De Leon v.
Esguerra Case Digest
De Leon v. Esguerra, 153 SCRA 602, August, 31, 1987 (En Banc), J. Melencio-
Herrera
Facts: On May 17, 1982, petitioner Alfredo M. De Leon was elected Barangay
Captain together with the other petitioners as Barangay Councilmen of Barangay
Dolores, Muncipality of Taytay, Province of Rizal in a Barangay election held
under Batas Pambansa Blg. 222, otherwise known as Barangay Election Act of
1982.
On February 9, 1987, petitioner De Leon received a Memorandum antedated
December 1, 1986 but signed by respondent OIC Governor Benjamin Esguerra
on February 8, 1987 designating respondent Florentino G. Magno as Barangay
Captain of Barangay Dolores and the other respondents as members of Barangay
Council of the same Barangay and Municipality.
Petitoners prayed to the Supreme Court that the subject Memoranda of February
8, 1987 be declared null and void and that respondents be prohibited by taking
over their positions of Barangay Captain and Barangay Councilmen.
Petitioners maintain that pursuant to Section 3 of the Barangay Election Act of
1982 (BP Blg. 222), their terms of office shall be six years which shall commence
on June 7, 1988 and shall continue until their successors shall have elected and
shall have qualified. It was also their position that with the ratification of the 1987
Philippine Constitution, respondent OIC Governor no longer has the authority to
replace them and to designate their successors.
On the other hand, respondents contend that the terms of office of elective and
appointive officials were abolished and that petitioners continued in office by virtue
of Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional Constitution and not because their term of six
years had not yet expired; and that the provision in the Barangay Election Act
fixing the term of office of Barangay officials to six years must be deemed to have
been repealed for being inconsistent with Sec. 2, Art. 3 of the Provisional
Constitution.
Issue: Whether or not the designation of respondents to replace petitioners was
validly made during the one-year period which ended on Feb 25, 1987.
Ruling: Supreme Court declared that the Memoranda issued by respondent OIC
Gov on Feb 8, 1987 designating respondents as Barangay Captain and Barangay
Councilmen of Barangay Dolores, Taytay, Rizal has no legal force and effect.
The 1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on Feb 2, 1987, therefore, the
Provisional Constitution must be deemed to have superseded. Having become
inoperative, respondent OIC Gov could no longer rely on Sec 2, Art 3, thereof to
designate respondents to the elective positions occupied by petitioners.
Relevantly, Sec 8, Art 1 of the 1987 Constitution further provides in part:
"Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except barangay officials,
which shall be determined by law, shall be three years x x x."
Until the term of office of barangay officials has been determined by aw, therefore,
the term of office of 6 years provided for in the Barangay Election Act of 1982
should still govern.
Lambino vs COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
FACTS:
On 25 August 2006, Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution
under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the
Initiative and Referendum Act.
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.
The Lambino Groups initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by
modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of
Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled Transitory
Provisions. These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
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.
The COMELEC denied the petition citing Santiago v. COMELEC declaring RA
6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
Constitution.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article
XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples
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
HELD:

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 peoples 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. x x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
The framers of the Constitution intended that the draft of the proposed
constitutional amendment should be ready and shown to the people before all over the country. The proposition is: Do you approve of lifting the term limits of
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.
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 after the oral arguments of 26
September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006.
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 peoples initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit
this Courts 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.
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution,
to lift term limits of elective officials, by peoples initiative. Delfin wanted
COMELEC to control and supervise said peoples initiative the signature-gathering
all elective government officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of
Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987
Philippine Constitution? Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the
people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in
the country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen.
Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the
initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
a. Constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the Constitution can only
be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been
passed.b. Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to
provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of
initiative. This deliberate omission indicates matter of peoples initiative was left to
some future law.c. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for
the exercise of peoples initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution
to pass the implementing law.d. Peoples initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a
revision.e. Congress nor any government agency has not yet appropriated funds
for peoples initiative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987
Constitution.
HELD:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735
It was intended to include or cover peoples initiative on amendments to the
Constitution but, as worded, it does not adequately cover such intiative. Article
XVII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing for amendments to Constitution,
is not self-executory. While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of
the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution via PI, the people
cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.
FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not
suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word
Constitution therein was a delayed afterthought. The word is not relevant to the
section which is silent as to amendments of the Constitution.
SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not
provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Sec 5(c)
does not include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the
case of initiative on the Constitution.
THIRD: No subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous
silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and
referendum on national and local laws. The argument that the initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed under the
subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope.
Under Subtitle II and III, the classification is not based on the scope of the
initiative involved, but on its nature and character.
National initiative what is proposed to be enacted is a national law, or a law
which only Congress can pass.
Local initiative what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance or
resolution which only legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous
regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest
What has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions to the
rule are: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2] Delegation of
emergency powers to the President; [3] Delegation to the people at large; [4]
Delegation to local governments; and [5] Delegation to administrative bodies.
COMELEC
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi judicial
functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative
authority. In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that
the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself,
setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the
delegate; and (b) fixes a standard the limits of which are sufficiently determinate
and determinable to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. Republic Act No. 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate
legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300
Insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate
rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It
does not have that power under Republic Act No. 6735.
Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition
solely intended to obtain an order: (a) fixing the time and dates for signature
gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfins movement
and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing or causing the
publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987
Constitution.
DELFIN PETITION
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be
conceded ex gratia that RA 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress
to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly
vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction
or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters.
Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.
The COMELEC requires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing.
The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is cognizable by
the COMELEC, sitting en banc.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735 and COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the
COMELEC. The petition was merely entered as UND, meaning undocketed. It
was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been
dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996,
and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file
their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy,
and resources.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional amendment.