G.R. No.

174153 October 25, 2006

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 REGISTERED

VOTERS, Petitioners,
vs.
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent.

FACTS:

Lambino et al filed a petition with the COMELEC on 25 August 2006 to hold a plebiscite that will
ratify their initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution under Section 5(b) and (c)2 and Section
73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act.

The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at
least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at
least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters which they had then claimed that COMELEC
election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.

In their initiative petition, it changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI
(Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding
Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.” The proposed changes under the petition will shift the
present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government.
However, the COMELEC did not give it due course for lack of an enabling law governing initiative
petitions to amend the Constitution, pursuant to Santiago v. Comelec ruling with regards to RA
6735’s inadequacy to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.

ISSUE:

Whether 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

RULING:

No. The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that even if the purported change appears to be isolated in
character, but if it already alters the underlined principle in the Constitution, then it shall be regarded
as a revision. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that
allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.

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 by the people. This means two essential elements
must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be
embodied in a petition.
There is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering
the signatures. The proponents bear the burden gathering the signatures – that the petition
contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments.

The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the paper that
the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a
signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum
on 11 October 2006.