1

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC

(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
Facts:

Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action
(PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s
Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to
exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing
the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco,
the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared
as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable
by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for
prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as
the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to
be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not
to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The
Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.

(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an
amendment of the Constitution.

Held:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot
operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide
for its implementation.

The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative
on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated
(potestas delegata non delegari potest). The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly
promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.

The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution
such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service, and
prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Court’s decision in the above
Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.
 2

*************************************************************************************

People's Initiative

NO

This is probably the best case there is on the question of the people's right to
directly propose amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative.

SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

Nature: Petition for prohibition; the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative.

Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, Ma. Isabel Ongpin ± petitioners Jesus Delfin, Alberto &

Carmen Pedrosa (PIRMA), COMELEC ± respondents Raul Roco, DIK, MABINI, IBP, LABAN ±

petitioners/intervenors
Facts:

Atty. Delfin filed with the COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution by People¶s initiative. His proposal

is to lift the term limits of elective officials and thus amending Sections 4 and 7 of Art VI, Section 4 of Art VII

and Section 8 of Art X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In his petition, Delfin asked the COMELEC to

issue an order (1) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country; (2) cause the

publication of such order in newspaper of general and local circulation; and (3) instructing municipal election

registrars in all regions of the Philippines to assist him and his volunteers in establishing signing stations. The

COMELEC then issued an order directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition and set the case for

hearing.

At the hearing, Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the

initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC. Thereafter, Senator Santiago, et al., filed a special

civil action for prohibition before the Supreme Court.

Issues:

The issues in the instant petition are the following:

 3

(1) Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition
when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.

(2) Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and

Appropriating Funds Therefore, was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution;

and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.

(3) Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the

Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws)

regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the

law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

(4) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft "Petition

for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.

(5) 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 Delfin's movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing or causing the

publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
Rulings of the Court:
The Supreme Court held that:

(1) The instant petition is viable despite the pendency in the COMELEC of the Delfin Petition. The

COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the petition filed by Delfin and that it becomes

imperative to stop the COMELEC from proceeding any further. The SC said that despite the pendency of the

Delfin Petition in the COMELEC, the SC had jurisdiction over the Defensor-Santiago petition because the

petition may be treated as a special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, given the

Roco motion filed with the COMELEC seeking dismissal of the Delfin petition on the ground of lack of

jurisdiction.

(2) RA 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative to amend the constitution because while Sec 3

mentions initiative on the Constitution and Sec 5 restates the constitutional requirements as to the percentage

of registered voters needed for a proposal, the law does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative

on the Constitution; while there are subtitles for national and local initiatives, there is no subtitle for the
 4

initiative on the Constitution; thus, the law is incomplete, and this inadequacy cannot be cured by empowering

the COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules and regulations.

(3) It logically follows that the 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 R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power under Section

2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations referred to therein are those

promulgated by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where

subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient standard" tests.

(4) Santiago’s petition contend that the people's initiative is limited to amendments to the constitution, not to

revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of

the