G.R. No. 174153 - RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS vs. THE COMMISSION
ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 174299 - MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE
A. Q. SAGUISAG vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO,
and NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe
Promulgated:
October 25, 2006
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - -
- - x
“It is a Constitution we are expounding…”[1]
– Chief Justice John Marshall
DISSENTING
OPINION
PUNO, J.:
The petition at bar is not a fight
over molehills. At the crux of the
controversy is the critical understanding of the first and foremost of
our constitutional principles — “the
This is a Petition for Certiorari and
Mandamus to set aside the resolution of respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
dated August 31, 2006, denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed
by petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in their own behalf and together
with some 6.3 million registered voters who have affixed their
signatures thereon, and praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to set the date of
the plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendments to the Constitution
in accordance with Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
First, a flashback of the
proceedings of yesteryears. In
1996, the
Movement for People’s Initiative sought to exercise the sovereign people’s
power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative
under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Its founding member, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin,
filed with the COMELEC on
The Delfin Petition stated
that the Petition for Initiative would first be submitted to the people and would
be formally filed with the COMELEC after it is signed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of
registered voters in the country. It thus sought the assistance of the
COMELEC in gathering the required signatures by fixing the dates and time
therefor and setting up signature stations on the assigned dates and time. The petition prayed that the COMELEC
issue an Order (1) fixing the dates and time for signature gathering all over
the country; (2) causing the publication of said Order and the petition for
initiative in newspapers of general and local circulation; and, (3) instructing
the municipal election registrars in all the regions of the Philippines to
assist petitioner and the volunteers in establishing signing stations on the dates
and time designated for the purpose.
The COMELEC conducted a
hearing on the Delfin Petition.
On
Pending resolution of the
case, the Court issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the COMELEC from
proceeding with the Delfin Petition and the Pedrosas from conducting a
signature drive for people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
On
CONCLUSION
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC
should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the
system.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it
should be given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in
complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of
the right of the people under that system.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
a) GRANTING the instant petition;
b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to
cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have
failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
c) DECLARING void those parts of
Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and
regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to
forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on
Eight (8) members of the
Court,
namely, then Associate Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (ponente), Chief
Justice Andres R. Narvasa, and Associate Justices Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida
Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan, Regino C. Hermosisima,
Jr. and Justo P. Torres, fully concurred in the majority opinion.
While all the members of the
Court who participated in the deliberation[6]
agreed that the Delfin Petition should be dismissed for lack of the required
signatures, five (5) members, namely, Associate Justices Jose A.R. Melo,
Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo J. Francisco and Artemio V. Panganiban,
held that R.A. 6735 was sufficient and adequate to implement the people’s right
to amend the Constitution through initiative, and that COMELEC Resolution No.
2300 validly provided the details for the actual exercise of such right. Justice Jose C. Vitug, on the other
hand, opined that the Court should confine itself to resolving the issue of
whether the Delfin Petition sufficiently complied with the requirements of the law
on initiative, and there was no need to rule on the adequacy of R.A.
6735.
The COMELEC, Delfin and the
Pedrosas filed separate motions for reconsideration of the Court’s decision.
After deliberating on the
motions for reconsideration, six (6)[7] of the
eight (8) majority members maintained their position that R.A. 6735 was
inadequate to implement the provision on the initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. Justice Torres filed an inhibition, while Justice Hermosisima
submitted a Separate Opinion adopting the position of the minority that R.A.
6735 sufficiently covers the initiative to amend the Constitution. Hence, of the thirteen (13) members of the
Court who participated in the deliberation, six (6) members, namely, Chief
Justice Narvasa and Associate Justices Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo and
Kapunan voted to deny the motions for lack of merit; and six (6) members,
namely, Associate Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima and
Panganiban voted to grant the same.
