EN BANC
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. G.R. No. 174153
AUMENTADO,
TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS,
Petitioners,
- versus -
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
ALTERNATIVE
LAW GROUPS, INC.,
Intervenor.
x
------------------------------------------------------ x
ONEVOICE
INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN,
MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN
T. TOLOSA,
JR., SUSAN V. OPLE,
and
CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.,
Intervenors.
x------------------------------------------------------
x
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,
Intervenor.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
BAYAN represented by its
Chairperson
Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN
MUNA
represented by
its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented
by its
Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD
represented by
its Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona
Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito
Cabillas,
MIGRANTE represented by its
Chairperson
Concepcion
Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA
represented by
its Secretary General
Emerenciana de
Jesus, GABRIELA
WOMEN’S
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen.
Cristina Palabay,
ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de
Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS represented by Chair Vencer
Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the
League of
Concerned Professionals
and
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO
of the Solidarity of Health
Against Charter
Change,
DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS of
Health
Action for Human
Rights,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------x
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Intervenor.
x
------------------------------------------------------- x
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF
THE
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------x
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,
Intervenor.
x -------------------------------------------------------
x
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO
F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
GAT INCIONG,
Intervenors.
x
------------------------------------------------------- x
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO
MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,
Intervenors.
x
-------------------------------------------------------- x
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND
GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION
(PTGWO)
and MR. VICTORINO F.
BALAIS,
Intervenors.
x --------------------------------------------------------
x
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
represented
by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Intervenor.
x
------------------------------------------------------- x
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Intervenor.
x
------------------------------------------------------- x
JOSE ANSELMO I.
BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and
RANDALL TABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
x
-------------------------------------------------------- x
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
CHAPTERS,
Intervenors.
x
--------------------------------------------------------x
SENATE MINORITY LEADER
AQUILINO
Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and SENATORS
SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III, JAMBY
MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and
PANFILO LACSON,
Intervenors.
x -----------------------------------------------------x
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and
PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO,
Intervenors.
x -----------------------------------------------------x
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, G.R.
No. 174299
SOFRONIO
UNTALAN, JR., and
RENE A.V.
SAGUISAG, Present:
Petitioners,
PANGANIBAN, C.J.,
-
versus - PUNO,
QUISUMBING,
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
represented by Chairman
BENJAMIN CARPIO,
S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, CORONA,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., CARPIO MORALES,
ROMEO A. BRAWNER, CALLEJO, SR.,
RENE V. SARMIENTO, AZCUNA,
NICODEMO T. FERRER, and TINGA,
John Doe and Peter Doe, CHICO-NAZARIO,
Respondents. GARCIA, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Promulgated:
October 25, 2006
x- -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
These are consolidated petitions on the
Resolution dated
Antecedent
Facts
On
The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered
voters. The Lambino Group also claimed
that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million
individuals.
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)[5] and by
adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.”[6] These
proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino
Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit
the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters’ ratification:
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII
OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT
BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING
ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO
THE OTHER?
On
The
Ruling of the COMELEC
On
In G.R. No. 174153, the
Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside
the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to
give due course to their initiative petition. The Lambino Group contends that the
COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to their
petition since
In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners (“Binay
Group”) pray that the Court require respondent COMELEC Commissioners
to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt
for the COMELEC’s verification of signatures and for “entertaining”
the Lambino Group’s petition despite the permanent injunction in
In his Comment to the Lambino
Group’s petition, the Solicitor General joined causes with the
petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite the
Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing
pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group’s
petition. The supporting intervenors[10]
uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in
relying on
The Court heard the parties and intervenors
in oral arguments on
The Issues
The petitions raise the following
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
3.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition.
The Ruling of the Court
There is no merit to the
petition.
The Lambino Group miserably failed to
comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a
people’s initiative. Thus, there is even
no need to revisit
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 deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition,” thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let
us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a
constitutional amendment. Is the draft
of the proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when
they are asked to sign?
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed,
Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What
does the sponsor mean? The draft is
ready and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The
people themselves, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: No,
because before they sign there is
already a draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want
to propose this constitutional amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal
and pass it around for signature.[13] (Emphasis supplied)
Clearly,
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.
The
full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the
petition, or attached to it. If so
attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the
several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the
proposed amendments before signing.
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to
prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of
the proposed amendments before signing.
The
framers of the Constitution directly borrowed[14]
the concept of people’s initiative from the
The rationale for this requirement
has been repeatedly explained in several decisions of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v.
