CASE FACTS ISSUES RULING

THIS COURT CANNOT BETRAY ITS PRIMORDIAL DUTY TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. The Constitution, which embodies the
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed people's sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. THIS COURT EXISTS TO DEFEND AND PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION. To allow this
a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
petition to change the 1987 Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.
Constitution under Section 5(b) and
(c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political
No. 6735 or the Initiative and group of the day. IF THIS COURT ALLOWS TODAY A CAVALIER CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OUTSIDE THE CONSTITUTIONALLY
Referendum Act. PRESCRIBED MODES, TOMORROW THE NEW DOMINANT POLITICAL GROUP THAT COMES WILL DEMAND ITS OWN SET OF CHANGES IN
THE SAME CAVALIER AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL FASHION. A REVOLVING-DOOR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUGUR WELL FOR THE RULE
The Lambino Group alleged that their Whether the OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY.
petition had the support of 6,327,952 Lambino Group’s
Topic: individuals constituting at least twelve initiative petition 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
Amending per centum (12%) of all registered complies with
Process of the voters, with each legislative district Section 2, Article Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution— Constitution. This section states:
Judicial Review
represented by at least three per XVII of the
on the centum (3%) of its registered voters. Constitution on
The Lambino Group also claimed that amendments to Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
Amending
Process COMELEC election registrars had the Constitution of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters
verified the signatures of the 6.3 through a people’s therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
million individuals. initiative;
The framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before”
The Lambino Group’s initiative petition they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the
changes the 1987 Constitution by Whether this Court people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.”
modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI should revisit its The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the
(Legislative Department)4 and ruling in Santiago people. This means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative
Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive declaring RA 6735 can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
Atty. Raul Department) and by adding Article “incomplete,
Lambino XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.” inadequate or These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing
These proposed changes will shift the wanting in such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” only if the people sign
present Bicameral-Presidential system essential terms on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
vs to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of and conditions” to
government. implement the There is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures.  The proponents bear the burden of
initiative clause on proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures – that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment,
COMELEC On 30 August 2006, the Lambino proposals to the full text of the proposed amendments.
Group filed an Amended Petition with amend the
the COMELEC indicating modifications Constitution; 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
in the proposed Article XVIII 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
(Transitory Provisions) of their on 11 October 2006.
initiative.
2.       A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
The COMELEC denied the petition
citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and
RA 6735 inadequate to implement the scope of a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court’s ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
initiative clause on proposals to amend inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of
the Constitution. 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.