IV.

HOW CAN WE CHANGE, AMEND, OR REVISE THE CONSTITUTION?

A.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
Article XVII, Sections 1-4
ARTICLE XVII
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
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.
ary

The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

cralaw

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention,
or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a
convention.
cralaw

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.
cralaw

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 certification
by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

Definitions:
1) Amendment: an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution. Its main purpose is to
improve specific provisions of the Constitution. The changes brought about by amendments will not affect the
other provisions of the Constitution.
2) Revision: An examination of the entire Constitution to determine how and to what extent it should be
altered. A revision implies substantive change, affecting the Constitution as a whole.
Constituent power v. Legislative power
1) Constituent power is the power to formulate a Constitution or to propose amendments to or revisions of
the Constitution and to ratify such proposal. Legislative power is the power to pass, repeal or amend or ordinary
laws or statutes (as opposed to organic law).
2) Constituent power is exercised by Congress (by special constitutional conferment), by a Constitutional
Convention or Commission, by the people through initiative and referendum, and ultimately by sovereign
electorate, whereas legislative power is an ordinary power of Congress and of the people, also through initiative
and referendum.
3) The exercise of constituent power does not need the approval of the Chief Executive, whereas the
exercise of legislative power ordinarily needs the approval of the Chief Executive, except when done by people
through initiative and referendum.
Three (3) steps necessary to give effect to amendments and revisions:
1) Proposal of amendments or revisions by the proper constituent assembly;
2) Submission of the proposed amendments or revisions; and
3) Ratification
Proposal of amendments:
Amendments may be proposed by:
A. Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, by a 3/4 vote of all its members.

The power of Congress to propose amendments is NOT part of its ordinary legislative power.
The only reason Congress can exercise such power is that the Constitution has granted it such power.

B. Constitutional Convention:
1) How a Constitutional Convention may be called
a). Congress may call a ConCon by a 2/3 vote of all its members; or
b). By a majority vote of all its members, Congress may submit to the electorate the question of whether to call
a ConCon or not.
2) Choice of which constituent assembly (either Congress or ConCon) should initiate amendments and revisions
is left to the discretion of Congress. In other words, it is a political question.
3) BUT: The manner of calling a ConCon is subject to judicial review, because the Constitution has provided
for vote requirements.
4) If Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, calls for a ConCon but does not provide the details for the
calling of such ConCon, Congress exercising its ordinary legislative power may supply such details. But in
so doing, Congress (as legislature) should not transgress the resolution of Congress acting as a constituent
assemble.
5) Congress, as a constituent assembly and the ConCon have no power to appropriate money for their
expenses. Money may be spent from the treasury only to pursuant to an appropriation made by law.
C. Peoples Initiative
1) Petition to propose such amendments must be signed be at least 12% of ALL registered voters.
2) Every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein.
3) Limitation:
It cannot be exercised oftener than once every 5 years.
Note:
1) While the substance of the proposals made by each type of constituent assembly is not subject to judicial
review, the manner the proposals are made is subject to judicial review.
2) Since these constituent assemblies owe their existence to the Constitution, the courts may determine
whether the assembly has acted in accordance with the Constitution.
3)

Examples of justiciable issues:

a) Whether a proposal was approved by the required number of votes in Congress (acting as a constituent
assembly).
b)

Whether the approved proposals were properly submitted to the people for ratification.

Proposal of Revisions

1)

By Congress, upon a vote of 3/4 of its members

2)

By a constitutional convention

Ratification

1)

Amendments and revisions proposed by Congress and/or by a ConCon:

a)

Valid when ratified by a MAJORITY of votes cast in a plebiscite.

b) Plebiscite is held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days from the approval of such amendments or
revisions.
2)

Amendments proposed by the people via initiative:

a)

Valid when ratified by a MAJORITY of votes cast in a plebiscite.

b) Plebiscite is held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by COMELEC of
the petitions sufficiency
3)

Requisites of a valid ratification:

a)

Held in a plebiscite conducted under the election law;

b)

Supervised by the COMELEC; and

c)

Where only franchised voters (registered) voters take part.

