALD PAMUGASof
Health Actionfor Human Rights,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
MARIO JOYO AGUJA,and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Intervenor.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,
Intervenor.
x------------------------------------------------------- x
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION(PHILCONSA), CONRADO
F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS,and AMADO
GAT INCIONG,
Intervenors.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO
MANUEL RIVERA,and RUELO BAYA,
Intervenors.
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS,
Intervenors.
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented
by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Intervenor.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Intervenor.
x ------------------------------------------------------- x
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D.
BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR,and
RANDALLTABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
x -------------------------------------------------------- x
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CEBUCITY AND CEBUPROVINCE
CHAPTERS,
Intervenors. cralaw

x --------------------------------------------------------x
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO cralaw

Q. PIMENTEL, JR.and SENATORS

SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III, JAMBY
MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and
PANFILO LACSON,
Intervenors.
x -----------------------------------------------------x
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and
PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO,
Intervenors. cralawcral aw

x -----------------------------------------------------x cralawcralaw

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY,G.R. No. 174299

SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and
RENE A.V. SAGUISAG,Present:
Petitioners, cralaw cr alaw

PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
- versus -PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
represented by Chairman BENJAMIN CARPIO, cralaw

S. ABALOS, SR.,and Commissioners AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

RESURRECCION Z. BORRA,CORONA, cralaw

FLORENTINO A.TUASON, JR.,CARPIO MORALES,cralaw cralaw

ROMEO A. BRAWNER, CALLEJO, SR., cralaw

RENE V. SARMIENTO,AZCUNA,
NICODEMO T. FERRER, and TINGA,
John Doe and Peter Doe,CHICO-NAZARIO, cralaw

Respondents. GARCIA,andVELASCO, JR., JJ.

cralaw

Promulgated:
October 25, 2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
x
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the
cralaw

Commission on Elections (COMELEC') denying due course to an initiative petition to

amend the 1987 Constitution.
Antecedent Facts

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and
cralaw

Erico B. Aumentado (Lambino Group'), withother groups[1] and individuals,

commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution.On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section
5(b) and (c)[2] and Section 7[3] of Republic Act No. 6735 or the
Initiative and Referendum Act (RA6735').
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had
the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%)
of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least
three per centum (3%) of its registered voters.The Lambino Group also claimed
that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million
individuals.
The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying
Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article
VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled '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
cralaw

COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory

Provisions) of their initiative.[7]

The Ruling of the COMELEC

 On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the
cralaw

Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to
amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v.
Commission on Elections[8]declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.[9]

In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of
cralaw

certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006
and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition. The
Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
denying due course to their petition since Santiagoisnot a binding precedent.
Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiagobinds only the parties to that
case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the 'will of the
sovereign people.
In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners (Binay Group') pray that the Court
cralaw

require respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why theyshould not be

cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and forentertaining
the Lambino Group's petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The
Court treated the Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in-intervention.
In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor General joined
cralaw

causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite
the Santiagoruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735
and its implementing rules 'as temporary devises to implement the system of
initiative.
Various groups and individuals sought intervention,filing pleadings supporting or
opposing the Lambino Groups petition. The supporting intervenors[10] uniformly
hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying
on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors[11] hold the contrary
view and maintain that Santiagois a binding precedent. The opposing
intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition;
(2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino
Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of
voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987
Constitution;[12] (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere
amendments as provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;
and (5) the Lambino Group's compliancewith the requirement in Section 10(a) of
RA 6735 limiting initiativepetitions to only one subject.
The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September
cralaw

2006. After receiving the parties memoranda, the Court considered the case
submitted for resolution.

The Issues

The petitions raise the following issues:

cralaw

1. Whether the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2,

Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
people's initiative;
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiagodeclaring RA 6735
'incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions'
to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution;
and
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due
course to the Lambino Group's petition.

The Ruling of the Court

There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the
Constitution for conducting a people's initiative.Thus, there is even no need to
revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the
Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the
Constitution.For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of
discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII
ofthe Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision
that allows a people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.This
section states:
Sec. 2.Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of
cralaw

an amendment 'directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,

thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters
cralaw

want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the

proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people
when they are asked to sign?
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
cralaw

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and
cralaw

shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.
cralaw

MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft
cralaw

shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to
propose this constitutional amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal
cralaw

and pass it around for signature.[13](Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the 'draft of the proposed
constitutional amendment should be 'ready and shown to the people 'before they
sign such proposal.The framers plainly stated that 'before they sign there is already
a draft shown to them.The framers also 'envisioned that the people should sign on
the proposal itself because the proponents must 'prepare that proposal and pass it
around for signature.

The essence of amendments 'directly proposed by the people through initiative

upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people.This
means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and
thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a
petition.

These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such
complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is 'directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition only if the people sign on a petition that
contains the full text of the proposed amendments.

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 such
attachment.This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of
signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments
before signing.Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to
prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the
proposed amendments before signing.
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed[14] the concept of people's
initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an
initiative clause. In almost all States[15] which allow initiative petitions,
the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the
proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people
must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments.[16] chanroblesvirtua llawli bra ry

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 Appeals,
declared:

[A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person

supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is
signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the
subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A
person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative
petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually
examined the petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for
example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting,
portions of the petition that might not be to the signer's liking. This
danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving
the description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a
vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify
for the ballot.[17](Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)

Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,[18]the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained:

cralaw

The purposes of 'full text provisions that apply

to amendments by initiative commonly are described in similar terms.
x x x (The purpose of the fulltext requirement is to provide sufficient
information so that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether
to sign the initiativepetition.'); x x x (publication of full text of
amended constitutional provision required because it is 'essential for
the elector to have x x x the section which is proposed to be added to
or subtracted from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must have this
knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote
in the dark.') (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, 'an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature
and effect of that which is proposed and failure to do so is 'deceptive and
misleading which renders the initiative void.[19]
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition
must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments.However, the deliberations
of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt
the relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative.In particular, the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal that the framers
intended that the people must first see the full text 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 Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum
Act that the Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that the people must sign the
'petition x x x as signatories.
The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public
officials.The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain
the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people.The
proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the
arguments against their proposal.The proponents, or their supporters, often pay
those who gather the signatures.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional
requirements in gathering the signatures.The proponents bear the burden of
proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the
signatures - that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text
of the proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of
the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group
submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet[20] after the oral arguments
of 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.The
signature sheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the signature sheet
attached[21] to the opposition in intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by
intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra.
The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature sheet
attached to the Lambino Group's Memorandum are the same.We reproduce below
the signature sheet in full:
Province: City/Municipality: No. of
Legislative District: Barangay: Verified
Signatures:
PROPOSITION:DO YOU APPROVE OF 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
OF 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?
I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution.My signature
herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution
signifies my support for the filing thereof.
Precinct Name Address Birthdate Signature Verification
Number Last Name, MM/DD/YY
First
Name,M.I.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
____________________________________________________
Barangay Official WitnessWitness
(Print Name and Sign)(Print Name and Sign)(Print Name and Sign)

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 signature sheet state
that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it.Petitioner Atty. Raul
Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26
September 2006.
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift
from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system 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 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution.
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature-gathering
from February to August 2006, the Lambino Group circulated, together with the
signature sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group's draft petition which they
later filed on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC.When asked if his group also
circulated the draft of their amended petition filed on 30 August 2006 with the
COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they circulated both.However, Atty.
Lambino changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the
draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August
2006 petition.

The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft of
the 30 August 2006 amended petition almost seven months earlier in February
2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado's
'Verification/Certification of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30
August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states as follows:

I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in

my personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of
the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP
Resolution No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of the
mass of signatories hereto.(Emphasis supplied)

The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to the
present petition.However, the 'Official Website of the Union of Local Authorities of
the Philippines[22] has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, which
provides:

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE'S
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH
PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUMAS A MODE OF AMENDING
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to
support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on
Charter Change;
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her
Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional
reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional
Reforms signed by the members of the ULAP and the majority coalition
of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in October
2005;
WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change
created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987
Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December
2005;
 WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments in
Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of
amending the 1987 Constitution;
WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and
the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent
assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional
reform agenda through People's Initiative and Referendum without
prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same;
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT ALL
THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF
THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE
PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE
THROUGH PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF
AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION;
DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting held
on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park
Hotel, Manila.[23](Underscoring supplied)
ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to prepare
the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with
the COMELEC.ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02support(s) the porposals (sic) of the
Consulatative (sic) Commission on Charter Change through people's initiative and
referendum as a mode of amending the 1987 Constitution. The proposals of the
Consultative Commission[24] are vastly different from the proposed changes of the
Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 petition or 30 August 2006 amended petition
filed with the COMELEC.

For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all
provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the Transitory
Provisions.The proposed revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary and the
National Patrimony provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions that the
Lambino Group's proposed changes do not touch.The Lambino Group's proposed
changes purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the existing Constitution,
including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions.

The ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on 14 January 2006 or more than six
cralaw

months before the filing of the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August
2006 amended petition with the COMELEC.However, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02
does not establish that ULAP or the Lambino Group caused the circulation of the
draft petition, together with the signature sheets, six months before the filing with
the COMELEC.On the contrary, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 casts grave doubt on
the Lambino Group's claim that they circulated the draft petition together with the
signature sheets. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not refer at all to the draft
petition or to the Lambino Group's proposed changes.
In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the COMELEC, the
Lambino Group declared:

After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the
proposed amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically,
paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the
Transitory Provisions were inaccurately stated and failed to correctly
reflect their proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the petition because
the amended petition was what they had shown to the people during the February
to August 2006 signature-gathering.Instead, the Lambino Group alleged that the
petition of 25 August 2006 'inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their
proposed amendments.

The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August
cralaw

2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the
draft petition together with the signature sheets.Likewise, the Lambino Group
did not allege in their present petition before this Court that they circulated printed
copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets.The signature sheets
do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated
with, the signature sheets.
It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that the
Lambino Group first claimed that they circulated the 'petition for initiative filed with
the COMELEC, thus:
[T]here is persuasive authority to the effect that '(w)here there is not
(sic) fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a
referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground that
he did not understand the nature of the act. [82 C.J.S.
S128h. Mo. State v. Sullivan, 224, S.W. 327, 283 Mo. 546.] Thus, the
registered voters who signed the signature sheets circulated together
with the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC below, are
presumed to have understood the proposition contained in the
petition.(Emphasis supplied)

The Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people 'the petition for
initiative filed with the COMELEC appears an afterthought, made after the
intervenors Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu City Chapter and Cebu Province
Chapters) and Atty. Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not
contain the text of the proposed changes.In their Consolidated Reply, the Lambino
Group alleged that they circulated 'the petition for initiative but failed to mention
the amended petition.This contradicts what Atty. Lambino finally stated during the
oral arguments that what they circulated was the draft of the amended
petition of 30 August 2006.
The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that a signer
who did not read the measure attached to a referendum petition cannot question
his signature on the ground that he did not understand the nature of the act.The
Lambino Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed change attached to the
petition signed by the people.Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes requires
that the proposed change must be attached to the petition.The same authority the
Lambino Group quotes requires the people to sign on the petition itself.
Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must
be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people.In
the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed changes were not incorporated
with, or attached to, the signature sheets.The Lambino Group's citation of Corpus
Juris Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet.
It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from
February to August 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the
petition or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC.The Lambino Group
are less than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and
circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or amended
petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the amended
petition during the signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted
circulating only very limited copies of the petition.

