Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest

G.R. No. 174153Lambino Vs. ComelecG.R. No. 174153Oct. 25 2006Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition tochange the 1987
constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that willratify 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 the1987 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 petitionsand invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the
initiativepetitions.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complie
s with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative.
 
Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms an
d conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
proposals to amend the Constitution.Whether or Not 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 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 DirectProposal by the PeopleThe 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
theinitiative void.2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision
throughInitiatives
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 onlyamendments 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 NecessaryEven assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the
result because the present petitionviolated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the
constitution before complyingwith RA 6735Petition is dismissed