Imbong v Comelec September 11, 1970

RA 6132: delegates in Constitutional Convention

RELATED LAWS:
Resolution No 2 (1967) -Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2
delegates from each representative district who shall be elected in November,
1970.
RA 4919 -implementation of Resolution No 2
Resolution 4 (1969)-amended Resolution 2: Constitutional Convention shall be
composed of 320delegates a proportioned among existing representative districts
according to the population. Provided that each district shall be entitled to 2
delegates.
RA 6132-Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4.
Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file their
candidacy
Sec 2: apportionment of delegates
Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the
election or from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adournment
of the ConCon.
Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving
support/representing a delegate to the convention.
FACTS:
This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but related
petitions of running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention
assailing the validity of RA 6132.Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity
of entire law Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8
ISSUE:
Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention and whether
the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.
RATIO:
-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:
Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose
amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were
attained by Resolution 2 and 4
- Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the
basis employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is
not reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less
population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to the number of delegates
I other provinces with more population.
- Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify
members thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a
safety mechanism to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow
them to devote more time to the Constituional Convention.

- Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure
candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual
merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not create
discrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.
GONZALES VS. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774; G.R. No. L-28196; 9 Nov 1967]
Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction.
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of
Representatives passed the following resolutions:
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, - proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of
the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the
membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as
provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be
apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the
number of their respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least,
one (1) member;
2. R. B. H. No. 2, - calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution,
the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each
representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on
the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and
3. R. B. H. No. 3, -proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be
amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of
Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional
convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on
June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to
the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be
submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held
on November 14, 1967.
Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly,
violates the Constitution.
Held: In as much as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic
Act 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in
these two (2) cases must be, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein
prayed for denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
*R.B.H. No. 2 - Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is
nothing in this provision that states that the election referred to is special, different
from the general election.
(2) Issues:
1. Whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent assembly
violates the Constitution?

2. May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a General

Election?
1 - The issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress acting as a constituent
assembly violatesthe Constitution essentially justiciable, not political, and, hence,
subject to judicial review.In the cases at bar, notwithstanding that the R. B. H. Nos. 1
and 3 have been approved by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives votingseparately, said resolutions are
null and void because Members of Congress, which approved theproposed
amendments, as well as the resolution calling a convention to propose
amendments, are,at best, de facto Congressmen (based upon Section 5, Article VI,
of the Constitution, noapportionment has been made been made by Congress within
three (3) years since 1960.Thereafter, the Congress of the Philippines and/or the
election of its Members became illegal; thatCongress and its Members, likewise,
became a de facto Congress and/or
de facto congressmen);However, As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer
cannot be assailed collaterally.
Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment upon whether the
provisions of Republic Act No. 4913 are suchas to fairly apprise the people of the
gist, believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies such requirement and that said Act
is, accordingly, constitutional.
2 - Pursuant to Art 15 of the 35 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this
provision to
indicate that the election therein referred to is a special, not a general election. The
circumstancethat the previous amendment to the Constitution had been submitted
to the people for ratification inspecial elections merely shows that Congress deemed
it best to do so under the circumstances thenobtaining. It does not negate its
authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in generalelections.
Tolentino v. Comelec
41 SCRA 702
Facts : The case is a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent Commission on
Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the
proposed constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article
V of the Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for
ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971, and the subsequent implementing resolutions, by declaring
said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law for being violative of the
Constitution of the Philippines. The Constitutional Convention of 1971 came into
being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines approved in its
capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a
convention to propose amendments to the Constitution namely, Resolutions 2 and 4
of the joint sessions of Congress held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969
respectively. The delegates to the said Convention were all elected under and by
virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, Republic Act
6132.

Issue: Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the
holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment/s?
Decision: The Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted
to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite being
called for the purpose of submitting the same for ratification of the people on
November 8, 1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution,
hence all acts of the Convention and the respondent Comelec in that direction are
null and void. lt says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent
assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this
Constitution,". The same provision also as definitely provides that "such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority
of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the
people for their ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many
"elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments
proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the
provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one.
The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
Convention of 1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention,
insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well
as the resolution of the respondent Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No.
695) are hereby declared null and void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing
Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are hereby
enjoined from taking any action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In
view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision
immediately executory.
Santiago vs. COMELEC
GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997
FACTS: A private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent
COMELEC a petition to amend certain provisions of the Constitution, specifically
lifting the limit of terms of elective officials, by peoples initiative. On the
other hand, petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago et al. filed a special civil
action prohibiting the amendment on the provisions of the Constitution through
peoples initiative since such amendment can only be implemented by law to be
passed by the Congress. There is no law passed yet and RA 6735, which provides for
three systems initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes and on
local legislation. However, the initiative on the Constitution failed to provide any
subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike the other modes of initiative.
ISSUE: Is RA 6735 adequately provided for peoples initiative on Constitution?
HELD: No. RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its
lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by empowering
the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as maybe necessary to
carry the purpose of the Act.

