CASE DIGEST: SANTIAGO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. No.

127325, March 19, 1997

MARCH 1, 2023

DOCTRINE/S OF THE CASE:

The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the constitution
through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of
the constitution until congress provides for its implementation.

Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold
niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Stated
otherwise, while the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.

The system of initiative on the constitution under section 2 of article xvii of

the constitution is not self-

The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed, the system of initiative on the
Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-
executory. Has Congress “provided” for the implementation of the exercise of this
right? Those who answer the question in the affirmative, like the private
respondents and intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735. There is, of
course, no other better way for Congress to implement the exercise of the right
than through the passage of a statute or legislative act.

FACTS:
December 6, 1996 – Atty. Jesus Delfin of PIRMA (People’s initiative for Reforms,
Modernization and Action) filed a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift
Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative” (hereafter, Delfin
Petition) wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an order:
Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country;
Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the attached “Petition
for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in newspapers of general and local
circulation;

Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines,

to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in establishing signing stations at the
time and on the dates designated for the purpose
He proposed to change the constitution through people’s initiative,
described in Art. XVII sec. 2 of the 1987 constitution.
The amendment consisted of the deletion of the following provisions from the
1987 Constitution:
 Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI
Section 4 of Article VII, and
Section 8 of Article X of the 1987
Constitution 

Deletion would effectively result in the lifting of term limits.

The COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an Order, directing Delfin “to cause
the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative on
the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal, proposed constitutional amendment,
and the signature form), and the notice of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of
general circulation at his own expense” not later than 9 December 1996; and
setting the case for hearing on 12 December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
December 12, 1996 – hearing of the Delfin Petition, the following appeared:

Delfin and Atty. Pete Q. Quadra, representatives of the People’s Initiative

for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA)
Intervenor-oppositor Senator Raul S. Roco, together with his two other
lawyers, and representatives of, or counsel for, the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines (IBP), Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK),
Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino
(LABAN).
Senator Roco, on that same day, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition on
the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the
COMELEC.

December 18, 1996 – the petitioners herein — Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago,
Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin — filed this special civil action for
prohibition raising the following arguments:
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.
Though R.A. No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) provides for three
systems of initiative (initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local
legislation), it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike
in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II
and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law. Former Senator
Arturo Tolentino stressed this deficiency in the law in his privilege speech
delivered before the Senate in 1994: “There is not a single word in that law which
can be considered as implementing the provision on constitutional initiative. Such
implementing provisions have been obviously left to a separate law.

Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication in
print media. This indicates that the Act covers only laws and not constitutional
amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not after
publication.
The COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of
the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is authorized by
the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision
thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore,
outside the power of the people’s initiative.

Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative; neither the
COMELEC nor any other government department, agency, or office has realigned
funds for the purpose.
December 19, 1996 – this Court (a) required the respondents to comment on the
petition within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice; and (b) issued a
temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further
orders, enjoining public respondent COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin
Petition, and private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a
signature drive for people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
January 2, 1997 – Private respondents, through Atty Quadra, filed their Comment
on the petition and there were many more filing of petitions from intervenors,
respondents’ replies, hearings.

ISSUES:
Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover
initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as
worded, adequately covers such initiative

Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as
proposed in the draft “Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution,” would
constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution

HELD:
NO.
Article 17, Section 2 of the 1987 Consitution, which talks about
amendments through People’s Initiatives, is not self-executory.
“Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative
would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until
Congress provides for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while
the Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide
for its implementation.”

Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Sec. 2 of the act does not

suggest an initiative on the amendments of the constitution.
Moreover, the act does not provide for the contents of a petition for
initiative on the constitution.
 R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are
fatal and cannot be cured by “empowering” the COMELEC “to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of the Act.

It is a revision.
Section 2 is limited to proposals to AMEND — not to REVISE — the
Constitution. Such resolution was based in the interpellation of the constitutional
drafters and their conversation with President Cory Aquino.
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and
blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying
with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of
the people under that system.

Miscellaneous
Art. XVII Sec. 2 1987 Constitution
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. No amendment under this
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.