Constitutional Law 2

Atty. Lyndon John S. De Leon

Mira Shane Corpuz
JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

B. Nature of the Constitution 4. Rigid Constitution – is one that can be

amended only by a formal and usually difficult
a. Definition – Justice Malcolm: “the written instrument
process whereas a flexible constitution is one
enacted by direct action of the people by which the
that can be changed by ordinary legislation.
fundamental powers of the government are established,
limited and defined, and by which those powers are Note: PH Constitution is written, conventional and
distributed among the several departments for their safe rigid.
and useful exercise for the benefit of the body politic.”
e. Essential Qualities of the Written Constitution – a
b. Purposes – prescribe the permanent framework of good written constitution must be broad, brief, and
the system of government, to assign to the several definite.
departments their respective powers and duties, and to
establish certain first fixed principles on which  Broad – not only because it provides for the
government is founded.” organization of the entire government and
covers all persons and things within the territory
Note: Constitution is not “the origin of private rights it is of the State but more so because it is supposed
not the fountain of law nor the incipient state of to embody the past to reflect the present and to
government; it is not the cause but the consequence if anticipate the future.
personal and political freedom.”  Brief and confine – to basic principles to be
implemented with legislative details more
c. Supremacy
adjustable to change and easier to amend.
1. Basic and paramount law to which all other law Otherwise, the constitution would be a prolix
must conform and to which all persons, and voluminous codification inaccessible to the
including the highest officials of the land, must understanding or even only the interest of the
defer. people and unable to adapt readily to changing
2. No act shall be valid, however noble it is conditions because of the difficulty of its
intentions, if it conflicts with the Constitution. amendment.
3. It must remain supreme. All must bow to the  Clear or definite lest ambiguity in its provisions
mandate of this law. result in confusion and divisiveness among the
people, and perhaps even physical conflict. The
d. Classification – Constitutions are classified into exception is found only in those cases where
written or unwritten, evolved or enacted, and rigid or the rules are deliberately worded in a vague
flexible. manner, like the due process clause, to make
1. Written – One of those whose precepts are them more malleable to judicial interpretation in
embodied in one document or set of the light of new conditions and circumstances.
documents. f. Permanence of the Constitution
2. Unwritten – consists of rules which have not
been integrated into a single, concrete form but  One advantage of the written, conventional and
are scattered in various sources, such as rigid constitution is its permanence, or its
statutes of a fundamental character, judicial capacity to resist capricious or whimsical
decisions, commentaries of publicists, customs change dictated not by legitimate needs but by
and traditions, and certain common law passing fancies temporary passions or
principles. occasional infatuations of the people with ideas
3. Conventional Constitution – is an enacted or personalities.
constitution, formally “struck off” at a definite  Such a constitution is not likely to be easily
time and place following a conscious or tampered with to suit political expediency,
deliberate effort taken by a constituent body or personal ambitions or ill-advised agitation for
ruler. A cumulative constitution, by contrast, is change.
the result of political evolution, “not inaugurated  By the very virtue of permanence may at the
at any specific time but changing by accretion same time be a disadvantage where the written
rather than by an systematic method.” constitution is unable to adjust to need for
change justified by new conditions and

1
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

circumstances. The difficulty itself of the the total number of registered voters, of which every
amending process may be responsible for the legislative district must be represented by at least three
delay in effecting the needed change and thus per centum of the registered voters therein. No
cause irreparable injury to the public interest. amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this
g. Interpretation – One of the question in this regard is
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years
whether the constitution should be interpreted only in
thereafter.
the light of conditions obtaining at the time of its
adoption or according to the changes inevitably The Congress shall provide for the implementation of
transpiring in the history of the nation. Should it be the exercise of this right.
petrified or progressive.
Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thrids of
ANSWER: The constitution must change with the all its members, call a constitutional convention, or by a
changing times lest it impede the progress of the people majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate
with antiquated rules grown ineffective in a modern age. the question of calling such a convention.

