Case Digest (G.R. No. 127325)
Facts:
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin v. Commission on Elections, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa & Carmen Pedrosa, in their capacities as founding members of the Peoples Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, the Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner-intervenors and other petitioners challenged the Commission on Elections' (COMELEC) handling of a petition filed by private respondent Jesus S. Delfin (the "Delfin Petition"), which sought COMELEC orders fixing dates for nationwide signature-gathering, instructing municipal election registrars to assist in establishing signing stations, and ordering publication of the proposed initiative text to lift term limits in specified constitutional provisions. Delfin filed his initiatory pleading with COMELEC on 6 December 1996; COMELEC assigned it as UND 96-037 (UND meaning undocketed), ordered its publication at Delfin’s expense, and set a hearing for 12 December 1996.
On 18 December 1996 petitioners (Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, Maria Isabel Ongpin) filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65, asserting (inter alia) that (a) the peoples-initiative provision in Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executing and requires implementing legislation; (b) R.A. No. 6735 (the Initiative and Referendum Act) was intended to cover constitutional initiatives but is deficient and lacks a subtitle and necessary provisions for constitutional initiative; (c) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires insofar as it attempts to implement initiative on constitutional amendments; (d) lifting term limits would amount to a revision, not an amendment; and (e) COMELEC’s actions would impose heavy public expenditures. The petition asked the Court to enjoin COMELEC from proceeding on the Delfin Petition.
This Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 19 December 1996 enjoining COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and preventing Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a signature drive. Multiple parties sought to intervene: Senator Raul S. Roco, DIK, MABINI, IBP, and LABAN; several filed petitions in intervention arguing either that R.A. 6735 sufficed to implement constitutional initiative (Roco, Delfin, COMELEC via OSG) or that it did not (DIK/MABINI, IBP, petitioners). COMELEC and private respondents filed comments and memoranda; Delfin and PIRMA argued R.A. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 authorized the COMELEC’s supervision of signature-gathering and that lifting term limits was an amendment, not a revision.
The Court heard and required memoranda. It formulated five pivotal issues (procedural appropriateness of Supreme Court review despite a pending COMELEC matter; whether R.A. 6735 intended to and adequatel...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is it proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of this special civil action for prohibition while a related petition is pending before the COMELEC?
- Did R.A. No. 6735 intend to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and if so, does the Act adequately implement that system?
- Is that part of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules for initiative on constitutional amendments valid?
- Did COMELEC have jurisdiction, or did it commit grave abuse of discretion, in entertaining the Delfin Petition that lacked the requisite signatures and sought pre-filing orders (fixing signature-gathering dates, publication, assistance of election registrars)?
- Would the proposed lifting of term limits constitute an amendment or a revision of the Constitution? (Note...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)