-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
1/47
TodayisTuesday,June30,2015
RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT
Manila
ENBANC
G.R.No.127325March19,1997
MIRIAMDEFENSORSANTIAGO,ALEXANDERPADILLA,andMARIAISABELONGPIN,petitioners,vs.COMMISSIONONELECTIONS,JESUSDELFIN,ALBERTOPEDROSA&CARMENPEDROSA,intheircapacitiesasfoundingmembersofthePeople'sInitiativeforReforms,ModernizationandAction(PIRMA),respondents.
SENATORRAULS.ROCO,DEMOKRASYAIPAGTANGGOLANGKONSTITUSYON(DIK),MOVEMENTOFATTORNEYSFORBROTHERHOODINTEGRITYANDNATIONALISM,INC.(MABINI),INTEGRATEDBAROFTHEPHILIPPINES(IBP),andLABANNGDEMOKRATIKONGPILIPINO(LABAN),petitionersintervenors.
DAVIDE,JR.,J.:
TheheartofthiscontroversybroughttousbywayofapetitionforprohibitionunderRule65oftheRulesofCourtistherightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionthroughthesystemofinitiativeunderSection2ofArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution.Undoubtedly,thisdemandsspecialattention,asthissystemofinitiativewasunknowntothepeopleofthiscountry,exceptperhapstoafewscholars,beforethedraftingofthe1987
Constitution. The 1986 Constitutional Commission itself, through
the original proponent 1 and the mainsponsor 2 of the proposed
Article on Amendments or Revision of the Constitution,
characterized this system
as"innovative".3Indeeditis,forbothunderthe1935and1973Constitutions,onlytwomethodsofproposingamendmentsto,orrevisionof,theConstitutionwererecognized,viz.,(1)byCongressuponavoteofthreefourthsofallitsmembersand(2)byaconstitutionalconvention.4Forthisandtheotherreasonshereafterdiscussed,weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothispetition.
On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin
filed with public respondent Commission
onElections(hereafter,COMELEC)a"PetitiontoAmendtheConstitution,toLiftTermLimitsofElectiveOfficials,byPeople'sInitiative"(hereafter,DelfinPetition)5whereinDelfinaskedtheCOMELECforanorder
1.Fixingthetimeanddatesforsignaturegatheringalloverthecountry
2.Causing thenecessarypublicationsof saidOrderand theattached
"Petition for Initiativeon
the1987Constitution,innewspapersofgeneralandlocalcirculation
3.InstructingMunicipalElectionRegistrarsinallRegionsofthePhilippines,toassistPetitionersandvolunteers,inestablishingsigningstationsatthetimeandonthedatesdesignatedforthepurpose.
Delfinalleged inhispetition thathe isa foundingmemberof
theMovement forPeople's Initiative,6 a group
ofcitizensdesiroustoavailofthesystemintendedtoinstitutionalizepeoplepowerthatheandthemembersoftheMovementandothervolunteersintendtoexercisethepowertodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutiongrantedunderSection2,ArticleXVIIof
theConstitution that theexerciseof thatpowershallbeconducted
inproceedingsunderthecontrolandsupervisionof
theCOMELECthat,asrequired
inCOMELECResolutionNo.2300,signaturestationsshallbeestablishedalloverthecountry,withtheassistanceofmunicipalelectionregistrars,whoshallverifythesignaturesaffixedbyindividualsignatoriesthatbeforetheMovementandothervolunteerscangathersignatures,itisnecessarythatthetimeanddatestobedesignated
for thepurposebe first fixed inanorder tobe issuedby theCOMELECand
that toadequately inform thepeopleof theelectoralprocess involved,
it is likewisenecessary that thesaidorder,aswellas
thePetitiononwhich
thesignaturesshallbeaffixed,bepublishedinnewspapersofgeneralandlocalcirculation,underthecontrolandsupervisionoftheCOMELEC.
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
2/47
TheDelfinPetitionfurtherallegedthattheprovisionssoughttobeamendedareSections4and7ofArticleVI,7Section4ofArticleVII,8andSection8ofArticleX9oftheConstitution.Attachedtothepetitionisacopyofa"PetitionforInitiative
on the 1987 Constitution" 10 embodying the proposed amendments
which consist in the deletion from
theaforecitedsectionsoftheprovisionsconcerningtermlimits,andwiththefollowingproposition:
DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE
GOVERNMENTOFFICIALS,AMENDINGFORTHEPURPOSESECTIONS4AND7OFARTICLEVI,SECTION4OFARTICLEVII,ANDSECTION8OFARTICLEXOFTHE1987PHILIPPINECONSTITUTION?
AccordingtoDelfin,thesaidPetitionforInitiativewillfirstbesubmittedtothepeople,andafterit
issignedbyatleast twelve per cent of the total number of registered
voters in the country it will be formally filed with
theCOMELEC.
Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, which was forthwith
given the number UND 96037 (INITIATIVE), theCOMELEC, through its
Chairman, issued anOrder 11 (a) directing Delfin "to cause the
publication of the petition,together with the attached Petition for
Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal,
proposed
constitutionalamendment,andthesignatureform),andthenoticeofhearinginthree(3)dailynewspapersofgeneralcirculationathisownexpense"notlaterthan9December1996and(b)settingthecaseforhearingon12December1996at10:00a.m.
At the hearing of the Delfin Petition on 12 December 1996, the
following appeared: Delfin and Atty. Pete Q.Quadra representatives
of the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action
(PIRMA)
intervenoroppositorSenatorRaulS.Roco,togetherwithhistwoother
lawyers,andrepresentativesof,orcounsel for, theIntegrated Bar of
the Philippines (IBP), DemokrasyaIpagtanggol ang Konstitusyon
(DIK), Public Interest
LawCenter,andLabanngDemokratikongPilipino(LABAN).12SenatorRoco,onthatsameday,filedaMotiontoDismisstheDelfinPetitiononthegroundthatitisnottheinitiatorypetitionproperlycognizablebytheCOMELEC.
Afterhearingtheirarguments,theCOMELECdirectedDelfinandtheoppositorstofiletheir"memorandaand/oroppositions/memoranda"withinfivedays.13
On18December1996,thepetitionershereinSenatorMiriamDefensorSantiago,AlexanderPadilla,andMariaIsabelOngpinfiledthisspecialcivilactionforprohibitionraisingthefollowingarguments:
(1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend
the Constitution can only beimplementedby law
tobepassedbyCongress.Nosuch lawhasbeenpassed in
fact,SenateBillNo.1290entitledAnActPrescribingandRegulatingConstitutionAmendmentsbyPeople'sInitiative,which
petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November 1995, is still
pending before the SenateCommitteeonConstitutionalAmendments.
(2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of
initiative, namely, initiative on
theConstitution,onstatutes,andonlocallegislation.However,itfailedtoprovideanysubtitleoninitiativeon
the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which
are specifically provided for inSubtitle IIandSubtitle
III.Thisdeliberateomission indicates that thematterofpeople's
initiative toamend theConstitutionwas left tosome future
law.FormerSenatorArturoTolentinostressed thisdeficiency in the law
in his privilege speech delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There
is not asingle word in that law which can be considered as
implementing [the provision on
constitutionalinitiative].Suchimplementingprovisionshavebeenobviouslylefttoaseparatelaw.
(3)RepublicActNo.6735providesfortheeffectivityofthelawafterpublicationinprintmedia.Thisindicates
that theAct coversonly lawsandnot constitutional amendmentsbecause
the latter
takeeffectonlyuponratificationandnotafterpublication.
(4)COMELECResolutionNo.2300,adoptedon16January1991togovern"theconductofinitiativeontheConstitutionandinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallaws,isultravires
insofarasinitiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned,
since the COMELEC has no power
toproviderulesandregulationsfortheexerciseoftherightofinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.OnlyCongressisauthorizedbytheConstitutiontopasstheimplementinglaw.
(5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof.Extending or lifting of term
limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power
of thepeople'sinitiative.
(6)Finally,Congresshasnotyetappropriatedfundsforpeople'sinitiativeneithertheCOMELECnoranyothergovernmentdepartment,agency,orofficehasrealignedfundsforthepurpose.
Tojustifytheirrecoursetousviathespecialcivilactionforprohibition,thepetitionersallegethatintheeventtheCOMELECgrantstheDelfinPetition,thepeople'sinitiativespearheadedbyPIRMAwouldentailexpensestothenational
treasury for general reregistration of voters amounting to at least
P180 million, not to mention the
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
3/47
millionsofadditionalpesosinexpenseswhichwouldbeincurredintheconductoftheinitiativeitself.Hence,thetranscendental
importance to the public and the nation of the issues raised
demands that this petition forprohibition be settled promptly and
definitely, brushing aside technicalities of procedure and calling
for
theadmissionofataxpayer'sandlegislator'ssuit.14Besides,thereisnootherplain,speedy,andadequateremedyintheordinarycourseoflaw.
On 19 December 1996, this Court (a) required the respondents to
comment on the petition within a
nonextendibleperiodoftendaysfromnoticeand(b)issuedatemporaryrestrainingorder,effectiveimmediatelyandcontinuinguntil
furtherorders, enjoiningpublic respondentCOMELEC fromproceedingwith
theDelfinPetition,andprivaterespondentsAlbertoandCarmenPedrosafromconductingasignaturedriveforpeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.
On2January1997,privaterespondents,throughAttyQuadra,filedtheirComment15on
thepetition.Theyarguethereinthat:
1. IT ISNOTTRUETHAT
"ITWOULDENTAILEXPENSESTOTHENATIONALTREASURYFORGENERAL REGISTRATION
OF VOTERS AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST PESOS: ONE HUNDREDEIGHTY MILLION
(P180,000,000.00)" IF THE "COMELEC GRANTS THE PETITION FILED
BYRESPONDENTDELFINBEFORETHECOMELEC.
2. NOT A SINGLE CENTAVO WOULD BE SPENT BY THE NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT IF THECOMELEC GRANTS THE PETITION OF RESPONDENT DELFIN.
ALL EXPENSES IN THESIGNATURE GATHERING ARE ALL FOR THE ACCOUNT OF
RESPONDENT DELFIN AND
HISVOLUNTEERSPERTHEIRPROGRAMOFACTIVITIESANDEXPENDITURESSUBMITTEDTOTHECOMELEC.THEESTIMATEDCOSTOFTHEDAILYPERDIEMOFTHESUPERVISINGSCHOOLTEACHERS
IN THESIGNATUREGATHERINGTOBEDEPOSITED and
TOBEPAIDBYDELFINANDHISVOLUNTEERSISP2,571,200.00
3.THEPENDINGPETITIONBEFORETHECOMELECISONLYONTHESIGNATUREGATHERINGWHICH
BY LAW COMELEC IS DUTY BOUND "TO SUPERVISE CLOSELY" PURSUANT TO
ITS"INITIATORY JURISDICTION" UPHELD BY THE HONORABLE COURT IN ITS
RECENTSEPTEMBER26,1996DECISIONINTHECASEOFSUBICBAYMETROPOLITANAUTHORITYVS.COMELEC,ETAL.G.R.NO.125416
4.REP.ACTNO.6735APPROVEDONAUGUST4,1989ISTHEENABLINGLAWIMPLEMENTINGTHE
POWER OF PEOPLE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE
CONSTITUTION.SENATORDEFENSORSANTIAGO'SSENATEBILLNO.1290
ISADUPLICATIONOFWHATAREALREADYPROVIDEDFORINREP.ACTNO.6735
5. COMELECRESOLUTIONNO. 2300 PROMULGATEDON JANUARY 16, 1991
PURSUANT TOREP.ACT6735WASUPHELDBYTHEHONORABLECOURT
INTHERECENTSEPTEMBER26,1996DECISION
INTHECASEOFSUBICBAYMETROPOLITANAUTHORITYVS.COMELEC,ETAL. G.R. NO.