JUSTICE WINSLOW: The political or philosophical Note:

aphorism of one generation is doubted by the next and
 Where what is intended is a mere amendment
entirely discarded by the third. The race moves forward
or change of particular provisions only, the
constantly, and no Canute can stay its progress.
proposal is better made direct legislative action.
Self-executing provisions: is a rule that by itself is In this case, the vote of at least three-fourths of
directly or indirectly applicable without need of statutory all members of the Congress shall be needed.
implementation. EX: Bill of Rights. This method will avoid the unnecessary
expenditure of public funds and time that the
Non Self-executing provisions: is one that remains
calling of a constitutional convention will entail.
dormant unless it is activated by legislative
 If what is envisions is the overhaul of the entire
implementation. Ex: Labor Code.
Constitution, it is advisable to entrust the task to
h. Amendment or Revision – Change in Constitution a constitutional convention, which will have
may be effected by a mere modification in its more time, opportunity and presumably also the
interpretation by the courts of justice. needed expertise to discharge it.
 Nevertheless, the choice of the method of
1. Amendment – means isolated or piecemeal proposal lies in the exclusive discretion of the
change only legislature.
2. Revision – which is revamp or rewriting  The call for constitutional convention may be
of the whole instrument. made by a vote of two-thirds of all the members
of the Congress. If they cannot make up their
i. Procedure: Two steps are involved in the amendment
mind, the question of whether or not to call the
or revision of our Constitution. The first one is the
constitutional convention shall be submitted to
proposal and second one is the ratification.
the people themselves, by at least a majority
 Proposal – the proposal is usually made either vote of all the members.
directly by the Congress or by the  The last alternative is a plainly absurd
Constitutional Convention. A special case is procedure that permits the members of the
provided for where the proposal may be made Congress to authorize the waste of public funds
directly by the people through initiative. by calling on their constituents to make decision
that is essentially addressed to the legislature
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this themselves.
Constitution may be proposed by:

1. The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of  Ratification

all its members; or
Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
2. A constitutional convention.
Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
likewise be directly proposed by the people through which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of

1
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

than ninety days after the approval of such amendment Proposal to amend the Constitution must be ratified
or revision. within a reasonbale time after ther are made because
they are intended to answer present needs or correct
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid
current problems. If they are accepted only after a long
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
delay, they may no longer serve the purposes for which
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days
they were made in the first place. Moreover, proposals
nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
should be voted upon at a time when interest in them is
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the
still rife and the electorate is still knowledgeable on the
petition.
pros and cons of the issues submitted to them.
The requirement for the ratification thus involves the
According to Judge Jameson, “an alteration of the
people themselves in the soverighn act of drafting or
Constitution proposed today has relation to the
altering the fundamental law. In the case of a mere
sentiment and felt needs of today and, if not ratified
statute, it suffices that it is enacted by their chosen
early while the sentiment may fairly be supposed to
representatives pursuant to their mandate. But where it
exist, it ought to be regarded as waived and not again
is the Constitution that is brieng framed or amended, it
to be voted upon unless for a second time proposed.
is imperative and proper that approval come directly
from the people themselves.

1. Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 174153, October 25, 2006

The Case

These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") denying
due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.

Antecedent Facts

1. On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino
Group"), with other groups1 and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution.
2. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum
Act ("RA 6735").
3. The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per
centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its
registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3
million individuals.
4. The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory
Provisions." These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit
the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification:

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND
PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

5. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the
proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.7

The Ruling of the COMELEC: On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's
petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling
in Santiago v. Commission on Elections declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution.

CASE FILED IN THE SUPREME COURT

1. LAMBINO GROUP: In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus
to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative
petition. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to

2
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only
the parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the "will of the sovereign people."
2. BINAY GROUP: In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require respondent COMELEC
Commissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and
for "entertaining" the Lambino Group's petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The Court treated the Binay
Group's petition as an opposition-in-intervention.
3. In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor General joined causes with the petitioners, urging the Court
to grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its
implementing rules "as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative."
4. VARIOUS GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS SOUGHT INTERVENTION, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino
Group's petition. The supporting intervenors uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion
in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a
binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged
a. the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition;
b. the validity of the signature gathering and verification process;
c. the Lambino Group's compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative
petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;
d. the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article
XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and
e. the Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to
only one subject.
5. The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September 2006. After receiving the parties'
memoranda, the Court considered the case submitted for resolution.

The Issues

The petitions raise the following issues:

1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the
Constitution through a people's initiative;
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms
and conditions" to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition.

The Ruling of the Court:

WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153. There is no merit to the petition. The Lambino Group miserably failed
to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to
revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the
basic requirements of the Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the
Commision on Elections.

RATIONALE

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people's initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. This section states: 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 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 therein.

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment "directly proposed by the
people through initiative upon a petition," thus: MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown
to them and they are asked whether or not they want to propose this constitutional amendment. As it is envisioned, any
Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the proposed constitutional amendment" should be "ready and
shown" to the people "before" 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 people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must "prepare that
proposal and pass it around for signature."

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 people. This means two essential elements must be present.

