G.R. No. 127325 – 336 Phil. 848 – 270 SCRA 106 – Political Law – Constitutional Law – General Principles – Amendment to the Constitution
On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by People’s Initiative. The COMELEC then, upon its approval, a.) set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country, b.) caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation, and c.) instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.
On 18 December 1996, MD Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues that 1.) the constitutional provision (Sec 2 of Article XVII) on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress and no such law has yet been passed by Congress, 2.) The Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735) indeed provides for three systems of initiative namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on local legislation. However, only the two latter forms of initiative were specifically provided for in Subtitles II and III thereof but no provisions were specifically made for initiatives on the Constitution. This omission indicates that the matter of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law – as pointed out by former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
ISSUE: Whether or not RA 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the constitution and if so whether the act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
HELD: No. RA 6735 is intended to include the system of initiative on amendments to the constitution but is unfortunately inadequate to cover that system. Sec. 2, Art. XVII Constitution provides: “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 there per centum of the registered voters therein. . . The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.” This provision is obviously not self-executory as it needs an enabling law to be passed by Congress.
First. Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of RA 6735 does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The section reads:
SECTION 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.
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. 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.
Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of RA 6735 defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative, and that Section 5 (Requirements) 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, RA 6735 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.
The use of the clause “proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed” only strengthens the conclusion that Section 2, quoted earlier, excludes initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Third. While RA 6735 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 Ra 6735 is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If Congress intended RA 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.
Neither can it be said that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope. The classification in RA 6735 is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and character. Thus, it is “national initiative,” if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national law (passed by Congress) and it is “local initiative” if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, or resolution (passed by local Sanggunians).
Sec. 20 of RA 6735 provides that the COMELEC is empowered to promulgate rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of RA 6735, does this cure the inadequacy of RA 6735?
No. The COMELEC through Sec. 20 of RA 6735 cannot validly fill in the inadequacy of the law. The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest.
***Note that this ruling has been “reversed” on November 20, 2006 when ten justices of the SC ruled that RA 6735 is adequate enough to enable such initiative. HOWEVER, this was a mere minute resolution which 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.
As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare decisis. See discussion here
See also Lambino vs COMELEC.
Read another version of this digest here:
