Case Summary (G.R. No. 174153)
Key Dates
February 15, 2006 – Signature gathering began.
August 25, 2006 – Original petition filed with COMELEC.
August 30, 2006 – Amended petition submitted.
August 31, 2006 – COMELEC denied due course.
September 26, 2006 – Oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Applicable Law
1987 Philippine Constitution, Article XVII, Section 2 (people’s initiative).
Republic Act No. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act).
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (implementing rules on initiative).
Background and Petition
Petitioners sought a COMELEC-supervised plebiscite under Section 2, Article XVII and RA 6735 to ratify amendments to Articles VI and VII and add transitory provisions (Article XVIII) for the planned shift to a parliamentary-unicameral system. They attached signature sheets they claimed represent at least 12 percent of registered voters, with 3 percent in every legislative district.
COMELEC’s Action and the Santiago Ruling
On August 31, 2006, COMELEC dismissed the petition for initiative, citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Santiago v. COMELEC, which held RA 6735 “inadequate” to implement constitutional amendments by initiative and permanently enjoined COMELEC from entertaining such petitions until Congress enacts a sufficient law.
Issues Presented
• Compliance with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution (12 percent/3 percent signature thresholds).
• Adequacy of RA 6735 to implement constitutional initiatives.
• Whether COMELEC abused its discretion in dismissing the petition.
• Nature of the proposed changes: amendments or revisions.
Failure to Comply with Initiative Rules
– Direct proposal requirement: Petition was filed by two individuals “as representatives,” not by the signatories themselves.
– Full-text requirement: Signature sheets did not contain or attach the complete text of proposed constitutional changes, denying signatories an informed vote.
– One-subject rule: The petition covered multiple subjects (government structure, legislative procedure, transitory provisions), violating RA 6735’s prohibition on multi-subject initiatives.
Amendments vs. Revisions
The proposed shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system would fuse legislative and executive powers, dismantling separation of powers and altering fundamental constitutional structures. Such sweeping changes constitute a revision, not a mere amendment, and thus fall outside the scope of people’s initiative under Article XVII, Section 2.
Inadequacy of RA 6735 and COMELEC’s Non-Discretionary Duty
Even if RA 6735 were upheld as adequate, petitioners failed to comply with its provisions (proper verification by election registrars, petition form and content). COMELEC’s dismissal merely followed binding precedent in Santiago and PIRMA v. COMELEC; complying with a Supreme Court en banc decisi
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 174153)
Background and Consolidation
- Two petitions consolidated: G.R. No. 174153 by Lambino Group (6,327,952 voters) asking COMELEC to set a plebiscite on proposed charter amendments, and G.R. No. 174299 by Binay Group seeking contempt citations against COMELEC.
- Multiple intervenors on both sides, including civil-society organizations, political parties and religious groups.
Antecedent Facts
- 15 February 2006: Lambino Group began gathering signatures to amend Articles VI and VII and add Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) for a shift to a unicameral-parliamentary system.
- 25 August 2006: Filed petition under Sections 5(b),(c) and 7 of RA 6735 claiming 6.3 million signatures (12% of voters, 3% per district) verified by election registrars.
- 30 August 2006: Filed amended petition refining proposed Article XVIII text.
COMELEC Resolution
- 31 August 2006: COMELEC denied due course, invoking this Court’s Santiago v. COMELEC ruling that RA 6735 is “inadequate” to implement constitutional initiative and enjoins any such petition pending a valid enabling law.
Issues Presented
- Whether the petition complied with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution (12% of voters, 3% per district).
- Whether the proposed changes are “amendments” or impermissible “revisions” of the Constitution.
- Whether RA 6735 and COMELEC Resolution 2300 suffice as enabling law for constitutional initiative.
- Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Petition in G.R. No. 174153 dismissed for failu