During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only
100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later with the
COMELEC.Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other supporters to print
additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state with certainty how
many additional copies the other supporters printed.Atty. Lambino could only
assure this Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because he himself caused the
printing of these 100,000 copies.

Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the

Lambino Group expressly admits that 'petitioner Lambino initiated the printing and
reproduction of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative x x x.[25]This admission
binds the Lambino Group and establishes 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 signature sheets.
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 distribution
with no wastage.If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy of the petition to
each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with the
petition.Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures.Assuming ten
people signed each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition,
the maximum number of people who saw the petition before they signed the
signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000.
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible
for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition
before they signed the signature sheets.The inescapable 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 one million signatories saw the petition
before they signed the signature sheets.
In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full text of
the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment
with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment.Petitioner Atty.
Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the
Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature
sheet. This omission is fatal.The failure to so include the text of the proposed
changes in the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non-compliance with
the constitutional requirement that the amendment must be 'directly proposed by
the people through initiative upon a petition. The signature sheet is not the
'petition envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution.
cralaw

For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature
sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They could
not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are:

1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be

lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected
indefinitely;[26]

2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely

until its members, who are almost all the present members of
Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections.Thus,
the members of the interim Parliament will determine the
expiration of their own term of office; [27]
 3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed
changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.[28]

These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino
Group's signature sheets.The people who signed the signature sheets had no idea
that they were proposing these amendments.These three proposed changes are
highly controversial.The people could not have inferred or divined these proposed
changes merely from a reading or rereading of the contents of the signature sheets.
During the oral arguments, petitioner Atty. Lambino stated that he and his
group assured the people during the signature-gathering that the elections for the
regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 local elections if the proposed
changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections.However, the text of the
proposed changes belies this.
The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in the
amended petition, states:

Section 5(2).The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of

the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. x x x
x (Emphasis supplied)

Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be held
simultaneously with the 2007 local elections.This section merely requires that the
elections for the regular Parliament shall be held simultaneously with the local
elections without specifying the year.

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 the regular
Parliament would be held in the next local elections following the ratification of the
proposed changes.However, the absence of the word 'next allows the interim
Parliament to schedule the elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously
with any future local elections.

Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the expiration of their own
term of office.This allows incumbent members of the House of Representatives to
hold office beyond their current three-year term of office, and possibly even beyond
the five-year term of office of regular members of the Parliament.Certainly, this is
contrary to the representations of Atty. Lambino and his group to the 6.3 million
people who signed the signature sheets.Atty. Lambino and his group deceived the
6.3 million signatories, and even the entire nation.

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 or
misrepresentation. In the present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely
on the verbal representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because 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 believe that the proposed
changes would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular Parliament
simultaneously with the local elections.

The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the people who signed
the signature sheets. The proposed changes mandate the interim Parliament to
make further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. The proposed Section
4(4), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, provides:

Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these

amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the
principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong
bureaucracy. (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 being a surplusage,
this provision invalidates the Lambino Group's initiative.
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the Bicameral-
cralaw

Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system.American jurisprudence on

initiatives outlaws this as logrolling- when the initiative 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 the entire proposition, forcing them
to sign a petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they may
find unacceptable.
Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire
proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine v.
Firestone,[29] the Supreme Court of Florida declared:
Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes
'logrolling, which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean anything, we
cannot permit.The very broadness of the proposed amendment
amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is
voting on-the amendment's proponents' simplistic explanation reveals
 only the tip of the iceberg.x x x xThe ballot must give the electorate
fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted on. x x x x The
ballot language in the instant case fails to do that.The very broadness
of the proposal makes it impossible to state what it will affect and
effect and violates the requirement that proposed amendments
embrace only one subject.(Emphasis supplied)

Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people.In Yute Air Alaska v.
McAlpine,[30] the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against 'inadvertence, stealth
and fraud in logrolling:
Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the
problems that the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are
exacerbated.There is 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 opportunity for
inadvertence, stealth and fraud in the enactment-by-
initiative process.The drafters of an initiative operate independently of
any structured or supervised process.They often emphasize particular
provisions of their proposition, while remaining silent on other (more
complex or less appealing) provisions, when communicating to the
public.x x x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use simplistic
advertising to present their initiative to potential petition-signers and
eventual voters.Many voters will never read the full text of
the initiative before the election.More importantly, there is no process
for amending or splitting the several provisions in
an initiative proposal.These difficulties clearly distinguish
the initiative from the legislative process.(Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further
amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a
constituent assembly.The people who signed the signature sheets could not have
known that their signatures would be used to propose an
amendment mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution.
Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4(4) to compel the
interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution 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 Parliament has the discretion
whether to amend or revise again the Constitution.With the proposed Section 4(4),
the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament mandated to immediately
amend or revise again the Constitution.
However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in amending
or revising again so soon the Constitution.The signature sheets do not also explain
what specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the interim
Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or
revisions.The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect of
the proposed changes.Certainly, such an initiative is not 'directly proposed by the
people because the people do not even know the nature and effect of the proposed
changes.
There is another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group's amended
petition of 30 August 2006.The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory Provisions
states:

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.

After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as member of
Parliament if the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular
Parliament by 30 June 2010.However, there is no counterpart provision for the
present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of office will all
end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present
Senators.Thus, all the present members of the House will remain members of the
interim Parliament after 30 June 2010.

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 Parliament does not
schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010, the Prime Minister
will come only from the present members of the House of Representatives to
the exclusion of the present Senators.

The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators.The
6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their
signatures would be used to discriminate against the Senators.They could not have
known that their signatures 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.

