REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
MANILA

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

Case No. _____________

RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B.

AUMENTADO,
Petitioners,

ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.

MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL
L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T.
TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and
CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.
Oppositors.
xx -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- xx

OPPOSITION

OPPOSITORS in the above-entitled case, by their undersigned

counsels, and by way of opposition to the Petition dated 25 August

2006 (the “Petition”), and to this Honorable Commission, respectfully

pray that the Petition be denied due course on the grounds that:

(1) This Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to even

entertain the Petition inasmuch as there is still no

sufficient enabling law to cover the system of initiative to

 2

amend the 1987 Constitution and therefore the

permanent injunction against this Honorable Commission

entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for

initiative on amendments to the Constitution as laid down

by the Supreme Court in Santiago v. Commission on

Elections, 270 SCRA 106, (1997) stands;

(2) This Honorable Commission has no legal basis and

authority to verify if the instant Petition is sufficient as

there is no valid law, rule or regulation which prescribes

the requirements and procedure for such verification;

(3) There is no showing that the Petition contains the same

proposals allegedly presented to, and purportedly

approved by, the people as required under Section 2,

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;

(4) The petitioners have no legal capacity to file the instant

Petition as they do not represent the required percentage

of registered voters under Section 2, Article XVII of the

1987 Constitution;

(5) The Petition is fatally defective as it does not contain the

proper verification and certification against forum-

shopping;

(6) The Petition is violative of Sections 2 and 4, Article XVII of

the 1987 Constitution since it seeks a revision—and not a

mere amendment—of the Constitution;

 3

(7) The Petition is violative of the very law and rules it

invokes since it embraces more than one subject matter;

and

(8) The Petition is, in fact, insufficient as it does not meet the

required percentage of registered voters under Section 2,

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

THE OPPOSITORS

ONEVOICE INC. is an incorporated non-partisan, non-stock, non-

profit association of citizens who are very concerned about the

political developments in the country, with address at 16th Floor, West

Trade Center, West Ave., Quezon City, Philippines.

CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at

Morado St., Dasmarinas Village, Makati City, Philippines.

RENE B. AZURIN is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at 15-C

Rufino Pacific Tower, Ayala Ave., Makati City, Philippines.

MANUEL L. QUEZON III is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at

Garden Island Condominium Tower 2, N. Domingo St., New Manila,

Quezon City, Philippines.

BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR. is a Filipino, of legal age, with address

at M.V. del Rosario St., Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines.

SUSAN V. OPLE is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at 2/F

Marbella II Building, Roxas Boulevard, Manila, Philippines.

 4

CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. is a Filipino, of legal age, with address at

Rm. 101, Ground Floor, APS Building, 20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell

Center, Makati City, Philippines.

PREFATORY STATEMENT

At the outset, it must be emphasized that the instant Petition is

nothing but an invalid revival of the people’s initiative, notwithstanding

the categorical and unequivocal ruling in Santiago v. Commission

on Elections, wherein a similar petition for an alleged people’s

initiative was brought before this Honorable Commission and struck

down by the Supreme Court, thus –

“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.
x x x.
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).
 5

The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18

December 1996 is made permanent as against the
Commission on Elections, x x x.” (Supra at p. 157;
emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In light of the foregoing, and in order to ensure that public funds

are not wasted for the conduct of the registration and plebiscite

sought by petitioners, and to resolve issues of transcendental

importance to the nation, herein oppositors, as citizens and taxpayers

who are for the rule of law, respectfully call upon this Honorable

Commission to be vigilant, that it not be misled into granting the

instant Petition in violation of the 1987 Constitution, existing law and

prevailing jurisprudence.

It is respectfully submitted that this Honorable Commission has

no jurisdiction to take cognizance of, entertain, take any action on,

and much less give due course to, the instant Petition calling for a

plebiscite to revise the 1987 Constitution pursuant to an alleged

people’s initiative.

It is beyond cavil that the provision granting the people the right

to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution under Section 2,

Article XVII thereof is not self-executory, and requires enabling

legislation, thus –

“Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may

likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every
 6

legislative district must be represented by at least three

per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the
implementation of the exercise of this right.”
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In construing the foregoing provision, the Supreme Court

categorically held that –

“This provision is not self-executory. In his book,

Joaquin Bernas, a member of the 1986 Constitutional
Commission, stated:
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot
operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the
Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses
congressional action, in the last analysis it still is
dependent on congressional action.
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of
initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the
Constitution until Congress provides for its
implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution
has recognized or granted that right, the people cannot
exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not
provide for its implementation.” (Santiago v.
Commission on Elections, supra at p. 136)

Here, the petitioners invoke Republic Act No. 6735, particularly

Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 thereof, as allegedly “sufficient

enabling details for the people’s exercise of the power” to propose

Constitutional amendments (Petition, paragraph 2).

