LAMBINO v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006

I. Facts
• August 25,2006: Lambino, Raul and Aumentado, et. al (Lambino group) filed a petition
to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition, under Section 5(b) and (c) and
Section 7 of R.A. 6735
• The Lambino group contends that:
i. They had complied with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters
needed to support an initiative petition as they had gathered 6.3. million
signatures, constituting at least 12% of all registered voters, with each
legislative district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters
ii. Section 2, Article 17 states that “Amendments to this Constitution may
likewise be proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of
the registered voters therein”
• The filed petition seeks to change the 1987 constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of
Article 6 (shift from Bicameral to Unicameral legislature) and Sections 1-4 of Article 7
(shift from Presidential to Unicameral form of government) and adding Article 18
(transitory provisions)
• August 30, 2006: Lambino group filed an amended petition indicating modification to
Article 18
• August 31, 2006: COMELEC denied the Lambino petition for lack of an enabling law
governing initiative institutions to amend the constitution, citing the court’s ruling in
Santiago v. COMELEC and declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative
clause of proposals to amend the constitution.
• The Office of the Solicitor-General sided with the petitioners that:
i. The court should grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling
ii. Treat R.A. 6735 and its implementing rules as “temporary devises to implement
the system of initiative
• On the other hand, the opposing intervenors question the following:
i. Lambino group’s standing to file the petition;
ii. The validity of the signature gathering and verification process;
iii. The Lambino group’s compliance with the minimum requirement for the
percentage of voters under Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution;
iv. The nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as
provided under Section 2, Article 17 of the 1987 Constitution;
v. Lambino group’s compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735
limiting initiative petitions to only one subject
II. Issues
• Whether or not the Lambino group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2 Article
17 of the Constitution on amendments of a Constitution through a people’s initiative
• Whether the court should revisit its ruling in Santiago, declaring R.A. 6735 “incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative
clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.
• Whether COMELEC committed grave abuse in denying the Lambino group’s petition.

III. Ruling
• No, the initiative petition does not comply with Section 2 Article 17 of the Constitution
on Direct Proposal by the People. That section is the governing constitutional provision
that allows a people’s initiative to directly propose amendments to the Constitution.
• Based on deliberation from the Constitutional Commission, the draft of the proposed
Constitutional amendment should be ready and shown to the people before they sign
such proposal. The full text of the proposed amendments may either be written on the
face of the petition or attached to it to assure that each signatory to the petition has
seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing.
o Justification: Borrowed concept from US: the unbending requirement is that the
people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign
to signify their assent.
o Lambino group did not attach a copy of the paper that the people signed as
their initiative petition, only a signature sheet was submitted before the court.
o However, Atty. Raul Lambino admitted that there is not a single word, phrase,
or sentence of text of the Lambino Group's proposed changes in the signature
sheet. Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed
changes is attached to it.
IV. Argument
• Definition of Revision and Amendment
i. A revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the
Constitution. It is a change that alters the substantial entirety of the
Constitution. An amendment on the hand, is a change that adds, reduces,
deletes, without altering the basic principle involved.
ii. In the case of Lambino v. COMELEC, the proposal forwarded by the Lambino
group was a REVISION, NOT AN AMENDMENT, since it seeks to shift the
structure of government from Presidential-Bicameral to Parliamentary-
Unicameral. This is a violation of Section 2 Article 17 of the Constitution which
limits the people’s initiative to “Amendments to this Constitution.”
iii. Mention the two-part test
• Requirements for an Amendment
i. Proposal, which may either come from Congress, a Constitutional Convention,
or People through a power of initiative
 ii. In People, through the power of initiative, the petition needs to have at least
12% of the total number of registered voters and that every legislative should
be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters.
iii. Procedure. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition of the
people. Thus, two essential elements must be present: (1) The people must
author and sign the entire proposal; no agent or representative can sign in their
behalf. (2) As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in the
petition. The rationale for these requisites is that the signature requirement
would be meaningless if the person supplying the signature has not first seen
what it is that he is signing, and more importantly, a loose interpretation of the
subscription requirement would pose a significant potential for fraud. In
Lambino, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature
sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing; they
were not apprised of the nature and effect of the proposed amendments. Failure
to comply with these requirements was fatal to the validity of the initiative
petition