Professional Documents
Culture Documents
October 25, 2006: Lambino and Aumentado vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 174153 - Class Digest
October 25, 2006: Lambino and Aumentado vs. Comelec, G.R. Nos. 174153 - Class Digest
Thesis Statement
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO (Lambino Group) filed a petition against COMELEC on the
grounds of committed grave abuse of discretion
FACTS:
-RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO (Lambino Group) submitted a petition for the revision of
the 1987 Constitution to the COMELEC under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No.
6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act
- Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft petition
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.
COMELEC RULING:
-The initiative Proposal was denied by COMELEC. 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.
ARGUMENTS:
LAMBINO GROUP SC
The Lambino Group theorizes that the Stated otherwise, the difference between
difference between “amendment” and “amendment” and “revision” cannot reasonably
“revision” is only one of procedure, not of be in the substance or extent of the correction.
substance.
The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition,
election registrars had verified the signatures of it would be physically impossible for all or a great
the 6.3 million individuals. majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have
seen the petition before they signed the
signature sheets.
Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2 merely The initiative power reserved by the people by
provides a procedure by which the legislature can amendment to the Constitution x x x applies only
propose a revision of the constitution, but it does to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of
not affect proposed revisions initiated by the ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and
people. does not purport to extend to a constitutional
revision
RULING SC:
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.40 Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of
government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
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. No need to visit Santiago’s case