However, the Supreme Court had repeatedly made a clear and

unequivocal finding that Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient, thus –

 7

“But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the

power and duty of Congress to ‘provide for the
implementation of the exercise of the right?’
A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative
answer.
x x x.
The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that
R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in
essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
amendments to the Constitution is concerned.”
x x x.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
x x x.
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; x x x.” (Santiago
v. Commission on Elections, supra at pp. 145, 153, and
157; emphasis and underscoring supplied; reiterated in
the Resolution in Santiago v. Commission on
Elections, G.R. No. 127325 dated 10 June 1997 and
People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization and
Action v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 129754,
23 September 1997)

Clearly, therefore, there is as yet no enabling law sufficient to

empower the people to directly propose amendments to the

Constitution. On this score alone, the outright denial of the instant

Petition is warranted, and this Honorable Commission should not

even entertain the same or take any action thereon, much less

consider further proceeding with the conduct of a plebiscite pursuant

thereto, consistent with Santiago v. Commission on Elections,

which held that –

“This petition must then be granted, and the

COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from
entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for
 8

initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a

sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to
provide for the implementation of the system.” (Supra
at p. 157; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

II

Moreover, it is respectfully submitted that this Honorable

Commission has no legal basis or authority to issue a certification

that the instant Petition sufficiently complied with the required

percentage of registered voters’ signatures as prescribed under

Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, there being no valid

law, rule or regulation which prescribes the requirements and

procedures for such certification.

The absence of any legal basis or authority for this Honorable

Commission to act on the instant Petition is rooted in Santiago v.

Commission on Elections, wherein the Supreme Court had

occasion to rule that Republic Act No. 6735 cannot serve as the basis

for allowing this Honorable Commission to promulgate rules and

regulations to carry out the purposes of said Act, because –

“x x x. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are

fatal and cannot be cured by ‘empowering’ the COMELEC
‘to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.
The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be
delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas
delegata non delegari potest. The recognized exceptions
to the rule are as follows:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President
under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
 9

(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the

President under Section 23(2) of Article VI of the
Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body
exercising quasi-judicial functions, to promulgate rules
and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative
authority under no. 5 above. However, in every case of
permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the
delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law (a) is
complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate;
and (b) fixes a standard—the limits of which are
sufficiently determinate and determinable—to which the
delegate must conform in the performance of his
functions. A sufficient standard is one which defines
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries
and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the
circumstances under which the legislative command is to
be effected.
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to
the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735
miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in
subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power
to the COMELEC is then invalid.” (Supra at pp. 153-
154; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Consequently, the Supreme Court ruled in the said case that

this Honorable Commission’s Resolution No. 2300 dated 31 January

1991 (“Resolution No. 2300”), insofar as it prescribes rules and

regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the

Constitution, is null and void because –

“It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot

validly promulgate rules and regulations to
implement the exercise of the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through the system of initiative. It does not have that
power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's
power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the
 10

Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and regulations

referred to therein are those promulgated by the
COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the
Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate legislation is
authorized and which satisfies the ‘completeness’ and the
‘sufficient standard’ tests.”
x x x.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
x x x.
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; x x x.”
(Id. at pp. 154-155, and 157; emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Here, it appears that the requirements and procedure followed

for the verification of signatures by this Honorable Commission’s

municipal election officers were those prescribed in Resolution No.

2300. With the aforequoted ruling in Santiago v. Commission on

Elections, however, such alleged verification of signatures is invalid

and cannot be invoked by petitioners, much less relied on by this

Honorable Commission.

Indeed, in the absence of any valid law, rule or regulation which

prescribes the procedure and requirements to determine the

sufficiency of the instant Petition, no action thereon can be taken by

this Honorable Commission.