State Ballot Commission, the Supreme Court of
[A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting, downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition that might not be to the signer's liking. This danger seems particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving the description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a vested interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify for the ballot.[17] (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Likewise,
in Kerr v.
Bradbury,[18] the Court
of Appeals of
The purposes of “full text” provisions that apply to
amendments by initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose of the full text requirement is to
provide sufficient information so that registered voters can intelligently
evaluate whether to sign the initiative petition.”); x x x (publication of full text of amended constitutional
provision required because it is “essential for the elector to have x x x the
section which is proposed to be added to or subtracted from. If he is to vote
intelligently, he must have this knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he
would be required to vote in the dark.”) (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, “an initiative signer must
be informed at the time of signing of the nature
and effect of that which is proposed” and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders
the initiative void.[19]
Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full
text of the proposed amendments.
However, the deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show
that the framers intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on
people’s initiative. In particular, the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal that
the framers intended that the people
must first see the full text of the
proposed amendments before they sign, and
that the people must sign on a petition containing such full text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the Lambino Group invokes as
valid, requires that the people must sign the “petition x x x as
signatories.”
The
proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public
officials. The proponents are not
disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and
disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their
proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often
pay those who gather the signatures.
Thus,
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[20]
after the oral arguments of
The signature sheet attached to Atty.
Quadra’s opposition and the signature sheet attached to the Lambino Group’s Memorandum
are the same. We reproduce below the signature sheet in
full:
|
Province: |
City/Municipality: |
No. of Verified Signatures: |
|
|
Legislative District: |
Barangay: |
|
PROPOSITION: “DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES
VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE
PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN
GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE
ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER?”
I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment
to the 1987 Constitution. My signature
herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the
Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.
|
|
Precinct Number |
Name Last Name, First Name, M.I. |
Address |
Birthdate MM/DD/YY |
Signature |
Verification |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________ _________________ __________________
Barangay Official Witness Witness
(Print Name and Sign) (Print Name and Sign) (Print Name and Sign)
There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino
Group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that
the text of the proposed changes is attached to it.
Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted
this during the oral arguments before this Court on
The signature sheet merely asks a
question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to
the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. The
signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before
they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the “petition” that the framers of the
Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section
2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however,
explained that during the signature-gathering from February to August 2006, the
Lambino Group circulated, together with the signature sheets, printed copies of
the Lambino Group’s draft petition which they later filed on
The Lambino Group would have this Court
believe that they prepared the draft of the
I
have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in my personal
capacity as a registered voter, for and
on behalf of the
The Lambino Group failed to attach a
copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to the present petition. However, the “Official Website of the Union
of Local Authorities of the
RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-02
RESOLUTION
SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE’S CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER
CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to support the
proposals of the People’s Consultative Commission on Charter Change;
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of
Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms as
embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional Reforms signed by the
members of the ULAP and the majority coalition of the House of Representatives
in Manila Hotel sometime in October 2005;
WHEREAS, the People’s Consultative Commission on Charter Change
created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987 Constitution has
submitted its final report sometime in December 2005;
WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments
in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of amending
the 1987 Constitution;
WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members
and the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent
assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional reform
agenda through People’s Initiative and Referendum without prejudice to other
pragmatic means to pursue the same;
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL
AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE
PEOPLE’S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE’S
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION;
DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board
special meeting held on
ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado
to prepare the
For
example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all
provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the
Transitory Provisions. The proposed
revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary and the National Patrimony
provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions that the Lambino Group’s proposed
changes do not touch. The Lambino
Group’s proposed changes purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the
existing Constitution, including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions.
The
ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on
In their Manifestation explaining
their amended petition before the COMELEC, the Lambino Group declared:
After
the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the proposed
amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically, paragraph 3 of Section 4
and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the Transitory Provisions were inaccurately
stated and failed to correctly reflect their proposed amendments.
The Lambino Group did not allege that
they were amending the petition because the amended petition was what they had
shown to the people during the February to August 2006
signature-gathering. Instead, the
Lambino Group alleged that the petition of
The
Lambino Group never alleged in the
It is only in their Consolidated
Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that the Lambino Group first claimed
that they circulated the “petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC,”
thus:
[T]here
is persuasive authority to the effect that “(w)here
there is not (sic) fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a
referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground that he did not
understand the nature of the act.” [82 C.J.S. S128h.
The Lambino Group’s statement that
they circulated to the people “the
petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC” appears an afterthought,
made after the intervenors Integrated Bar of the
The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that
“a signer who did not read the measure attached to a referendum petition
cannot question his signature on the ground that he did not understand the
nature of the act.” The Lambino Group quotes
an authority that cites a proposed change
attached to the petition signed by
the people. Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes
requires that the proposed change must be attached to the petition. The same authority the Lambino Group quotes
requires the people to sign on the petition itself.
Indeed, it is basic in American
jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be incorporated with, or
attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people. In the present initiative, the Lambino
Group’s proposed changes were not incorporated with, or attached to, the
signature sheets. The Lambino Group’s citation
of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls the
rug from under their feet.
It is extremely doubtful that the
Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from February to August 2006
during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the petition or amended
petition they filed later with the COMELEC.
The Lambino Group are less than candid with this Court in their belated
claim that they printed and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the
petition or amended petition. Nevertheless,
even assuming the Lambino Group circulated
the amended petition during the signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted
circulating only very limited copies
of the petition.
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only 100,000 copies of the draft
petition they filed more than six months later with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other
supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not
state with certainty how many additional copies the other supporters printed. Atty.
Lambino could only assure this Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because
he himself caused the printing of these 100,000 copies.
Likewise, in the Lambino Group’s Memorandum
filed on 11 October 2006, the Lambino
Group expressly admits that “petitioner
Lambino initiated the printing and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the
petition for initiative x x x.”[25] This
admission binds the Lambino Group and establishes
beyond any doubt that the Lambino
Group failed to show the full text of the proposed changes to the great
majority of the people who signed the signature sheets.
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories,
only 100,000 signatories could have received with certainty one copy each of
the petition, assuming a 100 percent distribution with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one
copy of the petition to each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets
could have circulated with the petition.
Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of these
100,000 signature sheets with the attached petition, the maximum number of
people who saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets would not
exceed 1,000,000.
With only 100,000 printed copies of
the petition, it would be physically impossible for all or a great majority of
the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition before they signed the
signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to
the 6.3 million signatories the full text of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million
signatories saw the petition before they signed the signature sheets.
In any event, the Lambino Group’s signature
sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed changes, either on the face
of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an indication in the signature
sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino admitted this
during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This
fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. This omission is fatal. The failure to so include the text of the
proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the initiative void for
non-compliance with the constitutional requirement that the amendment must be “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition.” The signature sheet is not the “petition” envisioned in the initiative
clause of the Constitution.
For sure, the great majority of the
6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did not see the full text of
the proposed changes before signing.
They could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes,
among which are:
1.
The term limits on members of the legislature
will be lifted and thus members of Parliament can be re-elected
indefinitely;[26]
2.
The interim Parliament
can continue to function indefinitely until its members, who are almost all the
present members of Congress, decide to call for new parliamentary
elections. Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will
determine the expiration of their own term of office; [27]
3.
Within 45 days
from the ratification of the proposed changes, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution.[28]
These three specific amendments are
not stated or even indicated in the Lambino Group’s signature sheets. The people who signed the signature sheets
had no idea that they were proposing these amendments. These three proposed changes are highly
controversial. The people could not
have inferred or divined these proposed changes merely from a reading or
rereading of the contents of the signature sheets.
During the oral arguments, petitioner
Atty. Lambino stated that he and his group assured
the people during the signature-gathering that the elections for the regular Parliament would be held during the 2007
local elections if the proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local
elections. However, the text of the
proposed changes belies this.
The proposed Section 5(2), Article
XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in the amended petition, states:
Section
5(2). The interim Parliament shall
provide for the election of the members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election
of all local government officials. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Section 5(2) does not state that the
elections for the regular Parliament will be held simultaneously with the 2007
local elections. This section merely
requires that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be held
simultaneously with the local elections without
specifying the year.
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, who claims
to be the principal drafter of the proposed changes, could have easily written
the word “next” before the phrase
“election of all local government officials.” This would have insured that the
elections for the regular Parliament would be held in the next local elections
following the ratification of the proposed changes. However, the absence of the word “next”
allows the interim Parliament to schedule the elections for the regular
Parliament simultaneously with any
future local elections.
Thus, the members of the interim
Parliament will decide the expiration of their own term of office. This allows incumbent members of the House of
Representatives to hold office beyond their current three-year term of office,
and possibly even beyond the five-year term of office of regular members of the
Parliament. Certainly, this is contrary to the representations of Atty. Lambino and
his group to the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets. Atty.
Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the entire
nation.
This lucidly shows the absolute need for the people to sign an
initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments to
avoid fraud or misrepresentation. In the
present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely on the verbal representations of Atty. Lambino
and his group because the signature sheets did not contain the full text of the
proposed changes. The result is a grand deception on the 6.3 million
signatories who were led to believe that the proposed changes would require the
holding in 2007 of elections for the regular Parliament simultaneously with the
local elections.
The Lambino Group’s initiative
springs another surprise on the people who signed the signature sheets. The proposed changes mandate the interim Parliament to make further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution. The proposed Section 4(4), Article XVIII on
Transitory Provisions, provides:
Section
4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim
Parliament shall convene to propose
amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the
principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
(Emphasis supplied)
During the oral arguments, Atty.
Lambino stated that this provision is a “surplusage” and the Court and the
people should simply ignore it. Far from
being a surplusage, this provision invalidates the Lambino Group’s
initiative.
Section
4(4) is a subject matter totally
unrelated to the shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the
Unicameral-Parliamentary system.
American jurisprudence on initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - when the initiative petition incorporates
an unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma since they
can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them to
sign a petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they
may find unacceptable.
Under American jurisprudence, the
effect of logrolling is to nullify the
entire proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine
v. Firestone,[29]
the Supreme Court of Florida declared:
Combining multiple propositions into one
proposal constitutes “logrolling,”
which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean anything, we cannot permit. The very
broadness of the proposed amendment amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know what it is voting on - the
amendment’s proponents’ simplistic explanation reveals only the tip of the
iceberg.
x x x x The ballot must give the
electorate fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted on. x x x x The ballot language in the instant case fails
to do that. The very broadness of the
proposal makes it impossible to state what it will affect and effect and
violates the requirement that proposed amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied)
Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v. McAlpine,[30]
the Supreme Court of
Whenever
a bill becomes law through the initiative
process, all of the problems that the single-subject rule was enacted to
prevent are exacerbated. There is a
greater danger of logrolling, or
the deliberate intermingling of issues to increase the likelihood of an initiative’s passage, and there is a greater opportunity for
“inadvertence, stealth and fraud” in the enactment-by-initiative process.
The drafters of an initiative
operate independently of any structured or supervised process. They often emphasize particular provisions
of their proposition, while remaining silent on other (more complex or less
appealing) provisions, when communicating to the public. x x x Indeed,
initiative promoters typically
use simplistic advertising to present their initiative to potential petition-signers
and eventual voters. Many voters
will never read the full text of the initiative
before the election. More importantly,
there is no process for amending or splitting the several provisions in an initiative proposal. These difficulties clearly distinguish the initiative from the legislative
process. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the present initiative appears
merely a preliminary step for further amendments or revisions to be undertaken
by the interim Parliament as a constituent assembly. The people who signed the signature sheets
could not have known that their signatures would be used to propose an
amendment mandating the interim
Parliament to propose further
amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted
the proposed Section 4(4) to compel
the interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution within 45 days
from ratification of the proposed changes, or
before the May 2007 elections. In
the absence of the proposed Section 4(4), the interim Parliament has the
discretion whether to amend or revise again the Constitution. With the proposed Section 4(4), the
initiative proponents want the interim Parliament mandated to immediately amend or revise again the
Constitution.
However, the signature sheets do not
explain the reason for this rush in amending or revising again so soon the Constitution. The signature sheets do not also explain what
specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the interim
Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments or
revisions. The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and effect
of the proposed changes. Certainly,
such an initiative is not “directly proposed by the people” because the people
do not even know the nature and effect of the proposed changes.
There is another intriguing provision
inserted in the Lambino Group’s amended petition of
Section
4(3). Senators whose term of office ends
in 2010 shall be members of Parliament until
After
The term of the incumbent President
ends on
The signature sheets do not explain
this discrimination against the Senators.
The 6.3 million people who signed
the signature sheets could not have known that their signatures would be used
to discriminate against the Senators.
They could not have known that
their signatures would be used to limit, after 30 June 2010, the interim
Parliament’s choice of Prime Minister only to members of the existing House of
Representatives.
An
initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed amendments
is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people.
That is why the Constitution requires that an initiative must be “directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition” - meaning that the people must sign on a
petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation’s
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general
or special power of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and unelected
individuals.
The
Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution. This Court trusts the
wisdom of the people even if the members of this Court do not personally know
the people who sign the petition. However, this trust emanates from a
fundamental assumption: the full text of
the proposed amendment is first shown to the people before they sign the
petition, not after they have signed the petition.
In
short, the Lambino Group’s initiative is void and unconstitutional because it
dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution that the initiative must be “directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.”
2.
The
Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing
Revision through Initiatives
A people’s initiative to change the
Constitution applies only to an amendment of the Constitution and not to its
revision. In contrast, Congress or a
constitutional convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the
Constitution. Article XVII of the
Constitution provides:
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Sec.
1. Any
amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1)
The Congress,
upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or
(2)
A constitutional
convention.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Article
XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the
Constitution. The first mode is through
Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is through a constitutional
convention. The third mode is through a
people’s initiative.
Section
1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to “[A]ny
amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution.” In contrast, Section 2 of
Article XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to “[A]mendments
to this Constitution.” This
distinction was intentional as shown
by the following deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May
we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission that
pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we submitted this afternoon a
complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the proposed provision governing
the matter of initiative. This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete
committee report. With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
The people may,
after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose
amendments to this Constitution
thru initiative upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
This
completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory
that this matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of
amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of initiative should be
limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to the revision
of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section 1 of
the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. x x x x
x x
x x
MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we
clarified a while ago, this process of
initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and should not expand into a
revision which contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was
the sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: In
other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish the coverage of modes
(a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision; whereas, the
process of initiation to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply
to amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: That is
right. Those were the terms envisioned in the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you,
Madam President.
x x
x x
MR. MAAMBONG: My
first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment on line 1 refers to
"amendments." Does it not cover the word "revision" as
defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction between the words
"amendments" and "revision"?
MR. DAVIDE: No, it
does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should be
covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only relate
to "amendments" not "revision."
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.[31] (Emphasis supplied)
There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended, and wrote, a clear
distinction between “amendment” and “revision” of the Constitution. The framers
intended, and wrote, that only
Congress or a constitutional convention may propose revisions to the
Constitution. The framers intended, and wrote, that a people’s
initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution. Where the intent and language of the
Constitution clearly withhold from the people the power to propose revisions to
the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as they are
empowered to propose amendments.
This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts
in the
The initiative power reserved by the people
by amendment to the Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the
adopting or rejecting of ‘laws and amendments to the Constitution’ and does not
purport to extend to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is thus clear that a revision of the
Constitution may be accomplished only through ratification by the people of a
revised constitution proposed by a convention called for that purpose as
outlined hereinabove. Consequently if
the scope of the proposed initiative measure (hereinafter termed ‘the measure’)
now before us is so broad that if such measure became law a substantial
revision of our present state Constitution would be effected, then the measure
may not properly be submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first
agreed upon by a constitutional convention, and the writ sought by petitioner
should issue. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v. Appling:[33]
It is well
established that when a constitution specifies the manner in which it may be
amended or revised, it can be altered by those who favor amendments, revision,
or other change only through the use of one of the specified means. The constitution itself recognizes that there
is a difference between an amendment and a revision; and it is obvious from an
examination of the measure here in question that it is not an amendment as that
term is generally understood and as it is used in Article IV, Section 1. The document appears to be based in large
part on the revision of the constitution drafted by the ‘Commission for
Constitutional Revision’ authorized by the 1961 Legislative Assembly, x x x and
submitted to the 1963 Legislative Assembly.
It failed to receive in the Assembly the two-third's majority vote of
both houses required by Article XVII, Section 2, and hence failed of adoption,
x x x.
While differing from
that document in material respects, the measure sponsored by the plaintiffs is,
nevertheless, a thorough overhauling of the present constitution x x x.
To
call it an amendment is a misnomer.
Whether
it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a measure as can be
submitted to the people through the initiative.
If a revision, it is subject to the requirements of Article XVII,
Section 2(1); if a new constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention
called in the manner provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there
can be no dispute that a people’s initiative can only propose amendments to the
Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to
amendments. There can be no deviation
from the constitutionally prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. A
popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a
deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself.
As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma
ruled in In re Initiative Petition No. 364:[34]
It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised or amended in the manner
prescribed by the instrument itself, and that any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner other than the one provided in the instrument
is almost invariably treated as extra-constitutional
and revolutionary. x x x x
“While it is universally conceded that the people are sovereign and that
they have power to adopt a constitution
and to change their own work at will, they must, in doing so, act in an orderly
manner and according to the settled principles of constitutional law. And
where the people, in adopting a constitution,
have prescribed the method by which the people may alter or amend it, an
attempt to change the fundamental law in violation of the self-imposed
restrictions, is unconstitutional.” x x x x
(Emphasis supplied)
This
Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, cannot
shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear command
of the Constitution ― that a people’s initiative may only amend,
never revise, the Constitution.
The question is, does the Lambino
Group’s initiative constitute an amendment or revision of the
Constitution? If the Lambino Group’s
initiative constitutes a revision, then the present petition should be
dismissed for being outside the scope of Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution.
Courts
have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of a
constitution. One of the earliest
cases that recognized the distinction described the fundamental difference in
this manner:
[T]he very term “constitution” implies an instrument of a
permanent and abiding nature, and the provisions
contained therein for its revision indicate the will of the people that the
underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety
of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the
other hand, the significance of the term “amendment” implies such an addition
or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an
improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.[35] (Emphasis supplied)
Revision broadly implies a change that
alters a basic principle in the constitution,
like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of
checks-and-balances. There is also
revision if the change alters the
substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects
substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers
to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes
without altering the basic principle
involved. Revision generally
affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally
affects only the specific provision being amended.
In
The qualitative test inquires into
the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main
inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.”[37] Whether there is an alteration in the
structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, “a change in the nature of [the] basic
governmental plan” includes “change in its fundamental framework or the
fundamental powers of its Branches.”[38] A change in the nature of the basic
governmental plan also includes changes that “jeopardize the traditional form
of government and the system of check and balances.”[39]
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.
A
change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as
when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present
Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the
Constitution. A shift from the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a
revision of the Constitution. Merging
the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of
government.
The abolition alone of the Office of
the President as the locus of Executive Power alters the separation of powers
and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber
of Congress alters the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and
constitutes a revision of the Constitution.
By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a
shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the
President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a
revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group’s proposed
changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter the framework of government as set forth in the
Constitution. Father Joaquin Bernas,
S.J., a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, writes:
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a
few specific and separable
provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions
deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions
that may have become obsolete or that are
judged to be dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original
intention and plan contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of
provisions of the document which have over-all implications for the entire
document, to determine how and to what
extent they should be altered. Thus, for
instance a switch from the presidential
system to a parliamentary system would be a revision because of its over-all
impact on the entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a
bicameral system to a unicameral system be because
of its effect on other important provisions of the Constitution.[41] (Emphasis supplied)
In Adams v. Gunter,[42]
an initiative petition proposed the amendment of the
The
proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968 Constitution to
provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects
not only many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a change in
the form of the legislative branch of government, which has been in
existence in the United States Congress and in all of the states of the nation,
except one, since the earliest days. It would be difficult to visualize a more
revolutionary change. The concept of
a House and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It
would not only radically change the whole pattern of government in this state
and tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution, but would even affect the
physical facilities necessary to carry on government.
x x x x
We
conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment were adopted by
the people at the General Election and if the Legislature at its next session
should fail to submit further amendments to revise and clarify the numerous
inconsistencies and conflicts which would result, or if after submission of
appropriate amendments the people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos
would prevail in the government of this State.
The same result would obtain from an amendment, for instance, of Section
1 of Article V, to provide for only a Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and
there could be other examples too numerous to detail. These examples point unerringly to the
answer.
The
purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men and women and many
sessions of the Legislature in bringing about the Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate
inconsistencies and conflicts and to give the State a workable, accordant,
homogenous and up-to-date document. All
of this could disappear very quickly if we were to hold that it could be
amended in the manner proposed in the initiative petition here.[43] (Emphasis supplied)
The rationale of the
In
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between “amendment” and “revision” is
only one of procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative
body drafts and proposes changes to the Constitution, substantive changes are
called “revisions” because members of
the deliberative body work full-time on the changes. However, the same substantive changes, when
proposed through an initiative, are called “amendments” because the changes are made by ordinary people who do not make an
“occupation, profession, or vocation” out of such endeavor.
Thus, the Lambino Group makes the
following exposition of their theory in their Memorandum:
99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional provisions expressly provide for both “amendment” and “revision” when it speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the same provisions expressly provide only for “amendment” when it speaks of the people. It would seem that the apparent distinction is based on the actual experience of the people, that on one hand the common people in general are not expected to work full-time on the matter of correcting the constitution because that is not their occupation, profession or vocation; while on the other hand, the legislators and constitutional convention delegates are expected to work full-time on the same matter because that is their occupation, profession or vocation. Thus, the difference between the words “revision” and “amendment” pertain only to the process or procedure of coming up with the corrections, for purposes of interpreting the constitutional provisions.
100. Stated otherwise, the difference between “amendment” and “revision” cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the correction. x x x x (Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied)
The Lambino Group in effect argues
that if Congress or a constitutional convention had drafted the same proposed
changes that the Lambino Group wrote in the present initiative, the changes
would constitute a revision of the Constitution. Thus, the
Lambino Group concedes that the
proposed changes in the present initiative constitute a revision if Congress or
a constitutional convention had drafted the changes. However, since the
Lambino Group as private individuals drafted the proposed changes, the changes
are merely amendments to the Constitution.
The Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter of changing the fundamental
law of the land.
The express intent of
the framers and the plain language of
the Constitution contradict
the Lambino Group’s theory. Where the
intent of the framers and the language of the Constitution are clear and
plainly stated, courts do not deviate from such categorical intent and
language.[45] Any theory espousing a construction contrary
to such intent and language deserves scant consideration. More so, if such theory wreaks havoc by
creating inconsistencies in the form of government established in the
Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of
any jurisprudential mooring and inviting inconsistencies in the Constitution,
only exposes the flimsiness of the Lambino Group’s position. Any theory
advocating that a proposed change involving a radical structural change in
government does not constitute a revision justly deserves rejection.
The Lambino Group simply recycles a
theory that initiative proponents in American jurisdictions have attempted to
advance without any success. In Lowe
v. Keisling,[46] the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected this theory, thus:
Mabon
argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes to the constitution proposed by initiative. His
theory is that Article XVII, section 2 merely provides a procedure by which the
legislature can propose a revision
of the constitution, but it does
not affect proposed revisions
initiated by the people.
Plaintiffs
argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted
through the initiative
process. They assert that the distinction between amendment and revision is determined by reviewing the scope and subject matter
of the proposed enactment, and that revisions
are not limited to “a formal overhauling of the constitution.” They argue
that this ballot measure proposes far reaching changes outside the lines of the
original instrument, including profound impacts on existing fundamental rights
and radical restructuring of the government's relationship with a defined group
of citizens. Plaintiffs assert that,
because the proposed ballot measure “will refashion the most basic principles
of
We
first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2(1), does not prohibit revisions
instituted by initiative. In Holmes v. Appling, x x x, the Supreme Court
concluded that a revision of the
constitution may not be
accomplished by initiative,
because of the provisions of Article XVII, section 2. After reviewing Article XVII, section1, relating
to proposed amendments,
the court said:
“From the foregoing it
appears that Article IV, Section 1, authorizes
the use of the initiative as a
means of amending the Oregon Constitution,
but it contains no similar sanction for its use as a means of revising the constitution.” x x x x
It
then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said: “It is the only section of the constitution which provides the means
for constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that
an individual, through the initiative,
may place such a measure before the electorate.” x x x x
Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that
Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to constitutional revisions
proposed by initiative. (Emphasis
supplied)
Similarly, this Court must reject the
Lambino Group’s theory which negates the express intent of the framers and the
plain language of the Constitution.
We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green
for amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of the spectrum, colors
fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an amendment or
revision. The present initiative is
indisputably located at the far end of the red spectrum where revision
begins. The present initiative
seeks a radical overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three
co-equal departments of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in
several sections and articles of the Constitution.
Where
the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution
without affecting any other section or article, the change may generally be
considered an amendment and not a revision.
For example, a change reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15 years[47]
is an amendment and not a revision.
Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies
from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision.[48] Also, a change requiring a college degree as
an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and
not a revision.[49]
The changes in these examples do not
entail any modification of sections or articles of the Constitution other than
the specific provision being amended.
These changes do not also affect the structure of government or the
system of checks-and-balances among or within the three branches. These three
examples are located at the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red
end where the revision sought by the present petition is located.
However,
there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a
revision. A change in a single word of
one sentence of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the word
“republican” with “monarchic” or “theocratic” in Section 1, Article II[50]
of the Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of government and
the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will have to be
examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as well as
how it affects the structure of government, the carefully crafted system of
checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the existing
Constitution.
Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several
provisions of a constitution, a deliberative
body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only
several provisions, but also the altered principles with those that remain
unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally
authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional
conventions to undertake revisions. On
the other hand, constitutions allow people’s initiatives, which do not have
fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to
undertake only amendments and not revisions.
In the present initiative, the Lambino Group’s proposed Section 2 of the
Transitory Provisions states:
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended and
Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are
hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26,
unless they are inconsistent with the
Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be amended to
conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The basic rule in statutory
construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably inconsistent with a prior
law, the later law prevails. This rule
also applies to construction of constitutions.
However, the Lambino Group’s draft of Section 2 of the Transitory
Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that in case of
such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision “shall be amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form
of government.” The effect is to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until
the earlier one “shall be amended,” which requires a future separate
constitutional amendment.
Realizing the absurdity of the need
for such an amendment, petitioner Atty. Lambino readily conceded during the
oral arguments that the requirement of a future amendment is a
“surplusage.” In short, Atty. Lambino
wants to reinstate the rule of statutory construction so that the later
provision automatically prevails in case of irreconcilable inconsistency. However, it is not as simple as that.
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of
the Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987
Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is
between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the “Parliamentary system of government,”
and the inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a “unicameral parliamentary form of government.”
Now, what “unicameral
parliamentary form of government” do the Lambino Group’s proposed changes
refer to ― the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or
This drives home the point that the people’s initiative is not meant for
revisions of the Constitution but only for amendments. A shift from the present
Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires
harmonizing several provisions in many articles of the Constitution. Revision of the
Constitution through a people’s initiative will only result in gross
absurdities in the Constitution.
In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group’s initiative
is a revision and not an amendment.
Thus, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it
violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution limiting the scope of a
people’s initiative to “[A]mendments to this Constitution.”
3.
A Revisit of
The present petition warrants
dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements of Section 2,
Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution.
There is no need to revisit this Court’s ruling in
This Court must avoid revisiting a
ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the case before the
Court can be resolved on some other grounds.
Such avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine
that courts will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case
can be resolved on some other grounds.[51]
Nevertheless, even assuming that RA
6735 is valid to implement the constitutional provision on initiatives to amend
the Constitution, this will not change the result here because the present
petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. 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.
Even then, the present initiative
violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires that the “petition for an
initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
registered voters as signatories.” Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the
people must sign the “petition x x x
as signatories.”
The 6.3 million signatories did not
sign the petition of
The
Lambino Group’s logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735
stating, “No petition embracing more
than one (1) subject shall be submitted to the electorate; x x x.” The proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory
Provisions, mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or
revisions to the Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the form of government. Since the present initiative embraces more
than one subject matter, RA 6735 prohibits submission of the initiative petition
to the electorate. Thus, even if RA 6735
is valid, the Lambino Group’s initiative will still fail.
4.
The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of
Discretion in Dismissing the Lambino Group’s Initiative
In dismissing the Lambino Group’s initiative
petition, the COMELEC en banc merely
followed this Court’s ruling in
The
Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote,
that no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to the public respondent
COMELEC in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that
it only complied with the dispositions
in the Decisions of this Court in G.R. No. 127325, promulgated on March 19,
1997, and its Resolution of June 10, 1997.
5.
Conclusion
The Constitution, as the fundamental
law of the land, deserves the utmost respect and obedience of all the citizens
of this nation. No one can trivialize
the Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of
the clearly specified modes of amendment and revision laid down in the
Constitution itself.
To allow such change in the
fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in unchartered waters, to be
tossed and turned by every dominant political group of the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change
in the Constitution outside the constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the
new dominant political group that comes will demand its own set of changes in
the same cavalier and unconstitutional fashion. A revolving-door constitution does not augur
well for the rule of law in this country.
An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent
of the total votes cast[53] −
approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on
No amount of signatures, not even the
6,327,952 million signatures gathered by the Lambino Group, can change our
Constitution contrary to the specific modes that the people, in their sovereign
capacity, prescribed when they ratified the Constitution. The alternative is an extra-constitutional
change, which means subverting the
people’s sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. This is one act the Court cannot and should
never do. As the ultimate guardian of
the Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn duty to defend and
protect the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign will of the people.
Incantations of “people’s voice,” “people’s sovereign will,” or “let the people
decide” cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as
prescribed in the Constitution itself.
Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people’s fundamental covenant
that provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes easily
susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups gathering signatures
through false promises. Then, the
Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of the nation’s stability.
The Lambino Group claims that their
initiative is the “people’s voice.”
However, the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No.
2006-02, in the verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that “ULAP
maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms.” The Lambino Group thus admits that their “people’s” initiative is an “unqualified support to the agenda” of the incumbent President to change
the Constitution. This forewarns the
Court to be wary of incantations of “people’s voice” or “sovereign will” in the
present initiative.
This Court cannot betray its
primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution. The Constitution, which embodies the
people’s sovereign will, is the bible of this Court. This
Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this constitutionally infirm
initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to alter basic
principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
Constitution. To allow such alteration and
desecration is to lose this Court’s raison
d'etre.
WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No.
174153.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice |
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
|
|
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate
Justice |
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
ROMEO
J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
|
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA Associate
Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate
Justice |
|
MINITA V.
CHICO-NAZARIO CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief
Justice