LAMBINO VS.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153; 25 Oct 2006

Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC
to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino
group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what
was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987
constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by
adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential
form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition
due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the
Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the
initiative petitions.

Issue:

(1) Whether or Not 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 or Not 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.

(3) Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in

denying due course to the Lambino Groups petition.

Held:
According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic
requirements for conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held that the
COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be
informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is
deceptive and misleading which renders the initiative void.

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

Revision through Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between
amendment and revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2
art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution.
Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change, therefore a
constitutes a revision.

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

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the
present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply
with the constitution before complying with RA 6735

Petition is dismissed.