125416 WHERE THE HONORABLE COURT SAID: "THE COMMISSION ONELECTIONS
CAN DO NO LESS BY SEASONABLY AND JUDICIOUSLY
PROMULGATINGGUIDELINESANDRULESFORBOTHNATIONALANDLOCALUSE,INIMPLEMENTINGOFTHESELAWS."
6.EVENSENATORDEFENSORSANTIAGO'SSENATEBILLNO.
1290CONTAINSAPROVISIONDELEGATING TO THE COMELEC THE POWER TO
"PROMULGATE SUCH RULES
ANDREGULATIONSASMAYBENECESSARYTOCARRYOUTTHEPURPOSESOFTHISACT."(SEC.12,S.B.NO.1290,ENCLOSEDASANNEXE,PETITION)
7. THE LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION ON THE TERM OF OFFICE OF
ELECTIVE
OFFICIALSPROVIDEDUNDERTHE1987CONSTITUTIONISNOTA"REVISION"OFTHECONSTITUTION.ITIS
ONLY AN AMENDMENT. "AMENDMENT ENVISAGES AN ALTERATION OF ONE OR A
FEWSPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. REVISION CONTEMPLATES A
REEXAMINATIONOFTHEENTIREDOCUMENTTODETERMINEHOWANDTOWHATEXTENT
ITSHOULDBEALTERED."(PP.412413,2ND.ED.1992,1097PHIL.CONSTITUTION,BYJOAQUING.BERNAS,S.J.).
Alsoon2January1997,private respondentDelfin filed
inhisownbehalfaComment16 which starts offwith
anassertionthattheinstantpetitionisa"kneejerkreactiontoadraft'PetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution'...whichisnot
formally
filedyet."Whathefiledon6December1996wasan"InitiatoryPleading"or"InitiatoryPetition,"whichwaslegallynecessary
to start thesignature campaign toamend theConstitutionor toput
themovement togather
signaturesunderCOMELECpowerandfunction.Onthesubstantiveallegationsofthepetitioners,Delfinmaintainsasfollows:
(1)Contrarytotheclaimofthepetitioners,thereisalaw,R.A.No.6735,whichgovernstheconduct
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
4/47
ofinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Theabsencethereinofasubtitleforsuchinitiativeisnotfatal,sincesubtitlesarenotrequirementsforthevalidityorsufficiencyoflaws.
(2)Section9(b)ofR.A.No.6735specificallyprovides that
theproposition inan initiative
toamendtheConstitutionapprovedbythemajorityofthevotescastintheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveasofthedayoftheplebiscite.
(3) The claim that COMELECResolution No. 2300 is ultra vires is
contradicted by (a) Section
2,ArticleIXCoftheConstitution,whichgrantstheCOMELECthepowertoenforceandadministeralllaws
and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite,
initiative, referendum, andrecall and
(b)Section20ofR.A.6735,whichempowers theCOMELEC topromulgate such
rulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesoftheAct.
(4)Theproposedinitiativedoesnot
involvearevisionof,butmereamendment to,
theConstitutionbecauseitseekstoalteronlyafewspecificprovisionsoftheConstitution,ormorespecifically,onlythosewhichlaytermlimits.Itdoesnotseektoreexamineoroverhaultheentiredocument.
As to thepublicexpenditures for registrationof
voters,Delfinconsiderspetitioners'estimateofP180millionasunreliable,
for only the COMELEC can give the exact figure. Besides, if there
will be a plebiscite it will besimultaneouswith the
1997BarangayElections. In any event, fund requirements for
initiative will be a
prioritygovernmentexpensebecauseitwillbefortheexerciseofthesovereignpowerofthepeople.
IntheComment17forthepublicrespondentCOMELEC,filedalsoon2January1997,theOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralcontendsthat:
(1)R.A.No.6735dealswith,interalia,people'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.ItsSection2onStatementofPolicyexplicitlyaffirms,recognizes,andguaranteesthatpoweranditsSection3,whichenumerates
the three systems of initiative, includes initiative on the
Constitution and defines thesameas thepower toproposeamendments to
theConstitution.Likewise, itsSection5
repeatedlymentionsinitiativeontheConstitution.
(2)Aseparatesubtitleon initiativeon theConstitution
isnotnecessary inR.A.No.6735because,being national in scope, that
system of initiative is deemed included in the subtitle on
NationalInitiativeandReferendumandSenatorTolentinosimplyoverlookedpertinentprovisionsof
the
lawwhenheclaimedthatnothingthereinwasprovidedforinitiativeontheConstitution.
(3)SenateBillNo.1290isneitheracompetentnoramaterialproofthatR.A.No.6735doesnotdealwithinitiativeontheConstitution.
(4)ExtensionoftermlimitsofelectedofficialsconstitutesamereamendmenttotheConstitution,notarevisionthereof.
(5)COMELECResolutionNo.2300wasvalidlyissuedunderSection20ofR.A.No.6735andundertheOmnibusElectionCode.TherulemakingpoweroftheCOMELECtoimplementtheprovisionsofR.A.No.6735wasinfactupheldbythisCourtinSubicBayMetropolitanAuthorityvs.COMELEC.
On 14 January 1997, this Court (a) confirmed nunc pro tunc the
temporary restraining order (b) noted theaforementioned Comments
and the Motion to Lift Temporary Restraining Order filed by private
respondentsthroughAtty.Quadra,aswellas the
latter'sManifestationstating thathe is thecounsel
forprivaterespondentsAlbertoandCarmenPedrosaonlyandtheCommenthefiledwasforthePedrosasand(c)grantedtheMotionforInterventionfiledon6January1997bySenatorRaulRocoandallowedhimtofilehisPetitioninInterventionnotlaterthan20January1997and(d)setthecaseforhearingon23January1997at9:30a.m.
On17January1997, theDemokrasyaIpagtanggolangKonstitusyon (DIK)
and theMovement ofAttorneys
forBrotherhoodIntegrityandNationalism,Inc.(MABINI),filedaMotionforIntervention.Attachedtothemotionwastheir
Petition in Intervention, which was later replaced by an Amended
Petition in Intervention wherein theycontendthat:
(1)TheDelfinproposaldoesnot involveamereamendment to,buta
revision of,
theConstitutionbecause,inthewordsofFr.JoaquinBernas,S.J.,18itwouldinvolveachangefromapoliticalphilosophythatrejectsunlimitedtenuretoonethatacceptsunlimitedtenureandalthoughthechangemightappeartobean
isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on
synchronization of elections and on the
Statepolicyofguaranteeingequalaccesstoopportunitiesforpublicserviceandprohibitingpoliticaldynasties.19Arevision
cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section
2 of Article XVII of theConstitution,islimitedtoamendments.
(2)Theprohibitionagainst reelectionof thePresidentand the
limitsprovided forall othernational
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
5/47
andlocalelectiveofficialsarebasedonthephilosophyofgovernance,"toopenupthepoliticalarenato
as many as there are Filipinos qualified to handle the demands of
leadership, to break
theconcentrationofpoliticalandeconomicpowersinthehandsofafew,andtopromoteeffectiveproperempowerment
for participation in policy and decisionmaking for the common good"
hence,
toremovethetermlimitsistonegateandnullifythenoblevisionofthe1987Constitution.
(3)TheDelfinproposal runscounter to thepurposeof
initiative,particularly
inaconflictofinterestsituation.Initiativeisintendedasafallbackpositionthatmaybeavailedofbythepeopleonlyiftheyare
dissatisfied with the performance of their elective officials, but
not as a premium for goodperformance.20
(4) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate in itself to be
called the enabling law that implements thepeople's
initiativeonamendments to theConstitution. It fails tostate (a)
theproperpartieswhomay file
thepetition,(b)theappropriateagencybeforewhomthepetitionistobefiled,(c)thecontentsofthepetition,(d)thepublicationofthesame,(e)thewaysandmeansofgatheringthesignaturesofthevotersnationwideand3%perlegislativedistrict,(f)theproperpartieswhomayopposeorquestiontheveracityofthesignatures,(g)theroleoftheCOMELECintheverificationofthesignaturesandthesufficiencyofthepetition,(h)theappealfromanydecisionoftheCOMELEC,(I)theholdingofaplebiscite,and(g)theappropriationoffundsforsuchpeople'sinitiative.Accordingly,therebeingnoenablinglaw,theCOMELEChasnojurisdictiontohearDelfin'spetition.
(5)ThedeficiencyofR.A.No.6735cannotbe rectifiedor
remediedbyCOMELECResolutionNo.2300, since the COMELEC is without
authority to legislate the procedure for a people's initiativeunder
Section 2 of Article XVII of theConstitution. That function
exclusively pertains
toCongress.Section20ofR.A.No.6735doesnotconstitutealegalbasisfortheResolution,astheformerdoesnotsetasufficientstandardforavaliddelegationofpower.
On20January1997,SenatorRaulRocofiledhisPetitioninIntervention.21HeaversthatR.A.No.6735istheenablinglawthatimplementsthepeople'srighttoinitiateconstitutionalamendments.ThislawisaconsolidationofSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505hecoauthoredtheHouseBillandevendeliveredasponsorshipspeechthereon.HelikewisesubmitsthattheCOMELECwasempoweredunderSection20ofthat
law to promulgate COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. Nevertheless, he
contends that the respondent Commission
iswithoutjurisdictiontotakecognizanceoftheDelfinPetitionandtoorderitspublicationbecausethesaidpetitionisnottheinitiatorypleadingcontemplatedundertheConstitution,RepublicActNo.6735,andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300.WhatvestsjurisdictionupontheCOMELECinaninitiativeontheConstitutionisthefilingofapetitionforinitiativewhichissignedbytherequirednumberofregisteredvoters.Healsosubmitsthattheproponentsofaconstitutionalamendmentcannotavailof
the authority and resources of the COMELEC to assist them is
securing the required number of signatures, as
theCOMELEC'sroleinaninitiativeontheConstitutionislimitedtothedeterminationofthesufficiencyoftheinitiativepetitionandthecallandsupervisionofaplebiscite,ifwarranted.
On20January1997,LABANfiledaMotionforLeavetoIntervene.
Thefollowingday,theIBPfiledaMotionforInterventiontowhichitattachedaPetitioninInterventionraisingthefollowingarguments:
(1)CongresshasfailedtoenactanenablinglawmandatedunderSection2,ArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the
required implementing law on
theinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.
(3)ThePetitionforInitiativesuffersfromafataldefectinthatitdoesnothavetherequirednumberofsignatures.
(4) The petition seeks, in effect a revision of the
Constitution, which can be proposed only
byCongressoraconstitutionalconvention.22
On21January1997,wepromulgatedaResolution(a)grantingtheMotionsforInterventionfiledbytheDIKandMABINIandbytheIBP,aswellastheMotionforLeavetoIntervenefiledbyLABAN(b)admittingtheAmendedPetition
inInterventionofDIKandMABINI,andthePetitionsinInterventionofSenatorRocoandoftheIBP(c)requiringtherespondentstofilewithinanonextendibleperiodoffivedaystheirConsolidatedCommentsontheaforesaidPetitionsinInterventionand(d)requiringLABANtofileitsPetitioninInterventionwithinanonextendibleperiodofthreedaysfromnotice,andtherespondentstocommentthereonwithinanonextendibleperiodoffivedaysfromreceiptofthesaidPetitioninIntervention.