 11

III

Even assuming arguendo that there is a sufficient enabling law

and sufficient implementing rules to allow the people to propose

amendments to the Constitution (which there are none), there is no

showing that the Petition contains the same proposals allegedly

presented to, and purportedly approved by, the people as required

under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

Notably, a comparison of the contents of the instant Petition

and “The Petition for People’s Initiative” appearing on the website

(http://www.sigawngbayan.org/e_petition.htm, last accessed on 26

August 2006) of Sigaw ng Bayan Coalition (“Sigaw ng Bayan”) which

petitioner Raul L. Lambino claims to represent, and allegedly

approved by the registered voters whose signatures purportedly

appear on the same website

(http://www.sigawngbayan.org/e_signatories.htm, last accessed on

26 August 2006) show that there are glaring discrepancies in the

proposed revisions contained in the said documents. Copies of the

aforesaid websites printed on 26 August 2006 are hereto attached

marked and made integral parts hereof as Annexes “1” and “2”,

respectively.

First, the proposed Section 4(3) of the intended Article XVIII

(Transitory Provisions) in “The Petition for People’s Initiative” found

on the website which provides that “(3) Senators whose term of office
 12

ends in 2010 shall be Members of Parliament until noon of the

thirtieth day of June 2010” was omitted from the instant Petition.

Second, the last sentence of the proposed Section 5(2) of the

intended Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) as contained in “The

Petition for People’s Initiative” found on the Sigaw ng Bayan website

reads as follows –

“…Thereafter, the duly elected Prime Minister shall

oversee the various ministries and shall perform such
powers and responsibilities as may be delegated to him
by the incumbent President.”

In comparison, the same provision as proposed in the instant

Petition reads as follows –

“…Thereafter, the Vice-President as Member of

Parliament, shall immediately convene the Parliament
and shall initially preside over its session for the purpose
of electing the Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a
majority vote of all its members, from among themselves.
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.”

Clearly, therefore, there is an issue as to whether the document

allegedly presented to, and purportedly approved by, the people is

the very same document subject of the instant Petition, and not just a

mere survey form.

All told, petitioners failed to sufficiently show that the proposed

revisions to the Constitution contained in the instant Petition are in

 13

fact the same proposed revisions allegedly approved by the

registered voters whose purported signatures are attached to the

Petition, as required under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987

Constitution.

IV

In any event, the petitioners have no legal capacity to file the

instant Petition as they do not represent the required percentage of

registered voters under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987

Constitution.

Here, apart from the mere say-so of petitioners Lambino and

Erico B. Aumentado (“Aumentado”) that they filed the instant Petition

“on their own behalf and together with the registered voters who have

affixed their signatures to the signature sheets attached hereto”

(Petition, paragraph 2), there is no showing that they have been duly

authorized to represent the said registered voters.

Moreover, as shown in the Verification/Certification with

Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping executed by petitioners Lambino

and Aumentado, they actually represent Sigaw ng Bayan and the

Union of Local Authorities (“ULAP”).

Worse, in the ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 attached to the

Verification/Certification with Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping

executed by petitioner Aumentado, it is readily apparent that the

 14

supposed people’s initiative is pursuant to “the agenda of Her

Excellency President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo for constitutional

reforms x x x.”

This clearly begs the question of whether the instant Petition is

truly a people’s initiative—and not an initiative merely by the

government or certain groups.

In the absence of any showing that the people indeed

authorized the petitioners to file the instant Petition on their behalf, it

is respectfully submitted that the instant Petition fails to meet the

requirement that it be filed by the people as required under Section 2,

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

Moreover, the Petition is fatally defective as it does not contain

the proper verification and certification against forum-shopping.

Here, petitioners allege that they executed the separate

Verification/Certification with Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping not

only in their personal capacities or as representatives of Sigaw ng

Bayan and ULAP, respectively, but allegedly “as representative of the

mass of signatories hereto; x x x.”

However, as previously discussed, petitioners failed to show

any authority to act for and in behalf of the registered voters whose

purported signatures are attached to the Petition. Neither did any

 15

other registered voter execute a verification and certification of non-

forum shopping.

