ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec. 2 Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD: No.
FIRSTLY, it appears that the proposed changes to the constitution did not directly come from the people.
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
In order to comply with this requirement, two essential elements must be present:
1. the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf.
2. 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 people who 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 the proposed amendments.
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.
In this case, the requisites were not complied with as found by the Supreme Court: The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures – that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments. The proponents failed to prove that all the signatories to the proposed amendments were able to read and understand what the petition contains. Lambino et al. merely handed out the sheet where people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments.
The only question posed to the signatories of the proposed changes was as follows: DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER?
Such is not the petition envisioned by the framers of the constitution. Further, this defect becomes more apparent with the fact that the specific amendments sought by the Lambino group include the abolition of term limits of parliamentary members, the first parliamentarians have no fixed expiration of office, and the first parliament is empowered to further introduce changes to the Constitution. These specific changes were not disclosed to the people who signed the proposal.
SECONDLY, Lambino et al were actually proposing a revision of the Constitution and not a mere amendment. This is also in violation of the logrolling rule wherein a proposed amendment should only contain one issue. The proposed amendment/s by petitioners even includes a transitory provision which would enable the would-be parliament to enact more rules.
***NOTE: In this case, the Ponencia (J. Antonio Carpio) declared that there is no need to revisit the decision held in Santiago since the issue at hand can be decided upon other facts. The rule is, the Court avoids questions of constitutionality so long as there are other means to resolve an issue at bar.
Despite this, ten Justices, in their separate opinions, opined that RA 6735 is sufficient to implement Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the Constitution. These separate opinions were reiterated by the Justices when a minute resolution was promulgated on 20 November 2006 which denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Lambino group.
The minute resolution reads in part:
Ten (10) Members of the Court reiterate their position, as shown by their various opinions already given when the Decision herein was promulgated, that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to amend the Constitution thru a people’s initiative.
Being a minute resolution, several legal experts insist that such did not become stare decisis. See discussion here.