(2) FACTS:
On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, founding member of the Movement for
People's Initiative, filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to
Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" citing Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution. Acting on the petition, the COMELEC set the case for
hearing and directed Delfin to have the petition published. After the hearing the
arguments between petitioners and opposing parties, the COMELEC directed Delfin
and the oppositors to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within
five days. On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander
Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition under Rule
65 raising the following arguments, among others:
1.) That the Constitution can only be amended by peoples initiative if there is an
enabling law passed by Congress, to which no such law has yet been passed; and
2.) That R.A. 6735 does not suffice as an enabling law on peoples initiative on the
Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative.
Issues:
1. WON R.A. No. 6735 sufficient to enable amendment of the Constitution by peoples
initiative.
2. WON COMELEC Res. No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments
to the constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions
on the conduct of such initiative?
3. WON the lifting of term limits of elective national and local official, as proposed in
the draft petition would constitute a revision of , or an amendment of the
constitution.
HELD:
NO. R.A. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution.
Under the said law, 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." The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be
enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed" denotes that R.A. No. 6735 excludes
initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Also, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum and for Local
Initiative and Referendum, no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This
means that the main thrust of the law is initiative and referendum on national and local laws.
If R.A. No. 6735 were intended 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.

While R.A. No. 6735 specially detailed the process in implementing initiative and referendum
on national and local laws, it intentionally did not do so on the system of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is hereby declared void and orders the respondent to forthwith
dismiss the Delfin Petition . TRO issued on 18 December 1996 is made permanent.
WHEREFORE, petition is GRANTED.
Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006
Facts
1. On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino
and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups1 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)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735
or the Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735").
2. 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.
3. The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by
modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4and Sections 14 of Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled
"Transitory Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present
Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their
petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite
for the voters' ratification:
DO YOU APPROVE 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, AND
PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT
FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
4. On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the
COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
Provisions) of their initiative.
Issue
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.
Decision
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People. Since the full text proposal was not
presented to the people during the signing of the petition.
2. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary. The present initiative must
first comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. The Initiative Violates
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
3. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is
attributable to the Commission on Elections.

On June 23, 1997, PIRMA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to
Propose Amendments to the Constitution(PIRMA Petition). The PIRMA Petition was
supported by around five (5) million signatures in compliance with R.A.6735 and
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, and prayed that the COMELEC, among others:
(1) cause the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least twice
in newspapers of general and local circulation; (2) order all electionofficers to verify
the signatures collected in support of the petition and submit these to the
Commission; and (3) set theholding of a plebiscite where the following proposition
would be submitted to the people for ratification:
Do you approve amendments to the 1987 Constitution giving the President the
chance to be reelected for another term, similarly with the Vice-President, so that
both the highest officials of the land can serve for two consecutiveterms of six
years each, and also to lift the term limits for all other elective government officials,
thus giving Filipinovoters the freedom of choice, amending for that purpose, Section
4 of Article VII, Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI andSection 8 of Article X, respectively?
The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA Petition in view of the permanent restraining
order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC.

PIRMA filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari seeking to
set aside the COMELECResolution dismissing its petition for initiative. PIRMA argued
that the Courts

decision on the Delfin Petition did not bar the COMELEC from acting on the PIRMA
Petition as said ruling was not definitive based on the deadlocked votingon the
motions for reconsideration, and because there was no identity of parties and
subject matter between the two petitions. PIRMA also urged the Court to reexamine
its ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC.
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and certiorari in its resolution
datedSeptember 23, 1997. It explained:
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could
be attributed to the publicrespondent COMELEC in dismissing the petition filed by
PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only complied with thedispositions in the Decision
of this Court in G.R. No. 127325 promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution
of June10, 1997.
The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to resolve the
second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the Court re-examine its ruling
as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the Chief Justice and six (6)other members of
the Court, namely, Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ.,
voted that there wasno need to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was no need
for re-examination of said second issue since the case at bar is not the proper
vehicle for that purpose. Five (5) other members of the Court, namely, Melo, Puno,
Francisco,Hermosisima, and Panganiban, JJ., opined that there was a
need for such a re-examinationx x x x9
In their Separate Opinions, Justice (later Chief Justice) Davide and Justice
Bellosillostated that the PIRMA petition was dismissed on the ground of res judicata.

SANIDAD vs. COMELEC

(G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976)
Facts:
On 2 September 1976, President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued
Presidential Decree 991 calling for a national referendum on 16 October 1976
for the Citizens Assemblies ("barangays") to resolve, among other things, the
issues of martial law, the interim assembly, its replacement, the powers of such
replacement, the period of its existence, the length of the period for the exercise
bythe President of his present powers.
20 days after or on 22 September 1976, the President issued another related
decree,
Presidential Decree 1031, amending the previous Presidential Decree 991, by declar

ing the provisions of Presidential Decree 229 providing for the manner of voting and
canvass of votes in "barangays"(Citizens Assemblies) applicable to the national
referendum-plebiscite of 16 October 1976. Quite relevantly, Presidential Decree
1031 repealed inter alia, Section 4, of Presidential Decree 991.
On the same date of 22 September 1976, the President issued Presidential Decree
1033,stating thequestions to he submitted to the people in the referendumplebiscite on 16 October 1976. TheDecree recites in its "whereas" clauses that
the people's continued opposition to the convening of the interim National Assembly
evinces their desire to have such body abolished and replaced thru aconstitutional
amendment, providing for a new interim legislative body, which will be
submitteddirectly to the people in the referendum-plebiscite of October 16
On 27 September 1976, Pablo C. Sanidad and Pablito V.Sanidad, father and son,
commenced L-44640 for Prohibition with Preliminary Injunction seeking toenjoin the
Commission on Elections from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite
onOctober 16; to declare without force and effect Presidential Decree Nos. 991 and
1033, insofar asthey propose amendments to the Constitution, as well as
Presidential Decree 1031, insofar as itdirects the Commission on Elections
to supervise, control, hold, and conduct the Referendum-Plebiscite scheduled on 16
October 1976.