Lambino v.

Comelec
G.R. No. 174153
Oct. 25 2006

Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change
the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of
6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the
1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art
18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form of government to
unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of enabling law governing
initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to
implement the initiative petitions.

Issues:

1. Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of
the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.

2. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.

Ruling:

According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for
conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
Direct Proposal by the People

The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the
time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which
renders the initiative void.

The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision
through Initiatives

The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and
“revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may
propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a
radical change, therefore a constitutes a revision.

A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present
petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735

Petition is dismissed.
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC
G.R. NO. L-43150
OCTOBER 16, 1971

FACTS:

Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Commission on Elections

"from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the proposed constitutional
amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the
Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant
to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the subsequent
implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law in
so far as they direct the holding of such plebiscite and by also declaring the acts of the
respondent Commission performed and to be done by it in obedience to the aforesaid Convention
resolutions to be null and void, for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines.

After the election of the delegates held on November 10, 1970, the Convention held its
inaugural session on June 1, 1971. Its preliminary labors of election of officers, organization of
committees and other preparatory works over, as its first formal proposal to amend the
Constitution, its session which began on September 27, 1971, or more accurately, at about 3:30
in the morning of September 28, 1971, the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1.

ISSUE:

Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order, on its own fiat,
the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment reducing to eighteen
years the age for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution
proposed in the Convention's Organic Resolution No. 1 in the manner and form provided for in
said resolution and the subsequent implementing acts and resolution of the Convention
separately from the whole amended constitution?

RULING:

The court upheld the petitioner.

Constitutionality of piecemeal amendment

The Conventional Organic Resolution No.1 and subsequent acts and resolution is violative of the
constitution due to the following grounds:

1. The language of the constitutional provision aforequoted is sufficiently clear. lt says distinctly
that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose
"may propose amendments to this Constitution," thus placing no limit as to the number of
amendments that Congress or the Convention may propose. The same provision also as
definitely provides that "such amendment shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to
the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many "elections" or
plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments proposed by the same
constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the provision unequivocably says "an
election" which means only one.

2. Very little reflection is needed for anyone to realize the wisdom and appropriateness of this
provision. As already stated, amending the Constitution is as serious and important an
undertaking as constitution making itself.
GONZALES VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

GR. NO L-28196, NOVEMBER 9, 1967

CONCEPCION, C.J.: FACTS:

The Congress passed 3 resolutions simultaneously. The first, proposing amendments to

the Constitution so as to increase the membership of the House of Representatives from a
maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180. The second,
calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the convention to be composed
of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be elected in the general
elections. And the third, proposing that the same Constitution be amended so as to authorize
Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the
aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, became Republic
Act No. 4913 providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned
resolutions be submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections. The petitioner
assails the constitutionality of the said law contending that the Congress cannot simultaneously
propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the holding of a constitutional convention.

ISSUES:

(1) Is Republic Act No. 4913 constitutional?


(2) WON Congress can simultaneously propose amendments to the Constitution and call for the
holding of a constitutional convention?

RULING:

YES as to both issues. The constituent power or the power to amend or revise the
Constitution, is different from the law-making power of Congress. Congress can directly propose
amendments to the Constitution and at the same time call for a Constitutional Convention to
propose amendments.

Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto is not included in
the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. It is part of the inherent powers of the people
— as the repository of sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours— to make, and, hence, to
amend their own Fundamental Law.