Lambino  vs.  Comelec  Case  Digest  

I.  Facts  

The   Lambino   group   gathered   6.3   million   signatures   for   their   petition   to   make   changes   to   the   1987  Philippine   Constitution   through   people’s   initiative.   The   proposal,   which   was   not   attached   to   the  signature  sheets,  would  make  changes  to  Articles  VI  and  VII  of  the  Constitution,  changing  the  system  of  government   from   Presidential-­‐Bicameral   to   Parliamentary-­‐Unicameral,   and   also   adds   Article   XVIII,  whose  Section  4  mandates  that  after  the  proposed  changes  are  ratified,  the  Parliament  convene  within  forty  days  after  such  ratification  to  propose  amendments  to,  or  revisions  of,  the  Constitution  consistent  with  the  principles  of  local  autonomy,  decentralization,  and  strong  bureaucracy.  

The   Labino  group   filed   the  petition  with   the  Comelec   for   ratification  under  Section  5(b)  and   (c)  of  RA  7635.   The   Comelec   dismissed   the   petition   because   of   lack   of   enabling   law   governing   Constitutional  amendment  through  people’s  initiative;  RA  6735  is  inadequate  to  implement  Section  2  of  Article  XVII  of  the  Constitution,  according  to  the  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec.  

 

II.  Issues  

A.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  amendment.  

B.   Whether   the   Lambino   group’s   petition   complied   with   Constitutional   requirements   for   people’s  initiative.  

C.  Whether  the  Comelec  committed  abuse  of  discretion  in  dismissing  the  Lambino  group’s  petition.  

III.  Held  

A.  The  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision.  

To  understand  why,  here  are  several  criteria  for  the  determination  of  whether  a  petition  is  a  revision  or  an  amendment.  

a. Revision  broadly  implies  a  change  that  alters  a  basic  principle  in  the  Constitution  such  as  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers  or  system  of  checks  and  balances.  

b. Revision   is   a   change   that   alters   the   substantial   entirety   of   the   Constitution,   affecting  substantial  provisions.    

c. Amendment   refers   to   change   that   adds,   reduces,   or   deletes   without   altering   principle  involved.  

d. Amendment  implies  addition  as  will  affect  an  improvement  or  better  carry  out  the  purpose  for  which  the  Constitution  was  framed.  

e. California’s   quantitative   rule:   There   is   revision  when   change   is   so   extensive   as   to   change  directly  the  substantial  entirety  of  the  Constitution.  

f. California’s  qualitative  rule:  Revision  when  change  accomplishes  such  far  reaching  changes  in   the   nature   of   our   basic   governmental   plan,   which   includes   change   in   fundamental  framework  and  powers  of  the  branches  of  government.  

The   Lambino   group’s   petition   satisfies   both   tests—it   overhauls   Articles   VI   and   VII,   which   include   150  provisions,   and   it   changes   the   fundamental   framework  and  powers  of   government  branches,  merging  executive  and  legislative  powers  in  one  branch.  

Change  from  having  three  branches  to  two  constitute  alteration  of  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers,  as  the  legislative  and  executive  powers  are  merged.  There  is  also  a  change  in  the  principle  of  checks  and  balances.  For  example,  under  the  presidential  system,  the  three  branches  act  as  checks  upon  each,  but  under   the   parliamentary   system,   there   is   no   check   between   legislature   and   executive   for   they   are  merged.  

Having  a  unicameral  legislature  is  a  change  in  the  principle  of  checks  and  balances.  The  Senate  and  the  House   of   Representatives   act   as   checks   on   each   other   under   the   bicameral   system,   but   under   the  unicameral  system,  such  check  does  not  exist.  

B.   The   Lambino   group’s   petition   does   not   comply   with   the   Constitution   requirements   for   people’s  initiative.  

To  understand  why,  here  are  the  requirements:  

a. People’s  initiative  can  be  used  only  for  amendments.  b. Requisite  for  initiative  are:  the  petition  is  authored  and  signed  by  the  people  (not  their  agents  or  

representatives);  and  the  proposal  must  be  part  of  petition,  or  attached  to   it,  with  mention  of  such   attachment.   The   reason   for   B   is   that   the   proposal   must   be   seen   by   the   people   before  signing   to   prevent   deception   and   fraud,   and   the   petition   cannot   be   a   direct   petition   (as  contemplated  by  the  constitution)  if  the  people  do  not  see  the  proposal  before  signing.  

c. It  is  the  intention  of  the  writers  of  the  constitution  on  initiative,  which  is  copied  from  the  US,  to  use  jurisprudence  on  it.  According  to  jurisprudence,  and  even  RA  7635,  logrolling—the  inclusion  of  more  than  one  issue  in  a  petition—is  prohibited.  Logrolling  puts  the  people  in  a  dilemma,  as  they   can   only   say   yes   or   no   to   an   entire   proposal,   though   one   issue  may   be   unacceptable   to  them.  

The   Lambino   group’s   petition,   thus,   violates   Constitutional   requirements   because   it   is   a   revision.   The  original  and  revised  proposals  were  not  attached  to  the  petition  before  the  people  signed.  The  addition  of  Article  XVIII  constitutes  logrolling,  as  it  is  entirely  a  different  issue  from  the  proposed  change  in  form  of  government.  

C.   Comelec   did   not   commit   grave   abuse   of   discretion,   for   it   merely   followed   the   Court’s   ruling   in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec.  