1
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

 First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
 Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition.
 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 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 on a petition that contains the full text of the
proposed amendments.
 The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so
attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions
of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically
impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the
proposed amendments before signing.

The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed the concept of people's initiative from the United States
where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States which allow initiative petitions, the unbending
requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and
that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. The rationale for this
requirement has been repeatedly explained in several decisions of various courts:

1. In Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit Court of
Appeals, declared: [A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying the signature has not
first seen what it is that he or she is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the subscription
requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative
petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the petition, could easily mislead the
signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition that might
not be to the signer's liking. This danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving the description is
the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify for the
ballot.
2. In Kerr v. Bradbury, the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained: The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to
amendments by initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (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."); x x
x (publication of full text of amended constitutional provision required because it is "essential for the elector to have x x x
the section which is proposed to be added to or subtracted from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must have this knowledge.
Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote in the dark.") (Emphasis supplied)

MERITS ON THE CASE

I. Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed" and
failure to do so is "deceptive and misleading" which renders the initiative void.

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed
amendments. However, the deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt
the relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. In particular, the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission explicitly reveal that the framers intended 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. Indeed, Section 5(b) of
Republic Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that
the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories."

The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their
private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain
the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably
their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their
supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures.

Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The
proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures
- that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments.

II. 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 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 on 11 October 2006. The signature sheet with this Court during the oral

2
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

arguments was the signature sheet attached to the opposition in intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by intervenor Atty.
Pete Quirino-Quadra.

The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature sheet attached to the Lambino Group's
Memorandum are the same. We reproduce below the signature sheet in full only includes Province, City/Municipality, No.
of Legislative District, Barangay and verified signatures. Likewise, it only includes the PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE
OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM
OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT;
AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM
TO ANOTHER?" I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My signature herein which
shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.

There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet.
Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino
admitted this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September 2006.The signature sheet merely asks a question
whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of
government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to
sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the "petition" that the framers of the Constitution envisioned
when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

III. Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature-gathering from February to August 2006, the Lambino
Group circulated, together with the signature sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group's draft petition which they later
filed on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC. When asked if his group also circulated the draft of their amended petition filed
on 30 August 2006 with the COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they circulated both. However, Atty. Lambino
changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, not the
draft of the 25 August 2006 petition.

The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended
petition almost seven months earlier in February 2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B.
Aumentado's "Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30 August 2006 amended petition,
filed with the COMELEC, states he had caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in his personal capacity
as a registered voter, for and on behalf of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP Resolution
No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of the mass of signatories hereto. (Emphasis supplied)

The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to the present petition. However, the "Official
Website of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines"22 has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, which
provides: RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE'S
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A
MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION

 there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach
to support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change;
 ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for
constitutional reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional Reforms signed by the members
of the ULAP and the majority coalition of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in October 2005;
 the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to
the 1987 Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December 2005;
 the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious
form of amending the 1987 Constitution;
 subject to the ratification of its institutional members and the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a
constituent assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional reform agenda through People's
Initiative and Referendum without prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same; WHEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL
AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S
CONSULATATIVE (SIC) COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND
REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION;
 DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting held on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel,
Manila.23 (Underscoring supplied)

3
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to prepare the 25 August 2006 petition, or
the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 "support(s) the porposals
(sic) of the Consulatative (sic) Commission on Charter Change through people's initiative and referendum as a mode of
amending the 1987 Constitution." The proposals of the Consultative Commission are vastly different from the proposed
changes of the Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 petition or 30 August 2006 amended petition filed with the COMELEC.

In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the COMELEC, the Lambino Group declared: After the
Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the proposed amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically,
paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the Transitory Provisions were inaccurately stated and failed to
correctly reflect their proposed amendments. The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the petition
because the amended petition was what they had shown to the people during the February to August 2006 signature-
gathering. Instead, the Lambino Group alleged that the petition of 25 August 2006 "inaccurately stated and failed to correctly
reflect their proposed amendments." The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August
2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature
sheets. Likewise, the Lambino Group did not allege in their present petition before this Court that they circulated printed
copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that
the draft petition is attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets.

IV. The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a signer who did not read the
measure attached to a referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground that he did not understand the
nature of the act." The Lambino Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed change attached to the petition signed by
the people. Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes requires that the proposed change must be attached to the petition.
The same authority the Lambino Group quotes requires the people to sign on the petition itself.

It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from February to August 2006 during the signature-
gathering period, the draft of the petition or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC. The Lambino Group are less
than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition
or amended petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the amended petition during the signature-
gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very limited copies of the petition.

