Case Digest (G.R. No. 129754)
Facts:
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin v. Commission on Elections, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa & Carmen Pedrosa, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, Supreme Court En Banc, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioners (Santiago, Padilla, Ongpin) filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and private respondents Jesus S. Delfin and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (identified as founding members of PIRMA), challenging the COMELEC’s action in relation to a petition for people's initiative to amend the Constitution. Delfin had filed an initiatory pleading with the COMELEC on 6 December 1996 (docketed UND 96-037), seeking an order fixing dates for signature-gathering, publication of the petition and assistance by election registrars; attached was a draft Petition for Initiative proposing to lift term limits in several constitutional provisions. The COMELEC issued an order directing publication and set a hearing on 12 December 1996; it heard parties and required memoranda thereafter.
On 18 December 1996 petitioners filed the Rule 65 petition in the Supreme Court, arguing among other things that: the people's-initiative provision in Article XVII, Section 2 is not self-executory and needed implementing legislation; Republic Act No. 6735 was defective or deliberately omitted provisions on constitutional initiatives; COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was ultra vires as to constitutional initiative; lifting term limits would be a revision, not an amendment; and that the initiative would entail public expenditures without appropriation. The Court issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on 19 December 1996 enjoining COMELEC from proceeding on the Delfin Petition and enjoining the Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive.
COMELEC, Delfin, PIRMA representatives and multiple intervenors (including Senator Raul S. Roco, DIK, MABINI, the IBP, and LABAN) filed comments and petitions in intervention. COMELEC confirmed the TRO nunc pro tunc on 14 January 1997 and the case was heard and memoranda filed. The parties litigated five core issues (whether RA 6735 covers constitutional initiative and is adequate; validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 as to constitutional initiative; whether the proposed relief is amendment or revision; whether COMELEC could take cognizance of an initiatory petition lacking signatures; and whether the Supreme Court should act despite a pending COMELEC matter). The Court took the petition for prohibition under Rule 65 and, after full briefing and hearing, rendered judgment on 19 March 1997.
The Supreme Court granted the petition: it declared R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to implement initiative on constitutional amendments, voided those parts of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is it proper for the Supreme Court to exercise jurisdiction by a Rule 65 petition for prohibition when there is a pending petition before the COMELEC?
- Did Congress, by R.A. No. 6735, intend to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution and, if so, is the Act adequate to implement that system?
- Is that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules for initiative on constitutional amendments valid?
- Does the Delfin initiatory pleading (filed without the required signatures) vest the COMELEC with jurisdiction to take cognizance, order publications, and instruct registrars as requested?
- Would the proposed lifting of te...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)