Lambino VS.

Comelec
G.R. No. 174153
OCt. 25 2006

Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC
to hold a plebiscite that will ratify 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 the 1987
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 petitions and invoked the Santiago
Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative
petitions.
Issue:
Whether or Not the Lambino Group’s initiative petition complies 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 and 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 Direct Proposal by the People The 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 the
initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing
Revision through Initiatives 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 only amendments 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 Necessary Even assuming that RA
6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec
2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before
complying with RA 6735 Petition is dismissed.