Lambino vs COMELEC

GR No 174153

October 25, 2006

Carpio, J.:

FACTS: This is a petition for the reversal of the decision of COMELEC denying due course for a
people’s initiative petition in amending the 1987 Constitution.

On February 15, 2006, the petitioners, Raul Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (the Lambino
group) commenced gather signatures for an initiative petitions to change the 1987 Constitution.

The petitioners claimed that they had complied Sec 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
proposal by the people, to wit:

1. the support of twelve percentum 12% of all registered voters

2. with each legislative district represented by atleast 3 percentum of its registered voters.

The proposed changes in effect will shift the Bicameral-Presidential system to Unicameral-
Parliamentary system by modifying the provisions of Article VI (Legislative department), Article
VII (Executive department) and by adding Artilce XVIII entitled transitory provisions.

On August 25, 2006, the petitioner, the Lambino Group, filed a petition with COMELEC, the
respondent, to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735 or the
Initiative and Referendum Act.

On August 21, 2006, the respondent, issued its resolution denying due course for a people’s
initiate due to lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the constitution
taking cognizance of the Santiago vs COMELEC case. Based on the decision of the Court in the
Santiago vs Comelec Case, RA 6735 is silent on the Initiatives on Constitution.

ISSUE:

1. WON the initiatives of the Lambino Group is constitutional as far Sec 2 of Article XVII of
the Constitution on Direct proposal by the people is concerned.

2. W/ON the proposed changes from Bicameral-Presidential to Unicameral-parliamentary

system constitution an amendment?

HELD:

1. The Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dismally fails to comply with the
requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution that the initiative must be "directly proposed
by the people through initiative upon a petition." This among others requires that the full text of the
 proposed amendment is first shown to the people before they sign the petition, not after they have
signed the petition.

2. The Lambino group proposes a Revision applying the Quantitative and Qualitative test, and thus
violates Sec 2 Art 17 which construction of the intent of the framers would reveal that People’s initiative
is only applicable to Amendments. Revisions of the Constitution can only be effectuated by Congress
acting as a Constituent Assembly or by means of Constitutional Convention.

Doctrine of Proper Submission on the case of People’s Initiative

The essential elements of amendment directly proposed by the people (Sec 2 of Art 17) are:

a. The people must author and sign the entire proposal (draft) as signatories.

b. That the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they
sign, and that the people must sign on a petition containing such full text. .

The purpose of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient information so that registered
voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the initiative petition, and are not deceived or
mislead which will render the petition void.

The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they
are asked to sign the signature sheet. It merely asks the people if they a question whether the
people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system
of government.

The Court renders the doubtful the claim of the Lambino group that they have circulated copies
of the amended petition and confirms that the Lambino group failed to comply the requisites of
Sec 2 Art 17 when the Lambino group admitted that it only circulated 100,000 copies of the draft
petition. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3
million signatories the full text of the proposed changes

3. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives

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.

In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not an
amendment. Thus, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it violates Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a people's initiative to "[A]mendments to this
Constitution."

Revision and Amendment defined:

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. There is also revision if the
change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects
 substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a
change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. Revision
generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the
specific provision being amended.

Two-part test of discerning if its Amendment or Revision:

two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks
whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial
entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions." 36 The court
examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change.

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution.
The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of
our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision." 37 Whether there is an alteration in the
structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic
governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its
Branches."38 A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that
"jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances." 39

Using the two-part test, the Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the
Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively,
the Lambino Group's proposed changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the
Legislature and Article VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the
entire Constitution.40Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan
of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral
legislature. This alters the principe of separation of powers.

How the Lambing group understand Revision vs Amendment:

The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the same
proposed changes that the Lambino Group wrote in the present initiative, the changes would constitute a
revision of the Constitution. Thus, the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes in the
present initiative constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the
changes. However, since the Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the proposed changes, the
changes are merely amendments to the Constitution.

The Court finds that Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental law of the land.
And negates the express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution.

Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires that the "petition for an
initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered
voters as signatories." Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as
signatories."

The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August 2006 or the amended petition of 30 August
2006 filed with the COMELEC. Only Atty. Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C.
Agra signed the petition and amended petition as counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and Erico B.
Aumentado, Petitioners." In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group, claiming to act "together with" the 6.3 million
signatories, merely attached the signature sheets to the petition and amended petition. Thus, the petition and
amended petition filed with the COMELEC did not even comply with the basic requirement of RA 6735 that the
Lambino Group claims as valid.
The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735 stating, "No petition
embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate; x x x." The proposed Section
4(4) of the Transitory Provisions, mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions
to the Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the form of government. Since the present
initiative embraces more than one subject matter, RA 6735 prohibits submission of the initiative petition to the
electorate. Thus, even if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino Group's initiative will still fail.

Substance of the Petition Initiatives: The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and
effect of the proposed changes. THE NEED FOR A FULL TEXT

The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in the amended petition, states:

Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament, which
shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. x x x x
(Emphasis supplied)

Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be held simultaneously with the
2007 local elections. This section merely requires that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be held
simultaneously with the local elections without specifying the year.

The result is a grand deception on the 6.3 million signatories who were led to believe that the proposed
changes would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously with the local
elections.This makes it crucial that a full text of the petition be presented to the people and not just a mere
question.

Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament shall
convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of
local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system. American jurisprudence on initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - when the
initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This puts the people in a
dilemma since they can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to sign a petition
that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they may find unacceptable.

Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members of Parliament until noon of the
thirtieth day of June 2010.

After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as member of Parliament if the interim
Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no
counterpart provision for the present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of office will
all end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Senators. Thus, all the present
members of the House will remain members of the interim Parliament after 30 June 2010.

The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010. Thereafter, the Prime Minister exercises all the
powers of the President. If the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30
June 2010, the Prime Minister will come only from the present members of the House of Representatives to
the exclusion of the present Senators.

The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators.

The 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures
would be used to discriminate against the Senators. They could not have known that their signatures
would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the interim Parliament's choice of Prime Minister only to
members of the existing House of Representatives.