With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible for all or a great majority of the 6.3
million signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is
that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not
more than one million signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets.

For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed
changes before signing. They could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are:

 The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected
indefinitely;
 The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its members, who are almost all the present
members of Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament
will determine the expiration of their own term of office;
 Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.28

These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino Group's signature sheets. The people who signed
the signature sheets had no idea that they were proposing these amendments. These three proposed changes are highly
controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these proposed changes merely from a reading or rereading of the
contents of the signature sheets.

Likewise, 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.

The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom
of the people even if the members of this Court do not personally know the people who sign the petition. However, this trust emanates
from a fundamental assumption: 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.

4
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

In short, 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."

2. 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. Article
XVII of the Constitution provides: ARTICLE XVII: AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis
supplied)

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first mode is through Congress
upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is
through a people's initiative.

Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to "[A]ny amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to this
Constitution." There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended, and wrote, a clear distinction
between "amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a
constitutional convention may propose revisions to the Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that a people's
initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. Where the intent and language of the Constitution clearly
withhold from the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as
they are empowered to propose amendments.

In this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution since
the Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes
of revising the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the
specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself.

 The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment or revision of the Constitution? If the
Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a revision, then the present petition should be dismissed for being outside the scope
of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.

Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of a constitution. One of the earliest cases
that recognized the distinction described the fundamental difference in this manner: [T]he very term "constitution" implies an
instrument of a permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will of the
people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like
permanent and abiding nature. On the other hand, the significance of the term "amendment" implies such an addition or
change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was
framed.35 (Emphasis supplied)

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.

 In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to the constitution just like in our
Constitution, courts have developed a 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." 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.” Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry.

5
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework or
the fundamental powers of its Branches." 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."

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.
Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.

A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches
of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the
Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a
revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of
government.

The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power alters the separation of powers
and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters
the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution.

By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is
beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group's proposed changes, it
is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter the framework of government as set forth in the Constitution.
Father Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, writes:

EXAMPLE OF AMENDMENT: Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution without affecting
any other section or article:

 the change may generally be considered an amendment and not a revision. For example, a change reducing the voting age
from 18 years to 15 years is an amendment and not a revision.
 a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not
a revision.
 a change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a
revision.

EXAMPLE OF REVISION: However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a revision.

 A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment. For example, the
substitution of the word "republican" with "monarchic" or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II50 of the Constitution radically
overhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific
change will have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as well as how it affects the
structure of government, the carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the
existing Constitution.

Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded
proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered
principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or
constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people's initiatives, which do not have fixed
and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions.

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."

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

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 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, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative
to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of 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.

6
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on
some other grounds. Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not pass upon the
constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some other grounds.51

Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution,
this will not change the result here because the present petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid
initiative, the present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution even before complying with RA 6735.

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.

4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Lambino Group's Initiative

In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc merely followed this Court's ruling
in Santiago and People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.52 For following this Court's ruling,
no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC. On this ground alone, the present petition warrants outright dismissal.
Thus, this Court should reiterate its unanimous ruling in PIRMA:

The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC
in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court
in G.R. No. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, 1997.

5. Conclusion

The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No
one can trivialize the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly specified modes of amendment
and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.

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 group of the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside the constitutionally
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 of law in this country.

An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of the total votes cast53 − approved our Constitution in a
national plebiscite held on 11 February 1987. That approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the full expression of the people's
sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed modes for amending or revising the Constitution.

No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution
contrary to the specific modes that the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The
alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means subverting the people's sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. This
is one act the Court cannot and should never do. As the ultimate guardian of the Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn
duty to defend and protect the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign will of the people.

Incantations of "people's voice," "people's sovereign will," or "let the people decide" cannot override the specific modes of changing
the Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people's fundamental covenant that
provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes easily susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups gathering
signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation's stability.

7
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025
 Constitutional Law 2 | Atty. L. J. S. De Leon

The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice." However, the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP
Resolution No. 2006-02, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that "ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the
agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms." The Lambino Group thus admits that their
"people's" initiative is an "unqualified support to the agenda" of the incumbent President to change the Constitution. This forewarns
the Court to be wary of incantations of "people's voice" or "sovereign will" in the present initiative.

This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the people's
sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm
initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison d'etre.

2. Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

3. Tolentino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971

4. Planas v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-35925 January 22, 1973

5. Javellana v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973

6. Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, G.R. No. L-1123, March 5, 1947

8
M.S. CORPUZ | JWSLG – 2024-2025