AMMENDMENTS 1-3

Ramon Gonzales vs COMELEC

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1967/nov1967/gr_l-28196_1967.html

21 SCRA 774 Political Law Amendment to the Constitution Political Question vs

Justiciable Question

FACTS
In June 1967, Republic Act 4913 was passed. This law provided for the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite for the proposed amendments to the Constitution. It was provided in the said law
that the plebiscite shall be held on the same day that the general national elections shall be
held (November 14, 1967). This was questioned by Ramon Gonzales and other concerned
groups as they argued that this was unlawful as there would be no proper submission of the
proposals to the people who would be more interested in the issues involved in the general
election rather than in the issues involving the plebiscite.
Gonzales also questioned the validity of the procedure adopted by Congress when they
came up with their proposals to amend the Constitution (RA 4913). In this regard, the
COMELEC and other respondents interposed the defense that said act of Congress cannot
be reviewed by the courts because it is a political question.
ISSUE:
I. Whether or not the act of Congress in proposing amendments is a political question.
II. Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general election.
HELD:
I. No. The issue is a justiciable question. It must be noted that the power to amend as well as
the power to propose amendments to the Constitution is not included in the general grant of
legislative powers to Congress. Such powers are not constitutionally granted to Congress.
On the contrary, such powers are inherent to the people as repository of sovereignty in a
republican state. That being, when Congress makes amendments or proposes amendments,
it is not actually doing so as Congress; but rather, it is sitting as a constituent
assembly. Such act is not a legislative act. Since it is not a legislative act, it is reviewable by
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the final say whether or not such act of the
constituent assembly is within constitutional limitations.
II. Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must only be held on a special
election. SC held that there is nothing in this provision of the [1935] Constitution to indicate
that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The circumstance that
the previous amendment to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification
in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under the
circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit proposed
amendments for ratification in general elections.
Note: **Justice Sanchez and Justice JBL Reyes dissented. Plebiscite should be scheduled
on a special date so as to facilitate Fair submission, intelligent consent or rejection.
They should be able to compare the original proposition with the amended proposition.
 AMMENDMENTS 1-3

Defensor Santiago vs COMELEC

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/mar1997/127325.htm

Political Law Revision vs Amendment to the Constitution

FACTS

On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the
Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples Initiative The COMELEC
then, upon its approval, a.) set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the
country, b.) caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general
circulation, and c.) instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in
establishing signing stations. On 18 Dec 1996, MD Santiago et al filed a special civil action
for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues among others that the Peoples
Initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution NOT a revision thereof. The extension
or the lifting of the term limits of those in power (particularly the President) constitutes
revision and is therefore beyond the power of peoples initiative.

ISSUE: Whether the proposed Delfin petition constitutes amendment to the constitution or
does it constitute a revision.

HELD: The Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment to, but a revision of, the
Constitution because, in the words of Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ., it would involve a change
from a political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to one that accepts unlimited tenure;
and although the change might appear to be an isolated one, it can affect other provisions,
such as, on synchronization of elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal
access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision
cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the
Constitution, is limited to amendments. The prohibition against reelection of the President
and the limits provided for all other national and local elective officials are based on the
philosophy of governance, to open up the political arena to as many as there are Filipinos
qualified to handle the demands of leadership, to break the concentration of political and
economic powers in the hands of a few, and to promote effective proper empowerment for
participation in policy and decision-making for the common good; hence, to remove the term
limits is to negate and nullify the noble vision of the 1987 Constitution.
 AMMENDMENTS 1-3

Lambino & Aumentado vs COMELEC

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html

Amendment vs Revision

Lambino was able to gather the signatures of 6,327,952 individuals for an initiative petition to
amend the 1987 Constitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12 per centum of
all registered voters with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3 per
centum of its registered voters. This has been verified by local COMELEC registrars as well.
The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to modify Secs 1-7 of Art VI and Sec 1-4
of Art VII and by adding Art XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions. These proposed changes
will shift the president bicameral-presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. The COMELEC, on 31 Aug 2006, denied the petition of the Lambino group due
to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution this is
in pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC. Lambino et al contended that the
decision in the aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within that case.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec 2 ArtXVII of the
1987 Constitution.

HELD: The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The
proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and
disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present
favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their
proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures.
Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements
in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied
with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures that the petition contained,
or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. The proponents
failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed amendments were able to read and
understand what the petition contains. Petitioners merely handed out the sheet where
people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments.

Lambino et al are also actually proposing a revision of the constitution and not a mere
amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment
should only contain one issue. The proposed amendment/s by petitioners even includes a
transitory provision which would enable the would-be parliament to enact more rules.

There is no need to revisit the Santiago case since the issue at hand can be decided upon
other facts. The rule is, the Court avoids questions of constitutionality so long as there are
other means to resolve an issue at bar.
 AMMENDMENTS 1-3

***NOTE: On November 20, 2006 in a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Lambino
Group 10 (ten) Justices of the Supreme Court voted that Republic Act 6735 is adequate.

HOWEVER, this was a mere minute resolution which reads in part:

Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions
already given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act No. 6735 is
sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution thru a peoples initiative.