DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC (G.R. No.

127325 - March 19, 1997)

Ponente: Davide, Jr.,J.
FACTS:
1. Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin filed a petition with the COMELEC to
amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials by Peoples
Initiative. The proposed amendment is on the Sec. 4 and 7 of Art. 6, Sec. 4 of
Art. 7 and Sec. 8 of Art. 10.
2. The petition was motioned to dismiss since it has not ground cognizable by the
COMELEC after the appearance of Delfin and Atty. Pete Q. Quadra;
representatives of the Peoples 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) .

3. Delfin was given five days by the COMELEC to file for opposition but Santiago,
Ongpin and Padilia filed a petition for the prohibition of such civil action for the
reasons: (1) People Initiative can only be implemented by law passed by
Congress; (2) The provision in RA 6375 that states the 3 systems of initiative- the
peoples initiative does not have subtitles meaning that it was still deficient and
still subject to some amendments or discussion for future law and (3) COMELEC
has no power to provide rules and regulation to exercise right of people initiative
to amend Constitutions.
Issues:

Held

Whether or not RA 6735 in the Constitution is self-executory with respect to the

Peoples Initiative to propose for amendments in certain provisions in the
Constitution
Whether or not the COMELEC under the Resolution 2300 has the power to
enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall
Whether or not the Peoples petition to Lift term limits of elective officials can
lead to amendments or revisions in the Constitution

The petition was granted however the RA 6735 of the Constitution is inadequate
to cover the rules and regulations of Peoples Initiative and does not provide
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation.
The Supreme Court declared the void parts of COMELEC Resolution indicating
rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the
Constitution. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the
latter cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the
exercise of the right to peoples initiative
The petition to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials was perceived more of a
revision than an amendment. It was a stated in the Constitution that the Peoples
Initiative is only limited to an amendment in the provisions and not the revision of
the Constitution.
Thus, the Delfin Petition was dismissed and the previously issued TRO by the
Supreme Court was made permanent against the COMELEC but lifted against
private respondents.

Constitutional Law 1
RAUL L. LAMBINO, et al vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS (COMELEC)
GR No. 174153, 25 October 2006, 505 SCRA 160
FACTS:
A group led by Raul L. Lambino asked the Commission on Elections
(COMELEC) to hold a plebiscite to ratify the petition under Section 5 (b) and
(c) and Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) 6735. Lambino claimed his group has the
support of 6,327,902 individuals constituting at least 12% of all registered voters
with each legislative district represented by at least 3% of all registered voters.
They petitioned to modify Sections 1 to 7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)
and Sections 1 to 4 of Article VII (Executive Department) from present
Bicameral Presidential to Unicameral Parliamentary form of government.
The COMELEC denied their petition for lack of enabling law governing the
initiative petitions to amend the Constitution.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the Lambino group petition complies with Section 2 of Article XVII
of the Constitution through a Peoples Initiative.
(2) Whether a peoples initiative petition can propose an amendment or revision
to the constitution.
HELD:
(1) No. The Lambino Group petition does not comply with Section 2 of Article
XVII of the Constitution through a peoples initiative since the petition does
not indicate the full text of the proposed changes to the constitution. The
signatory must be informed at the time of the signing the nature and effects of
the proposal. Otherwise, such proposal is deceptive and misleading, thereby
rendering the initiative void. 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. (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
(2) NO. The process of peoples initiative is only limited to
an
amendment of the Constitution, and not a revision. The change from a
bicameralpresidential to a unicameral-parliamentary form of
government is indeed a revision, as it seeks to overhaul the entire
constitutional structure, affecting two (2) of the three (3) branches of

government the executive and the legislative. (Underscoring and emphasis

supplied)

JAVELLANA vs. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

G.R. No. L-36142 March 31, 1973

FACTS:
In 1973, Javellana, a Filipino and registered voter, filed a suit against the respondents
to restrain them from implementing any of the provisions of the proposed Constitution
not found in the present 1935 Constitution since there was an order from President
Marcos to immediately implement the new 1973 Constitution. Javellana averred that
the said constitution is void because it was initiated by the president, and the
president has no power to proclaim the ratification of the same.
Furthermore, the election held to ratify the proposed constitution was not a free
election, hence null and void.
ISSUE:
Whether or not he Supreme Court must grant the petition. HELD:
NO. The Supreme Court ruled that they cannot rule upon the case at bar. In the
exercise of the presidents political prerogatives, the majority members of the SC
justices accepted the ascertainment made by the president himself. Since there was
no competent evidence to show fraud and intimidation during the election, it is to be
assumed that the people accepted the 1973 Constitution. Their ratification of the
same had shown such acquiescence.