Atthehearingofthecaseon23January1997,thepartiesarguedonthefollowingpivotalissues,whichtheCourtformulatedinlightoftheallegationsandargumentsraisedinthepleadingssofarfiled:
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
6/47
1.WhetherR.A.No.6735,entitledAnActProvidingforaSystemof
InitiativeandReferendumandAppropriating Funds Therefor, was
intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to
theConstitutionandifso,whethertheAct,asworded,adequatelycoverssuchinitiative.
2.WhetherthatportionofCOMELECResolutionNo.2300(Inre:RulesandRegulationsGoverningtheConduct
of Initiative on theConstitution, and Initiative
andReferendumonNational and
LocalLaws)regardingtheconductofinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionisvalid,consideringtheabsenceinthelawofspecificprovisionsontheconductofsuchinitiative.
3.Whether the liftingof term limits of electivenational and
local officials, asproposed in
thedraft"PetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution,"wouldconstitutearevisionof,oranamendmentto,theConstitution.
4.WhethertheCOMELECcantakecognizanceof,orhasjurisdictionover,apetitionsolelyintendedto
obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for signature
gathering (b) instructing
municipalelectionofficerstoassistDelfin'smovementandvolunteersinestablishingsignaturestationsand(c)directingorcausingthepublicationof,
interalia,
theunsignedproposedPetitionforInitiativeonthe1987Constitution.
5.Whether it is proper for the SupremeCourt to take cognizance
of the petitionwhen there is apendingcasebeforetheCOMELEC.
Afterhearingthemonthe
issues,werequiredthepartiestosubmitsimultaneouslytheirrespectivememorandawithintwentydaysandrequestedintervenorSenatorRocotosubmitcopiesofthedeliberationsonHouseBillNo.21505.
On27January1997,LABANfiled itsPetition in Interventionwherein
itadoptstheallegationsandarguments inthemainPetition. It further
submits that theCOMELECshouldhavedismissed theDelfinPetition for
failure
tostateasufficientcauseofactionandthattheCommission'sfailureorrefusaltodosoconstitutedgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackofjurisdiction.
On28January1997,SenatorRocosubmittedcopiesofportionsofboththeJournalandtheRecordoftheHouseofRepresentativesrelatingtothedeliberationsofHouseBillNo.21505,aswellasthetranscriptsofstenographicnotes
on the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee, Committee
on Suffrage and
ElectoralReforms,of6June1989onHouseBillNo.21505andSenateBillNo.17.
Private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa filed their
Consolidated Comments on the Petitions
inInterventionofSenatorRoco,DIKandMABINI, and IBP.23The parties
thereafter filed, in due time, their separatememoranda.24
Aswestatedinthebeginning,weresolvedtogiveduecoursetothisspecialcivilaction.
Foramorelogicaldiscussionoftheformulatedissues,weshallfirsttakeupthefifthissuewhichappearstoposeaprejudicialproceduralquestion.
I
THEINSTANTPETITIONISVIABLEDESPITETHEPENDENCYINTHECOMELECOFTHEDELFINPETITION.
ExceptforthepetitionersandintervenorRoco,thepartiespaidnoseriousattentiontothefifthissue,i.e.,whetherit
isproper for thisCourt to takecognizanceof
thisspecialcivilactionwhenthere
isapendingcasebeforetheCOMELEC.Thepetitionersprovideanaffirmativeanswer.Thus:
28.TheComelechasno jurisdiction to take cognizanceof thepetition
filed by private respondentDelfin.Thisbeingso, itbecomes imperative
tostop theComelec fromproceedingany
further,andundertheRulesofCourt,Rule65,Section2,apetitionforprohibitionistheproperremedy.
29.Thewritofprohibitionisanextraordinaryjudicialwritissuingoutofacourtofsuperiorjurisdictionanddirected
toan inferiorcourt, for thepurposeofpreventing the inferior
tribunal
fromusurpingajurisdictionwithwhichitisnotlegallyvested.(Peoplev.Vera,supra.,p.84).Inthiscasethewritisanurgentnecessity,inviewofthehighlydivisiveandadverseenvironmentalconsequencesonthebodypolitic
of the questioned Comelec order. The consequent climate of legal
confusion and politicalinstabilitybegsforjudicialstatesmanship.
30.Inthefinalanalysis,whenthesystemofconstitutionallawisthreatenedbythepoliticalambitionsofman,onlytheSupremeCourt
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
7/47
cansaveanationinperilandupholdtheparamountmajestyoftheConstitution.25
Itmustbe recalled that intervenorRoco filedwith
theCOMELECamotion todismiss theDelfinPetitionon
thegroundthattheCOMELEChasnojurisdictionorauthoritytoentertainthepetition.26TheCOMELECmadenorulingthereon
evidently because after having heard the arguments ofDelfin and the
oppositors at the hearing on
12December1996,itrequiredthemtosubmitwithinfivedaystheirmemorandaoroppositions/memoranda.27Earlier,orspecificallyon6December
1996, it practically gave due course to the Delfin Petition by
ordering Delfin to cause the publication of thepetition,
togetherwith theattachedPetition for Initiative, thesignature
form,and thenoticeofhearingandbysetting thecase
forhearing.TheCOMELEC's failure toactonRoco'smotion todismissand
its insistence toholdon to
thepetitionrenderedripeandviabletheinstantpetitionunderSection2ofRule65oftheRulesofCourt,whichprovides:
Sec. 2.Petition for prohibition. Where the proceedings of any
tribunal, corporation, board, orperson, whether exercising
functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in excess of its
or
hisjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretion,andthereisnoappealoranyotherplain,speedyandadequate
remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby
may file a verifiedpetition in thepropercourtalleging the
factswithcertaintyandpraying that judgmentbe renderedcommanding the
defendant to desist from further proceedings in the action or
matter specifiedtherein.
Itmustalsobenotedthat
intervenorRococlaimsthattheCOMELEChasnojurisdictionovertheDelfinPetitionbecause
thesaidpetition isnotsupportedby the
requiredminimumnumberofsignaturesof registeredvoters.LABANalso
asserts that theCOMELECgravely abused its discretion in refusing to
dismiss
theDelfinPetition,whichdoesnotcontaintherequirednumberofsignatures.Inlightoftheseclaims,theinstantcasemaylikewisebetreatedasaspecialcivilactionforcertiorariunderSectionIofRule65oftheRulesofCourt.
In any event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his
Memorandum, this Court may brush
asidetechnicalitiesofprocedureincasesoftranscendentalimportance.AswestatedinKilosbayan,Inc.v.Guingona,Jr.28
Aparty's standingbefore thisCourt isaprocedural
technicalitywhich itmay, in theexerciseof
itsdiscretion,setasideinviewoftheimportanceofissuesraised.InthelandmarkEmergencyPowersCases,thisCourtbrushedasidethistechnicalitybecausethetranscendentalimportancetothepublicof
these cases demands that they be settled promptly and definitely,
brushing aside, if wemust,technicalitiesofprocedure.
II
R.A.NO.6735INTENDEDTOINCLUDETHESYSTEMOFINITIATIVEONAMENDMENTSTOTHECONSTITUTION,BUTIS,UNFORTUNATELY,INADEQUATETOCOVERTHATSYSTEM.
Section2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionprovides:
Sec. 2.Amendments to thisConstitutionmay likewise be directly
proposed by the people throughinitiative upon a petition of at
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters,
ofwhichevery legislativedistrictmust be representedbyat least three
per centum of the registeredvoters therein.Noamendmentunder
thissectionshallbeauthorizedwithin fiveyears following
theratificationofthisConstitutionnoroftenerthanonceeveryfiveyearsthereafter.
TheCongressshallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.
Thisprovisionisnotselfexecutory.Inhisbook,29JoaquinBernas,amemberofthe1986ConstitutionalCommission,stated:
Without implementing legislationSection2
cannotoperate.Thus,although
thismodeofamendingtheConstitutionisamodeofamendmentwhichbypassescongressionalaction,inthelastanalysisitstillisdependentoncongressionalaction.
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through
thesystemofinitiativewouldremainentombedinthecoldnicheoftheConstitutionuntilCongressprovidesforitsimplementation.Statedotherwise,whiletheConstitutionhasrecognizedorgrantedthatright,thepeoplecannotexerciseitifCongress,forwhateverreason,doesnotprovideforitsimplementation.
This system of initiative was originally included in Section 1
of the draft Article on Amendment or
RevisionproposedbytheCommitteeonAmendmentsandTransitoryProvisionsofthe1986ConstitutionalCommissioninitsCommitteeReportNo.7(ProposedResolutionNo.332).30Thatsectionreadsasfollows:
Sec.1.Anyamendmentto,orrevisionof,thisConstitutionmaybeproposed:
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
8/47
(a)bytheNationalAssemblyuponavoteofthreefourthsofallitsmembersor
(b)byaconstitutionalconventionor
(c) directly by thepeople themselves thru initiative as provided
for inArticle___Section___of theConstitution.31
After several interpellations, but before the period of
amendments, the Committee submitted a
newformulationoftheconceptofinitiativewhichitdenominatedasSection2thus:
MR.SUAREZ.Thank you,MadamPresident.Maywe respectfully call
attentionof theMembers of theCommission that pursuant to themandate
given to us last night, wesubmitted this afternoon a complete
Committee Report No. 7 which embodies
theproposedprovisiongoverningthematterofinitiative.ThisisnowcoveredbySection2ofthe
complete committee report. With the permission of the Members, may
I quoteSection2:
The people may, after five years from the date of the last
plebiscite held, directly
proposeamendmentstothisConstitutionthruinitiativeuponpetitionofat
leasttenpercentoftheregisteredvoters.
ThiscompletestheblanksappearingintheoriginalCommitteeReportNo.7.32
TheinterpellationsonSection2showedthatthedetailsforcarryingoutSection2arelefttothelegislature.Thus:
FR.BERNAS.MadamPresident,justtwosimple,clarificatoryquestions.
First,onSection1onthematterof initiativeuponpetitionofat
least10percent,
therearenodetailsintheprovisiononhowtocarrythisout.Doweunderstand,therefore,thatweareleavingthismattertothelegislature?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright,MadamPresident.
FR.BERNAS.Anddowealsounderstand,therefore,that foras
longasthelegislaturedoesnotpassthenecessaryimplementinglawonthis,thiswillnotoperate?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatmatterwasalsotakenupduringthecommitteehearing,especiallywithrespecttothebudgetappropriationswhichwouldhavetobelegislatedsothattheplebiscitecouldbecalled.Wedeemed
itbest that thismatterbe left to the
legislature.TheGentlemanisright.Inanyevent,asenvisioned,noamendmentthroughthepowerof
initiative can be called until after five years from the date of
the ratification of thisConstitution. Therefore, the first
amendment that could be proposed through
theexerciseofthisinitiativepowerwouldbeafterfiveyears.It
isreasonablyexpectedthatwithin that fiveyear period, the National
Assembly can come up with the
appropriaterulesgoverningtheexerciseofthispower.
FR.BERNAS.Sincethematterislefttothelegislaturethedetailsonhowthisistobecarried
out is it possible that, in effect, what will be presented to the
people forratification is theworkof the legislature rather thanof
thepeople?Does thisprovisionexcludethatpossibility?
MR.SUAREZ.No,itdoesnotexcludethatpossibilitybecauseeventhelegislatureitselfasabodycouldproposethatamendment,maybeindividuallyorcollectively,ifitfailstomusterthethreefourthsvoteinordertoconstituteitselfasaconstituentassemblyandsubmitthatproposaltothepeopleforratificationthroughtheprocessofaninitiative.
xxxxxxxxx
MS.AQUINO.DoIunderstandfromthesponsorthattheintentionintheproposal
istovestconstituentpowerinthepeopletoamendtheConstitution?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatisabsolutelycorrect,MadamPresident.