An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the
cralaw

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 people x x x in a petition -meaning
that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed
amendments.On so vital an issue as amending the nation's fundamental law, the
writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the
people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and
unelected individuals.
The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose amendments
cralaw

to the Constitution.This Court trusts the wisdom of the people even if the members
of this Court do not personally know the people who sign the petition.However, this
trust emanates from a fundamental assumption:the full text of the proposed
amendment is first shown to the people before they sign the petition, not after they
have signed the petition.
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it
cralaw

dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution that the initiative must be 'directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution

Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the
Constitution and not to its revision.In contrast, Congress or a constitutional
convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution.Article
XVII of the Constitution provides:

ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Sec. 1.Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members, or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Sec. 2.Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
proposed by the people through initiative x x x.(Emphasis supplied)

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the

cralaw

Constitution.The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its
Members.The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode
is through a people's initiative.

Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to '[A]ny
cralaw

amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution. In contrast, Section 2 of Article

XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to '[A]mendments to this
Constitution. This distinction was intentional as shown by the following deliberations
of the Constitutional Commission:

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.

cralaw

May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the

Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we
submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative.
This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report.
With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
The people may, after five years from the date of the last
plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to
this Constitution thru initiative upon petition of at least
ten percent of the registered voters.

This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report

No. 7.This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of
initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional
modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The
committee members felt that this system of initiative should be limited
to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to the
revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the
operation of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or
Revision. x x x x
xxxx
MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of
cralaw

initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the

sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms 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-
executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a
cralaw

while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of

amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates
a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was
conveyed by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to
cralaw

distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include

the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend,
which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the
cralaw

Committee.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
cralaw

xxxx
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed
cralaw

amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the

 word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the
distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"?
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision"
cralaw

should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it

can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.[31](Emphasis supplied)
cralaw

There can be no mistake about it.The framers of the Constitution intended, and
cralaw

wrote, a clear distinction between 'amendment and 'revision of the Constitution.

The framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional convention
may propose revisions to the Constitution.The framers intended, and wrote, that a
people's initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution.Where the
intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from the people the power
to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even
as they are empowered to propose amendments.

This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the United States.
Thus, in McFadden v. Jordan,[32] the Supreme Court of California ruled:

The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the

Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the adopting or
rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the Constitution and does not
purport to extend to a constitutional revision.x x x xIt is thus clear that
a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only through
ratification by the people of a revised constitution proposed by a
convention called for that purpose as outlined
hereinabove.Consequently if the scope of the proposed initiative
measure (hereinafter termed 'the measure') now before us is so broad
that if such measure became law a substantial revision of our present
state Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not
properly be submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first
agreed upon by a constitutional convention, and the writ sought by
petitioner should issue. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v. Appling:[33]

It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in

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
obvious from an examination of the measure here in question that it is
not an amendment as that term is generally understood and as it is
used in Article IV, Section 1.The document appears to be based in
large part on the revision of the constitution drafted by the
 'Commission for Constitutional Revision authorized by the 1961
Legislative Assembly, x x x and submitted to the 1963 Legislative
Assembly.It failed to receive in the Assembly the two-third's majority
vote of both houses required by Article XVII, Section 2, and hence
failed of adoption, x x x.
While differing from that document in material respects, the measure
sponsored by the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorough overhauling of
the present constitution x x x.
To call it an amendment is a misnomer.
Whether it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a measure
as can be submitted to the people through the initiative.If a revision, it
is subject to the requirements of Article XVII, Section 2(1); if a new
constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention called in the
manner provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x

Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative can
only propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits
initiatives to amendments.There can be no deviation from the constitutionally
prescribed modes of revising the Constitution.A popular clamor, even one backed
by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes
prescribed in the Constitution itself.
As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In re Initiative Petition No. 364:[34]
It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised or
amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument itself, and that
any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner other than the one
provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as extra-
constitutional and revolutionary.x x x xWhile it is universally conceded
that the people are sovereign and that they have power to adopt
a constitution and to change their own work at will, they must, in
doing so, act in an orderly manner and according to the settled
principles of constitutional law.And where the people, in adopting
a constitution, have prescribed the method by which the people may
alter or amend it, an attempt to change the fundamental law in
violation of the self-imposed restrictions, is unconstitutional. x x x
x(Emphasis supplied)

This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution,
cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear
command of the Constitution―that a people's initiative may only amend, never
revise, the Constitution.
The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment or
revision of the Constitution?If the Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a revision,
then the present petition should be dismissed for being outside the scope of Section
2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
 Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision
cralaw

of a constitution.One of the earliest cases that recognized the distinction described

the fundamental difference in this manner:
[T]he very term 'constitution implies an instrument of a permanent
and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its
revision indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles
upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the
instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the
other hand, the significance of the term 'amendment implies such an
addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will
effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it
was framed.[35](Emphasis supplied)

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution,
like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-
balances.There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the
constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the
constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds,
reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.Revision generally
affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects
only the specific provision being amended.
In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the
constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the
quantitative test and the qualitative test.The quantitative test asks whether the
proposed change is 'so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
'substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous
existing provisions.[36]The court examines only the number of provisions affected
and does not consider the degree of the change.
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in
the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will 'accomplish 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 or the fundamental powers of
its Branches.[38]A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also
includes changes that 'jeopardize the traditional form of government and the
system of check and balances.[39] chanroblesvi rtual lawlib rary

Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a
revision and not merely an amendment.Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's
proposed changes overhaul two articles -Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII
on the Executive -affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
Constitution.[40]Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic
plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature.

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when

cralaw

the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are
reduced into two.This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution.A shift
from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
system is a revision of the Constitution.Merging the legislative and executive
branches is a radical change in the structure of government.

The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power
alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the
Constitution.Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the
system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of
the Constitution.

By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from aBicameral-Presidential to
a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the
President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision,
not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group's proposed
changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter the framework of
government as set forth in the Constitution.Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading
member of the Constitutional Commission, writes:
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific
and separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an
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
dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan
contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of
provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the
entire document, to determine how and to what extent they should be
altered. Thus, for instance a switch from the presidential system to a
parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all
impact on the entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a
bicameral system to a unicameral system be because of its effect on
other important provisions of the Constitution.[41](Emphasis supplied)
In Adams v. Gunter,[42] an initiative petition proposed the amendment of
the FloridaState constitution to shift from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature.The issue turned on whether the initiative was defective and
unauthorized where [the] proposed amendment would x x x affect several other
provisions of [the] Constitution.The Supreme Court of Florida, striking down the
initiative as outside the scope of the initiative clause, ruled as follows:

The proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968

Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only
many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a 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 states of the
nation, except one, since the earliest days.It would be difficult to
visualize a more revolutionary change.The concept of a House and a
Senate is basic in the American form of government.It would not only
radically change the whole pattern of government in this state and
tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution, but would even affect
the physical facilities necessary to carry on government.
xxxx
We conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment
were adopted by the people at the General Election and if the
Legislature at its next session should fail to submit further
amendments to revise and clarify the numerous inconsistencies and
conflicts which would result, or if after submission of appropriate
amendments the people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos
would prevail in the government of this State.The same result would
obtain from an amendment, for instance, of Section 1 of Article V, to
provide for only a Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and there could
be other examples too numerous to detail.These examples point
unerringly to the answer.
The purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men and
women and many sessions of the Legislature in bringing about the
Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate inconsistencies and conflicts and
to give the State a workable, accordant, homogenous and up-to-date
document.All of this could disappear very quickly if we were to hold
that it could be amended in the manner proposed in the initiative
petition here.[43](Emphasis supplied)

The rationale of the Adamsdecision applies with greater force to the present
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
departments. The initiative in Adamsdid not even touch the executive department.
In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of the Florida
Constitution that would be affected by the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature. In the Lambino Group's present initiative, no less than 105 provisions of
the Constitution would be affected based on the count of Associate Justice Romeo J.
Callejo, Sr.[44]There is no doubt that the Lambino Group's present initiative seeks
far more radical changes in the structure of government than the initiative
in Adams.
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between 'amendment and
cralaw

'revision is only one of procedure, not of substance.The Lambino Group posits that
when a deliberative body drafts and proposes changes to the Constitution,
substantive changes are called 'revisions' because members of the deliberative
body work full-time on the changes.However, the same substantive changes, when
proposed through an initiative, are called 'amendments' because the changes are
made by ordinary people who do not make an occupation, profession, or vocation
out of such endeavor.

Thus, the Lambino Group makes the following exposition of their theory in their
Memorandum:
99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional
cralaw

provisions expressly provide for both amendment and 'revision when it

speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the same
provisions expressly provide only for 'amendment when it speaks of
the people.It would seem that the apparent distinction is based on the
actual experience of the people, that on one hand the common people
in general are not expected to work full-time on the matter of
correcting the constitution because that is not their occupation,
profession or vocation; while on the other hand, the legislators and
constitutional convention delegates are expectedto work full-time on
the same matter because that is their occupation, profession or
vocation.Thus, the difference between the words 'revision and
'amendment pertain only to the process or procedure of coming up
with the corrections, for purposes of interpreting the constitutional
provisions.
100. Stated otherwise, the difference between amendment and
cralaw

'revision cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the

correction. x x x x(Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied)

The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional convention

cralaw

had drafted the same proposed changes that the Lambino Group wrote in the
present initiative, the changes would constitute a revision of the Constitution. Thus,
the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes in the present initiative
constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the
changes. However, since the Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the
proposed changes, the changes are merely amendments to the Constitution. The
Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental law of
the land.
The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the
cralw

Constitution contradict the Lambino Group's theory. Where the intent of the framers
and the language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not
deviate from such categorical intent and language.[45]Any theory espousing a
construction contrary to such intent and language deserves scant consideration.
More so, if such theory wreaks havoc by creating inconsistencies in the form of
government established in the Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of any
jurisprudential mooring and inviting inconsistencies in the Constitution, only
exposes the flimsiness of the Lambino Group's position. Any theory advocating that
a proposed change involving a radical structural change in government does not
constitute a revision justly deserves rejection.

The Lambino Group simply recycles a theory that initiative proponents in American
jurisdictions have attempted to advance without any success. In Lowe v.
Keisling,[46]the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected this theory, thus:

Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes
to the constitution proposed by initiative.His theory is that Article XVII,
section 2 merely provides a procedure by which the legislature can
propose a revision of the constitution, but it does not affect
proposed revisions initiated by the people.
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a
wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through
the initiative process.They assert that
the distinction between amendment and revision is determined by
reviewing the scope and subject matter of the proposed enactment,
and that revisions are not limited to 'a formal overhauling of
the constitution.They argue that this ballot measure proposes far
reaching changes outside the lines of the original instrument, including
profound impacts on existing fundamental rights and radical
restructuring of the government's relationship with a defined group of
citizens.Plaintiffs assert that, because the proposed ballot measure
'will refashion the most basic principles of Oregon constitutional law,
the trial court correctly held that it violated Article XVII, section 2, and
cannot appear on the ballot without the prior approval of the
legislature.
We first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section
2(1), does not prohibit revisions instituted by initiative.In Holmes v.
Appling, x x x, the Supreme Court concluded that a revision of
the constitution may not be accomplished by initiative, because of the
provisions of Article XVII, section 2.After reviewing Article XVII,
section1, relating to proposed amendments, the court said:
 From the foregoing it appears that Article IV, Section
1, authorizes the use of the initiative as a means of amending
the Oregon Constitution, but it contains no similar sanction for
its use as a means of revising the constitution. x x x x

It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said:

'It is the only section of the constitution which provides the means
for constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an individual,
through the initiative, may place such a measure before the
electorate.x x x x
Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2,
does not apply to constitutional revisions proposed
by initiative.(Emphasis supplied)

Similarly, this Court must reject the Lambino Group's theory which negates the
express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution.

We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green for
amendments and at the other end red for revisions.Towards the middle of the
spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an
amendment or revision.The present initiative is indisputably located at the far end
of the red spectrum where revision begins.The present initiative seeks a radical
overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three co-equal
departments of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in several sections
and articles of the Constitution.
Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution
cralaw

without affecting any other section or article, the change may generally be
considered an amendment and not a revision.For example, a change reducing the
voting age from 18 years to 15 years[47] is an amendment and not a
revision.Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies
from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision.[48]Also, a
change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the
Presidency is an amendment and not a revision.[49]
The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or articles
of the Constitution other than the specific provision being amended.These changes
do not also affect the structure of government or the system of checks-and-
balances among or within the three branches. These three examples are located at
the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red end where the revision
sought by the present petition is located.
However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a
cralaw

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 word
republican with 'monarchic or 'theocratic in Section 1, Article II[50] of the
Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of government and the
fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution.Thus, each specific change 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 crafted system of
checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the existing
Constitution.

Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a

constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to
undertake a revision.A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions,
but also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered.Thus, constitutions
normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional
conventions to undertake revisions.On the other hand, constitutions allow people's
initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded
proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions.

In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed Section 2 of the Transitory
Provisions states:
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
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
Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably

cralaw

inconsistent with a prior law, the later law prevails.This rule also applies to
construction of constitutions.However, the Lambino Group's draft of Section 2 of the
Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that in
case of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision 'shall be amended to
conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government. The effect is to
freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one 'shall be amended,
which requires a future separate constitutional amendment.

Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment, petitioner Atty.
cralaw

Lambino readily conceded during the oral arguments that the requirement of a
future amendment is a surplusage.In short, Atty. Lambino wants to reinstate the
rule of statutory construction so that the later provision automatically prevails in
case of irreconcilable inconsistency.However, it is not as simple as that.
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of the
Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is between
a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the 'Parliamentary system of
government, and the inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a 'unicameral
parliamentary form of government.

Now, what 'unicameral parliamentary form of government do the Lambino Group's

proposed changes refer to ― the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New
Zealand models, which are among the few countries
with unicameral parliaments?The proposed changes could not possibly refer to the
traditional and well-known parliamentary forms of government ―the British,
French, Spanish, German, Italian, Canadian, Australian, or Malaysian models, which
have all bicameral parliaments.Did the people who signed the signature sheets
realize that they were adopting the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New
Zealand parliamentary form of government?

This drives home the point that the people's initiative is not meant for revisions of
the Constitution but only for amendments.A shift from the present Bicameral-
Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires harmonizing several
provisions in many articles of the Constitution.Revision of the Constitution through
a people's initiative will only result in gross absurdities in the Constitution.

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
unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
limiting the scope of a people's initiative to '[A]mendments to this Constitution.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic
requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope
of a people's initiative to amend the Constitution.There is no need to revisit this
Court's ruling in Santiagodeclaring RA 6735 'incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions' to cover the system of initiative to amend the
Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiagowill not change the outcome of
the present petition.Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiagowhich
effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the
Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution.

This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if
the case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds.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 resolved on some other
grounds.[51] chanroblesvi rtua llawli bra ry

Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional

cralaw

provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result
here because the present petition violates Section 2, Article 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 with RA 6735.
Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires
that the 'petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least
twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
signatories.Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the
'petition x x x as signatories.

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. Lambino,
Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed the petition and
amended petition as counsels for 'Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado,
Petitioners.In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group, claiming to act 'together with the
6.3 million signatories,merely attached the signature sheets to the petition and
amended petition.Thus, the petition and amended petition filed with the COMELEC
did not even comply with the basic requirement of RA 6735 that the Lambino Group
claims as valid.

The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735
cralaw

stating, 'No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the
electorate; x x x.The proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions, mandating
the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the
Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the form of
government.Since the present initiative embraces more than one subject matter,
RA 6735 prohibits submission of the initiative petition to the electorate.Thus, even
if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino Group's initiative will still fail.

4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in

Dismissing the Lambino Group's Initiative

In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc merely
followed this Court's ruling in Santiagoand People's Initiative for Reform,
Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.[52]For following this Court's ruling,
no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC.On this ground alone,
the present petition warrants outright dismissal.Thus, this Court should reiterate
its unanimous ruling in PIRMA:

The Court ruled, first, by a unanimousvote, that no grave abuse of

discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that itonly
complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in G.R. No.
127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June
10, 1997.

5. Conclusion

The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost 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 clearly specified
modes of amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.
To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in
unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of
the day.If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside the
constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the new dominant political group that
comes will demand its own set of changes in the same cavalier and unconstitutional
fashion.A revolving-door constitution does not augur well for the rule of law in this
country.

An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of the

total votes cast[53]−approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on 11
February 1987.That approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the full
expression of the people's sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed
modes for amending or revising the Constitution.

No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by

the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution contrary to the specific modes that
the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the
Constitution.The alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which
means subverting the people's sovereign will and discarding the Constitution.This is
one act the Court cannot and should never do.As the 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.
 Incantations of 'people's voice,people's sovereign will, or 'let the people decide
cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as prescribed in the
Constitution itself.Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people's fundamental covenant
that provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes easily susceptible to
manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures through false
promises.Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation's stability.
The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the 'people's voice.However, the
Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, in the
verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that 'ULAP maintains its unqualified
support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for
constitutional reforms.The Lambino Group thus admits that their 'peoples' initiative
is an 'unqualified support to the agenda of the 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 initiative.
This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the
Constitution.The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign will, is the
bible of this Court.This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution.To allow
this constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures,
to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
Constitution.To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison
d'etre.

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.

SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
REYNATO S. PUNO Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice
 Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOCANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate JusticeAssociate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
cralaw

conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice

Endnotes:
[1] Including Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP).
cralaw cra law

[2] This provision states: 'Requirements. x x x x

cralaw

(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must

cralaw

have 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 three per centum (3%)
of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution
may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification
of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years
thereafter.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
cra law

c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted,

cra law

approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may

be;
c.2. the proposition; cra law

c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;

cra law

c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;

cra law

c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and

cra law

c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred

cra law

(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top

of every page of the petition. cralaw

[3] This provision states: 'Verification of Signatures. ' The Election

cralaw

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 election. cralaw

[4] Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI will be changed thus:

cralaw

Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be

cralaw

vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of

as many members as may be provided by law, to be
apportioned among the provinces, representative districts, and
cities in accordance with the number of their respective
inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants
 per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio.
Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have
at least one member.
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen
cralaw

of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of

the election, a resident of his district for at least one year prior
thereto, and shall be elected by the qualified voters of his
district for a term of five years without limitation as to the
number thereof, except those under the party-list system which
shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be equal
to twenty per centum of the total membership coming from the
parliamentary districts. cra law

[5] Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII will be changed thus:

cralaw

Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of

cralaw

State.The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime

Minister, with the assistance of the Cabinet.The Prime Minister
shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of Parliament
from among themselves.He shall be responsible to the
Parliament for the program of government. cralaw

[6] Sections 1-5 of the Transitory Provisions read:

cralaw

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 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.
(2)In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or
removal from office of the incumbent President, the incumbent
Vice President shall 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 and responsibilities of
Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
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 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 Article VI are hereby retained and
renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26,
unless they are inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of
government, in which case, they shall be amended to conform
with a unicameral parliamentary form of government; provided,
however, that any and all references therein to 'Congress' ,
'Senate', 'House of Representatives' and 'Houses of 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 as 'Member[s] of Parliament and any and all references
to the 'President and or 'Acting President shall be changed to
read 'Prime Minister.
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1,
2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are
hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are
hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be
retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim
up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with Section 1
hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended so as to
conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of government;
provided however that any and all references therein to
'Congress' , 'Senate', 'House of Representatives' and Houses of
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 as 'Member[s] of Parliament and any and all references to
the President and or 'Acting President shall be changed to read
'Prime Minister.
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 have qualified.It shall be composed of the incumbent
Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and
the incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of
executive departments.
(2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a
Member of 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 convene the interim Parliament and
shall preside over its sessions for 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 Parliament
from among themselves.
(3)Within forty-five days from ratification of these
amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent
with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a
strong bureaucracy.
Section 5. (1)The incumbent President, who is the Chief
Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the
interim Parliament, 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 as may be delegated
to him by the incumbent President.
(2)The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held
simultaneously with the election of all local government
officials.Thereafter, the Vice President, as Member of
Parliament, shall immediately convene the Parliament and shall
initially preside over its session for the purpose of electing the
Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of all
its members, from among themselves. The duly elected Prime
Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers,
duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the
expiration of the term of incumbent President and Vice
President.cralaw
 [7]As revised, Article XVIII contained a new paragraph in Section 4 (paragraph 3)
and a modified paragraph 2, Section 5, thus:
Section 4. x x x x
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be
cralaw

Members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June

2010.
xxxx
Section 5. x x x x
cralaw

(2)The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the

cralaw

members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held

simultaneously with the election of all local government
officials.The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to
exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities of
the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of the
incumbent President and Vice President.c ralawc ralaw

[8] 336 Phil. 848 (1997); Resolution dated 10 June 1997.

cralaw cralaw

[9] The COMELEC held:

cralaw

We agree with the Petitioners that this Commission has the

cralaw

solemn Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws

and regulations relative to the conduct of, as in this case,
initiative.
This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other
provisions of the Constitution particularly on initiative.
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Sec. 2.Amendments to this Constitution may
likewise be directly proposed by the people
through initiative, upon a petition of at least
twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, ofwhich every legislative
district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein. x x
x.
The Congress shall provide for the
cralaw

implementation of the exercise of this right.

The afore-quoted provision of the Constitution being a non
self-executory provision needed an enabling law for its
implementation.Thus, in order to breathe life into the
constitutional right of the people under a system of initiative to
directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part,
the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolution, Congress
enacted Republic Act No. 6735.
However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case
of Santiago vs. Commission on Electionsstruck 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.
The Supreme Court likewise declared that this
Commission should be permanently enjoined from entertaining
or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of
the system.
 Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to
cralaw

meet the required minimum per centum of the total number of

registered voters, of which every legislative district is
represented by at least three per centumof the registered
voters therein, still the Petition cannot be given due course
since the Supreme Court categorically declared R.A. No. 6735
as inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments
to the Constitution.
This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental
importance ofthe right of the people under a system
ofinitiative.However, neither can we turn a blind eye to the
pronouncement of the High Court that in the absence of a valid
enabling law, this right of the people remains nothing but an
'empty right', and that this Commission is permanently
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
for initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Considering the foregoing, We are therefore constrained
cralaw

not to entertain or give due course to the instant

Petition.cralaw

[10] Arturo M. De Castro; Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo

cralaw

Baya; Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization

(PTGWO); Trade Union Congress of the Philippines; Sulong Bayan
Movement Foundation, Inc. cra law

[11] Onevoice Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon

cralaw

III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople and Carlos P. Medina,

Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.; Atty. Pete Quirino
Quadra; Bayan, Bayan Muna, Kilusang Mayo Uno,Head, Ecumenical
Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party,
Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students,Jojo Pineda, Dr. Darby
Santiago, Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Loretta Ann P. Rosales, and
Mario Joyo Aguja, Ana Theresa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Luwalhati Ricasa
Antonino; Philippine Constitution Association(PHILCONSA), Conrado F.
Estrella, Tomas C. Toledo, Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan,
Joaquin T. Venus, Jr.,Fortunato P. Aguas, and Amado Gat Inciong;
Senate of the Philippines; Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma.
Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador and Randall C. Tabayoyong,
Integrated Bar of
the Philippines, CebuCity and CebuProvince Chapters; Senate Minority
Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio R. Osmeňa III,
Jamby Madrigal, Jinggoy Estrada,Alfredo S. Lim and Panfilo Lacson;
Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino. cralaw

