Defensor-Santiago v.

Comelec
270 SCRA 106 | March 19, 1997

Facts:
On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, member of the Movement for People’s Initiative, filed
with public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a “Petition to amend the
Constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, by people’s initiative”. In his petition, Atty.
Delfin alleged that the proceedings for the initiative which includes fixing the date for signature
gathering, publication of petition, and establishment of signing stations in different regions of
the country, shall be under the control and supervision of COMELEC. Subsequently, COMELEC
approved the petition and ordered Atty. Delfin to cause the publication of the petition in
newspapers and to set case for hearing. A week after, Petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor
Santiago, together with Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for
prohibition on the grounds that there is still no law implementing the constitutional provision on
people’s initiative; and that the Initiative and Referendum Act (RA 6735) does not cover
amendments to the Constitution as it failed to provide a subtitle and the specific implementing
details for the people’s initiative. The Office of the Solicitor General, filed a comment for
COMELEC, contended that RA 6735 covers the initiative to amend the constitution and that there
is no need to provide for a separate subtitle because such initiative falls under the National
Initiative and Referendum.

Issue:
Whether RA 6735 adequately covers the system of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution

Held:
No, the Supreme Court ruled that RA 6735 failed to adequately cover the system of people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution because it does not provide for the manner on how it should
be carried out. RA 6735 provides for three system of initiatives which are for local laws, nationals
laws, and the Constitution. The initiative on the Constitution was merely defined in the act, and
the constitutional provision and requirements were reiterated. Moreover, RA 6735 only provided
a subtitle for initiative to amend local and national laws, but it was silent on the initiative to
amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court did not accept the argument that the initiative to
amend the Constitution is included under the subtitle for national initiative because it was
intended only to cover national laws passed by Congress. Hence, the special civil action for
prohibition is granted as RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendment to the Constitution is concerned.

The inadequacy of RA 6735 cannot be cured by the act of COMELEC because RA 6735 is not
complete in itself and it does not fix a limit. Moreover, COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or
with grave abuse of discretion on the Delfin petition because it only acquires jurisdiction over the
petition after its filing which is after the signatures are gathered. COMELEC’s role is to verify the
signatures and not to assist in gathering the signatures. Thus, Delfin’s petition is dismissed.