MS. AQUINO. I fully concur with the underlying precept of the
proposal in terms ofinstitutionalizing popular participation in the
drafting of the Constitution or in
theamendmentthereof,butIwouldhavealotofdifficultiesintermsofacceptingthedraftofSection
2, aswritten.Would the sponsor agreewithme that in the hierarchy of
legalmandate,constituentpowerhasprimacyoverallotherlegalmandates?
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
9/47
MR.SUAREZ.TheCommissionerisright,MadamPresident.
MS.AQUINO.Andwouldthesponsoragreewithmethatinthehierarchyoflegalvalues,theConstitution
is source of all legalmandates and that thereforewe require a
greatdealofcircumspectioninthedraftingandintheamendmentsoftheConstitution?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatpropositionisnondebatable.
MS. AQUINO. Such that in order to underscore the primacy of
constituent power
wehaveaseparatearticleintheconstitutionthatwouldspecificallycovertheprocessandthemodesofamendingtheConstitution?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright,MadamPresident.
MS.AQUINO.Therefore, is thesponsor inclined,as
theprovisionsaredraftednow, toagain concede to the legislature the
process or the requirement of determining
themechanicsofamendingtheConstitutionbypeople'sinitiative?
MR.SUAREZ.ThematterofimplementingthiscouldverywellbeplacedinthehandsoftheNationalAssembly,notunlesswecanincorporateintothisprovisionthemechanicsthatwouldadequatelycoveralltheconceivablesituations.33
ItwasmadeclearduringtheinterpellationsthattheaforementionedSection2islimitedtoproposalstoAMENDnottoREVISEtheConstitutionthus:
MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was suggested on the theory that
this matter
ofinitiative,whichcameaboutbecauseoftheextraordinarydevelopmentsthisyear,hastobeseparated
from the traditionalmodesofamending theConstitutionasembodied
inSection1.ThecommitteemembersfeltthatthissystemofinitiativeshouldnotextendtotherevisionoftheentireConstitution,soweremoveditfromtheoperationofSection1oftheproposedArticleonAmendmentorRevision.34
xxxxxxxxx
MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing
this process ofinitiative as a separate section in the Article on
Amendment. Would the sponsor beamenable to accepting an amendment
in terms of realigning Section 2 as
anothersubparagraph(c)ofSection1,insteadofsettingitupasanotherseparatesectionasifitwereaselfexecutingprovision?
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a
while ago,
thisprocessofinitiativeislimitedtothematterofamendmentandshouldnotexpandintoarevisionwhichcontemplatesatotaloverhauloftheConstitution.ThatwasthesensethatwasconveyedbytheCommittee.
MS.AQUINO.Inotherwords,theCommitteewasattemptingtodistinguishthecoverageof
modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision
whereas theprocess of initiation to amend, which is given to the
public, would only apply toamendments?
MR.SUAREZ.Thatisright.ThosewerethetermsenvisionedintheCommittee.35
AmendmentstotheproposedSection2werethereafterintroducedbythenCommissionerHilarioG.Davide,Jr.,whichtheCommitteeaccepted.Thus:
MR.DAVIDE.ThankyouMadamPresident.IproposetosubstitutetheentireSection2withthefollowing:
MR.DAVIDE.MadamPresident,Ihavemodifiedtheproposedamendmentaftertakinginto
account the modifications submitted by the sponsor himself and the
honorableCommissioners Guingona, Monsod, Rama, Ople, de los Reyes
and Romulo.
ThemodifiedamendmentinsubstitutionoftheproposedSection2willnowreadasfollows:"SECTION
2. AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE
BEDIRECTLYPROPOSEDBY THEPEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVEUPONA PETITIONOF
AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER Of
REGISTEREDVOTERS,OFWHICHEVERYLEGISLATIVEDISTRICTMUSTBEREPRESENTEDBYAT
LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
10/47
AMENDMENTUNDERTHISSECTIONSHALLBEAUTHORIZEDWITHINFIVEYEARSFOLLOWING
THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER
THANONCEEVERYFIVEYEARSTHEREAFTER.
THENATIONALASSEMBLYSHALLBYLAWPROVIDEFORTHE
IMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEEXERCISEOFTHISRIGHT.
MR.SUAREZ.MadamPresident,consideringthattheproposedamendmentisreflectiveof
the sense contained in Section 2 of our completed Committee Report
No. 7, weaccepttheproposedamendment.36
TheinterpellationswhichensuedontheproposedmodifiedamendmenttoSection2clearlyshowedthatitwasalegislativeactwhichmustimplementtheexerciseoftheright.Thus:
MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, is it
possible for
thelegislaturetosetforthcertainprocedurestocarryouttheinitiative...?
MR.DAVIDE.Itcan.
xxxxxxxxx
MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent
the
legislaturefromaskinganotherbodytosetthepropositioninproperform.
MR.DAVIDE.TheCommissioner iscorrect. Inotherwords, the
implementationof
thisparticularrightwouldbesubjecttolegislation,providedthelegislaturecannotdetermineanymorethepercentageoftherequirement.
MR.ROMULO.But theprocedures, including thedeterminationof
theproper form
forsubmissiontothepeople,maybesubjecttolegislation.
MR.DAVIDE.Aslongasitwillnotdestroythesubstantiverighttoinitiate.Inotherwords,noneof
theprocedurestobeproposedbythe legislativebodymustdiminishor
impairtherightconcededhere.
MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the
procedures which I havediscussedbelegislated?
MR.DAVIDE.Yes.37
CommissionerDavidealsoreaffirmedthathismodifiedamendmentstrictlyconfinesinitiativetoAMENDMENTStoNOTREVISIONoftheConstitution.Thus:
MR.DAVIDE.Withpleasure,MadamPresident.
MR.MAAMBONG.My
firstquestion:CommissionerDavide'sproposedamendmentonline 1 refers
to "amendment." Does it not cover the word "revision" as defined
byCommissionerPadillawhenhemadethedistinctionbetweenthewords"amendments"and"revision"?
MR.DAVIDE.No,itdoesnot,because"amendments"and"revision"shouldbecoveredbySection1.Soinsofarasinitiativeisconcerned,itcanonlyrelateto"amendments"not"revision."38
CommissionerDavidefurtheremphasizedthattheprocessofproposingamendmentsthrough
initiativemustbemorerigorousanddifficultthantheinitiativeonlegislation.Thus:
MR.DAVIDE.Adistinctionhastobemadethatunderthisproposal,whatis
involvedisanamendment to
theConstitution.ToamendaConstitutionwouldordinarily
requireaproposalbytheNationalAssemblybyavoteofthreefourthsandtocallaconstitutionalconventionwouldrequireahighernumber.Moreover,justtosubmittheissueofcallingaconstitutionalconvention,amajorityof
theNationalAssembly is required, the importbeing that the process
of amendmentmust bemademore rigorous and difficult thanprobably
initiating an ordinary legislation or putting an end to a law
proposed by
theNationalAssemblybywayofareferendum.IcannotagreetoreducingtherequirementapprovedbytheCommitteeontheLegislativebecause
itwouldrequireanothervotingby theCommittee,and
thevotingaspreciselybasedona requirementof10percent.
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
11/47
Perhaps, I might present such a proposal, by way of an
amendment, when
theCommissionshalltakeuptheArticleontheLegislativeorontheNationalAssemblyonplenarysessions.39
TheDavidemodifiedamendmentstoSection2weresubjectedtoamendments,andthefinalversion,whichtheCommissionapprovedbyavoteof31infavorand3against,readsasfollows:
MR.DAVIDE.ThankyouMadamPresident.Section2,asamended, readsas
follows:"AMENDMENTTOTHISCONSTITUTIONMAYLIKEWISEBEDIRECTLYPROPOSEDBYTHEPEOPLETHROUGH
INITIATIVEUPONAPETITIONOFATLEASTTWELVEPERCENTOFTHETOTALNUMBEROFREGISTEREDVOTERS,OFWHICHEVERYLEGISLATIVEDISTRICTMUSTBEREPRESENTEDBYATLEASTTHREEPERCENTOFTHEREGISTEREDVOTERSTHEREOF.NOAMENDMENTUNDERTHISSECTIONSHALLBEAUTHORIZEDWITHINFIVEYEARSFOLLOWINGTHERATIFICATIONOFTHIS
CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARSTHEREAFTER.
THENATIONALASSEMBLYSHALLBYLAWPROVIDEFORTHEIMPLEMENTATIONOFTHEEXERCISEOFTHISRIGHT.40
TheentireproposedArticleonAmendmentsorRevisionswasapprovedonsecondreadingon9July1986.41Thereafter,uponhismotionforreconsideration,CommissionerGasconwasallowedtointroduceanamendmenttoSection2which,nevertheless,waswithdrawn.Inviewthereof,theArticlewasagainapprovedonSecondandThirdReadingson1August1986.42
However,theCommitteeonStylerecommendedthattheapprovedSection2beamendedbychanging"percent"to"percentum"and"thereof"to"therein"anddeletingthephrase"bylaw"inthesecondparagraphsothatsaidparagraphreads:TheCongress43shallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.44ThisamendmentwasapprovedandisthetextofthepresentsecondparagraphofSection2.
Theconclusionthenisinevitablethat,indeed,thesystemofinitiativeontheConstitutionunderSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionisnotselfexecutory.
HasCongress"provided"fortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright?Thosewhoanswerthequestionintheaffirmative,liketheprivaterespondentsandintervenorSenatorRoco,pointtousR.A.No.6735.
There is, of course, no other betterway forCongress to implement
the exercise of the right than through thepassage of a statute or
legislative act. This is the essence or rationale of the lastminute
amendment by
theConstitutionalCommissiontosubstitutethelastparagraphofSection2ofArticleXVIIthenreading:
TheCongress45shallbylawprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.
with
TheCongressshallprovidefortheimplementationoftheexerciseofthisright.
This substitute amendment was an investiture on Congress of a
power to provide for the rulesimplementing theexerciseof the
right.The "rules"means "thedetailsonhow [the right] is
tobecarriedout."46
WeagreethatR.A.No.6735was,as itshistoryreveals, intendedtocover
initiative toproposeamendments tothe Constitution. The Act is a
consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The
former
waspreparedbytheCommitteeonSuffrageandElectoralReformsoftheHouseofRepresentativesonthebasisoftwoHouseBillsreferredtoit,viz.,(a)HouseBillNo.497,47whichdealtwiththeinitiativeandreferendummentionedinSections1and32ofArticleVIoftheConstitutionand(b)HouseBillNo.988,48whichdealtwiththesubjectmatterofHouseBillNo.497,aswellaswithinitiativeandreferendumunderSection3ofArticleX(LocalGovernment)andinitiativeprovidedforinSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitution.SenateBillNo.1749solelydealtwithinitiativeandreferendumconcerningordinancesorresolutionsoflocalgovernmentunits.TheBicameralConferenceCommitteeconsolidatedSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505
intoadraftbill,whichwassubsequentlyapprovedon8June1989by
theSenate50
andbytheHouseofRepresentatives.51ThisapprovedbillisnowR.A.No.6735.
ButisR.A.No.6735afullcompliancewiththepoweranddutyofCongressto"providefortheimplementationoftheexerciseoftheright?"
AcarefulscrutinyoftheActyieldsanegativeanswer.
