Lambino Vs COMELEC (Amendment and Revision)

Lambino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
FACTS:
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify
their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. Allegedly, Lambino group has already collected
6.3 million signatures which represent 12% of registered voter and every legislative district is
represented by 3% in accordance to the mandate of the Constitution embodied in Sec 2, Art XVII for
amendment.
The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of
Article VI (Legislative Department) 4 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.
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.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA 6735 inadequate to
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
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;
HELD:
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. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
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. 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.
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.
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.
A closer look on the proposed change indicates the following, and the people signing it might be kept in
dark if they weren’t able to read the full text of the proposal
a. Term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted.

b. The interim parliament will determine the expiration of their own term of office.
c. Within 45 days upon ratification of the proposed changes, the interim parliament shall
convene to propose further amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
2. The initiative violates Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution disallowing revision through initiative.
The proposed change of Lambino Group comprises a revision not a mere amendment. The proposed
change will change the principle behind various provision of the present Constitution.
a. Amendment is a change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an improvement
or better carry out the purpose of which it was framed
b. Revision is a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution like altering the substantial
entirety of the Constitution, as when the change affects substantial provision of the
Constitution.

Lambino Vs COMELEC (Amendment and Revision)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambino Vs COMELEC (Amendment and Revision)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lambino vs COMELEC

G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006

a. Term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted.

You might also like