Justice Vitug maintained his opinion that the matter was not ripe for
judicial adjudication. The motions for
reconsideration were therefore denied for lack of sufficient votes to modify or
reverse the decision of March 19, 1997.[8]
On
Do
you approve amendments to the 1987 Constitution giving the President the chance
to be reelected for another term, similarly with the Vice-President, so that
both the highest officials of the land can serve for two consecutive terms of
six years each, and also to lift the term limits for all other elective
government officials, thus giving Filipino voters the freedom of choice,
amending for that purpose, Section 4 of Article VII, Sections 4 and 7 of
Article VI and Section 8 of Article X, respectively?
The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA
Petition in view of the permanent restraining order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC.
PIRMA filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus
and Certiorari seeking to set aside the COMELEC Resolution dismissing its
petition for initiative. PIRMA argued
that the Court’s decision on the Delfin Petition did not bar the COMELEC from
acting on the PIRMA Petition as said ruling was not definitive based on the
deadlocked voting on the motions for reconsideration, and because there was no
identity of parties and subject matter between the two petitions. PIRMA also urged the Court to reexamine its ruling
in Santiago v. COMELEC.
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and
certiorari in its resolution dated
The
Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion
could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in dismissing the petition
filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only complied with the
dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 127325 promulgated on
March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, 1997.
The
Court next considered the question of whether there was need to resolve the
second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the Court re-examine its
ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this
issue, the Chief Justice and six (6) other members of the Court, namely,
Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted
that there was no need to take it up.
Vitug, J., agreed that there was no need for re-examination of
said second issue since the case at bar is not the proper vehicle for that
purpose. Five (5) other members of the
Court, namely, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima, and Panganiban, JJ.,
opined that there was a need for such a re-examination x x x x[9]
In their Separate Opinions, Justice (later Chief Justice)
Davide and Justice Bellosillo stated that the PIRMA petition was dismissed on
the ground of res judicata.
Now, almost a decade later,
another group, Sigaw ng Bayan, seeks to utilize anew the system of
initiative to amend the Constitution, this time to change the form of
government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary system.
Let us look at the facts of
the petition at bar with clear eyes.
On
A.
Sections
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read as follows:
Section 1.
(1) The legislative and executive
powers shall be vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as
many members as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces,
representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of their
respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants per
district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each province must
have at least one member.
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of
the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be
elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years
without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the party-list
system which shall be provided for by law and whose number shall be equal to
twenty per centum of the total membership coming from the parliamentary
districts.
B. Sections
1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are hereby amended to
read, as follows:
Section 1.
There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The executive power shall be exercised by a
Prime Minister, with the assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a
majority of all the Members of
Parliament from among themselves.
He shall be responsible to the Parliament for the program of government.
C. For the
purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-Presidential to a
unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, there shall be a new Article
XVIII, entitled “Transitory Provisions,” which shall read, as follows:
Section 1.
(1) The incumbent President and
Vice President shall serve until the expiration of their term at
(2) In case
of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from office of the
incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall succeed as
President. In case of death, permanent
disability, resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President
and Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers and
responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
Section 2. Upon
the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President, with
the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987
Constitution which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24 which shall
be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered
sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are
inconsistent with the Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they
shall be amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government;
provided, however, that any and all references therein to “Congress,” “Senate,”
“House of Representatives” and “Houses of Congress” shall be changed to read
“Parliament;” that any and all references therein to “Member(s) of Congress,”
“Senator(s)” or “Member(s) of the House of Representatives” shall be changed to
read as “Member(s) of Parliament” and any and all references to the “President”
and/or “Acting President” shall be changed to read “Prime Minister.”
Section 3. Upon
the expiration of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President, with
the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution
which are hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby
deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered
sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be
inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended
so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of government; provided,
however, that any all references therein to “Congress,” “Senate,” “House of
Representatives” and “Houses of Congress” shall be changed to read
“Parliament;” that any and all references therein to “Member(s) of Congress,”
“Senator(s)” or “Member(s) of the House of Representatives” shall be changed to
read as “Member(s) of Parliament” and any and all references to the “President”
and or “Acting President” shall be changed to read “Prime Minister.”