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
12/47
First.ContrarytotheassertionofpublicrespondentCOMELEC,Section2oftheActdoesnotsuggestaninitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitution.Thesaidsectionreads:
Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a
system of initiative
andreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject, inwholeor
inpart, theConstitution,
laws,ordinances,orresolutionspassedbyanylegislativebodyuponcompliancewiththerequirementsofthisActisherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed.(Emphasissupplied).
Theinclusionoftheword"Constitution"thereinwasadelayedafterthought.Thatwordisneithergermanenorrelevanttosaidsection,whichexclusivelyrelatestoinitiativeandreferendumonnationallawsandlocallaws,ordinances,andresolutions.ThatsectionissilentastoamendmentsontheConstitution.Aspointedout
earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to
proposals to AMEND. The people are notaccorded the power to
"directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, inwhole or in part,
theConstitution"throughthesystemofinitiative.Theycanonlydosowithrespectto"laws,ordinances,orresolutions."
TheforegoingconclusionisfurtherbuttressedbythefactthatthissectionwasliftedfromSection1ofSenateBillNo.17,whichsolelyreferredtoastatementofpolicyonlocalinitiativeandreferendumandappropriatelyusedthephrases"proposeandenact,""approveorreject"and"inwholeorinpart."52
Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the
Act defines initiative on amendments to
theConstitutionandmentionsitasoneofthethreesystemsofinitiative,andthatSection5(Requirements)restatestheconstitutionalrequirementsastothepercentageoftheregisteredvoterswhomustsubmittheproposal.Butunlike
in the case of the other systems of initiative, theAct does not
provide for the contents of a petition forinitiativeon
theConstitution.Section5,paragraph(c) requires,amongother
things,statementof the
proposedlawsoughttobeenacted,approvedorrejected,amendedorrepealed,asthecasemaybe.Itdoesnotinclude,asamong
thecontentsof thepetition, theprovisionsof theConstitutionsought
tobeamended, in
thecaseofinitiativeontheConstitution.Saidparagraph(c)readsinfullasfollows:
(c)Thepetitionshallstatethefollowing:
c.1contentsor textof theproposed law sought tobeenacted,
approvedor rejected, amendedorrepealed,asthecasemaybe
c.2theproposition
c.3thereasonorreasonstherefor
c.4thatitisnotoneoftheexceptionsprovidedtherein
c.5signaturesofthepetitionersorregisteredvotersand
c.6anabstractor summaryproposition isnotmore thanonehundred
(100)wordswhichshall
belegiblywrittenorprintedatthetopofeverypageofthepetition.(Emphasissupplied).
Theuseoftheclause"proposedlawssoughttobeenacted,approvedorrejected,amendedorrepealed"only
strengthens the conclusion thatSection 2, quoted earlier, excludes
initiative on amendments to theConstitution.
Third.While theActprovidessubtitles forNational
InitiativeandReferendum(Subtitle II)and forLocal
InitiativeandReferendum(SubtitleIII),nosubtitleisprovidedforinitiativeontheConstitution.ThisconspicuoussilenceastothelattersimplymeansthatthemainthrustoftheActisinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallaws.IfCongress
intendedR.A.No.6735to fullyprovide for the implementationof the
initiativeonamendments to theConstitution,
itcouldhaveprovidedforasubtitletherefor,consideringthat
intheorderofthings,theprimacyofinterest,orhierarchyofvalues,therightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionisfarmoreimportantthantheinitiativeonnationalandlocallaws.
We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments
to the Constitution is subsumed under
thesubtitleonNationalInitiativeandReferendumbecauseitisnationalinscope.OurreadingofSubtitleII(NationalInitiativeandReferendum)andSubtitle
III (Local InitiativeandReferendum) leavesno room fordoubt that
theclassification isnotbasedon thescopeof the initiative
involved,buton itsnatureandcharacter. It is
"nationalinitiative,"ifwhatisproposedtobeadoptedorenactedisanationallaw,oralawwhichonlyCongresscanpass.Itis"localinitiative"ifwhatisproposedtobeadoptedorenactedisalaw,ordinance,orresolutionwhichonlythelegislativebodiesofthegovernmentsoftheautonomousregions,provinces,cities,municipalities,andbarangayscanpass.ThisclassificationofinitiativeintonationalandlocalisactuallybasedonSection3oftheAct,whichwequoteforemphasisandclearerunderstanding:
Sec.3.Definitionofterms
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
13/47
xxxxxxxxx
Therearethree(3)systemsofinitiative,namely:
a.1InitiativeontheConstitutionwhichreferstoapetitionproposingamendmentstotheConstitution
a.2InitiativeonStatuteswhichreferstoapetitionproposingtoenactanationallegislationand
a.3 Initiativeon locallegislationwhich refers
toapetitionproposing toenacta regional,
provincial,city,municipal,orbarangaylaw,resolutionorordinance.(Emphasissupplied).
Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there
should have been a subtitle on initiative
onamendmentstotheConstitution.53
A furtherexaminationof theActeven reveals that thesubtitling
isnotaccurate.Provisionsnotgermane to thesubtitle onNational
InitiativeandReferendumareplaced therein, like (1) paragraphs (b)
and (c) ofSection9,whichreads:
(b)Theproposition inan initiativeontheConstitutionapprovedby
themajorityof thevotescast
intheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveastothedayoftheplebiscite.
(c)Anationalorlocalinitiativepropositionapprovedbymajorityofthevotescastinanelectioncalledfor
the purpose shall become effective fifteen (15) days after
certification and proclamation of
theCommission.(Emphasissupplied).
(2) thatportionofSection11 (Indirect Initiative) referring to
indirect initiativewith the legislativebodiesof
localgovernmentsthus:
Sec.11.IndirectInitiative.Anydulyaccreditedpeople'sorganization,asdefinedbylaw,mayfileapetitionforindirectinitiativewiththeHouseofRepresentatives,andotherlegislativebodies....
and(3)Section12onAppeal,sinceitappliestodecisionsoftheCOMELEConthefindingsofsufficiencyorinsufficiencyofthepetitionforinitiativeorreferendum,whichcouldbepetitionsforbothnationalandlocalinitiativeandreferendum.
Upontheotherhand,Section18on"AuthorityofCourts"undersubtitleIIIonLocalInitiativeandReferendumismisplaced,54sincetheprovisionthereinappliestobothnationalandlocalinitiativeandreferendum.Itreads:
Sec.18.AuthorityofCourts.NothinginthisActshallpreventorprecludethepropercourtsfromdeclaringnullandvoidanypropositionapprovedpursuanttothisActforviolationoftheConstitutionorwantofcapacityofthelocallegislativebodytoenactthesaidmeasure.
Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and
care in providing for the details in
theimplementationofinitiativeandreferendumonnationalandlocallegislationtherebygivingthemspecialattention,it
failed, rather intentionally, todo soon the systemof
initiativeonamendments to theConstitution.Anent
theinitiativeonnationallegislation,theActprovidesforthefollowing:
(a)Therequiredpercentageofregisteredvoterstosignthepetitionandthecontentsofthepetition
(b)Theconductanddateoftheinitiative
(c)Thesubmissiontotheelectorateofthepropositionandtherequirednumberofvotesforitsapproval
(d)ThecertificationbytheCOMELECoftheapprovaloftheproposition
(e)ThepublicationoftheapprovedpropositionintheOfficialGazetteorinanewspaperofgeneralcirculationinthePhilippinesand
(f)Theeffectsoftheapprovalorrejectionoftheproposition.55
Asregardslocalinitiative,theActprovidesforthefollowing:
(a)Thepreliminaryrequirementastothenumberofsignaturesofregisteredvotersforthepetition
(b)Thesubmissionofthepetitiontothelocallegislativebodyconcerned
(c)Theeffectofthelegislativebody'sfailuretofavorablyactthereon,andtheinvocationofthepowerofinitiativeasaconsequencethereof
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
14/47
(d)Theformulationoftheproposition
(e)Theperiodwithinwhichtogatherthesignatures
(f)Thepersonsbeforewhomthepetitionshallbesigned
(g)TheissuanceofacertificationbytheCOMELECthroughitsofficialinthelocalgovernmentunitconcernedastowhethertherequirednumberofsignatureshavebeenobtained
(h)ThesettingofadatebytheCOMELECforthesubmissionofthepropositiontotheregisteredvotersfortheirapproval,whichmustbewithintheperiodspecifiedtherein
(i)Theissuanceofacertificationoftheresult
(j)Thedateofeffectivityoftheapprovedproposition
(k)Thelimitationsonlocalinitiativeand
(l)Thelimitationsuponlocallegislativebodies.56
Upontheotherhand,asto
initiativeonamendmentstotheConstitution,R.A.No.6735,inallofitstwentythreesections,merely(a)mentions,theword"Constitution"inSection2(b)defines"initiativeontheConstitution"andincludes
it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section
3 (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as
theprocessbywhichthepropositioninaninitiativeontheConstitutionmaybeapprovedorrejectedbythepeople(d)
reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of
voterswho should sign the petition and
(e)providesforthedateofeffectivityoftheapprovedproposition.
Therewas,therefore,anobviousdowngradingofthemoreimportantortheparamountsystemof
initiative.RA.No.6735thusdeliveredahumiliatingblowtothesystemofinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionbymerelypayingitareluctantlipservice.57
Theforegoingbringsus to theconclusionthatR.A.No.6735 is
incomplete, inadequate,orwanting inessentialterms and conditions
insofar as initiative on amendments to theConstitution is
concerned. Its lacunae on
thissubstantivematterarefatalandcannotbecuredby"empowering"theCOMELEC"topromulgatesuchrulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesof[the]Act.58
The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or
as expressed in a Latin maxim:
potestasdelegatanondelegaripotest.59Therecognizedexceptionstotheruleareasfollows:
(1)DelegationoftariffpowerstothePresidentunderSection28(2)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution
(2)DelegationofemergencypowerstothePresidentunderSection23(2)ofArticleVIoftheConstitution
(3)Delegationtothepeopleatlarge
(4)Delegationtolocalgovernmentsand
(5)Delegationtoadministrativebodies.60
Empowering
theCOMELEC,anadministrativebodyexercisingquasijudicial functions,
topromulgate rulesandregulations is a form of delegation of
legislative authority under no. 5 above. However, in every case
ofpermissibledelegation,theremustbeashowingthatthedelegationitself
isvalid.It isvalidonlyif thelaw(a)
iscompleteinitself,settingforththereinthepolicytobeexecuted,carriedout,orimplementedbythedelegateand(b)fixesastandardthelimitsofwhicharesufficientlydeterminateanddeterminabletowhichthedelegatemust
conform in the performance of his functions. 61 A sufficient
standard is one which defines legislative policy,marks its
limits,mapsout itsboundariesandspecifies thepublicagencytoapply it.
It
indicatesthecircumstancesunderwhichthelegislativecommandistobeeffected.62
Insofaras initiative toproposeamendments to theConstitution
isconcerned,R.A.No.6735miserably failed
tosatisfybothrequirementsinsubordinatelegislation.ThedelegationofthepowertotheCOMELECistheninvalid.
III
COMELECRESOLUTIONNO.2300,INSOFARASITPRESCRIBESRULESANDREGULATIONSONTHECONDUCTOFINITIATIVEONAMENDMENTSTOTHECONSTITUTION,ISVOID.
