Issues

Petitioner

Respondents

1.Isalegislativeinitiativesubjecttojudicial
review?OristhisapoliticalquestionthattheCourt
muststayawayfrom?Doesthepetitionerhave
standingtoquestiontheinitiative?

The legislative initiative is subject to judicial review.

This is not a political question and the petitioner has
the standing to sue. It is well within the scope of the
Supreme Court to hear this court as mandated by
Section 5(2), Article VIII of the Constitution. The
issue on the Constitutionality of the initiative is not
hinged upon the wisdom of the political branches but
rather a legal question.

This is a political question. The initiative is the act of

sovereignty by the people and the Court must stay
away from the issue. Section 1, Article II of the
Constitution provides that sovereignty resides in
the people and all government authority
emanates from them. In the case at bar, the
supreme acts of the people cannot be trivialized by
the executive or legislative departments. Thus, the
case is not subject to judicial review

2.Doestheinitiativeviolatetheprincipleof
separationofpowersandencroachonthepowersof
Congressandtheexecutivebranch?

The initiative violates the principle of separation of

powers and encroach the powers of the Congress and
the Executive branch. The Constitution provides that
all appropriations shall originate exclusively from
the House of Representatives. By doing the
initiative, the House is legally impaired by its
Constitutional mandate to appropriate funds because
of the limitations brought about by the initiative.
Moreover, the initiative encroaches the Presidents
veto power. By expressly limiting the appropriations,
the President may be unable to exercise his veto
power in the line item budgeting.

The initiative does not violate the separation of

powers. An initiative is part of the legislative process
through the acts of the people. In doing so, the
people have only exercised their right to amend,
make a statute of initiative. It is well-within their
power to do such as provided in the Constitution and
RA 6735.

3.Arelumpsumsconstitutional?Isalawwhich
prohibitalllumpsumsunconstitutional?

Lump sums are constitutional and laws prohibiting

such are unconstitutional. The Constitution provides
for discretionary funds appropriated for particular
officials that shall be disbursed only for public use.
Considering that lump sums are discretionary funds
used for public purposes, the removal of said from
the general appropriations act may violate
Constitutional mandate.

Not all lump sums are Constitutional. According to

the Opinion of Justice Carpio in the Belgica case,
lump sums may be constitutional if they are to be
used for a specific purpose. A plain line item
budgeting without any description is deemed to be
unconstitutional.

4.AretheliabilityprovisionsintheInitiative
constitutional?Doesitnotviolatethepresumptions
ofgoodfaith,regularityoffunctions,and
innocence?Takenotethatthereisanobiterinthe
Araullodecisiononthis.Isthatobitercorrect?

The liability provisions in the initiative are

unconstitutional. They violate the presumptions of
good faith, regularity of functions and innocence.
The effects done must be left undisturbed as a matter
of fair play

The penal provisions do not violate the presumptions

of good faith, regularity of functions and innocence.
Penal statutes are prospective in nature and do not
apply retroactively, unless it was expressed. Thus,
penal statutes do not impair vested rights, equity and
fair play.

5.Theinitiativeproposesthatitcanonlybe
The irrepealability of the initiative, other than by
repealedbyanotherinitiative,andnotbyCongress. another initiative, is unconstitutional. Statutes
operate in a manner wherein they may be passed,
Isthisirrepealabilityunconstitutional?
amended or repealed. No law should be made
irrepealable because it will limit the powers of future
Congress.

The irrepealability of the initiative is constitutional.

The sovereign acts of the people should be given full
respect. In Garcia vs COMELEC, the Supreme Court
held that any acts aimed to trivialize the
effectiveness of initiatives should be rejected.
Moreover, the provisions in the initiative should be
construed to be sound and constitutional without any
clear showing of unconstitutionality.

6.Thereisalsoanassumptionherethatthe
Presidentcannotvetoa
law passed by initiative and referendum.
Is this correct?

Yes, the assumption that the President cannot veto a

law passed by initiative and referendum is correct. A
presidential veto cannot be exercised in the case of a
legislative power to amend or repeal a law directly
passed by the people. It is not countenanced under
the Constitution.

The assumption that the President cannot veto a law

passed by initiative and referendum is not correct.
The Presidents veto power is provided by the
Constitution, and any act impairing such power is
deemed unconstitutional.