EN BANC

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. G.R. No. 174153

AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH

6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS,

Petitioners,

- versus -

THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,

Respondent.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,

Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------ x

ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.

MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN,

MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN

T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and

CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.,

Intervenors.

x------------------------------------------------------ x

ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,

Intervenor.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

BAYAN represented by its Chairperson

Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN MUNA

represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo

Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented

by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD

represented by its Secretary General Dr. Gene

Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS

FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas,

MIGRANTE represented by its Chairperson

Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA

represented by its Secretary General

Emerenciana de Jesus, GABRIELA WOMEN’S

PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina Palabay,

ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson

Eleanor de Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO

STUDENTS represented by Chair Vencer

Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the

League of Concerned Professionals and

Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO

of the Solidarity of Health Against Charter

Change, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS of

Health Action for Human Rights,

Intervenors.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,

MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA

HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,

Intervenors.

x--------------------------------------------------------x

ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,

Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x

TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE

PHILIPPINES,

Intervenor.

x---------------------------------------------------------x

LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,

Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x

PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION

ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO

F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,

MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.

BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,

FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO

GAT INCIONG,

Intervenors.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x

RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO

MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,

Intervenors.

x -------------------------------------------------------- x

PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL

WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)

and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS,

Intervenors.

x -------------------------------------------------------- x

SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented

by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,

Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x

SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT

FOUNDATION, INC.,

Intervenor.

x ------------------------------------------------------- x

JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D.

BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,

ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and

RANDALL TABAYOYONG,

Intervenors.

x -------------------------------------------------------- x

INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,

CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE

CHAPTERS,

Intervenors.

x --------------------------------------------------------x

SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO

Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and SENATORS

SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III, JAMBY

MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA,

ALFREDO S. LIM and

PANFILO LACSON,

Intervenors.

x -----------------------------------------------------x

JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and

PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO,

Intervenors.

x -----------------------------------------------------x

MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, G.R. No. 174299

SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and

RENE A.V. SAGUISAG, Present:

Petitioners,

PANGANIBAN, C.J.,

- versus - PUNO,

QUISUMBING,

YNARES-SANTIAGO,

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,

represented by Chairman BENJAMIN CARPIO,

S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,

RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, CORONA,

FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., CARPIO MORALES,

ROMEO A. BRAWNER, CALLEJO, SR.,

RENE V. SARMIENTO, AZCUNA,

NICODEMO T. FERRER, and TINGA,

John Doe and Peter Doe, CHICO-NAZARIO,

Respondents. GARCIA, and VELASCO, JR., JJ.

Promulgated:

October 25, 2006

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

The Case

These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”) denying due course to an initiative petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.

Antecedent Facts

On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (“Lambino Group”), with other groups[1] and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c)[2] and Section 7[3] of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (“RA 6735”).

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. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.

The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)[4] and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department)[5] and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.”[6] These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters’ ratification:

DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?

On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.[7]

The Ruling of the COMELEC

On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections[8] declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.[9]

In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the “will of the sovereign people.”

In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners (“Binay Group”) pray that the Court require respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC’s verification of signatures and for “entertaining” the Lambino Group’s petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The Court treated the Binay Group’s petition as an opposition-in-intervention.

In his Comment to the Lambino Group’s petition, the Solicitor General joined causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its implementing rules “as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative.”

Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group’s petition. The supporting intervenors[10] uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors[11] hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group’s standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group’s compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;[12] (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group’s compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject.

The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September 2006. After receiving the parties’ memoranda, the Court considered the case submitted for resolution.

The Issues

The petitions raise the following issues:

1. 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;

2. Whether 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; and

3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition.

The Ruling of the Court

There is no merit to the petition.

The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For following the Court’s ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People

Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly 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. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)

The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,” thus:

MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when they are asked to sign?

MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?

MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.

MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to propose this constitutional amendment.

MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.[13] (Emphasis supplied)

Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown” to the people “before” they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown to them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.”

The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people