Case Summary (G.R. No. 127325)
COMELEC’s Early Actions and Opposition
On 6 December 1996 COMELEC issued an order directing publication and set a 12 December 1996 hearing. Senator Roco and various groups moved to dismiss, contending COMELEC lacked jurisdiction over an unsigned petition. COMELEC nevertheless required memoranda from both sides.
Petitioners’ Arguments for Prohibition
Santiago, Padilla, and Ongpin filed a Rule 65 petition seeking prohibition, arguing:
• People’s initiative under Art. XVII, Sec. 2 requires implementing legislation, which Congress has not passed. RA 6735 omits a subtitle on constitutional initiative.
• Signature-gathering provisions in Resolution 2300 exceed COMELEC’s authority.
• Lifting term limits constitutes a revision, not an amendment, beyond initiative power.
• No congressional appropriation exists for the nationwide initiative.
Intervenors’ Contentions
Senator Roco, DIK/MABINI, IBP, and LABAN intervened, raising overlapping arguments: that RA 6735 does not truly cover constitutional amendments; that lifting term limits is a revision; that COMELEC Resolution 2300 is ultra vires; and that an initiative petition must include required signatures to confer jurisdiction.
Issue Formulation
The Court framed critical questions:
- Does RA 6735 cover initiative on constitutional amendments and is it adequate?
- Is Resolution 2300 valid for constitutional initiative?
- Does lifting term limits constitute revision or mere amendment?
- Does COMELEC have jurisdiction to entertain an unsigned petition seeking preparatory orders?
- Should the Supreme Court intervene despite the pending COMELEC proceeding?
Supreme Court’s Jurisdiction to Grant Prohibition
The Court found prohibition proper under Rule 65: COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion by entertaining Delfin’s undocketed, unsigned petition. No other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists, and procedural technicalities may be set aside given the issues’ national importance.
Inadequacy of RA 6735 to Implement Constitutional Initiative
Art. XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that “the Congress shall provide for the implementation” of people’s initiative to amend. Although RA 6735 intended to cover constitutional initiatives, it fails essential requirements:
• Its policy section lumps constitutional amendments with ordinary laws, giving no detailed subtitle or separate framework.
• It omits specific petition contents for constitutional amendments and lacks provisions on publication, verification procedures, or fiscal appropriations for a nation-wide drive.
• Its delegation to COMELEC for implementing rules is invalid: the Act does not supply a “complete” policy or “sufficient standard” to guide subordinate legislation, violating nondelegation principles.
Invalidity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 for Constitutional Amendments
Because RA 6735 cannot validly delegate rule-making for constitutional initiative, Resolution 2300’s provisions on that subject are likewise void. COMELEC’s reliance on its general rule-making power under Art. IX-C, Sec. 2 is misplaced absent a valid enabling statute that meets delegation st
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 127325)
Background
- The 1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Section 2, introduced for the first time a system of people’s initiative to directly propose amendments upon petition of at least 12% of all registered voters (with at least 3% in every legislative district).
- Prior charters (1935 and 1973) recognized only congressional proposal (3/4 vote) and constitutional convention as modes to amend or revise.
- Constitutional Commission debates reveal the framers intended this system as “innovative,” non–self-executory, and dependent on implementing legislation by Congress.
Delfin Initiative Petition and COMELEC Proceedings
- On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) an “Initiatory Petition” seeking:
• Fixing nationwide dates for signature gathering
• Publication of the petition and attached “Petition for Initiative” in newspapers
• Instructions to Municipal Registrars to aid in establishing signature stations - Delfin’s attached draft proposed amendment sought to lift term limits in Sections 4 & 7 (Article VI), Section 4 (Article VII), and Section 8 (Article X) of the Constitution by submitting the question:
“DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS…?” - COMELEC (Order UND 96-037) directed publication at petitioner’s expense and set a hearing for December 12, 1996.
- At that hearing, Senator Raúl Roco moved to dismiss Delfin’s petition for lack of jurisdiction, and COMELEC required memoranda within five days.
Petition for Prohibition by Santiago et al.
- On December 18, 1996, Senators Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition (Rule 65) in the Supreme Court, alleging:
• No implementing law has been passed to give effect to the people’s initiative clause; pending Senate Bill No. 1290 is not law.
• Republic Act 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act) omits any subtitle on constitutional initiative, evidencing congressional intent to defer to future legislation.
• RA 6735 takes effect upon publication, whereas constitutional amendments take effect only upon ratification.
• COMELEC Resolution 2300 is ultra vires as COMELEC lacks authority to implement constitutional initiative.
• Lifting term limits is a revision, not an amendment, beyond initiative power.
• No appropriation exists for people’s initiative plebiscites; involving national treasury and massive voter re-registration costs. - They sought a writ of prohibi