Section 4.
(1) There shall exist, upon the
ratification of these amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue
until the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall
have qualified. It shall be composed of
the incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the
incumbent Members of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.
(2) The
incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of Parliament until
(3) Senators
whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of Parliament until
(4) Within
forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the interim Parliament
shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution
consistent with the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong
bureaucracy.
Section 5.
(1) The incumbent President, who
is the Chief Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the interim
Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote
of the members thereof. The interim
Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries and shall perform such
powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to him by the incumbent
President.”
(2) The
interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament,
which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with the election of all
local government officials. The duly
elected Prime Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers,
duties and responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration
of the term of the incumbent President and Vice President.[10]
Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets,
on the upper portions of which were written the abstract of the proposed
amendments, to wit:
Abstract: Do you approve of 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 of
government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and economy in
government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory Provisions for the
orderly shift from one system to another?
The signature sheets were
distributed nationwide to affiliated non-government organizations and
volunteers of Sigaw ng Bayan, as well as to the local officials. Copies of the draft petition for initiative
containing the proposition were also circulated to the local officials and
multi-sectoral groups.
Sigaw ng Bayan alleged that
it also held barangay assemblies which culminated on March 24, 25 and
26, 2006, to inform the people and explain to them the proposed amendments to
the Constitution. Thereafter, they
circulated the signature sheets for signing.
The signature sheets were
then submitted to the local election officers for verification based on
the voters’ registration record. Upon
completion of the verification process, the respective local election
officers issued certifications to attest that the signature sheets have
been verified. The verified signature
sheets were subsequently transmitted to the office of Sigaw ng Bayan for the
counting of the signatures.
On
August 25, 2006, herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado filed with
the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Constitution entitled “In
the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution through a People’s
Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral
Presidential to a Unicameral Parliamentary Government by Amending Articles VI
and VII; and Providing Transitory Provisions for the Orderly Shift from the
Presidential to the Parliamentary System.”
They filed an Amended Petition on
As basis for the filing of
their petition for initiative, petitioners averred that Section 5 (b) and (c),
together with Section 7 of R.A. 6735, provide sufficient enabling details for
the people’s exercise of the power. Hence,
petitioners prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order:
1.
Finding the petition
to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;
2.
Directing the
publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least twice in
newspapers of general and local circulation;
and
3.
Calling a
plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days after
the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition, to allow
the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the proposition.
Several groups filed with the COMELEC their respective
oppositions to the petition for initiative, among them ONEVOICE, Inc.,
Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa,
Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.,
Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senators Sergio Osmeña III,
Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada,
and Jinggoy Estrada; Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja,
and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical
Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women’s Party, Anakbayan, League of
Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda, Drs. Darby Santiago and Reginald
Pamugas; Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma.
Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong.
On
Forthwith, petitioners filed with this Court the instant
Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus praying that the Court set aside the
I.
The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and to give due
course to the petition for initiative, because the cited Santiago ruling
of 19 March 1997 cannot be considered the majority opinion of the Supreme Court
en banc, considering that upon its reconsideration and final voting on
10 June 1997, no majority vote was secured to declare Republic Act No. 6735 as
inadequate, incomplete and insufficient in standard.
II.
The 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 6735, Republic
Act No. 8189 and existing appropriation of the COMELEC provide for sufficient
details and authority for the exercise of people’s initiative, thus, existing
laws taken together are adequate and complete.
III.
The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed
grave abuse of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and in refusing to
give due course to the petition for initiative, thereby violating an express
constitutional mandate and disregarding and contravening the will of the
people.
A.
Assuming in arguendo that there is no enabling law,
respondent COMELEC cannot ignore the will of the sovereign people and must
accordingly act on the petition for initiative.
1.
The framers of the Constitution intended to give the
people the power to propose amendments and the people themselves are now giving
vibrant life to this constitutional provision.
2.
Prior to the questioned
3.
The exercise of the initiative to propose amendments
is a political question which shall be determined solely by the sovereign
people.
4.
By signing the signature sheets attached to the
petition for initiative duly verified by the election officers, the people have
chosen to perform this sacred exercise of their sovereign power.
B.
The
C.
The permanent injunction issued in Santiago vs.
COMELEC only applies to the Delfin petition.
1.
It is the dispositive portion of the decision and not
other statements in the body of the decision that governs the rights in
controversy.
IV.
The Honorable public respondent failed or neglected to
act or perform a duty mandated by law.
A.
The ministerial duty of the COMELEC is to set the
initiative for plebiscite.[12]
The oppositors-intervenors, ONEVOICE, Inc.,
Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa,
Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.;
Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante Gabriela, Gabriela
Women’s Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo
Pineda, Dr. Darby Santiago, and Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Senate Minority Leader
Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal,
Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy
Estrada; Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana
Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel; and Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I.
Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and
Randall C. Tabayoyong moved to intervene in this case and filed their respective
Oppositions/Comments-in-Intervention.
The Philippine Constitution
Association, Conrado F. Estrella, Tomas C. Toledo, Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M.
Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., Fortunato P. Aguas, and Amado Gat Inciong; the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City and Cebu Province Chapters; former
President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino; and the Senate
of the Philippines, represented by Senate President Manuel Villar, Jr., also
filed their respective motions for intervention and Comments-in-Intervention.
The Trade Union Congress of
the Philippines, Sulongbayan Movement Foundation, Inc., Ronald L. Adamat,
Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo Baya, Philippine Transport and General Workers
Organization, and Victorino F. Balais likewise moved to intervene and submitted
to the Court a Petition-in-Intervention.
All interventions and oppositions were granted by the Court.
The oppositors-intervenors essentially submit that
the COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to
the petition for initiative as it merely followed this Court’s ruling in Santiago
v. COMELEC as affirmed in the case of PIRMA v. COMELEC, based on the
principle of stare decisis; that there is no sufficient law providing for
the authority and the details for the exercise of people’s initiative to amend
the Constitution; that the proposed
changes to the Constitution are actually revisions, not mere amendments; that the petition for initiative does not
meet the required number of signatories under Section 2, Article XVII of the
1987 Constitution; that it was not shown
that the people have been informed of the proposed amendments as there was
disparity between the proposal presented to them and the proposed amendments
attached to the petition for initiative, if indeed there was; that the verification process was done ex
parte, thus rendering dubious the signatures attached to the petition for
initiative; and that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no legal capacity
to represent the signatories in the petition for initiative.
The Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance with the Court’s resolution of
The COMELEC filed its own Comment stating that its
resolution denying the petition for initiative is not tainted with grave abuse
of discretion as it merely adhered to the ruling of this Court in Santiago v. COMELEC which declared that
R.A. 6735 does not adequately implement the constitutional provision on
initiative to amend the Constitution. It
invoked the permanent injunction issued by the Court against the COMELEC from
taking cognizance of petitions for initiative on amendments to the Constitution
until a valid enabling law shall have been passed by Congress. It asserted that the permanent injunction
covers not only the Delfin Petition, but also all other petitions involving
constitutional initiatives.
On
1. Whether
petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the present
Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who allegedly signed the
proposal to amend the Constitution.
2. Whether
the Petitions for Initiative filed before the Commission on Elections complied
with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
3. Whether
the Court’s decision in Santiago v.
COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997) bars the present petition.
4. Whether
the Court should re-examine the ruling in
5. Assuming
R.A. 6735 is sufficient, whether the Petitions for Initiative filed with the
COMELEC have complied with its provisions.
5.1 Whether
the said petitions are sufficient in form and substance.
5.2 Whether
the proposed changes embrace more than one subject matter.
6. Whether
the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision of the Constitution.
6.1 Whether
the proposed changes are the proper subject of an initiative.
7. Whether
the exercise of an initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is a
political question to be determined solely by the sovereign people.
8. Whether
the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing
the Petitions for Initiative filed before it.
With humility, I offer the
following views to these issues as profiled:
I
Petitioners
Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the present Petition in behalf
of the more than six million voters who allegedly signed the proposal to amend
the Constitution.
Oppositors-intervenors contend
that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are not the proper parties to file the
instant petition as they were not authorized by the signatories in the petition
for initiative.
The argument deserves scant
attention. The Constitution requires
that the petition for initiative should be filed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered voters,
of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the registered
voters therein. The petition for
initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado before the COMELEC was accompanied by
voluminous signature sheets which prima facie show the intent of
the signatories to support the filing of said petition. Stated above their signatures in the
signature sheets is the following:
x x x My signature herein which shall form part of the
petition for initiative to amend the Constitution signifies my support for the
filing thereof.[14]
There is thus no need for
the more than six (6) million signatories to execute separate documents to
authorize petitioners to file the petition for initiative in their behalf.
Neither is it necessary for said signatories to authorize
Lambino and Aumentado to file the petition for certiorari and mandamus before
this Court. Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure provides who may file a petition for certiorari and
mandamus. Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65
read:
SECTION
1. Petition
for certiorari.—When any tribunal,
board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted
without or in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any
plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x x.
SEC. 3.
Petition for mandamus.—When
any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the
performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting
from an office, trust, or station x x x and there is no other plain, speedy and
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x x.
Thus, any person
aggrieved by the act or inaction of the respondent tribunal, board or
officer may file a petition for certiorari or mandamus before the appropriate
court. Certainly, Lambino and Aumentado,
as among the proponents of the petition for initiative dismissed by the
COMELEC, have the standing to file the petition at bar.
II
The doctrine
of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of
The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means “stand by the thing and do not disturb the calm.” The doctrine started with the English Courts.[15] Blackstone observed that at the beginning of the 18th century, “it is an established rule to abide by former precedents where the same points come again in litigation.”[16] As the rule evolved, early limits to its application were recognized: (1) it would not be followed if it were “plainly unreasonable;” (2) where courts of equal authority developed conflicting decisions; and, (3) the binding force of the decision was the “actual principle or principles necessary for the decision; not the words or reasoning used to reach the decision.”[17]
The doctrine migrated to the
Indeed,
two centuries of American case law will confirm Prof. Consovoy’s observation
although stare decisis developed its own life in the
It is also instructive to distinguish the two kinds of horizontal stare decisis — constitutional stare decisis and statutory stare decisis.[25] Constitutional stare decisis involves judicial interpretations of the Constitution while statutory stare decisis involves interpretations of statutes. The distinction is important for courts enjoy more flexibility in refusing to apply stare decisis in constitutional litigations. Justice Brandeis’ view on the binding effect of the doctrine in constitutional litigations still holds sway today. In soothing prose, Brandeis stated: “Stare decisis is not . . . a universal and inexorable command. The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible. Whether it shall be followed or departed from, is a question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is again called upon to consider a question once decided.”[26] In the same vein, the venerable Justice Frankfurter opined: “the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.”[27] In contrast, the application of stare decisis on judicial interpretation of statutes is more inflexible. As Justice Stevens explains: “after a statute has been construed, either by this Court or by a consistent course of decision by other federal judges and agencies, it acquires a meaning that should be as clear as if the judicial gloss had been drafted by the Congress itself.”[28] This stance reflects both respect for Congress’ role and the need to preserve the courts’ limited resources.
In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of reasons,[29] viz: (1) it legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it promotes judicial economy; and, (3) it allows for predictability. Contrariwise, courts refuse to be bound by the stare decisis rule where[30] (1) its application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings; (2) it cannot accommodate changing social and political understandings; (3) it leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and, (4) activist judges can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare decisis are stuck agreeing with them.
