Case Summary (G.R. No. 129754)
Factual Background
Private respondent Jesus S. Delfin filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by Peoples Initiative, seeking an order fixing times for signature gathering, directing publication of the petition and attached proposed proposition, and instructing municipal election registrars to assist proponents. The attached unsigned Petition for Initiative proposed deleting term-limit provisions in specified sections of the Constitution and presented the plebiscitary question: "DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS..." Delfin stated that the petition would be submitted to the people and, after obtaining signatures from at least twelve percent of registered voters with three percent per legislative district, would be formally filed with COMELEC.
COMELEC Proceedings and Early Actions
COMELEC entered Delfin’s filing as UND 96-037 (INITIATIVE). The COMELEC Chairman issued an order of 6 December 1996 directing Delfin to publish the petition and setting a hearing for 12 December 1996. At that hearing Delfin, PIRMA representatives, intervenor-oppositor Senator Raul S. Roco, and representatives of the IBP, DIK, MABINI, and LABAN appeared. Senator Roco moved to dismiss the Delfin petition as not being the proper initiatory petition. COMELEC required memoranda. Petitioners thereafter filed a special civil action for prohibition in this Court and this Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin petition and enjoining the Pedrosas from conducting any signature drive.
Petitioners’ Principal Contentions
Petitioners argued that the peoples initiative to amend the Constitution under Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution is not self-executing and required implementing legislation by Congress. They contended that R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide adequate implementing provisions for constitutional initiative because it omitted a specific subtitle for constitutional initiative, failed to prescribe the contents and procedural details of a constitutional-initiative petition, and thus left essential matters to future legislation. Petitioners argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was ultra vires insofar as it purported to implement constitutional initiative. They also alleged that lifting term limits would constitute a revision, not an amendment, and therefore lay beyond the scope of peoples initiative; and they warned that allowing the Delfin petition to proceed would entail substantial public expenditure absent congressional appropriation.
Respondents’ Core Contentions
Private respondents maintained that R.A. No. 6735 already provided an enabling framework for initiative on the Constitution and that the absence of a separate subtitle was not fatal. They asserted that publication costs and administrative expenses would be borne by proponents and volunteers, not by the national government. Delfin characterized his filing as an initiatory pleading necessary to start the signature campaign and to place the campaign under COMELEC supervision. The COMELEC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contended that R.A. No. 6735 covered initiative on the Constitution, that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was validly promulgated under Section 20 of the statute and Article IX-C authority, and that lifting term limits would be an amendment and not a revision.
Intervenors’ Positions
Intervenors advanced competing contentions. Senator Roco and the IBP questioned whether the Delfin filing was the initiatory petition required under R.A. No. 6735 and maintained that COMELEC’s role in constitutional initiative is limited pending the filing of a petition bearing the required signatures. DIK and MABINI argued that the Delfin proposal effected a revision of the Constitution by changing its governing political philosophy and that R.A. No. 6735 was deficient in many particulars necessary for implementing constitutional initiative. LABAN echoed the petitioners’ claims of grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC.
Issues Formulated by the Court
The Court identified the pivotal issues as follows. First, whether R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution and, if so, whether it adequately covered such initiative. Second, whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 governing initiative on amendments was valid given any statutory gaps. Third, whether lifting constitutional term limits is a revision or an amendment. Fourth, whether COMELEC had jurisdiction to take cognizance of the sort of initiation petition Delfin filed—seeking orders to fix signature-gathering dates, instruct registrars, and publish an unsigned proposed petition. Fifth, whether the Supreme Court should entertain this special civil action while a matter remained pending before COMELEC.
Court’s Determination on Justiciability and Remedy
The Court held that the petition for prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court was a viable remedy despite the pendency of proceedings in COMELEC. The Court explained that COMELEC’s failure to act on a motion to dismiss and its insistence on proceeding rendered the writ appropriate because the proceedings before COMELEC were without or in excess of jurisdiction or involved grave abuse of discretion and because no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy existed. The Court noted that it could set aside procedural technicalities where issues of transcendental importance were involved.
Statutory Analysis of R.A. No. 6735
The Court concluded that, on legislative history and text, R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Nevertheless, the Court found the Act inadequate and incomplete insofar as it sought to implement constitutional initiative. The Court explained that the Act’s Statement of Policy improperly lifted language relating to ordinary initiative and referendum and that the Act failed to prescribe the contents of a petition for constitutional initiative, omitted a separate subtitle for constitutional initiative, and otherwise left essential procedural and substantive details unaddressed. The Court contrasted the detailed provisions applicable to national and local legislative initiatives with the relative paucity of provisions concerning constitutional initiative and concluded that Congress had not fully discharged its duty to provide for the implementation of the right.
Delegation, Rulemaking, and Validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
Applying the rule that delegated legislative power must be accompanied by a complete statutory policy and a sufficiently determinate standard, the Court held that the delegation in R.A. No. 6735 was insufficient to authorize COMELEC to promulgate comprehensive rules for constitutional initiative. The Court invoked the maxim potestas delegata non delegari potest and the established tests for valid delegation. It therefore declared void those parts of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 that prescribed rules and regulations for the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, concluding that COMELEC lacked authority to fill the Act’s material lacunae by subordinate legislation in that domain.
