Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest G.R. No.

174153 Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of

Lambino Vs. Comelec discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s
G.R. No. 174153 petition.
Oct. 25 2006
Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply
Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s initiative.
signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735.
Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2,
individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the
constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by People
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 The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer
bicameral- presidential form of government to unicameral- must be informed at the time of the signing of the nature and
parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which
enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the renders the initiative void.
Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to
implement the initiative petitions. 2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies between “amendment” and “revision, it is intended that the third
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose
to the Constitution through a people’s initiative. only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative
and the executive is a radical change, therefore a constitutes
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago a revision.
declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in
essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative 3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
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.