 

Digest  on  Separate  Opinions  Part  1  

JUSTICE  PANGANIBAN  (CONCURRING)  

A.  Whether  the  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  

a.  No,  as  it  only  acted  in  accord  with  Court’s  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec.  

b.  Dismissal  is  the  only  course  of  action  available,  otherwise,  it  would  have  committed  defiance  of  Court.  

JUSTICE  PUNO  (DISSENTING)  

A.  Whether  Lambino  and  Aumentado  have  authority  to  file  the  petition  and  to  file  petition  for  certoriari  and  mandamus.  

a.   Yes.   Wording   of   the   signature   sheet   is   this:   My   signature   herein…   signifies   my   support   for   filing  thereof   (referring   to   the  petition).   (Just  my   comment:   even   if   this  wording   cannot  be   construed  as  an  authorization,   the   fact   that   the   people   did   not   object   to   Lambino   and   Aumentado’s   filing   can   be  construed  as  constructive  authorization.)  

c.  Under   Sections   1   and   3   of   Rule   65   of   the   1997Rules   of   Civil   Procedure;  when   a   tribunal,   board,   or  officer  of  judicial  or  quasi-­‐judicial  function  acted  in  excess  or  without  jurisdiction,  or  with  grave  abuse  of  discretion,   an   aggrieved   party  may   file   for   certoriari,   when   there   is   no   appeal,   or   plain,   speedy,   and  adequate   remedy   in   ordinary   course   of   law.  When   a   tribunal,   corporation,   board,   officer,   or   person  unlawfully   neglects   performance   of   act   enjoined   by   law,   an   aggrieved   party  may   file   for   certoriari   or  mandamus  before  appropriate  court,  when  there  is  no  appeal,  or  plain,  speedy,  and  adequate  remedy  in  ordinary  course  of  law.  Clearly,  Lambino  and  Aumentado  are  aggrieved  parties.  

B.  Whether  RA  6735  is  sufficient  but  inadequate  to  implement  the  Constitutional  provision  for  people’s  initiative.  

a.  It  is  sufficient  and  adequate.  

b.   The   law’s   failure   to   suggest   the   initiative,   and   to   provide   for   petition   contents,   and   for   subtitle   on  people’s   initiative   on   constitutional   amendments   are  weak   reasons   to   declare   it   inadequate,   because  they  are  mere  details  and  not   fundamental  policies,  and   it  was   the   intention  of   the   legislators   to  give  effect  to  the  constitutional  provision.  

c.   Comelec   under   Section   2(1)   Article   IX-­‐C   of   the   Constitution   is   granted   the   power   to   enforce   and  administer  all  laws  and  regulations  on  initiative,  and  Courts  have  long  recognized  its  rule-­‐making  power.  (Just   my   comment:   Does   anyone   know   of   any   case   where   the   Courts   recognized   such   rule-­‐making  power?)  

C.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  amendment.  

a.  The  quantitative  test  fails.  While  the  petition  changes  150  provisions,  the  fact  is  that  only  two  of  the  eighteen  articles  of  the  Constitution  are  to  be  changed.  

b.  The  qualitative  test  fails  too.  A  good  constitution  should  have  three  provisions:  constitution  of  liberty,  constitution   of   government,   and   constitution   of   sovereignty.   Only   the   constitution   of   government   is  changed,  and  it  doesn’t  change  the  nature  of  the  Philippine  state,  which  is  democratic  and  republican.  

c.  Though  the  tests  form  part  of  jurisprudence  on  the  provisions  from  which  the  Philippine  provision  for  people’s   initiative  was   copied,   they   cannot   be   applied   because   they  were   only   the   opinions   by   some  members  of  the  convention.  The  intent  of  the  writers  of  the  constitution  is  not  what  the  courts  want  to  bring  forth  when  judging  issues  of  constitutionality,  but  the  intent  of  the  people.  (Just  my  comment:  It  may  be  argued  that  since  the  writers  were  the  representative  of  the  people,  they  represent  the  intent  of  the  people.)  

d.   Just   because   a   change   is   substantial   it   does   not   mean   that   it   is   a   revision.   Since   the   foreign  jurisprudence   can’t   be   used   as   argument,   there   is   a   need   to   go   back   to   the   basic   definition   of  amendment   and   revision.   Amendment   is   a   change,   whether   substantial   or   simple.   Revision   implies  change  of  the  whole  document,  which  may  include  new  covenant.  

e.  Limiting   initiative  to  simple  amendments   is   in   itself  a  violation  of   the  people’s  sovereignty,  which   is  enshrined  in  the  Constitution.  

D.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  decision/  

a.   Yes.   The  Commission   should  have  given  due  process   to   the  petition,  because  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  cannot   give   precedence.  While   originally,   the  was   a  majority   supporting   the   decision   that   RA   6735   is  sufficient  but   inadequate,  when  the  motion  for  reconsideration  was  filed,  there  was  an  equal  division,  and  it  has  been  court  practice  that  when  there  is  an  equal  division,  the  decision  of  the  lower  courts  or  the  previous  decision  is  upheld,  but  it  is  only  treated  as  res  judicata  and  not  stare  decisis.  

JUSTICE  QUISUMBING  

a.  Comelec  should  allow  due  course  for  the  Lambino  group’s  petition,  because  it  is  the  sovereign  right  of  the   people   to   propose   amendments   (Quisumbing   follows   Puno’s   arguments   on   revision   vs.  amendment.)