Consequently, the Verification/Certification with Affidavit of

Non-Forum Shopping appended to the Petition is fatally defective, for

Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, 338 SCRA 62 (2000), has

held that –

“At the outset, it is noted that the Verification and

Certification was signed by Antonio Din, Jr., one of the
petitioners in the instant case. We agree with the
Solicitor General that the petition is defective.
Section 5, Rule 7 expressly provides that it is the
plaintiff or principal party who shall certify under oath
that he has not commenced any action involving the
same issues in any court, etc. Only petitioner Din,
the Vice-Mayor of San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur,
signed the certification. There is no showing that he
was authorized by his co-petitioners to represent the
latter and to sign the certification. It cannot be likewise
presumed that petitioner Din knew, to the best of his
knowledge, whether his co-petitioners had the same or
similar actions or claims filed or pending. We find that
substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter
involving strict observance by the rules. The attestation in
the certification on non-forum shopping requires personal
knowledge by the party who executed the same.
Petitioners must show reasonable cause for failure to
personally sign the certification. Utter disregard of the
rules cannot just be rationalized by harking on the policy
of liberal construction.” (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)

Under the foregoing circumstances, the Petition should be

denied due course as it contains a fatally defective verification and

certification against forum-shopping.

VI
 16

Even assuming arguendo that Republic Act No. 6735 is a

sufficient enabling law for purposes of allowing the people to propose

amendments to the Constitution (which it is not), the scope of the

people’s initiative is limited to amendments and does not apply to

revisions of the Constitution.

It is readily apparent from the provisions of Article XVII of the

1987 Constitution that there is a clear distinction between an

amendment to and a revision of the Constitution, and that only the

Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, or a Constitutional

Convention, can propose both amendments and revisions.

Thus, Section 1 of Article XVII provides that –

“Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, the

Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of
all its members; or
(2) A Constitutional Convention.” (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

whereas Section 2 expressly limits the people’s power to the proposal

of amendments to, and not revisions of, the Constitution, thus –

“Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may

likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of
the total number of registered voters, of which every
legislative district must be represented by at least three
per centum of the registered voters therein. No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
 17

x x x.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

That there is, and should be, a distinction between amendment

and revision is further necessitated by Section 4 on ratification, which

explicitly provides that –

“Section 4. Any amendment to, or revision of,

this Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid
when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later
than ninety days after the approval of such amendment
or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be
valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days
nor later than ninety days after the approval certification
by the Commission of Elections of the sufficiency of the
petition.” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Such distinction is borne out by the intent of the framers of the

Constitution, which the Supreme Court duly noted in Santiago v.

Commission on Elections, thus –

“It was made clear during the interpellations that the

aforementioned Section 2 is limited to proposals to
AMEND—not to REVISE—the Constitution; thus:
MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was suggested
on the theory that this matter of initiative,
which came about because of the
extraordinary developments this year, has to
be separated from the traditional modes of
amending the Constitution as embodied in
Section 1. The committee members felt that
this system of initiative should not extend to
the revision of the entire Constitution, so we
removed it from the operation of Section 1 of
the proposed Article on Amendment or
Revision.
xxx.
 18

MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously

bothered by providing this process of initiative
as a separate section in the Article on
Amendment. Would the sponsor be
amenable to accepting an amendment in
terms of realigning Section 2 as another
subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of
setting it up as another separate section as if
it were a self-executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except
that, as we clarified a while ago, this process
of initiative is limited to the matter of
amendment and should not expand into a
revision which contemplates a total overhaul
of the Constitution. That was the sense that
was conveyed by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee
was attempting to distinguish the coverage
of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include
the process of revision; whereas the
process of initiation to amend, which is
given to the public, would only apply to
amendments?
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the
terms envisioned in the Committee.”
x x x.
Commissioner Davide also reaffirmed that his
modified amendment strictly confines initiative to
AMENDMENTS to—NOT REVISION of—the
Constitution. Thus:
MR. DAVIDE. With pleasure, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question:
Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment
on line 1 refers to ‘amendment.’ Does it not
cover the word ‘revision’ as defined by
Commissioner Padilla when he made the
distinction between the words ‘amendments’
and ‘revision’?
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because
‘amendments’ and ‘revision’ should be
covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative
is concerned, it can only relate to
‘amendments’ not ‘revision.’” (Supra at pp.
139-140 and 141-142; emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
 19

Notably, even Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 6735, which the

petitioner invokes, adheres to the foregoing parameters when it

restrictively defines “initiative” as the “power of the people to propose

amendments to the Constitution x x x” (Emphasis and underscoring

supplied).

