Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Lambino vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006


HELD:
FACTS:
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution
under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative I. The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed
and Referendum Act. constitutional amendment”
a) A draft of the proposed amendments must be ready and shown to
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 the people before they sign
individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, b) Envisioned that the people should sign on the proposal itself
with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its c) The proponents must prepare that proposal and pass it around for
registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election signature.
registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
The essence the clause “directly proposed by the people through initiative
The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the
Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of Article VII people.
(Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.”
These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Two elements must be present as intended by the framers of the
Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. Constitution:
a) First, the people, and no other agent or authorized representative,
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or
COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory representative can sign on their behalf.
Provisions) of their initiative. b) Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735
inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed
Constitution. amendments is attached or together with the petition for it to be shown
first to the people before they express their agreement to the petition and
ISSUES: indicate their signature.

1. Whether 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 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; and

F. Degamo (2019)
II. The requirement to write or attach the petition on the signature sheets is
not expressly stated in the Constitution. However the framers in their
deliberation intended that the full text be shown to the people before they
sign. This is the spirit behind the clause “directly proposed by the people
through an initiative upon a petition”.

III. The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court
a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The
Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet after
the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their
Memorandum on 11 October 2006.

a.
Even if the Lambino Group did attach the full text of the proposed
amendments, they only printed very limited copies which would not
justify the 6.3M signatories.
b. Grand deception because important provisions in the proposed
amendment were even shown to the people. Verbal representation is
not enough.
a. Lifting of term limits
b. Interim Parliament shall decide on the expiration of their term
c. Interim Parliament can convene to further propose amendments
or revision to the Constitution.
2. The People’s Initiative is not meant for revisions of the Constitution but only for
amendments. The proposal to shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to Unicameral-
Partliamentary system requires harmonizing of many provisions in the Constitution.
An amendment through an initiative is there void and unconstitutional.

2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

There is no need to revisit this Court’s ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735


“incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to cover the
system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of
Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court must
decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply
with the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on
amendments to the Constitution.

F. Degamo (2019)