Defensor-Santiago vs.

COMELEC

Topic: Intrinsic Aids in Construction and Interpretation

Facts:
 On December 6, 1996, herein private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with public respondent
COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Terms and Limits of Elective Officials, by
People’s Initiative”. Delfin Alleged in his petition that he is founding member of the Movement for People’s
Initiative, intend to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution grante d under
Section 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. The provisions sought to be amended are Section 4 and 7 of Art
VI, Section 4 of Art VII and Section 8 of Art X.

 Upon filing of the said petition, COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an order directing Delfin to
cause publication of the petition.

 The same day of the hearing, Senator Roco, filed a motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that it
is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC

 On December 18, 1996, Senator Defensor-Santiago, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a
special civil for prohibition raising the following arguments:

o The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend Constitution can only be implement
by law to be passed by Congress

o R.A No. 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in other modes
of initiative

o R.A 6735 provides for effectivity of the law after publication in print media which indicates that the
Act covers only laws not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon
ratification and not publication.

o COMELEC Resolution 2300, adopted on January 16, 1991 to govern the conduct of initiative on
the Constitution and initiative and referendum on National and Local laws is ultra vires insofar as
initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since COMELEC has no power to
provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right to initiative to amend the Constitution

o People’s initiative is limited only to amendments of the Constitution not revision thereof

o Congress has not yet appropriated funds to people’s initiave

Issue:
A. Whether R.A 6735 was intended to cover initiative on amendment of Constitution . If so, whether the Act
as worded, adequately covers such?
Held/Ruling:

A. Supreme Court yielded negative answer. According to it, Section 2 (Statement of Policy) of the R.A 6735
does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution . That the inclusion of the word
“Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought, neither germane nor relevant to the said section, which
exclusively refers to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances and
resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution to Amend. The people are not
accorded the power to directly propose, enact, approve or reject in whole or in part of the Constitution
though the system of initiative. They can only do so to laws, ordinances or resolution, not to the
Constitution.

Puno’s Dissenting Opinion:

I submit that R.A 6735 sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to the
Constitution thru initiative.
The argument that R.A 6735 does not include people’s initiative to amend the Constitution simply because it
lacks a subtitle on the subject be give weight of helium. Again, the hoary rule in statutory construction is
that headings prefixed to titles, chapters and sections of a statute may be consulted in the aid of
interpretation, but interference drawn therefrom are entitled to very little weight, and they can never control
the plain terms enacting clauses.