Thus, according to eminent constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas –

An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a

few specific and separable provision. The guiding original
intention of an amendment is to improve specific parts or
to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new
conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have
become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In
revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan
contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or
of provisions of the document which have over-all
implications for the entire document, to determine how
and to what extent they should be altered. Thus for
instance[,] a switch from the presidential system to a
parliamentary system would be a revision because of
its over-all impact on the entire constitutional
structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system
to a unicameral system be because of its effect on
other important provisions of the Constitution.
(Bernas, The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, A Commentary, 2003 Ed., p. 1294; emphasis
and underscoring supplied)

The foregoing constitutional parameters, which may not be

altered by Congress, for the exercise of the people’s right of initiative,

were not observed in the instant case.

Here, it is evident that the instant Petition seeks not a mere

amendment to, but a major revision of, the 1987 Constitution,

inasmuch as it seeks to change the very system of government from

presidential to parliamentary, and the form of the legislature from

 20

bicameral to unicameral, among others. Other major revisions

proposed include the inclusion of a minimum number of inhabitants

per district, a change in the period for a term of a Member of

Parliament, the removal of the limits on the number of terms, the

election of a Prime Minister who shall exercise the executive power,

and so on and so forth.

In the process, the Petition seeks to introduce substantial and

sweeping changes to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI,

Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII, and create a new Article XVIII, of

the 1987 Constitution.

Under the foregoing circumstances, it is beyond doubt that the

provision granting the people the right to propose amendments to the

1987 Constitution under Section 2, Article XVII thereof cannot serve

as the basis for the current initiative which clearly refers to a major

revision of the Constitution.

Accordingly, the outright denial of the instant Petition is

warranted, and this Honorable Commission should desist from taking

any further action pursuant to the Petition.

VII

Worse, the instant Petition embraces more than one (1) subject

matter, contrary to the provisions of the very law it invokes and the

rules relied upon.

 21

Assuming arguendo that Republic Act No. 6735 is sufficient

enabling legislation for purposes of an initiative to amend the

Constitution (which it is not), Section 10 thereof provides for the

following restriction –

“Sec. 10. Prohibited Measures. – The following

cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum
petition:
(a) No petition embracing more than one (1)
subject matter shall be submitted to the electorate; x x x.”

Assuming further that this Honorable Commission’s Resolution

No. 2300 insofar as it prescribes the requirements and procedure for

a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution is valid (which it is not),

Section 36 thereof also provides for the following restriction –

“Sec. 36. Prohibited Measures. – The following

cannot be the subject of an initiative or referendum
petition:
(a) A measure embracing more than one subject;
x x x.”

As previously discussed at length, the instant Petition covers

more than just one subject. It involves not only a shift from the

presidential to the parliamentary system of government, but also a

change from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. In addition, it

encompasses, among others, the inclusion of a minimum number of

inhabitants per district, a change in the period for a term of a Member

of Parliament, the removal of the limits on the number of terms, the

election of a Prime Minister who shall exercise the executive power,

 22

In light of the foregoing, it behooves this Honorable

Commission to deny the instant Petition outright for embracing more

than one (1) subject matter, in patent contravention of the very law

and rules it invokes.

VIII

Finally, the instant Petition is insufficient as it does not meet the

required percentage of registered voters under Section 2, Article XVII

of the 1987 Constitution.

Even assuming for the sake of argument that the Petition may

be filed pursuant to Republic Act No. 6735 and Resolution No. 2300,

the same is insufficient since it failed to meet the requirement under

Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, thus –

“Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may

likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum
of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum of the registered voters
therein….
x x x” (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Here, there is no showing that at least twelve percent (12%) of

the total number of registered voters, and that at least three percent

(3%) of the registered voters in every legislative district signed the

Petition.
 23

To the contrary, Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, the Election Officer

for the 3rd District and the OIC for the 1st and 2nd District of Davao

City, has issued a Certification dated 23 August 2006, which

provides that –

“This is to CERTIFY that this office [First, Second

and Third District, Davao City] HAS NOT VERIFIED the
signatures of registered voters as per documents
submitted in this office by the proponents of the People’s
Initiative. Consequently, NO ELECTION DOCUMENTS
AND/OR ORDER ISSUED BY HIGHER SUPERIORS
used as basis for such verification of signatures.”

A copy of said Certification dated 23 August 2006 is hereto

attached marked and made an integral part hereof as Annex “3”.

In light of the foregoing Certification, it is clear that there are at

least three (3) legislative districts where there was no verification of

the registered voters. Consequently, the Petition failed to satisfy the

constitutional requirement that at least three percent (3%) of the

registered voters in every legislative district signed the Petition.

