DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs.

COMELEC
(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
Facts:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president
of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and
Action (PIRMA), 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, Sec. 2 of the 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. At the hearing,
Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang
Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-
oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the
Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable
by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator
Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin 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) The
constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend
the constitution can only be implemented by law to be
passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The
people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term
limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the
power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted
the Motions for Intervention.
Held:
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self
executory, thus, without implementing legislation the
same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has
recognized or granted the right, the people cannot
exercise it if Congress does not provide for its
implementation.
The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It
has been an established rule that what has been
delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non
delegari potest). The delegation of the power to the
COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right to people’s initiative.
The lifting of the term limits was held to be that
of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the
Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the
constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities
for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A
revision cannot be done by initiative. However,
considering the Court’s decision in the above Issue, the
issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or
amendment has become academic.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987
Constitution is a self-executing provision.

(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No.

2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments
to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the
law of specific provisions on the conduct of such
initiative.

(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective

officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of
the Constitution.