ItlogicallyfollowsthattheCOMELECcannotvalidlypromulgaterulesandregulationstoimplementtheexerciseof
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
15/47
therightofthepeopletodirectlyproposeamendmentstotheConstitutionthroughthesystemofinitiative.ItdoesnothavethatpowerunderR.A.No.6735.RelianceontheCOMELEC'spowerunderSection2(1)ofArticleIXCof
theConstitution ismisplaced, for the lawsand regulations referred
to thereinare thosepromulgatedby theCOMELECunder
(a)Section3ofArticle IXCof theConstitution, or (b) a lawwhere
subordinate legislation
isauthorizedandwhichsatisfiesthe"completeness"andthe"sufficientstandard"tests.
IV
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION INENTERTAININGTHEDELFINPETITION.
EvenifitbeconcededexgratiathatR.A.No.6735isafullcompliancewiththepowerofCongresstoimplementthe
right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly
vested upon the COMELEC the power
ofsubordinatelegislationandthatCOMELECResolutionNo.2300isvalid,theCOMELECactedwithoutjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretioninentertainingtheDelfinPetition.
UnderSection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionandSection5(b)ofR.A.No.6735,apetitionforinitiativeontheConstitutionmustbesignedbyat
least12%of the total numberof registeredvotersofwhichevery
legislativedistrict is represented by at least 3% of the registered
voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not containsignaturesof
the requirednumberofvoters.Delfinhimselfadmits
thathehasnotyetgatheredsignaturesandthat the purpose of his
petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather
signatures.Without
therequiredsignatures,thepetitioncannotbedeemedvalidlyinitiated.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative
only after its filing. The petition then is
theinitiatorypleading.NothingbeforeitsfilingiscognizablebytheCOMELEC,sittingenbanc.TheonlyparticipationoftheCOMELECoritspersonnelbeforethefilingofsuchpetitionare(1)toprescribetheformofthepetition63(2)toissuethroughitsElectionRecordsandStatisticsOfficeacertificateonthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersineachlegislativedistrict64
(3) toassist, through itselectionregistrars, in
theestablishmentofsignaturestations65and (4)
toverify,throughitselectionregistrars,thesignaturesonthebasisoftheregistrylistofvoters,voters'affidavits,andvoters'identificationcardsusedintheimmediatelyprecedingelection.66
SincetheDelfinPetitionisnottheinitiatorypetitionunderR.A.No.6735andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300,itcannotbeentertainedorgivencognizanceofbytheCOMELEC.TherespondentCommissionmusthaveknownthatthepetitiondoesnotfallunderanyoftheactionsorproceedingsundertheCOMELECRulesofProcedureorunderResolutionNo.2300,
forwhichreason itdidnotassign to thepetitionadocketnumber.Hence,
thesaidpetitionwasmerelyenteredasUND,meaning,undocketed.Thatpetitionwasnothingmorethanamerescrapofpaper,which
shouldnot havebeendignifiedby theOrder of 6December 1996,
thehearingon12December1996,andtheorderdirectingDelfinandtheoppositorstofiletheirmemorandaoroppositions.Insodignifyingit,theCOMELECactedwithoutjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretionandmerelywasteditstime,energy,andresources.
Theforegoingconsidered,furtherdiscussionontheissueofwhethertheproposaltoliftthetermlimitsofelectivenationalandlocalofficialsisanamendmentto,andnotarevisionof,theConstitutionisrenderedunnecessary,ifnotacademic.
CONCLUSION
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
permanently enjoined from entertaining
ortakingcognizanceofanypetitionforinitiativeonamendmentstotheConstitutionuntilasufficientlawshallhavebeenvalidlyenactedtoprovidefortheimplementationofthesystem.
We feel,however, that thesystemof initiative toproposeamendments
to theConstitutionshouldno
longerbekeptinthecolditshouldbegivenfleshandblood,energyandstrength.Congressshouldnottarryanylongerincomplyingwiththeconstitutionalmandatetoprovidefortheimplementationoftherightofthepeopleunderthatsystem.
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrendered
a)GRANTINGtheinstantpetition
b)DECLARINGR.A.No.6735 inadequate tocover thesystemof
initiativeonamendments to
theConstitution,andtohavefailedtoprovidesufficientstandardforsubordinatelegislation
c)DECLARINGvoid thoseparts ofResolutionNo. 2300of
theCommissiononElectionsprescribing
rulesandregulationsontheconductofinitiativeoramendmentstotheConstitutionand
d)ORDERINGtheCommissiononElectionstoforthwithDISMISStheDELFINpetition(UND96037).
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
16/47
TheTemporaryRestrainingOrderissuedon18December1996ismadepermanentasagainsttheCommissiononElections,butisLIFTEDasagainstprivaterespondents.
Resolutiononthematterofcontemptisherebyreserved.
SOORDERED.
Narvasa,C.J.,Regalado,Romero,Bellosillo,Kapunan,Hermosisima,Jr.andTorres,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Padilla,J.,tooknopart.
SeparateOpinions
PUNO,J.,concurringanddissenting:
I join the groundbreaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague,
Mr. Justice Davide insofar as it orders theCOMELEC to dismiss the
Delfin petition. I regret, however, I cannot share the view that
R.A. No. 5735 andCOMELECResolutionNo.2300are
legallydefectiveandcannot implement thepeople's initiative
toamendtheConstitution.IlikewisesubmitthatthepetitionwithrespecttothePedrosashasnolegtostandonandshouldbedismissed.Withduerespect:
I
First, I submit thatR.A.No. 6735 sufficiently implements the
right of the people to initiate amendments to
theConstitutionthruinitiative.OurefforttodiscoverthemeaningofR.A.No.6735shouldstartwiththesearchoftheintentofour
lawmakers.Aknowledgeof this intent is critical for the intentof the
legislature is the lawand
thecontrollingfactorinitsinterpretation.1Statedotherwise,intentistheessenceofthelaw,thespiritwhichgiveslifetoitsenactment.2
Significantly, themajoritydecisionconcedesthat". .
.R.A.No.6735was intendedtocover
initiativetoproposeamendmentstotheConstitution."Itoughttobesoforthisintentiscrystalclearfromthehistoryofthelawwhichwas
a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3 and Senate Bill No. 17.
4Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled "An ActProviding foraSystemof
InitiativeandReferendumand theExceptionTherefrom,WherebyPeople
inLocalGovernmentUnits Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions
and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or
ResolutionPassed by the Local Legislative Body." Beyond doubt,
Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people's initiative to
proposeamendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast, House
Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people's initiative
toamendtheConstitution.Congressman(nowSenator)RaulRocoemphasizedinhissponsorshipremarks:6
xxxxxxxxx
SPONSORSHIPREMARKSOFMR.ROCO
At the outset, Mr. Roco provided the following backgrounder on
the constitutional basis of theproposedmeasure.
1. As cited inVera vs.Avelino (1946), the presidential
systemwhichwas introduced by the
1935Constitutionsawtheapplicationoftheprincipleofseparationofpowers.
2.Whileundertheparliamentarysystemofthe1973Constitutiontheprincipleremainedapplicable,the
1981 amendments to the Constitution of 1973 ensured presidential
dominance over theBatasangPambansa.
ConstitutionalhistorythensawtheshiftingandsharingoflegislativepowersbetweentheLegislatureand
the Executive departments. Transcending changes in the exercise of
legislative power is
thedeclarationinthePhilippineConstitutionthatthePhilippinesisarepublicanstatewheresovereigntyresidesinthepeopleandallsovereigntyemanatesfromthem.
3. Under the 1987 Constitution, the lawmaking power is still
preserved in Congress however, toinstitutionalize direct action of
the people as exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, the
Constitution
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
17/47
recognizesthepowerofthepeople,throughthesystemofinitiativeandreferendum.
As cited inSection1,ArticleVI of
the1987Constitution,Congressdoesnot haveplenarypowerssince
reservepowersaregiven to thepeopleexpressly.Section32of the
sameArticlemandatesCongress topassat thesoonestpossible
time,abillon referendumand initiative,and toshare
itslegislativepowerswiththepeople.
Section2,ArticleXVIIofthe1987Constitution,ontheotherhand,vestsinthepeoplethepowertodirectly
propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, upon
petition of at least
12percentofthetotalnumberofregisteredvoters.
StatingthatHouseBillNo.21505istheCommittee'sresponsetothedutyimposedonCongresstoimplementtheexercisebythepeopleoftherighttoinitiativeandreferendum,Mr.Rocorecalledthebeginningsof
thesystemof initiativeand
referendumunderPhilippineLaw.HecitedSection99oftheLocalGovernmentCodewhichvests
in thebarangayassembly thepower to initiate legislativeprocesses,
decide the holding of plebiscite and hear reports of the
Sangguniang Barangay, all
ofwhicharevariationsofthepowerofinitiativeandreferendum.HeaddedthattheholdingofbarangayplebiscitesandreferendumarelikewiseprovidedinSections100and101ofthesameCode.
Thereupon,forthesakeofbrevity,Mr.RocomovedthatpertinentquotationonthesubjectwhichhewilllatersubmittotheSecretaryoftheHousebeincorporatedaspartofhissponsorshipspeech.
He then cited examples of initiative and referendum similar to
those contained in the instant Billamong which are the
constitutions of states in the United States which recognize the
right
ofregisteredvoterstoinitiatetheenactmentofanystatuteortoprojectanyexistinglaworpartsthereofin
a referendum. These states, he said, are Alaska, Alabama, Montana,
Massachusets,
Dakota,Oklahoma,Oregon,andpracticallyallotherstates.
Mr. Roco explained that in certain American states, the kind of
laws to which initiative andreferendum apply is also without
limitation, except for emergency measures, which are
likewiseincorporatedinHouseBillNo.21505.HeaddedthattheprocedureprovidedbytheBillfromthefilingofthepetition,therequirementsofacertainpercentageofsupporterstopresentaproposition,tothesubmissiontoelectorsaresubstantiallysimilartotheprovisionsinAmericanlaws.AlthoughaninfantinPhilippinepoliticalstructure,thesystemofinitiativeandreferendum,hesaid,isatriedandtestedsysteminotherjurisdictions,andtheBillispatternedafterAmericanexperience.
He further explained that the bill has only 12 sections, and
recalled that the
ConstitutionalCommissionerssawthesystemoftheinitiativeandreferendumasaninstrumentwhichcanbeusedshouldthelegislatureshowitselftobeindifferenttotheneedsofthepeople.Thisisthereason,heclaimed,whynow
is anopportune time topass theBill evenashenoted the felt necessity
of
thetimestopasslawswhicharenecessarytosafeguardindividualrightsandliberties.
AtthisjunctureMr.RocoexplainedtheprocessofinitiativeandreferendumasadvocatedinHouseBillNo.21505.Hestatedthat:
1.Initiativemeansthatthepeople,ontheirownpoliticaljudgment,submitaBillfortheconsiderationofthegeneralelectorate.
2.The instantBillprovides threekindsof initiative,namely the
initiative toamend theConstitutiononce every five years the
initiative to amend statutes approved byCongress and the initiative
toamendlocalordinances.
3.TheinstantBillgivesadefiniteprocedureandallowstheCommissiononElections(COMELEC)todefinerulesandregulationsonthepowerofinitiative.
4. Referendummeans that the legislators seek the consent of the
people onmeasures that theyhaveapproved.
5.UnderSection4of theBill thepeoplecan initiateareferendumwhich
isamodeofplebiscitebypresentingapetitiontherefor,butundercertainlimitations,suchasthesigningofsaidpetitionbyatleast10percentofthetotalofregisteredvotersatwhicheverylegislativedistrictisrepresentedbyatleast
threepercentof theregisteredvoters thereof.Within30daysafter
receiptof thepetition, theCOMELECshalldeterminethesufficiencyof
thepetition,publishthesame,andset thedateof
thereferendumwithin45to90dayperiod.
