Lambino v. Commission On Elections
Lambino Group v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006
- Political Law
- Procedural (Remedial Law)
- people's initiative
- constitutional amendments
- constitutional revision
- COMELEC
- signature verification
- RA 6735
- grave abuse of discretion
- Santiago v. COMELEC
- PIRMA v. COMELEC
- Section 2 Article XVII
I. Facts of the Case
This case involved petitions by the Lambino Group, supported by claims of 6,327,952 registered voters, asking the COMELEC to give due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution. The Court found the initiative defective because the signature sheets and the petition filed with the COMELEC did not include the full proposed text and did not indicate that the signatories were signing a petition embodying the complete amendment text and effects. The Court also noted that the proposed initiative allegedly embraced multiple unrelated subject matters and was processed in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements, including the one-subject rule. The Court had to decide whether the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the initiative, given the controlling rulings in Santiago and PIRMA and the initiative’s noncompliance with the Constitution and RA 6735.
February 15, 2006
The Lambino Group, together with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution.
August 25, 2006
The Lambino Group filed with the COMELEC a petition seeking a plebiscite to ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 73 of RA 6735, claiming support of 6,327,952 individuals.
August 30, 2006
The Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC, indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions).
August 31, 2006
The COMELEC issued a Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group’s initiative petition, citing the lack of an enabling law and relying on Santiago v. COMELEC that RA 6735 was inadequate for proposals to amend the Constitution.
September 26, 2006
The Court heard oral arguments and, after receiving memoranda, considered the cases submitted for resolution.
October 11, 2006
During the resolution period, the Lambino Group filed a signature sheet through its memorandum.
October 25, 2006
The Supreme Court, en banc, consolidated the petitions and dismissed the Lambino Group’s petition in G.R. No. 174153.
II. Issues
Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution complied with the constitutional requirement that it be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition under Section 2, Article XVII.
Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition, even assuming RA 6735 was valid, violated the statutory requirements under RA 6735, including the rule against a petition embracing more than one subject matter under Section 10(a).
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino Group’s initiative petition.
III. Ruling
Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution complied with the constitutional requirement that it be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition under Section 2, Article XVII.
The initiative petition was void because the signatories were not shown the full text and effects of the proposed constitutional changes, so it was not directly proposed by the people upon a petition as required by the Constitution.
How the Court reasoned
- Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people sign the petition as signatories, consistent with the constitutional command that the initiative be directly proposed by the people upon a petition.
- The Court found that the Lambino Group’s signature sheets did not contain the text of the proposed constitutional changes and did not indicate that the proposed text was attached or provided to the signatories.
- The Court treated these omissions as decisive because the signatories must be able to see and sign on a petition embodying the full text of the proposed changes.
- The Court also relied on the initiative proponents’ admissions and inconsistencies regarding what draft was circulated and the number of copies printed, concluding that only a small fraction could have seen the full text before signing.
“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.”
Rule applied
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 6735; constitutional requirement that the amendment must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition embodying the full text of the proposed changes.
Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition, even assuming RA 6735 was valid, violated the statutory requirements under RA 6735, including the rule against a petition embracing more than one subject matter under Section 10(a).
The initiative petition further failed statutory requirements because it embraced more than one subject matter, violating Section 10(a) of RA 6735.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court held that the proposed initiative embraced more than one subject matter within the meaning of Section 10(a) of RA 6735.
- It found that the proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions, which would mandate the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions within a fixed period, was unrelated to the shift in the form of government.
- Because the petition embraced more than one subject matter, the Court concluded it was prohibited from being submitted to the electorate even if RA 6735 were considered valid.
“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.”
Rule applied
Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 6735 (Initiative and Referendum Act) stating that no petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to the electorate.
Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the Lambino Group’s initiative petition.
There was no grave abuse of discretion by COMELEC because it merely followed the Court’s controlling rulings in Santiago and PIRMA, and the initiative’s noncompliance warranted dismissal.
How the Court reasoned
- The Court found that the COMELEC en banc dismissed the initiative petition by following this Court’s rulings in Santiago and PIRMA.
- For following the Court’s ruling, no grave abuse of discretion could be attributed to COMELEC.
- The Court further stated that the petition warranted outright dismissal based on the Lambino Group’s glaring constitutional noncompliance, making it unnecessary to revisit Santiago.
Rule applied
Santiago v. Commission on Elections; People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC; doctrine that when COMELEC follows controlling Supreme Court decisions, grave abuse of discretion is not attributable.
Doctrines
A people's initiative to amend the Constitution must comply with the constitutional requirement that the amendment be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition, which necessarily requires that the people be presented with the full text of the proposed changes for signing.
Even assuming the validity of RA 6735, an initiative petition that embraces more than one subject matter violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735 and cannot be submitted to the electorate.
When the COMELEC dismisses an initiative petition by merely following this Court’s controlling decisions, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to COMELEC.
Final Disposition
WHEREFORE , we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153. SO ORDERED
Notes
The Court stated there was no need to revisit Santiago because the petition was dismissed on other independent constitutional grounds.