G.R. No. L-2598 - Hall vs. Piccio

Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution grants the people the right to propose amendments through initiative upon petition signed by at least 12% of registered voters (with at least 3% in each legislative district), but defers implementation to Congress.
No prior enabling law existed for constitutional initiative under the 1935 or 1973 Constitutions; likewise, the 1986 Constitutional Commission labeled the people’s initiative as “innovative.”

On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an “Initiatory Petition” seeking:

An order fixing dates for signature gathering nationwide;
Publication of the petition and proposed amendment in newspapers;
Instruction to municipal election registrars to assist in establishing signing stations.

The proposed amendment would delete term limits in Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution, asking voters: “Do you approve of lifting the term limits…?”
The COMELEC, en banc, issued an Order (UND 96-037) on December 6, 1996 directing publication and setting a hearing for December 12, 1996, but did not assign a docket number (“UND” = undocketed).

On December 18, 1996, petitioners Santiago, Padilla, and Ongpin filed a Rule 65 petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court, arguing:

No implementing law by Congress exists (Sen. Santiago’s S.B. 1290 was still pending);
R.A. 6735 (1989 Initiative and Referendum Act) fails to provide for constitutional initiative;
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires as no law authorizes rules for constitutional initiative;
Lifting term limits is a “revision,” not an “amendment,” beyond the initiative power;
No appropriation exists for a people’s initiative.

They alleged significant public expenditures (P180 million) for voter registration and signature drives, and sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the COMELEC and the Pedrosas (founders of the PIRMA signature group).
On December 19, 1996, the Supreme Court issued a TRO enjoining the COMELEC and the Pedrosas from proceeding with the initiative drive; private respondents and intervenors (Sen. Roco, DIK, MABINI, IBP, LABAN) later filed comments, oppositions, and petitions in intervention.

Whether R.A. No. 6735 (1989 Initiative and Referendum Act) adequately implements the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution under Article XVII, Section 2.
Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 validly prescribes rules for constitutional initiative, given alleged statutory gaps.
Whether lifting term limits constitutes an “amendment” or an impermissible “revision.”
Whether the COMELEC had jurisdiction to entertain Delfin’s “initiatory petition” lacking the required signatures.
Whether the Supreme Court properly took cognizance of the prohibition petition despite the pending COMELEC proceedings.