Lambino & Aumentado vs

COMELEC
Amendment vs Revision
Lambino was able to gather the signatures of 6,327,952 individuals for an initiative petition
to amend the 1987 Constitution. That said number of votes comprises at least 12 per
centum of all registered voters with each legislative district at least represented by at least 3
per centum of its registered voters. This has been verified by local COMELEC registrars as
well. The proposed amendment to the constitution seeks to modify Secs 1-7 of Art VI and
Sec 1-4 of Art VII and by adding Art XVIII entitled Transitory Provisions. These proposed
changes will shift the president bicameral-presidential system to a UnicameralParliamentary form of government. The COMELEC, on 31 Aug 2006, denied the petition of
the Lambino group due to the lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend
the Constitution this is in pursuant to the ruling in Santiago vs COMELEC. Lambino et al
contended that the decision in the aforementioned case is only binding to the parties within
that case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition for initiative met the requirements of Sec 2 ArtXVII of the
1987 Constitution.
HELD: 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. Petitioners merely handed out the sheet where
people can sign but they did not attach thereto the full text of the proposed amendments.

Lambino et al are also 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.
There is no need to revisit the Santiago case 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.

***NOTE: On November 20, 2006 in a petition for reconsideration submitted by the Lambino
Group 10 (ten) Justices of the Supreme Court voted that Republic Act 6735 is adequate.
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 peoples initiative.
As such, it is insisted that such minute resolution did not become stare decisis. See
discussion here

****RA 6735: An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating
Funds Therefor