DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs.
COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
Facts:
In 1996, Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to lift term limits
of elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise
said people’s initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is: “Do you
approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, amending for the purpose
Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of
the 1987 Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the
people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country, it
will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
The COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et
al., moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition
properly cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners raised the following arguments:
a) 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.
b) Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle
on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. This deliberate
omission indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law.
c) COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s
initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
d) People’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof.
Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision.
e) Congress nor any government agency has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative.
Issue:
Whether or not R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the
Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
Held:
No, insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735
miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation.
1 Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not
suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word
"Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane nor
relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national
laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments
on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only
to proposals to amend. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact,
approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative.
They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions."
2 It is true that Section 3 of the Act defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution
and mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative, and that Section 5 restates the
constitutional requirements as to the percentage of the registered voters who must submit
the proposal. But unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not
provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Section 5,
paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law sought to be
enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not
include, as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the Constitution sought to
be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
3 3. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II)
and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for
initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that
the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If
Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative
on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor,
considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the
right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more
important than the initiative on national and local laws.
