WEE
this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such amendments shall
CASE NO. 1
ART. XVII, SEC. 1: AMENDMENT OR REVISION
Imbong v. COMELEC
FACTS: A petition for declaratory relief was filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of RA 6132
by petitioner Imbong, member of the Bar, taxpayer and interested in running as
a candidate for delegate to the Constitutional Convention, impugning the
constitutionality of RA 6132 (Imbong impugns only Par. 1 of Sec. 8), claiming
during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as such candidates.
Congress acting as a legislative body, enacted RA 6132, - The Constitutional
Convention Act 1970, which repealed RA 4919, implemented Resolution Nos. 2
& 4. This provision calls for Constitutional Convention to propose constitutional
amendments (Resolution No. 2) which shall be composed of 320 delegates
apportioned among existing representative districts according to the population;
provided that each district shall be entitled to two delegates (Resolution No. 4)
Section 8, par. 1 - ban against all political parties or organized groups from giving
support or representing a delegate to the convention.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Congress has the right to call upon a Constitutional
Convention as well as proposed amendments to the Constitution?
RULING: Yes. Congress, when acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to
Article XV of the [1935] Constitution, has full and plenary authority to propose
Constitutional amendments or to call a convention for the purpose, by a three-
fourths vote of each House in joint session assembled but voting separately.
Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 calling for a constitutional convention were passed by
the required three-fourths vote.
MAIN POINT: In relation to Section 1 of Article XVIII [1987 Constitution], Article
XV of the 1935 Constitution provides that “The Congress in joint session
assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of
the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
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.” The then governing provision on amendments.
NOTE: SC upheld the validity of RA 6312 and as to par. 1 of Section 8 - this is to avoid debasement of
electoral process and also to assure candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend
on their individual merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not
discriminate towards any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.
WEE
CASE NO. 2
ART. XVII, SEC. 1: AMENDMENT OR REVISION
Lambino v. COMELEC
FACTS: The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
petition to change the 1987 Constitution and then filed a petition with COMELEC
to hold a plebiscite for ratification under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
individuals constituting at least twelve per centum of all registered voters, with
each legislative district represented by at least three per centum of its registered
voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures. These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-
Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The
COMELEC, however, issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino
Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to
amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s ruling in Santiago v.
COMELEC declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.
ISSUE: (1)Whether or not the initiative filed the Lambino group is a revision and
not an amendment? (2) Whether or not the initiative violates with provision in
the Constitution disallowing revision through initiative?
RULING: (1) Yes. An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific
and separable provisions while a revision broadly implies a change that alters a
basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of
powers or the system of checks-and-balances. By any legal test and under any
jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of
one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment.
(2) Yes. Article XVII speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first
mode is through Congress upon 3/4 vote of all its Members. The second mode is
through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through a people’s
initiative (Section 2 of Article XVII). Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the
first and second modes, applies to “any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution.” In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third
mode, applies only to “amendments to this Constitution.” This distinction
was intentional as shown by the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
A people’s initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an
amendment of the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress
or a constitutional convention can propose both amendments and revisions
to the Constitution.
WEE
CASE NO. 3
ART. XVII, SEC. 2: INITIATIVE
Defensor - Santiago v. COMELEC
FACTS: Private respondent Atty. Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend
the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s
Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Section 2 [1987 Constitution],
which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an
order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and
thereafter set the case for hearing. The petitioners herein Santiago, et al. filed this
civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC
and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1)
That the Constitution can only be amended by people’s initiative if there is an
enabling law passed by Congress, to which no such law has yet been passed;
and (2) That RA 6735 indeed provides for three systems of initiative
namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statues and on local legislation. The two
latter forms of initiative were specifically provided for in Subtitles II and III
thereof but no provisions were specifically made for initiatives on the
Constitution. This omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to
amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 (An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor) was intended to include or
cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution and if so, whether the Act, as
worded, adequately covers such initiative?
RULING: No. RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on
