Title
People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action vs. Commission on Elections
Case
G.R. No. 129754
Decision Date
Sep 23, 1997
A case challenging the validity of a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution, focusing on inadequate enabling laws, COMELEC authority, and the distinction between amendment and revision.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129754)

Legal Issue: People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution

The core issue is whether the people’s right to directly propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution through the initiative system under Section 2, Article XVII can be exercised absent a valid implementing law, and whether COMELEC acted with jurisdiction in entertaining the Delfin Petition requesting assistance in signature gathering for constitutional amendment through initiative.

Background and Procedural History

Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed a petition with COMELEC seeking orders to fix time for signature gathering nationwide, to mandate necessary publications, and to instruct municipal election registrars to assist in signature verification for a proposed amendment lifting term limits for certain elected officials. The petition did not yet contain the required signatures but sought COMELEC’s imprimatur and regulatory assistance. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition before the Supreme Court challenging COMELEC's jurisdiction to entertain a petition lacking the required number of voter signatures and contending the absence of an adequate implementing law.

Constitutional Provision on Initiative and Its Legislative Implementation

Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution expressly grants the people the power to propose constitutional amendments through initiative upon petition of at least 12% of all registered voters, with a 3% minimum in every legislative district, limiting such initiative to amendments (not revisions), and mandating Congress to provide implementing legislation.

While the initiative system was described by the 1986 Constitutional Commission as “innovative” and unprecedented in Philippine constitutional history, the provision is not self-executory; it depends on Congress enacting a law to provide procedural mechanics.

Republic Act No. 6735 and Its Sufficiency

Republic Act No. 6735 was enacted as the system of initiative and referendum but focuses primarily on initiative concerning laws and local ordinances, with scant and insufficient provisions specifically addressing initiative for constitutional amendments. It defines initiative broadly, including constitutional amendments, and sets forth signature requirements matching the Constitution. However, it lacks fundamental procedural details for constitutional initiatives, such as the content and form of petitions specifically for amendments, procedure for verification, and the conduct of plebiscites.

Notably, the Act omits a dedicated subtitle or comprehensive guidelines for initiatives on constitutional amendments, contrary to its detailed treatment of national and local legislative initiatives. The Bicameral Conference Committee’s records reveal caution and deficiency in addressing constitutional initiatives adequately.

COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 and Its Validity

COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, issued pursuant to R.A. No. 6735, sets rules for conducting initiatives, including constitutional amendment initiatives. However, given R.A. No. 6735’s inadequacy and absence of a sufficient legislative standard governing constitutional initiatives, the COMELEC has no valid authority to promulgate binding rules and regulations for such initiatives. The power to enact implementing rules for constitutional amendments by initiative must stem from a valid law with explicit standards and guidelines.

Jurisdiction of COMELEC Over the Delfin Petition

Under the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735, COMELEC’s jurisdiction over a people's initiative to amend the Constitution arises only when a petition signed by the required number of registered voters is filed. The Delfin Petition lacked these signatures as it sought merely to initiate the signature gathering process and to avail of COMELEC's assistance and resources. This preliminary filing does not confer jurisdiction on COMELEC to act substantively on the initiative.

The COMELEC’s acceptance and partial action on this petition exceeded its jurisdiction and constituted grave abuse of discretion, necessitating judicial intervention via prohibition.

Nature of Proposed Constitutional Change: Amendment vs. Revision

Although the substantive issue of whether lifting term limits constitutes an amendment or a revision was raised, the Court ruled it unnecessary to resolve given the procedural infirmities of the petition. It noted that the Constitution limits initiative to amendments, not revisions. The distinction was significant but ultimately academic for the purpose of the current ruling.

Supreme Court Rulings and Reasoning

  1. The petition for prohibition is viable despite the ongoing case before COMELEC as COMELEC acted without jurisdiction by entertaining a petition lacking the required valid initiatory petition.
  2. The constitutional provision on initiative is not self-executory and requires implementing legislation from Congress.
  3. R.A. No. 6735, while intended to cover initiatives on constitutional amendments, is insufficient and incomplete since it fails to provide detailed rules and procedures necessary to implement that system effectively.
  4. Consequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it governs initiatives on constitutional amendments, is void for lack of valid legislative basis and standards.
  5. COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition, which lacked the required signatures and proper initiatory petition.
  6. COMELEC is permanently enjoined from taking cognizance of any initiative petition to amend the Constitution until a valid enabling law is enacted.

Separate and Dissenting Opinions

  • Justice Francisco argued that R.A. No. 6735 adequately covers initiative on constitutional amendments and that COMELEC resolution is valid. He agreed COMELEC should not entertain petitions without the required signatures but cautioned against rendering the people’s constitutional right to initiate amendments ineffectual. He emphasized protecting freedom of speech and participation in political processes, including signature gathering.
  • Justice Panganiban concurred with dismissing the Delfin Petition for prematurity due to lack of signatures but dissented from declaring R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution 2300 invalid, viewing them as adequate to implement the constitutional initiative right. He emphasized upholding popular sovereignty and people empowerment.
  • Justice Puno similarly contended that R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution 2300, when interpreted liberally in light of legislative intent, sufficiently implement the people’s initiative right, and urged respect for legislative enactment and the principle of statutory construction favoring effectivity of laws.
  • Justice Vitug stressed the insufficiency of the Delfin Pe

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms