article xvii -- compiled case digests and bar questions (complete).docx

7/28/2019 ARTICLE XVII -- Compiled Case Digests and BAR questions (complete).docx

1/3

ARTICLE XVII

Lambino vs. Comelec, G.R. 174153, October 25, 2006, 505 SCRA 160

Facts: These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections("COMELEC") denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino

Group"), with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that willratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)2and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and

Referendum Act ("RA 6735). The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifyingSections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by

adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory Provisions." These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. 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. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicatingmodifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative. In 31 August 2006, the

COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling lawgoverning initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. 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 theConstitution.

Issues: a.) Was Lambino Groups initiative for amendments or revisions of the Constitution? b.) Did the Lambino Groupcomply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a peoples initiative? c.) Is there a need to re-visitSantiago vs. Comelec?

Ruling: The majority of the court ruled that there is no merit to the petition.

a.) Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and not merely anamendment. 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. Qualitatively, the proposed

changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to aunicameral legislature. A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three greatco-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two.

b.) The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by thePeople. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people's

initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional becauseit 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."

c.) A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary. The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to complywith 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 Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete,inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. Anaffirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition.

Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 30, March 31, 1973

Facts: Marcos declared the Philippines under martial law on September 21, 1972. Upon its declaration, Congress waspadlocked, and full legislative authority was vested upon Marcos via rule of decree. Many prominent members of theopposition, notably Benigno Aquino, Jr.and Jose W. Diokno, among others, was arrested and placed in military stockades.It was also during that time that the proceedings of the 1971 Constitutional Convention were still continuing despite the

declaration of martial law. Eventually, on November 29, 1972, the Convention approved the new constitution. The next
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/oct2006/gr_174153_2006.html#fnt2


2/3

day, Marcos issued Presidential Decree 73, "submitting to the Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitutionof the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefore," aswell as setting the plebiscite for said ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973. At thisinstance, Charito Planas (a staunch critic and later vice-mayor ofQuezon City) filed a case before with the Supreme Court

calling the stop the proposed ratification upon the grounds, among others, that the Presidential Decree "has no force andeffect as law because the calling... of such plebiscite, the setting of guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescriptionof the ballots to be used and the question to be answered by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the

purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively in Congress..." and "there is no proper submission to the people therebeing no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the people of the contents

thereof."On January 15, 1973, while the Plebiscite Cases were being heard in the Supreme Court, the president signedProclamation 1102, which states that the 1973 Constitution was supposedly "ratified by an overwhelming majority of allthe votes cast by the members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) throughout the Philippines..."

Issue: Was the 1973 Constitution ratified in accordance with the procedural requirements prescribed under sec. 1, Art. XVof the 1935 Constitution?

Ruling: No. A Majority of Six (6) Justices of the Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 ConstitutionalConvention was not validly ratified in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which providesonly one way for ratification, in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only byqualified and duly registered voters.

Under section 1 of Art. XV of the 1935 Constitution, three (3) steps are essential, namely:

1. That the amendments to the Constitution be proposed either by Congress or by a convention called for that purpose, bya vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives voting separately, but in joint

session assembled;

2. That such amendments be submitted to the people for their ratification at an election; and

3. That such amendments be approved by a majority of the votes cast in said election.

2007 BAR:True or false, an amendment to the constitution shall be valid upon a vote of three-fourths of allmembers of the congress. Briefly explain your answer.

True!!! Article XVII Section 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; or2. A constitutional convention.

2009 BAR:What are the essential elements ofa valid petition for a peoples initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution?Discuss.

In Lambino vs. COMELEC 505 SCRA 160, October 25, 2006 the court said that the essence of amendmentsdirectly 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 peoplewho 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 theproposed amendments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quezon_Cityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barangayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barangayhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quezon_City


3/3

2011 BAR: Jose Cruz and 20 others filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite on their petition forinitiative to amend the constitution by shifting to a unicameral parliamentary form of government. Assuming that the

petition has been signed by the required number of registered voters, will it prosper?

In Reference to Lambino vs. COMELEC in which I digested above, the answer here would be definitely (D)!! right?

article xvii -- compiled case digests and bar questions (complete).docx

Documents