amendments to the constitution but is unfortunately inadequate to cover
that system. It … provided for the details in the implementation of initiative and
referendum on national and local legislation … it failed, rather intentionally, to do
so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. In Section 2 of
Article XVII of the Constitution, this provision is obviously not self-
executory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by Congress. Without the
implementing legislation, it cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of
amending the constitution (initiative) is a mode of amendment which
bypasses Congressional action in the last analysis is still dependent on
Congressional action. The people cannot exercise such right, though
constitutionally guaranteed, if Congress for whatever reason does not provide for
its implementation.
NOTE: This ruling has been “reversed” on 20 November 2006 when ten justices of the SC ruled that
RA 6735 is adequate enough to enable such initiative.
WEE
CASE NO. 4
ART. XVII, SEC. 2: INITIATIVE
Lambino v. COMELEC
FACTS: The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
petition to change the 1987 Constitution and then filed a petition with COMELEC
to hold a plebiscite for ratification under Sec. 5(b) and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735.
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
individuals constituting at least twelve per centum of all registered voters, with
each legislative district represented by at least three per centum of its registered
voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had
verified the signatures. The COMELEC, however, issued its Resolution denying
due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing
initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s
ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the
initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
ISSUE: 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?
RULING: No. 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.
MAIN POINT: Section 2, Art. XVII XXX The essence of amendments “directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire
proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements
must be present: First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal.
No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a
petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential elements are
present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the
people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition.
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of
the petition, or attached to it. XXX This is an assurance that signatories have seen
the full text of the proposed amendments before – not after – signing. Moreover,
they must be informed at the time of signing XXX and failure to do so is “deceptive
and misleading” which renders the initiative void.
WEE
CASE NO. 5
ART. XVII, SEC. 4: RATIFICATION
Gonzales v. COMELEC
FACTS: On 16 March 1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed resolutions
RBH No. 1, 2 and 3 – (1) to increase the seats of the Lower House from 120 to 180; (2) to
convoke a Constitutional Convention of 1971; and (3) to amend the Constitution (Section 16,
Article VI) so they can become delegates themselves to the Convention.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which became RA 4913, providing that the
amendments to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No.
1 and 3 be submitted for approval by the people at the general elections on 14
November 1967. Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA 4913 and
for the prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain COMELEC from
implementing or complying with the said law. PHILCONSA also assails R.B.H No.
1 and 3.
ISSUE: Whether or not a plebiscite may be held simultaneously with a general
election?
RULING: Yes. There is no prohibition to the effect that a plebiscite must be held
on a special election. Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, the SC held
that there is nothing in this provision 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.
MAIN POINT: In relation to Section 4 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution,
Article XV of the [1935] Constitution provides: . . . The Congress in joint session
assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this
Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. Such amendments 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. The governing provision then as to amendments.
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.
Ahmad
CASE NO. 06
ART XVII SEC 4: Ratification
Tolentino v. COMELEC
Facts: The 1971 Constitutional Convention approved Organic Act Res. No. 1
amending section 1 of Art. V to lower the voting age from 21 to 18, President
Macapagal called upon the COMELEC to help the convention implement the said
resolution and so the Commission informed the latter of the schedule on an
advance plebiscite concerning only the proposal for partial amendment to take
place with the local elections on Nov. 1971,This was even before the rest of the
constitution which was then under revision had been approved. Succeeding
resolutions on campaigning and confirming the authority of the President of the
convention to implement the organic resolution were approved. Tolentino then
filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite contending that such plebiscite violates
the Constitution because the proposed amendment in question cannot be
presented to the people for ratification separately from each and all other
amendments to be drafted and proposed by the convention.

Issue: WON the Convention may call for a plebiscite on the sole amendment
contained in Organic resolution no. 1.

Ruling: No. It will be a violation of the Constitution since Art. XV, Sec. 1 of the
same provides that there should only be one “election” or plebiscite for the
ratification of all the amendments the Convention may propose. These
amendments should be submitted to them not separately from but together with
all the other amendments to be proposed.

Main point: In order for a plebiscite for the ratification may be validly held, it
must provide the voter not only sufficient time and ample basis for an intelligent
appraisal of the nature of the amendment per se but as well as its relation to the
other parts of the Constitution which it has to form a harmonious whole.