Lambino_v._COMELEC

8/3/2019 Lambino_v._COMELEC

1/3

RECENT JURISPRUDENCE POLITICAL LAW

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952

REGISTERED VOTERS v. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONSG.R. No. 174153, 25 October 2006, Carpio, J. (En Banc)

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

In support of an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution, Raul L. Lambino andErico B. Aumentado started gathering signatures on February 15, 2006. On August 25, 2006, theLambino group filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold a plebiscite

that will ratify their initiative petition under Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. The group alleged that they had the support of 6,327,952 or twelve per centum (12%) of allregistered voters, with three per centum (3%) of all legislative districts represented. They moved thatSections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Article VI (on the Legislative Department) and Sections 1, 2, 3, and4 of Article VII (on the Executive Department) be amended and a Transitory provision, ArticleXVIII, be added in the Constitution to aid the government in its shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. On August 30, 2006, theLambino group filed an Amended Petition modifying the proposed transitory provision.

The COMELEC, in a resolution dated August 31, 2006, denied the Lambino groupspetition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. TheCOMELEC invoked the Courts ruling in the 1997 case of Santiago v. Commissions on Electionsdeclaring Rep. Act No. 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause in the Constitution.

The Lambino group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion indenying due course to their petition. According to them, the Santiago case is not a binding precedent.They maintain that their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the will of the sovereignpeople.

ISSUES:1.) Whether or not the Lambino groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article

XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative;2.) Whether or not the Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring Rep. Act No. 6735

incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative clause

on proposals to amend the Constitution; and3.) Whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due

course to the Lambino groups petition

HELD:The petition is DISMISSED.

The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and


2/3


obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize the Constitution by cavalierlyamending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of amendment and revisionlaid down in the Constitution itself. To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift theConstitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of theday. If the Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside the constitutionallyprescribed 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 notaugur well for the rule of law in this country.

The Lambino petition miserably failed to comply with the basic constitutional requirementsregarding peoples initiative as provided for under Art. XVII, Sec. 2 of the Constitution.

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision thatallows a peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. Basing upon thedeliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission and the State constitutions of the United Statesof America, from which the concept of peoples initiative was borrowed, an amendment is directlyproposed by the people through initiative upon a petition only if the people sign on a petition thatcontains the full text of the proposed amendments. 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 bythe people. This means two essential elements must be present: (1)the people must author and thussign the entire proposal, and (2)as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in apetition. A copy of the proposed amendment must be shown to the people before they cast theirsignatures on the petition to avoid deception or fraud. An initiative that gathers signatures from thepeople without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely adeception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. The full text of the proposedamendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, thepetition must state the fact of such attachment.

The Lambino group did not attach to their petition a copy of the paper that the peoplesigned as their initiative petition, instead, they presented in Court a copy of a signature sheet. The

said sheet, however, did not contain a single word, phrase or sentence of the text of the proposedchanges nor did it state that the text of the proposed changes was attached to it. There was noallegation therein that the people have seen the proposed changes before they cast their signatures onit. It is also doubtful that the Lambino group has prepared, printed and circulated, from February toAugust 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the petition or the amended petitionthey filed with the COMELEC on August 30, 2006. Even assuming that such copies were, indeed,circulated, the Lambino group admitted of having printed only about 100,000 copies. Therefore, thesaid copies did not reach all the 6.3 million signatories to the petition.

Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution limits the scope of a peoples initiative to amendmentsto the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution intended, and wrote, that only Congress or aconstitutional convention may propose revisions of the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that a peoples initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. Amendment

envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable provisions, the guiding originalintention of which is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meetnew conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged tobe dangerous. Revision, on the other hand, broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle inthe constitution. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution,as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. Amendment generally affectsonly the specific provision being amended, while revision generally affects several provisions of theconstitution.


3/3


A two-part test had been developed in determining whether a proposed change is anamendment or a revision. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive inits provisions as to change directly the substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion oralteration of numerous existing provisions. The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects ofthe proposed change in the constitution, i.e., whether the change will accomplish such far reachingchanges in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.

The Lambino petition is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, theproposed changes overhaul two articles Article VI on the Legislature and Article VII on theExecutive affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposedchanges alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, andfrom a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. A change in the structure of government is a revisionfor it alters the separation of powers in the Constitution, hence, a change in a basic principle in theConstitution.

There is no need to revisit Santiago in view of the Lambino groups glaring failure to complywith the constitutional requirements

The present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Groups glaring failureto comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. A revisit ofSantiago v. COMELECis nolonger necessary because an affirmation or reversal of the said case will not change the outcome ofthe Lambino petition. Courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can beresolved on some other grounds. Even assuming that Rep. Act No. 6735 is valid to implement theconstitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result herebecause the present petition violates Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution.

COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion because it merely followed the Courtsruling

In dismissing the Lambino petition, the COMELEC en bancmerely followed the Courts

ruling in Santiago and Peoples Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action(PIRMA) v. COMELEC. Forfollowing the Courts ruling, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC.

Documents

Lambino_v._COMELEC