Lambino Vs.

Comelec
G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25 2006

Facts:
Lambino, petitioner, and his group started gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution.
They filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite which will ratify their petition under RA 6735. They alleged
that the petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals, constituting at least 12% of all registered voters with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters, 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.

Issues:
1. WON 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. WON the 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. WON the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s
petition.

Held:
According to the SC, the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a people’s
initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not have a 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 court noted that the petitioners did not attach to their petition a copy of the paper that the people were supposed to
have signed as their initiative petition. All they submitted to the Court was a copy of a signature sheet that did not contain
the text of the Lambino group’s proposed changes.

Moreover, the Court observed that, considering that the petitioners printed only 100,000 copies of the initiative petition,
only 100,000 of the alleged 6.3 million signatories could have actually seen or read the same.

The Court added that an initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of
the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people.

Hence, the petitioners’ “initiative is void and unconstitutional as it dismally fails to comply with Sec. 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution that the initiative must be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition.”

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, and therefore 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.