5. Lambino vs. Comelec - G.R. No. 174153

Case Digest
Topic : Amendment and Revision

Case : 5. Lambino vs. Comelec
GR No. 174153 Date: Oct-25-2006 Ponente: Carpio, J.
FACTS
Title of Petition Petitioners – Raul L. Lambino, Erico B. Aumentado
& Case Respondents – COMELEC
Background
This case resolves when
 Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to

change the1987 Constitution.
 Lambino Group submitted a petition to the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite to
ratify their initiatives.
 This request was made under Sections 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic
Act No. 6735, known as the Initiative and Referendum Act.
 The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.
 The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
 Mission: modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department) and
Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII
entitled "Transitory Provisions."
 These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system
to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
Question to the Plebiscite:
“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?”
 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 assured to Court the printing of 100,000 copies
because he himself caused the printing of these 100,000 copies
of draft petition.
Allegation of 
Petitioner
Contention of The respondent contended that

Respondent  There are 6.3 million signatories, but only 100,000 signatories could have
received with certainty one copy each petition
 assuming a 100 percent distribution.. 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.
 The Respondent also contended that majority of the 6.3 million people who
signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 Dela
D.
1
before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of the
proposed changes.
ISSUE
WON 1. WON Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's
initiative?
RULING
Complete 1. NO.
Conclusion
Premise 1 1. The
(Specific/
Legal Basis)
Premise 2 /  Reason why Lambino Group proposed Revision rather than Amendment
(General/  The Court ruled that, under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the
Legal Basis) Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment
+  A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as
Conclusion when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present
Constitution is reduced into two
 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 the
government.
 By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-
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,
 There can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a
revision—a change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may
be a revision and not an amendment
(please see other reason why proposal of Lambino is dismiss by SC)
Therefore, a proposed amendment of Lambino Group is Dismiss.
Notes:
 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
**
- first, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal, and
- second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition;
- The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition,
or attached to it,
(and if so attached), the petition must state the fact of such attachment.
This means two essential elements must be present.

1. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal.
- No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
2. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

D.
2
* 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.
Why? Rationale. 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.
THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT EXPRESSLY STATE THE NEED FOR FULL
TEXT OF PROPOSED AMENMENTS. THEN, WHY NEED?
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution
 the framers of the Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt the relevant
American jurisprudence on people’s initiative.
 An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full
text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud
on the people. KASI DI NILA ALM ANO PINIPIRMAHAN NILA
 REVISIONS:
- 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.
- people cannot propose revisions.
- change that alters a basic principle in the constitution,
- like altering the principle of separation of powers or
- the system of checks-and-balances,
- alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial
provisions of the constitution
 AMENDMENTS:
- people can propose amendments.
- change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved.
- Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution without
affecting any other section or article,
-
 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”—the court examines only the number of provisions affected
and does not consider the degree of change;

D.
3
- 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.
Reason why Lambino Group propose Revision rather than Amendment
 Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and
not merely an amendment
 A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great
co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution is reduced into two
 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 the government.
 By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-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,
 There can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a revision—a change in a
single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment

D.
4

5. Lambino vs. Comelec - G.R. No. 174153

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5. Lambino vs. Comelec - G.R. No. 174153

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5. Lambino vs. Comelec - G.R. No. 174153

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Digest

Topic : Amendment and Revision

 Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to

 Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only 100,000

Contention of The respondent contended that

 The essence of amendments :

This means two essential elements must be present.

2. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.

- only Congress or a constitutional convention may propose revisions to the Constitution.

 TWO-PART TEST: THE QUANTITATIVE TEST AND THE QUALITATIVE TEST

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 Dela

Reason why Lambino Group propose Revision rather than Amendment

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1 Dela

You might also like