DEFENSOR SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

GR NO. 127325

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: 1) 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

2) 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: 1.NO.

The Supreme Court held that 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.

2. The Supreme court also held that 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. 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.
DOCTRINE/S OF THE CASE:

1) 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. 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.

2) The system of initiative on the constitution under section 2 of article xvii of the constitution is not self-
executory. 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.