MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA

ISABEL ONGPIN, petitioners,

vs.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA &

CARMEN PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of the People’s
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents.
SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG
KONSTITUSYON (DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNES FOR BROTHERHOOD
INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF
THE PHILIPPINES (IBP), and LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO
(LABAN), petitioners-intervenors.
270 SCRA 106
MARCH 19, 1997

FACTS:

Private respondent Delfin filed with the COMELEC a ―Petition to Amend the
Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People‘s amendments to the
Constitution granted under Section 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution. R.A. 6735
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. The proposed amendments consist of the
submission of this proposition to the people—―

Do you approve the lifting of the term limits of all elective officials, amending for the
purpose section 4 and 7 of Art.VI, Section 4 of Art. VII and Section 8 of Art. X of the
Philippine Constitution?

The COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and the
notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Raul
Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest Law
Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LABAN) appeared as intervenors-
oppositors. Senator Roco moved to dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that it
is not the initiatory party cognizable by the COMELEC.

Petitioners filed a special civil action directing respondents COMELEC and Delfin‘s
Petition to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of
initiative under sec.2 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners raise the
following arguments:

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. R.A. 6735 failed to provide subtitle initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the
other modes of initiative. It only provides for the effectivity of the law after
the publication in print media indicating that the Act covers only laws and
not constitutional amendments because the latter takes effect only upon
ratification and not after publication.
 3. COMELEC Resolution No.2300, adopted on January 16, 1991 to govern the
―conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on
national and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as initiative or amendments to
the Constitution are concerned, since the COMELEC has no power to provide
rules and regulation for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the
Constitution. Only the Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the
implementing law.
4. The people‘s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, to the
revision thereof. Extending or lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision
and is therefore outside the power of the people‘s initiative.
5. Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people‘s initiative,
neither the COMELEC nor any other department, agency or office of the
government has realigned funds for the purpose.

The Supreme Court gave due course to this petition and granted the Motions for
Intervention filed by Petitioners-Intervenors DIK, MABINI, IBP, LABAN, and
Senator Roco.

ISSUES:
1. Whether Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing
provision.
2. Whether R.A.6735 is a sufficient statutory implementation of the said
constitutional provision?
3. Whether the COMELEC resolution is valid?
4. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials as
proposed would constitute a revision, or an amendment to the Constitution?

HELD:
1. NO. Although the mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action,
in the last analysis, it is still dependent on congressional action. While the
Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise
it if the Congress for whatever reason, does not provide for its
implementation.

2. NO. R.A. 6735 is insufficient and incomplete to fully comply with the power
and duty of the Congress to enact the statutory implementation of sec.2, Art.
XVII of the Constitution. Although said Act intended to include the system of
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it is deemed inadequate to
cover that system and accordingly provide for a local initiative required for
proposing Constitutional changes.

3. NO. The COMELEC Resolution insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations

on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void, as
expressed in the Latin maxim ―Potestas delegate non delegari potest. In every
case of permissible delegation, it must be shown that the delegation itself is
valid.
4. The resolution of this issue is held to be unnecessary, if not academic, as the
proposal to lift the term limits of elective local and national officials is an
amendment to the Constitution and not a revision. Thus, the petition was
granted, and the COMELEC is permanently enjoined from taking cognizance
of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a
sufficiently law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
implementation of the system.