MACARIOLA vs. ASUNCION

A.M. No. 133-J, May 31, 1982, 114 SCRA 77

FACTS:
A decision for lack of an appeal in Civil Cases 3010 was rendered by Judge Elias
Asuncion on June 8, 1963.
On October 16, 1963, a project of partition was submitted to Judge Asuncion which he
approved in an Order on October 16, 1963. Among the parties involved was
complainant Bernardita R. Macariola.
One of the lots in the project of partition was Lot 1184, which was subdivided into 5
lots denominated as Lot 1184 A- E. Dr. Arcadio Galapon bought Lot 1184-E on July 31,
1964, who was issued transfer of certificate No. 2338 of the Register of Deeds of
Tacloban City. On March 6, 1965, Arcadio Galapon and his wife sold a portion of the lot
to Judge Asuncion and his wife, Victoria S. Asuncion.
In a verified complaint dated August 6, 1968, respondent Macariola charged Judge
Asuncion with acts unbecoming of a judge for violation the following provisions:
Article 1491, paragraph 5 of the New Civil Code, Article 14, paragraph 1 and 5 of the
Code of Commerce, Sec. 3 par H of RA 3019 also known as the Anti-Graft & Corrupt
Practice Act., Sec. 12, Rule XVIII of the Civil Service Rules and Canon 25 of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics.
On November 2, 1970, Judge Jose Nepomuceno of the CFI of Leyte rendered a decision
dismissing the complaints against Judge Asuncion.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of Court of Appeals, violated the
mentioned provisions.
HELD:
NO. Judge Asuncion, now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, did not violate any
law in acquiring by purchase a parcel of land which was in litigation in his court and in
engaging in business by joining a private corporation during his incumbency as judge
of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. But he should be reminded to be more discreet
in his private and business activities, because his conduct as a member of the
Judiciary must not only be characterized with propriety but must always be above
suspicion.

Tolentino v COMELEC
G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971
Ponente: Barredo, J
Topic: Proposed amendment/s subject for plebiscite
FACTS:

The Constitutional Convention of 1971 approved Organic Resolution No. 1, lowering the voting age
to 18. This partial amendment of the 1935 Constitution is without prejudice to other amendments of
the said constitutional convention. The proposed amendment in question will be voted through
plebiscite coinciding with the local elections of November 1971.

Then President Diosdado Macapagal, called upon COMELEC to aid the Convention in
implementing Organic Resolution No. 1, by a letter dated September 28, 1971. Three days upon
receipt of communication, COMELEC resolved to hold the plebiscite during the local elections.

Petitioner filed a petition for prohibition to Supreme Court to: 1) restrain COMELEC to hold
plebiscite during the local elections of November 1971 at which the proposed amendment pursuant
to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the subsequent
implementing resolutions; 2) declare the acts of COMELEC null and void, for being unconstitutional.
The petitioner explained that a proposed amendment cannot be presented to the people separately
from each other and all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed by the said
Convention

Respondents and intervenors argued that the Constitutional Convention of 1971 has the discretion
on the submission of a proposed amendment in question jointly or individually in a plebiscite for
ratification.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the plebiscite for ratification on the proposed amendment in question should be
declared null and void being unconstitutional

RULING:
Yes, holding of the plebiscite is null and void due to its unconstitutionality.
The court ruled that plebiscite for ratification of the proposed amendment of the voting age in
question is not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution; that there should be a single
election for proposed amendments; and any proposed amendment in question should not be submitted
separately.
In the Organic Resolution No.1 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there is no fixed frame of
reference provided on the qualifications in the exercise of the right to suffrage, or worse, other changes in
fundamental principles of Constitution the Convention will propose to amend.
Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner since it did not comply with the doctrine of proper
submission.