6.When thematterunder referendumor initiative isapprovedby the
requirednumberof votes,
itshallbecomeeffective15daysfollowingthecompletionofitspublicationintheOfficialGazette.
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
18/47
In concluding his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Roco stressed that
the Members cannot ignore
thepeople'scallforinitiativeandreferendumandurgedtheBodytoapproveHouseBillNo.21505.
At this juncture, Mr. Roco also requested that the prepared text
of his speech together with
thefootnotesbereproducedaspartoftheCongressionalRecords.
Thesamesentimentas to thebill's intent to implementpeople's
initiative toamend theConstitutionwasstressed by then Congressman
(now Secretary of Agriculture) Salvador Escudero III in his
sponsorshipremarks,viz:7
xxxxxxxxx
SPONSORSHIPREMARKSOFMR.ESCUDERO
Mr.Escudero first pointedout that thepeoplehavebeenclamoring for
a truly popular democracyever since, especially in the socalled
parliament of the streets. A substantial segment of thepopulation
feels,hesaid, that the formofdemocracy is there,butnot
therealityorsubstanceof
itbecauseoftheincreasinglyelitistapproachoftheirrepresentativestothecountry'sproblem.
Whereupon, Mr. Escudero pointed out that the Constitution has
provided a means whereby
thepeoplecanexercisethereservedpowerofinitiativetoproposeamendmentstotheConstitution,andrequested
thatSections1and32,ArticleVISection3,ArticleXandSection2,ArticleXVIIof
theConstitutionbemadepartofhissponsorshipremarks.
Mr. Escudero also stressed that an implementing law is needed
for the aforecited
Constitutionalprovisions.WhiletheenactmentoftheBillwillgivewaytostrongcompetitionamongcauseorientedandsectoralgroups,hecontinued,itwillhastenthepolitizationofthecitizenry,aidthegovernmentinforminganenlightenedpublicopinion,andproducemoreresponsivelegislation.ThepassageoftheBill
will also give street parliamentarians the opportunity to
articulate their ideas in a democraticforum,headded.
Mr.EscuderostatedthatheandMr.Rocohopedfor theearlyapprovalof
theBillsothat
itcanbeinitiallyusedfortheAgrarianReformLaw.HesaidthatthepassageofHouseBillNo.21505willshowthattheMemberscansetasidetheirpersonalandpoliticalconsiderationforthegreatergoodofthepeople.
The disagreeing provisions in Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill
No. 21505 were threshed out in
aBicameralConferenceCommittee.8InthemeetingoftheCommitteeonJune6,1989,9themembersagreedthatthetwo(2)billsshouldbeconsolidatedandthattheconsolidatedversionshouldincludepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitutionascontemplatedbyHouseBillNo.21505.Thetranscriptofthemeetingstates:
xxxxxxxxx
CHAIRMANGONZALES. But at any rate, as I have said, because this
is new in
ourpoliticalsystem,theSenatedecidedonamorecautiousapproachandlimitingitonlytothe
local government units because evenwith that stagewhere . . . at
least this
hasbeenquitepopular,ano?Ithasbeenattemptedonanationalbasis.Alright.Therehasnotbeenasingleattempt.Now,so,kamilimitadodoon.And,second,weconsideralsothat
it isonly fair that the local legislativebodyshouldbegivenachance
toadopt thelegislationbillproposed, right? Iyongsinasabing
indirectsystemof initiative.
Ifafterall,thelocallegislativeassemblyorbodyiswillingtoadoptitinfullorintoto,thereoughttobeanyreasonfor
initiative,anofor initiative.And,number3,wefeel that
thereshouldbesomelimitationonthefrequencywithwhich
itshouldbeapplied.Number4,nathepeople,thruinitiative,cannotenactanyordinancethatisbeyondthescopeofauthorityof
the local legislative body, otherwise, my God, magaassume sila ng
power that isbroader and greater than the grant of legislative
power to the Sanggunians.
AndNumber5,becauseofthat,thenapropositionwhichhasbeentheresultofasuccessfulinitiativecanonlycarry
the forceandeffectofanordinanceand therefore
thatshouldnotdeprivethecourtofitsjurisdictiontodeclareitnullandvoidforwantofauthority.Ha,di
ba? Imean it is beyond powers of local government units to enact.
Iyon
angmainessencenamin,soweconcentratedonthat.Andthatiswhy...soangsainyonamanincludes
iyonsaConstitution,amendment to theConstitutioneh . . .national
laws.Saamin, if you insist on that, alright, althoughwe feel na
itwill in effect becomea
deadstatute.Alright,andwecanagree,wecanagree.Soangmangyayaridito,andmagigingbasicnito,letusnotdiscussanymorekungalinandmagigingbasicbill,ano,whetheritistheSenateBillorwhetheritistheHousebill.Logicallyitshouldbeourssapagkatunaiyongsaamineh.
It isoneof the firstbillsapprovedby theSenatekayaangnumber
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
19/47
niyan,makikitamo,17,eh.Huwagnanatingpagusapan.Now,ifyouinsist,reallyiyongfeaturesngnationalatsakaconstitutional,okay.____gagawinnanatinnaconsolidationofbothbills.
HON.ROCO.Yes,weshallconsolidate.
CHAIRMANGONZALES.ConsolidationoftheSenateandHouseBillNo.soandso.10
When the consolidated bill was presented to the House for
approval, then Congressman Roco
uponinterpellationbyCongressmanRodolfoAlbano,againconfirmedthatitcoveredpeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.TherecordoftheHouseRepresentativestates:11
xxxxxxxxx
THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TheGentlemanfromCamarinesSurisrecognized.
MR. ROCO. On the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing
provisionsbetweenSenateBillNo.21505whichreferstothesystemprovidingfortheinitiativeandreferendum,
fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, we consolidated the Senate and the
Houseversions,sobothversionsare totally intact in
thebill.TheSenators
ironicallyprovidedforlocalinitiativeandreferendumandtheHouseRepresentativescorrectlyprovidedforinitiativeandreferendumontheConstitutionandonnationallegislation.
Imovethatweapprovetheconsolidatedbill.
MR.ALBANO.Mr.Speaker.
THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.WhatisthepleasureoftheMinorityFloorLeader?
MR.ALBANO.Willthedistinguishedsponsoranswerjustafewquestions?
THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TheGentlemenwillpleaseproceed.
MR.ALBANO.IheardthesponsorsaythattheonlydifferenceinthetwobillswasthatintheSenateversiontherewasaprovisionforlocalinitiativeandreferendum,whereastheHouseversionhasnone.
MR.ROCO.Infact,theSenateversionprovidepurelyforlocalinitiativeandreferendum,whereas
in the House version, we provided purely for national and
constitutionallegislation.
MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding therefore, that the two
provisions wereincorporated?
MR.ROCO.Yes,Mr.Speaker.
MR.ALBANO.Sothatwewillnowhaveacompleteinitiativeandreferendumbothintheconstitutionalamendmentandnationallegislation.
MR.ROCO.Thatiscorrect.
MR.ALBANO.Andprovincialaswellasmunicipalresolutions?
MR.ROCO.Downtobarangay,Mr.Speaker.
MR.ALBANO.AndthisinitiativeandreferendumisinconsonancewiththeprovisionoftheConstitutionwhereby
itmandates thisCongress toenact theenabling law,so thatwe shall
have a system which can be done every five years. Is it five years
in theprovisionoftheConstitution?
MR.ROCO. That is correct,Mr. Speaker. For constitutional
amendments in the 1987Constitution,itiseveryfiveyears.
MR.ALBANO.Foreveryfiveyears,Mr.Speaker?
MR.ROCO.Withinfiveyears,wecannothavemultipleinitiativesandreferenda.
MR.ALBANO.Therefore,basically,therewasnosubstantialdifferencebetweenthetwo
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
20/47
versions?
MR. ROCO. The gaps in our bill were filled by the Senate which,
as I said
earlier,ironicallywasaboutlocal,provincialandmunicipallegislation.
MR.ALBANO.Andthetwobillswereconsolidated?
MR.ROCO.Yes,Mr.Speaker.
MR.ALBANO.Thankyou,Mr.Speaker.
APPROVALOFC.C.R.ONS.B.NO.17ANDH.B.NO.21505(TheInitiativeandReferendumAct)
THESPEAKERPROTEMPORE.TherewasamotiontoapprovethisconsolidatedbillonSenateBillNo.17andHouseBillNo.21505.
Isthereanyobjection?(Silence.TheChairhearsnonethemotionisapproved.
Since it iscrystalline that the intentofR.A.No.6735 is to
implement thepeople's initiative toamend
theConstitution,itisourboundendutytointerpretthelawasitwasintendedbythelegislature.Wehaveruledthatonceintentisascertained,itmustbeenforcedevenif
itmaynotbeconsistentwiththestrict
letterofthelawandthisrulingisasoldasthemountain.Wehavealsoheldthatwherealawissusceptibleofmorethan
one interpretation, that interpretation which will most tend to
effectuate the manifest intent of
thelegislaturewillbeadopted.12
The text of R.A. No. 6735 should therefore be reasonably
construed to effectuate its intent to implement thepeople's
initiative toamend theConstitution.Tobesure,weneednot torture the
textof said law to reach theconclusion that it implements people's
initiative to amend the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735 is replete
withreferencestothisprerogativeofthepeople.
First,thepolicystatementdeclares:
Sec.2.StatementofPolicy.Thepowerofthepeopleunderasystemofinitiativeandreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject,inwholeorinpart,theConstitution,laws,ordinances,orresolutions
passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the
requirements of this Act
isherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed.(emphasissupplied)
Second,thelawdefines"initiative"as"thepowerofthepeopletoproposeamendmentstotheconstitutionortopropose
and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose,"
and "plebiscite" as "the
electoralprocessbywhichaninitiativeontheConstitutionisapprovedorrejectedbythepeople.
Third,thelawprovidestherequirementsforapetitionforinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Section5(b)statesthat"(a)petitionforaninitiativeonthe1987Constitutionmusthaveatleasttwelvepercentum(12%)ofthetotalnumberofregisteredvotersassignatories,ofwhicheverylegislativedistrictmustberepresentedbyatleastthreeper
centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." It also states that
"(i)nitiative on the Constitution may
beexercisedonlyafterfive(5)yearsfromtheratificationofthe1987Constitutionandonlyonceeveryfive(5)yearsthereafter.
Finally,R.A.No.6735fixestheeffectivitydateoftheamendment.Section9(b)statesthat"(t)hepropositioninaninitiativeontheConstitutionapprovedbyamajorityofthevotescastintheplebisciteshallbecomeeffectiveastothedayoftheplebiscite.
ItisunfortunatethatthemajoritydecisionresortstoastrainedinterpretationofR.A.No.6735todefeatitsintentwhich
it itself concedes is to implement people's initiative to
proposeamendments to theConstitution. Thus,
itlamentsthattheword"Constitution"isneithergermanenorrelevanttothepolicythrustofsection2andthatthestatute'ssubtitlingisnotaccurate.TheselapsesaretobeexpectedforlawsarenotalwayswritteninimpeccableEnglish.Rightly,
theConstitutiondoesnot requireour legislators tobewordsmithswith
theability towritebillswithpoetic commas like JoseGarciaVilla or in
lyrical prose likeWinstonChurchill.But it
hasalwaysbeenourgoodpolicynottorefusetoeffectuatetheintentofalawonthegroundthatitisbadlywritten.AsthedistinguishedVicenteFrancisco13remindsus:"Manylawscontainwordswhichhavenotbeenusedaccurately.Buttheuseofinaptorinaccuratelanguageorwords,willnotvitiatethestatuteifthelegislativeintentioncanbeascertained.Thesameisequallytrue
with reference to awkward, slovenly, or ungrammatical expressions,
that is, such expressions and words will beconstrued as carrying
the meaning the legislature intended that they bear, although such
a construction necessitates
adeparturefromtheliteralmeaningofthewordsused.
