Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997) Davide, JR., J.: Facts
Defensor-Santiago vs. Comelec (G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997) Davide, JR., J.: Facts
COMELEC
(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
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.
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.
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.