COMELEC’s Jurisdiction Over the Delfin Petition
The Court held that COMELEC had acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin petition. Under Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least twelve percent of registered voters, with at least three percent in every legislative district. The Court found that the Delfin filing contained no signatures and therefore did not constitute the initiatory petition that vests jurisdiction in COMELEC. The Court limited COMELEC’s permissible pre-filing activities to prescribing petition form, issuing certified totals of registered voters for districts, assisting in establishing signature stations, and verifying signatures after filing. COMELEC’s orders of 6 December 1996, the hearing of 12 December 1996, and the requirement for memoranda were treated as actions beyond its jurisdiction because no proper petition had been filed.
Disposition
The Court granted the petition for prohibition. The Court (a) declared R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and to have failed to provide a sufficient standard for subordinate legislation; (b) declared void those portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules for initiative on constitutional amendments; (c) ordered COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition (UND-96-037); and (d) made permanent the temporary restraining order against COMELEC and lifted it as against the private respondents. The Court reserved resolution on contempt.
Court’s Rationale as to Amendment versus Revision
Although many parties contested whether lifting term limits would be an amendment or a revision, the Court said further discussion of that issue was unnecessary for disposition because COMELEC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the filing in any event. The Court emphasized that the constitutional initiative provision was not self-executory and required adequate legislative implementation before COMELEC could validly process a constitutional-initiative petition.
Separate
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 129754)
Parties and Posture
- Petitioners were Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin who filed a petition for prohibition under Rule 65, Rules of Court.
- Respondents included Commission on Elections (COMELEC) and private respondents Jesus S. Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa in their capacities as founding members of PIRMA.
- Intervenors included Senator Raul S. Roco, DIK, MABINI, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and LABAN, who filed petitions in intervention or motions to intervene.
- The petition challenged COMELEC action on a petition filed by Delfin to initiate constitutional amendments by peoples initiative and sought prohibition and other reliefs.
- The Court granted due course to the petition and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and enjoining the Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive.
Key Facts
- Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to lift term limits by peoples initiative and sought orders fixing signature-gathering dates, publication of the petition, and assistance of municipal election registrars.
- The draft proposition sought deletion of term-limit provisions in Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution and asked: "DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS..."
- Delfin admitted that signatures had not yet been gathered and that his filing was an initiatory pleading to commence a signature campaign; the pleading was entered by COMELEC as UND (undocketed).
- COMELEC, through its Chairman, ordered Delfin to cause publication of the petition and set a hearing, prompting motions and oppositions and Roco’s motion to dismiss before COMELEC.
- Petitioners estimated that a peoples initiative would require general registration costing at least P180 million and would otherwise involve public funds and resources.
Relevant Constitutional Provision
- Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution was the primary constitutional basis, providing that amendments may be directly proposed by the people by initiative upon petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters with at least three per centum in every legislative district and that Congress shall provide for implementation.
Statutory Framework
- R.A. No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) was the statute enacted by Congress addressed throughout the case.
- COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws) was the administrative instrument COMELEC promulgated to implement initiative and referendum procedures.
- Parties also invoked the Omnibus Election Code and prior Supreme Court decisions interpreting COMELEC rule-making and initiative jurisprudence.
Procedural History
- Delfin filed his petition with COMELEC on 6 December 1996; COMELEC set a hearing for 12 December 1996 and directed publication.
- On 18 December 1996 petitioners filed this special civil action for prohibition under Rule 65, alleging lack of implementing law, inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735, ultra vires rule-making by COMELEC, and that the Delfin Petition was not the initiatory pleading required.
- This Court issued a temporary restraining order on 19 December 1996 enjoining COMELEC and the Pedrosas as noted.
- The parties submitted comments, memoranda, interventions, and the case was heard with memoranda filed within prescribed periods.
Issues Presented
- Whether R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution and whether the Act adequately covered that system.
- Whether the portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 governing initiative on constitutional amendments was valid given alleged legislative omissions.
- Whether lifting term limits as proposed would constitute a constitutional amendment or a revision outside the scope of initiative.
- Whether COMELEC had jurisdiction to take cognizance of a petition seeking orders for signature gathering, publication and registrar assistance absent the required signatures.
- Whether the Supreme Court should exercise original jurisdiction while a related matter was pending before COMELEC.
Contentions of the Parties
- Petitioners argued that Section 2, Article XVII is not self-executing and that Congress had not passed sufficient implementing legislation, that R.A. No. 6735 omitted essential provisions for constitutional initiative, that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was ultra vires, and that lifting term limits would be a revision not amendable by initiative.
- Delfin maintained that R.A. No. 6735 did cover constitutional initiative, that Resolution No. 2300 was valid under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 and Article IX-C, Section 2 of the Constitution, and that the proposal sought only an amendment.
- COMELEC through the Solicitor General asserted that R.A. No. 6735 recognized initiative on the Constitution, that the COMELEC had rule-making authority under Section 20 of the Act and Article IX-C, and that Resolution No. 2300 had been previously recognized by the Court.
- Intervenors varied in em