Inthesamevein,theargumentthatR.A.No.7535doesnotincludepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
21/47
simplybecause it lacksasubtitleon
thesubjectshouldbegiventheweightofhelium.Again, thehoaryrule
instatutoryconstructionisthatheadingsprefixedtotitles,chaptersandsectionsofastatutemaybeconsultedinaidofinterpretation,butinferencesdrawntherefromareentitledtoverylittleweight,andtheycannevercontroltheplaintermsoftheenactingclauses.14
Allsaid,itisdifficulttoagreewiththemajoritydecisionthatrefusestoenforcethemanifestintentorspiritofR.A.No.
6735 to implement the people's initiative to amend theConstitution.
It blatantly disregards the rule cast
inconcretethattheletterofthelawmustyieldtoitsspiritfortheletterofthelawisitsbodybutitsspiritisitssoul.15
II
COMELECResolutionNo.2300,16promulgatedunderthestewardshipofCommissionerHaydeeYorac,thenitsActingChairman,spelledout
theprocedureonhowtoexercisethepeople's
initiativetoamendtheConstitution.This is inaccordwith the delegated
power granted by section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 to the COMELEC which
expressly states:
"TheCommissionisherebyempoweredtopromulgatesuchrulesandregulationsasmaybenecessarytocarryoutthepurposesofthisAct."Bynomeanscanthisdelegationofpowerbeassailedasinfirmed.InthebenchmarkcaseofPelaezv.AuditorGeneral,17thisCourt,thruformerChiefJusticeRobertoConcepcionlaiddownthetesttodeterminewhetherthereisunduedelegationoflegislativepower,viz:
xxxxxxxxx
AlthoughCongressmaydelegatetoanotherbranchoftheGovernmentthepowertofilldetailsintheexecution,enforcementoradministrationofalaw,itisessential,toforestallaviolationoftheprincipleofseparationofpowers,thatsaidlaw:(a)becompleteinitselfitmustsetforththereinthepolicytobeexecuted,carriedoutor
implementedby thedelegateand(b) to fixstandardthe limitsofwhich are
sufficiently determinate or determinable to which the delegate must
conform in
theperformanceofhisfunctions.Indeed,withoutastatutorydeclarationofpolicy,whichistheessenceofeverylaw,and,withouttheaforementionedstandard,therewouldbenomeanstodetermine,withreasonable
certainty,whether the delegate has actedwithin or beyond the scope
of his
authority.Hence,hecouldtherebyarrogateuponhimselfthepower,notonlytomakethelaw,but,alsoandthisisworsetounmakeit,byadoptingmeasuresinconsistentwiththeendsoughttobeattainedbytheActofCongress,thusnullifyingtheprincipleofseparationofpowersandthesystemofchecksandbalances,and,consequently,underminingtheveryfoundationofourrepublicansystem.
Section68of theRevisedAdministrativeCodedoesnotmeet
thesewellsettledrequirementsforavaliddelegationofthepowertofixthedetailsintheenforcementofalaw.ItdoesnotenunciateanypolicytobecarriedoutorimplementedbythePresident.Neitherdoesitgiveastandardsufficientlyprecisetoavoidtheevileffectsabovereferredto.
R.A.No.6735sufficientlystates thepolicyand thestandards toguide
theCOMELECinpromulgating the
law'simplementingrulesandregulationsofthelaw.Asaforestated,section2spellsoutthepolicyofthelawviz:"Thepowerofthepeopleunderasystemofinitiativeandreferendumtodirectlypropose,enact,approveorreject,inwhole
or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
passed by any legislative body
uponcompliancewiththerequirementsofthisActisherebyaffirmed,recognizedandguaranteed."SpreadoutalloverR.A.
No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to the
COMELEC to promulgate rules andregulations from overflowing. Thus,
the law states the number of signatures necessary to start a
people'sinitiative,18directshowinitiativeproceedingiscommenced,19whattheCOMELECshoulddouponfilingofthepetitionforinitiative,20howapropositionisapproved,21whenaplebiscitemaybeheld,22whentheamendmenttakeseffect23andwhatmattersmaynotbethesubjectofanyinitiative.24Byanymeasure,thesestandardsareadequate.
Former Justice Isagani A. Cruz, similarly elucidated that "a
sufficient standard is intended to map out theboundaries of
thedelegates' authority by defining the legislative policy and
indicating the
circumstancesunderwhichitistobepursuedandeffected.Thepurposeofthesufficientstandardistopreventatotaltransferenceoflegislative
power from the lawmaking body to the delegate." 25 In enacting R.A.
No. 6735, it cannot be said thatCongress totally transferred its
power to enact the law implementing people's initiative to COMELEC.
A close look atCOMELECResolutionNo.2300will show that
itmerelyprovided theprocedure toeffectuate
thepolicyofR.A.No.6735givinglifetothepeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution.Thedebates26intheConstitutionalCommissionmakeitclearthattherulesofproceduretoenforcethepeople'sinitiativecanbedelegated,thus:
MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, it is
possible for
thelegislaturetosetforthcertainprocedurestocarryouttheinitiative...?
MR.DAVIDE.Itcan.
xxxxxxxxx
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
22/47
MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent
the
legislaturefromaskinganotherbodytosetthepropositioninproperform.
MR.DAVIDE.TheCommissioner iscorrect. Inotherwords, the
implementationof
thisparticularrightwouldbesubjecttolegislation,providedthelegislaturecannotdetermineanymorethepercentageoftherequirement.
MR.DAVIDE.Aslongasitwillnotdestroythesubstantiverighttoinitiate.Inotherwords,noneof
theprocedurestobeproposedbythe legislativebodymustdiminishor
impairtherightconcededhere.
MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the Constitution can the
procedures which I havediscussedbelegislated?
MR.DAVIDE.Yes.
Inhisbook,The Intentof the1986ConstitutionWriters,27Father
Bernas likewise affirmed: "In response
toquestionsofCommissionerRomulo,Davideexplainedtheextentof
thepowerof the legislatureovertheprocess: itcould for
instance,prescribe the 'proper formbefore(theamendment) issubmitted
to thepeople,'
itcouldauthorizeanotherbodytochecktheproperform.ItcouldalsoauthorizetheCOMELEC,forinstance,tochecktheauthenticityof
thesignaturesofpetitioners.Davideconcluded: 'As longas
itwillnotdestroy thesubstantive right to initiate. Inother words,
none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body must
diminish or impair the
rightconcededhere.'"Quiteclearly,theprohibitionagainstthelegislatureistoimpairthesubstantiverightofthepeopletoinitiateamendments
to theConstitution. It is not, however, prohibited from legislating
theprocedure toenforce
thepeople'srightofinitiativeortodelegateittoanotherbodyliketheCOMELECwithproperstandard.
AsurveyofourcaselawwillshowthatthisCourthasprudentiallyrefrainedfrominvalidatingadministrativerulesonthegroundoflackofadequatelegislativestandardtoguidetheirpromulgation.AsaptlyperceivedbyformerJusticeCruz,
"even if the law itself doesnot expressly pinpoint the standard,
the courtswill bendbackward
tolocatethesameelsewhereinordertosparethestatute,ifitcan,fromconstitutionalinfirmity."28HecitedtherulinginHirabayashiv.UnitedStates,29viz:
xxxxxxxxx
ItistruethattheActdoesnotintermsestablishaparticularstandardtowhichordersofthemilitarycommanderare
toconform,or require findings tobemadeasaprerequisite
toanyorder.But theExecutiveOrder,
theProclamationsandthestatutearenot tobereadin
isolationfromeachother.Theywerepartsofasingleprogramandmustbejudgedassuch.TheActofMarch21,1942,wasan
adoption by Congress of the Executive Order and of the
Proclamations. The Proclamationsthemselves followed a standard
authorized by the Executive Order the necessity of
protectingmilitaryresourcesinthedesignatedareasagainstespionageandsabotage.
Inthecaseatbar,thepolicyandthestandardsarebrightlinedinR.A.No.6735.A2020lookatthelawcannotmiss
them.Theywerenotwrittenbyour legislators in invisible
ink.Thepolicyandstandardscanalsobefoundinnolessthansection2,ArticleXVIIoftheConstitutiononAmendmentsorRevisions.ThereisthusnoreasontoholdthatthestandardsprovidedforinR.A.No.6735areinsufficientforinothercaseswehaveupheldasadequatemoregeneralstandardssuchas"simplicityanddignity,"30"publicinterest,"31"publicwelfare,"32
"interest of law and order,"33 "justice and equity," 34 "adequate
and efficient instruction," 35
"public safety,"36 "public policy",37 "greater national
interest", 38 "protect the local consumer by stabilizing
andsubsidizing domestic pump rates",39and "promote simplicity,
economy and efficiency in government." 40A dueregardandrespect to
the
legislature,acoequalandcoordinatebranchofgovernment,shouldcounsel
thisCourt
torefrainfromrefusingtoeffectuatelawsunlesstheyareclearlyunconstitutional.
III
ItisalsorespectfullysubmittedthatthepetitionshouldhedismissedwithrespecttothePedrosas.TheinclusionofthePedrosasinthepetitionisutterlybaseless.TherecordsshowthatthecaseatbarstartedwhenrespondentDelfinaloneandbyhimself
filedwith theCOMELECaPetition toAmend theConstitution
toLiftTermLimitsofElectiveOfficialsbyPeople'sInitiative.ThePedrosasdidnotjointhepetition.ItwasSenatorRocowhomovedtointerveneandwasallowedtodosobytheCOMELEC.ThepetitionwasheardandbeforetheCOMELECcouldresolve
the Delfin petition, the case at bar was filed by the petitioners
with this Court. Petitioners sued
theCOMELEC.JesusDelfin,AlbertoPedrosaandCarmenPedrosa in
theircapacitiesas foundingmembersof
thePeople'sInitiativeforReform,ModernizationandAction(PIRMA).Thesuitisanoriginalactionforprohibitionwithprayerfortemporaryrestrainingorderand/orwritofpreliminaryinjunction.
ThepetitiononitsfacestatesnocauseofactionagainstthePedrosas.TheonlyallegationagainstthePedrosasis
that theyare foundingmembersof thePIRMAwhichproposes toundertake
thesignaturedrive forpeople's
-
6/30/2015 G.R.No.127325
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/mar1997/gr_127325_1997.html
23/47
initiative to amend the Constitution. Strangely, the PIRMA
itself as an organization was not impleaded as
arespondent.PetitionersthenprayedthatweorderthePedrosas"...todesistfromconductingasignaturedriveforapeople'sinitiativetoamendtheConstitution."OnDecember19,1996,wetemporarilyenjoinedthePedrosas".
. . fromconductingasignaturedriveforpeople's
initiativetoamendtheConstitution."It
isnotenoughforthemajoritytoliftthetemporaryrestrainingorderagainstthePedrosas.Itshoulddismissthepetitionandallmotionsforcontemptagainstthemwithoutequivocation.
Oneneednotdrawapictureto impart thepropositionthat
insolicitingsignaturestostartapeople's
initiativetoamendtheConstitutionthePedrosasarenotengagedinanycriminalact.Theirsolicitationofsignaturesisarightguaranteedinblackandwhitebysection2ofArticleXVIIoftheConstitutionwhichpr