In
its 200-year history, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to follow the stare
decisis rule and reversed its decisions in 192 cases.[31] The most famous of these reversals is Brown
v. Board of Education[32]
which junked Plessy v.
An
examination of decisions on stare decisis in major countries will show
that courts are agreed on the factors that should be considered before overturning
prior rulings. These are workability,
reliance, intervening developments in the law and changes in fact. In addition, courts put in the balance the
following determinants: closeness of the voting, age of the prior decision and
its merits.[36]
The leading case in deciding whether a court should follow the stare decisis rule in constitutional litigations is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.[37] It established a 4-pronged test. The court should (1) determine whether the rule has proved to be intolerable simply in defying practical workability; (2) consider whether the rule is subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation; (3) determine whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have the old rule no more than a remnant of an abandoned doctrine; and, (4) find out whether facts have so changed or come to be seen differently, as to have robbed the old rule of significant application or justification.
Following
these guidelines, I submit that the stare decisis rule should not bar
the reexamination of Santiago. On
the factor of intolerability, the six (6) justices in
On
the factor of reliance, the ruling of the six (6) justices in
On
the factor of changes in law and in facts, certain realities on ground
cannot be blinked away. The urgent need
to adjust certain provisions of the 1987 Constitution to enable the country to
compete in the new millennium is given.
The only point of contention is the mode to effect the change - - -
whether through constituent assembly, constitutional convention or people’s
initiative. Petitioners claim that they
have gathered over six (6) million registered voters who want to amend the
Constitution through people’s initiative and that their signatures have been
verified by registrars of the COMELEC. The
six (6) justices who ruled that R.A. 6735 is insufficient to implement the
direct right of the people to amend the Constitution through an initiative
cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million people who are the bearers of our sovereignty
and from whom all government authority emanates. New developments in our internal and external
social, economic, and political settings demand the reexamination of the
III
A reexamination of R.A. 6735
will show that it is sufficient to implement the people’s initiative.
Let
us reexamine the validity of the view of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 is
insufficient to implement Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution
allowing amendments to the Constitution to be directly proposed by the people
through initiative.
When laws are challenged as unconstitutional, courts are
counseled to give life to the intent of legislators. In enacting R.A. 6735, it is
daylight luminous that Congress
intended the said law to implement the right of the people, thru initiative, to
propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action. This all-important intent is palpable from the
following:
First. The text of R.A. 6735 is replete with references to
the right of the people to initiate changes to the Constitution:
The policy statement declares:
Sec. 2.
Statement of Policy. -- The power of the people under a system of
initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in
whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this
Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (emphasis supplied)
It defines
“initiative” as “the power of the
people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and
enact legislations through an election called for the purpose,” and
“plebiscite” as “the electoral process by which an initiative on the
Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.”
It provides the
requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the Constitution, viz:
(1) That “(a) petition for an initiative
on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of
the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters therein;”[38]
and
(2) That “(i)nitiative on the Constitution
may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987
Constitution and only once every five (5) years thereafter.”[39]
It fixes the effectivity date of the amendment under Section 9(b) which
provides that “(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved
by a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to
the day of the plebiscite.”
Second. The legislative
history of R.A. 6735 also reveals the clear intent of the lawmakers to use
it as the instrument to implement people’s initiative. No less than former Chief Justice Hilario
G. Davide, Jr., the ponente in
We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. The Act is a
consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17 x x x x The Bicameral Conference Committee
consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill,
which was subsequently approved on
Third. The
sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. 6735 similarly demonstrate beyond doubt this intent. In his sponsorship remarks, the late Senator
Raul Roco (then a Member of the House of Representatives) emphasized the
intent to make initiative as a mode whereby the people can propose amendments
to the Constitution. We quote his
relevant remarks:[41]
SPONSORSHIP REMAKRS OF REP. ROCO