[12] This provision states: Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
cralaw

proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least

twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the
registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years. c ralaw

[13] I RECORD, 387-388.

cralaw cralaw

[14] During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Rene

cralaw

V. Sarmiento made the following report (I RECORD 389):

MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the
c ralaw

Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided

 to retain the system of initiative as a mode of amending the
Constitution. I made a survey of American constitutions and I
discovered that 13 States provide for a system of initiative as a
mode of amending the Constitution ' Arizona, Arkansas,
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon.
The initiative for ordinary laws only is used
in Idaho, Maine, Montana and South Dakota. So, I am happy
that this was accepted or retained by the Committee.
xxxx
The Americans in turn copied the concept of initiatives from the Swiss
beginning in 1898 when South Dakota adopted the initiative in its
constitution. The Swiss cantons experimented with initiatives in the 1830s.In
1891, the Swiss incorporated the initiative as a mode of amending their
national constitution. Initiatives promote 'direct democracy by allowing the
people to directly propose amendments to the constitution. In contrast, the
traditional mode of changing the constitution is known as 'indirect democracy
because the amendments are referred to the voters by the legislature or the
constitutional convention. cralaw

[15] Florida requires only that the title and summary of the proposed amendment
cralaw

are 'printed in clear and unambiguous language. Advisory Opinion to the

Attorney General RE Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, No.
90160, 22 January 1998, Supreme Court of Florida. c ralaw

[16] State ex. rel Patton v. Myers,127 Ohio St. 95, 186 N.E. 872 (1933);Whitman v.
cralaw

Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 125 P.2d 445 (1942); Heidtman v. City of Shaker
Heights,99 Ohio App. 415, 119 N.E. 2d 644 (1954);Christen v. Baker,
138 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-Ohio-2076. c ralaw

[17] 407 Mass. 949, 955 (1990).Affirmed by the District Court

cralaw

of Massachusetts 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 v. Town Council of Southbridge, 13 Mass.L.Rptr. 14
(2001). cralaw

[18] 89 P.3d 1227, 1235 (2004).

cralaw cralaw

[19] Stumpf v. Law, 839 P. 2d 120, 124 (1992).

cralaw
cralaw

[20] Exhibit 'B of the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006.
cralaw c ralaw

[21]Annex 'B of the Comment/Opposition in Intervention of Atty. Pete Quirino-

Quadra filed on 7 September 2006. c ralaw

[22]www.ulap.gov.ph. c ralaw

[23]www.ulap.gov.ph/reso2006-02.php.
cralaw

[24] The full text of the proposals of the Consultative Commission on Charter Change
can be downloaded at its official website atwww.concom.ph. cra law

[25] The Lambino Group's Memorandum, p. 5.

cralaw c ralaw

[26] Under the proposed Section 1(2), Article VI of the Constitution, members of
cralaw

Parliament shall beelected for a term of five years 'without limitation as to the
number thereof. c ralaw

[27] Under the proposed Section 4(1), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the
cralaw

Constitution, the interim Parliament 'shall continue until the Members of the
regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified.Also,
under the proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII, of the same Transitory
 Provisions, the interim Parliament 'shall provide for the election of the
members of Parliament. c ra law

[28] Under the proposed Section 4(3), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the
cralaw

Constitution, the interim Parliament, within 45 days from ratification of the

proposed changes, 'shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of,
this Constitution. c ralaw

[29] 448 So.2d 984, 994 (1984), internal citations omitted.

cralaw c ralaw

[30] 698 P.2d 1173, 1184 (1985).

cralaw
cralaw

[31] I RECORD 386, 392, 402-403.

cralaw c ralaw

[32] 196 P.2d 787, 790 (1948).See also Lowe v. Keisling,130 Or.App. 1, 882 P.2d 91
(1994). cralaw

[33] 392 P.2d 636, 638 (1964).

cralaw cralaw

[34] 930 P.2d 186, 196 (1996), internal citations omitted.

cralaw cra law

[35] Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113, 118-119 (1894).

cralaw cralaw

[36] AmadorValleyJointUnionHighSchool District v. State Board of Equalization, 583

cralaw

P.2d 1281, 1286 (1978). c ralaw

[37] Id. cralaw cralaw

[38] Legislature of the State of California v. EU, 54 Cal.3d 492, 509 (1991).
cralaw cralaw

[39] California Association of Retail Tobacconists v. State, 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 836
cralaw

(2003). cralaw

[40] See note 44, infra.

cralaw c ralaw

[41] Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A
cralaw

Commentary, p. 1294 (2003). cralaw

[42] 238 So.2d 824 (1970).

cralaw
cralaw

[43] Id.at 830-832.

cralaw cra law

[44] As stated by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. during the 26 September
cralaw

2006 oral arguments. cralaw

[45] Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November

cralaw

2003, 415 SCRA 44; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,
142 Phil. 393 (1970); Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil.
259 (1938). cralaw

[46] 882 P.2d 91, 96-97 (1994).On the merits, the Court in Lowe v. Keisling found
cralaw

the amendment in question was not a revision. cra law

[47] Section 1, Article V of the Constitution.

cralaw cra law

[48] Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution.

cralaw c ralaw

[49] Section 2, Article VII of the Constitution.

cralaw c ralaw

[50] This section provides: 'The Philippines is a democratic and republican State.
cralaw

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates

from them. cra law

[51] Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 760 (2001); Intia Jr. v. COA, 366
Phil. 273 (1999).
cralaw

[52] G.R. No. 129754, Resolution dated 23 September 1997.

cralaw c ralaw

[53] Presidential Proclamation No. 58 dated February 11, 1987, entitled 'Proclaiming
cralaw

the Ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines Adopted

by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the Ordinance Appended
thereto.