Case Digest (G.R. No. 174153)
Facts:
Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado, together with 6,327,952 Registered Voters, Petitioners, v. The Commission on Elections, Respondent, G.R. Nos. 174153 and 174299, October 25, 2006, Supreme Court En Banc, Carpio, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (the Lambino Group) began gathering signatures on 15 February 2006 for an initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution by changing Articles VI and VII (Legislative and Executive) to convert the country from a bicameral‑presidential to a unicameral‑parliamentary system, and by adding Transitory Provisions (proposed Article XVIII). On 25 August 2006 they filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) purporting to be supported by 6,327,952 verified signatories and filed an amended petition on 30 August 2006. The signature sheets circulated nationally contained an abstract/question but did not include or show an attached full text of the proposed constitutional changes; petitioners admitted printing only 100,000 copies of the draft they claimed to have circulated.
On 31 August 2006 the COMELEC en banc denied due course to the initiative petition, relying on this Courtʼs ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 127325, Mar. 19, 1997) that R.A. No. 6735 was “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement initiatives to amend the Constitution and that COMELEC was restrained from entertaining such petitions until Congress enacted a sufficient enabling law. The Lambino Group filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari and mandamus in this Court to set aside COMELECʼs resolution and compel it to give due course; separate petitioners in G.R. No. 174299 (the Binay Group) sought contempt proceedings and opposed COMELECʼs verification practice...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Lambino Groupʼs initiative petition comply with Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution (the peopleʼs initiative to propose amendments)?
- Should this Court revisit and reverse its ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate to implement initiatives to amend the Constitution?
- Did the COMELEC commit grave abuse of discretion in denying ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)