Considering that the Petition is insufficient, this Honorable

Commission does not even have the jurisdiction to entertain the

same, pursuant to Santiago v. Commission on Elections, thus –

“Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735

is a full compliance with the power of Congress to
implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments,
or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the
power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC
Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted
 24

without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in

entertaining the Delfin Petition.
Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution
and Section 5(b)of R.A. No. 6735, a petition for initiative
on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the
total number of registered voters of which every
legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the
registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition does not
contain signatures of the required number of voters.
Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered
signatures and that the purpose of his petition is primarily
to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures.
Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be
deemed validly initiated.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition
for initiative only after its filing. x x x.” (Supra at p. 155)

For all the foregoing reasons, the outright denial of the instant

Petition is therefore clearly warranted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this

Honorable Commission deny the Petition outright on the grounds

that:

(1) This Honorable Commission has no jurisdiction to even

entertain the Petition inasmuch as there is still no

sufficient enabling law to cover the system of initiative to

amend the 1987 Constitution and therefore the

permanent injunction against this Honorable Commission

entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for

initiative on amendments to the Constitution as laid down

 25

by the Supreme Court in Santiago v. Commission on

Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), stands;

(2) This Honorable Commission has no legal basis and

authority to verify if the instant Petition is sufficient as

there is no valid law, rule or regulation which prescribes

the requirements and procedure for such verification;

(3) There is no showing that the Petition as filed contains the

same proposals allegedly presented to, and purportedly

approved by, the people under Section 2, Article XVII of

the 1987 Constitution;

(4) The petitioners have no legal capacity to file the instant

Petition as they do not represent the required percentage

of registered voters under Section 2, Article XVII of the

1987 Constitution;

(5) The Petition is fatally defective as it does not contain the

proper verification and certification against forum-

shopping;

(6) The Petition is violative of Sections 2 and 4, Article XVII of

the 1987 Constitution since it seeks a revision—and not a

mere amendment—of the Constitution;

(7) The Petition is violative of the very law and rules it

invokes since it embraces more than one subject matter;

and
 26

(8) The Petition is, in fact, insufficient as it does not meet the

required percentage of registered voters under Section 2,

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

_________ City for the City of Manila, 27 August 2006.

CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. GIOVANNI F. VALLENTE

Roll No. 33331 Roll No. 37965
PTR No. 4194553; 01-10-06; PTR No. 2952987; 01-05-06;
Makati City Pasig City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 00331; IBP Lifetime Member No.
Makati City 663696; Makati City

GILBERT V. SEMBRANO RAY PAOLO J. SANTIAGO

Roll No. 41030 Roll No. 46470
PTR No. 10856; 01-30-06; PTR No.4194555; 01-10-06;
Makati City Makati City
IBP Lifetime Member No. 03400; IBP Lifetime Member No. 02962;
Rizal Makati City

MA. NGINA TERESA V. CHAN-GONZAGA

Roll No. 48492
PTR No. 4194554; 01-10-06; Makati City
IBP No. 665049; 01-03-06; Makati City

Counsel for the Oppositors

Rm. 101, Ground Floor,
APS Building, 20 Rockwell Drive
Rockwell Center, Makati City
Philippines
 27

EXPLANATION
(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

Due to constraints of time, lack of personnel, and distance, the

Opposition was served by registered mail upon the parties as
indicated in the Affidavit of Service.

GILBERT V. SEMBRANO

COPY FURNISHED:

DEMOSTHENES B. DONATO
Counsel for the Petitioner Raul L. Lambino
Autoland Building
1616 Quezon Ave.
South Triangle, Quezon City

ALBERTO C. AGRA
Counsel for the Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado
No. 12, Fourth St.
Saint Ignatius Village, Quezon City
 28

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

____________ CITY ) S.S.
 
VERIFICATION

WE, CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD (for and in behalf of ONEVOICE, Inc and in my

own behalf), RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T.
TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., all of legal age,
Filipinos, with office address at c/o 16th Floor West Trade Center, West Ave.,
Quezon City, Metro Manila, after having been duly sworn to in accordance with
law, hereby depose and state that we are the oppositors in the above-captioned
case and we caused the preparation of the foregoing Opposition, which we have
read, and the contents of which are all true and correct based on our own
knowledge and/or authentic records.

AFFIANTS FURTHER SAYETH NAUGHT.

CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD MANUEL L. QUEZON III

Affiant Affiant
(for ONEVOICE, Inc., and in his
own behalf)

BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR. SUSAN V. OPLE

Affiant Affiant

RENE B. AZURIN CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.

Affiant Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME this 27th day of August

2006, at ______________ City, affiants exhibiting to me their Community Tax
Certificates as follows:

Name CTC No. Date/Place Issued

CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD 24326326 03-08-06; Makati City

RENE B. AZURIN
MANUEL L. QUEZON III
BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR.
SUSAN V. OPLE
CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR.
12817430 02-20-06; Quezon City
12566542 01-02-06; Makati City
12607716 01-12-06; Quezon City
________ ______________
24802242 01-10-06; Marikina City

NOTARY PUBLIC
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2006.
 29

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES     ) 
____________ CITY                                 ) 
 
 
SECRETARY’S CERTIFICATE 
 
 
  I,  Carlos  P.  Medina,  Jr.,  Filipino,  of  legal  age,  and  with  office  address  at  Room 
101, Ground Floor, APS Building, No. 20 Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City, 
after having been duly sworn in accordance with law, hereby certify: 
 
1. I am the duly elected and incumbent Corporate Secretary of ONEVOICE, 
Inc., an association duly organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, with 
principal office at 16th Floor West Trade Center, West Ave., Quezon City, Metro Manila. 
 
2. At the special meeting of the Board of Directors of ONEVOICE, Inc. held 
on  25  August  2006  at  its  principal  office,  at  which  meeting  a  quorum  was  present  and 
acting throughout, the following resolutions were unanimously approved and adopted: 
 
“RESOLVED,  that  the  Corporation  appoints  its  Chairperson,  Christian  S. 
Monsod,  to  be  its  true  and  lawful  attorney‐in‐fact  to  cause  the  preparation  and 
filing of an OPPOSITION before the Commission on Elections of the Philippines 
to the Petition filed by Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in the matter of 
proposing  amendments  to  the  1987  Constitution  through  a  People’s  Initiative 
filed on 25 August 2006. 
 
“RESOLVED  FURTHER,  that  said  Christian  S.  Monsod  be  authorized  and 
empowered  to  sign  and  deliver  any  and  all  verification,  certification,  or 
agreement,  or  file  any  and  all  pleadings  as  are  relevant  to  accomplish  the 
purpose of his appointment. 
 
“FINALLY  RESOLVED,  that  this  designation  shall  remain  valid  and  binding 
until modified, altered or revoked by a subsequent Board Resolution.” 
 
3. The foregoing is in accordance with the records of ONEVOICE, Inc.. 
 
4. The  foregoing  resolutions  have  not  been  modified,  altered  or  repealed 
and are still in full force and effect. 
 
IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I  have  hereunto  affixed  my  signature  this  27th  day  of 
August 2006 in Makati City. 
 
          CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. 
               Corporate Secretary 
 
SUBSCRIBED  AND  SWORN  to  before  me  on  this  27th  day  of  August  in 
_________, affiant exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 24802242 issued 
on 1 January 2006 in Marikina City. 
 
Doc. No. ______; 
Page No. ______; 
Book No. ______; 
Series of 2006. 
 30

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )

____________ CITY ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

I, Ray Paolo J. Santiago, Filipino, of legal age, single, with business address at
Room 101, APS Building, Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City, Metro
Manila, after being sworn in accordance with law, hereby depose and state that:

1. I work for the Ateneo Human Rights Center, Room 101, APS Building,
Rockwell Drive, Rockwell Center, Makati City, Metro Manila;

2. I filed an Opposition before the Honorable Commission on Elections in the

case 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;

3. I served copies of the Opposition to the following by means of registered

mail due to constraints of time, personnel and distance as follows:

DEMOSTHENES B. DONATO Registry Receipt #

Counsel for the Petitioner Raul L. Lambino
Autoland Building
1616 Quezon Ave.
South Triangle, Quezon City

ALBERTO C. AGRA
Counsel for the Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado
No. 12, Fourth St.
Saint Ignatius Village, Quezon City

4. I execute this affidavit to attest the truth of the foregoing.

Ray Paolo Santiago

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand, this 28th day of

August, 2006, at Manila.

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 28th day of August, 2006, affiant
exhibiting to me his Community Tax Certificate No. 12883420 issued on 03
January 2006 at Parañaque City.

Book No. __;

Page No. ___;
Doc. No. ___;
Series of 2006.