ARTICLE XVII - REVISIONS OR AMENDMENTS Flashcards
What happened in the case of Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC?
The issues and rulings in this case are:
1. Whether the people may directly propose AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION through the SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE under Section 2 Article 17 of the Constitution.
No, since the PROVISION IS NOT SELF-EXECUTORY and NEEDS AN ENABLING LAW, and the enabling law R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation as follows:
• First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. 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.”
• Second. The Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution.
• Third. 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.
- Whether that portion of the COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local News) regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provision on the conduct of such initiative.
The COMELEC’s Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires insofar as initiative on the amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is authorized by the constitution to pass the implementing law.
In the case of Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC, in relation to the Delfin petition, does the changing of the term limits of elective officials constitute a REVISION OR AMENDMENT?
In the case of Defensor-Santiago vs COMELEC, it was reasoned that further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to lift the term limits of elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and not a revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.
What happened in the case of Lambino vs COMELEC?
The issue in this case is whether or not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition under the RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum act, TO CHANGE the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
THE COMELEC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN DENYING THE PETITION for the following reasons:
- 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. 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. 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. - The change from Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government CONSTITUTES A REVISION, NOT AN AMENDMENT. ONLY AMENDMENTS ARE ALLOWED IN THE PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE. 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. 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 “Amendments to this Constitution.”
BASED ON THE ABOVE, COMELEC DID NOT COMMIT GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION.
In the case of Lambino vs COMELEC, why was there no need to revisit the Santiago vs COMELEC case?
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 Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution.
What happened in the case of Marmeto vs COMELEC?
The issues here were:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC’s dismissal of Marmeto’s petition on the ground of budgetary allocation was valid.
(No, since the COMELEC was given budget for the conduct of initiative and referendum and for carrying out constitutional functions.)
- Whether or not COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing Marmeto’s petition.
(No, because COMELEC through its quasi-judicial and administrative powers, HAS THE POWER TO REVIEW INITIATIVE PETITIONS TO ENSURE THEY ARE WITHIN THE POWER OF THE SANGGUNIAN TO ENACT. MARMETO’S PROPOSAL WENT BEYOND THE POWER SINCE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE PROVIDES THAT INITIATIVES SHALL ONLY EXTEND TO SUBJECT OR MATTERS WITHIN THE LEGAL POWERS OF THE SANGGUNIAN ITSELF. MARMETO’S PETITION TO CREATE ANOTHER LEGISLATIVE BODY SEPARATE FROM THE SANGGUNIAN COMPOSED OF 12 REPRESENTATIVES IS ULTRA VIRES, GOING AGAINST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.
