LAMBINO V.

COMELEC OCTOBER 25, 2006

G.R. NO. 174153

FACTS:

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and
Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups and individuals, commenced
gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August
2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will
ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No.
6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative
district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino
Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3
million individuals.

On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino
Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the
Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in Santiago v. Commission on
Elections declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to
amend the Constitution.

The Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set
aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due
course to their initiative petition.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII
of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's initiative;

2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735

"incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to implement
the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and

3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to
the Lambino Group's petition.

RULING:

There is no merit to the petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by 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:

Sec. 2. 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.

The framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the people "before" they sign such
proposal. The framers plainly stated that "before they sign there is already a draft
shown to them." The framers also "envisioned" that the people should sign on the
proposal itself because the proponents must "prepare that proposal and pass it
around for signature."

The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This
means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign
the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, 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.

x x x 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 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. The Lambino Group submitted to
this Court a copy of a signature sheet. x x x

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. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino
admitted this during the oral arguments. x x x
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 Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people "the petition for
initiative filed with the COMELEC" appears an afterthought, made after the intervenors
Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu City Chapter and Cebu Province Chapters) and Atty.
Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets did not contain the text of the proposed
changes.

The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a signer who did
not read the measure attached to a referendum petition cannot question his signature
on the ground that he did not understand the nature of the act." The Lambino Group quotes
an authority that cites a proposed change attached to the petition signed by the
people. Even the authority the Lambino Group quotes requires that the proposed change
must be attached to the petition. The same authority the Lambino Group quotes requires
the people to sign on the petition itself.

Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must be

incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people. In the present
initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed changes were not incorporated with, or attached
to, the signature sheets. The Lambino Group's citation of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls the
rug from under their feet.

x x x even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the amended petition during the

signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group admitted circulating only very
limited copies of the petition.

During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed only

100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later with the
COMELEC.

x x x in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the Lambino Group

expressly admits that "petitioner Lambino initiated the printing and reproduction
of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative x x x."25 This admission binds the
Lambino Group and establishes beyond any doubt that the Lambino Group failed to
show the full text of the proposed changes to the great majority of the people who
signed the signature sheets.

Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have received with
certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100 percent distribution with no
wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy of the petition to each signature
sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with the petition. Each signature
sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming ten people signed each of these 100,000
signature sheets with the attached petition, the maximum number of people who saw the
petition before they signed the signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000.

The inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3
million signatories the full text of the proposed changes.
In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full text of the
proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment with an
indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Lambino admitted
this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds the Lambino Group. This
fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the signature sheet. This omission is
fatal. 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." The signature sheet is not the "petition" envisioned in the initiative clause of the
Constitution.

The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing

Revision through Initiatives

A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the

Constitution and not to its revision.

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The
first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode
is through a constitutional convention. The third mode is through a people's initiative.

Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to "[A]ny
amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII,
referring to the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to this Constitution."

The framers of the Constitution intended, and wrote, a clear distinction between

"amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution. 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. Where the intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from
the people the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose
revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments.

x x x in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative can only propose
amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits initiatives to
amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally prescribed modes
of revising the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million signatures,
cannot justify a deviation from the specific modes prescribed in the Constitution itself.

The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment or revision of
the Constitution?

Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of a
constitution. One of the earliest cases that recognized the distinction described the
fundamental difference in this manner:

[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding

nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will
of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as
the substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and
abiding nature. On the other hand, the significance of the term "amendment" implies
 such an addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an
improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.

Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like
altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is
also revision if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when
the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. On the other hand,
amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering
the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the
constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended.

x x x a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving

the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is
beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino Group's
proposed changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will radically alter the
framework of government as set forth in the Constitution.

We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green for
amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of the spectrum,
colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an amendment or revision.
The present initiative is indisputably located at the far end of the red spectrum where
revision begins. The present initiative seeks a radical overhaul of the existing separation of
powers among the three co-equal departments of government, requiring far-reaching
amendments in several sections and articles of the Constitution.

In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's initiative is a revision and
not an amendment. 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 "[A]mendments to this Constitution."

2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic requirements of
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people's initiative
to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit this Court's ruling
in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and
conditions" to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution. An affirmation or
reversal of Santiago will not change the outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court
must decline to revisit Santiago which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with
the requirements of the Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to
the Constitution.

This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the
case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds.

Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional provision
on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result here because the
present petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. To be a valid initiative,
the present initiative must first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution even
before complying with RA 6735.
3. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the
Lambino Group's Initiative

In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc merely followed
this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and
Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC. For following this Court's ruling, no grave abuse of
discretion is attributable to the COMELEC. On this ground alone, the present petition
warrants outright dismissal.