4)

Issues regarding ratification:

a) The Constitution does not require that amendments and revisions be submitted to the people in a special
election. Thus, they may be submitted for ratification simultaneously with a general election.
b) The determination of the conditions under which proposed amendments/revisions are submitted to the
people falls within the legislative sphere. That Congress could have done better does not make the steps taken
unconstitutional.
c) All the proposed amendments/revisions made by the constituent assemblies must be submitted for
ratification in one single plebiscite. There cannot be a piece-meal ratification of amendments/revisions.
d) Presidential proclamation is NOT required for effectivity of amendments/revisions, UNLESS the
proposed amendments/revisions so provide.

B. CASE LIST
Javellana vs. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. L-36142. March 31, 1973
Javellana vs. The Executive Secretary 50 SCRA 30
Ponente:

Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion

The Facts:
The Plebiscite Case
A Convention to propose amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines was approved on August 24, 1970
and began to perform its functions on June 1, 1971. On September 21, 1972, the President issued Proclamation
No. 1081 placing the entire Philippines under Martial Law.
On November 29, 1972, the 1971 Constitutional Convention approved its Proposed Constitution of the Republic
of the Philippines. The next day,President Marcos issued Presidential Decree No. 73, submitting to the
Filipino people for ratification or rejection the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines proposed by the
1971 Constitutional Convention, and appropriating funds therefor, as well as setting the plebiscite for said
ratification or rejection of the Proposed Constitution on January 15, 1973.
On December 7, 1972, Charito Planas filed a case against the Commission on Elections, the Treasurer of the
Philippines and the Auditor General, to enjoin said respondents or their agents from implementing Presidential
Decree No. 73, in any manner, until further orders of the Court, upon the grounds, inter alia, that said
Presidential Decree has no force and effect as law because the calling of such plebiscite, the setting of
guidelines for the conduct of the same, the prescription of the ballots to be used and the question to be answered
by the voters, and the appropriation of public funds for the purpose, are, by the Constitution, lodged exclusively
in Congress and there is no proper submission to the people of said Proposed Constitution set for January 15,
1973, there being no freedom of speech, press and assembly, and there being no sufficient time to inform the
people of the contents thereof.
On December 23, the President announced the postponement of the plebiscite for the ratification or rejection of
the Proposed Constitution and temporarily suspending the effects of Proclamation No. 1081 for purposes of free
and open debate on the proposed Constitution.
The Court deemed it fit to refrain, for the time being, from deciding the aforementioned cases, for neither the
date nor the conditions under which said plebiscite would be held were known or announced officially.

In the afternoon of January 12, 1973, the petitioners in Case G.R. No. L-35948 filed an urgent motion,
praying that said case be decided as soon as possible, preferably not later than January 15, 1973.
The Court issued a resolution requiring the respondents in said three (3) cases to comment on said urgent
motion and manifestation, not later than Tuesday noon, January 16, 1973 and set the motion for hearing on
January 17, 1973, at 9:30 a.m.
While the case was being heard, the President issued Proclamation No. 1102.
ANNOUNCING THE RATIFICATION BY THE FILIPINO PEOPLE OF THE CONSTITUTION
PROPOSED BY THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
Citizens Assemblies were created in barrios, in municipalities and in districts/wards in chartered cities. The said
Citizens Assemblies were established to broaden the base of citizen participation in the democratic process and
to afford ample opportunity for the citizenry to express their views on important national issues.
The Ratification Case
On January 20, 1973, Josue Javellana filed Case G.R. No. L-36142, as a Filipino citizen, and a qualified and
registered voter and as a class suit, for himself, and in behalf of all citizens and voters similarly situated
against the Executive Secretary and the Secretaries of National Defense, Justice and Finance, to restrain said
respondents and their subordinates or agents from implementing any of the provisions of the propose
Constitution not found in the present Constitution referring to that of 1935. Javellana alleged that the President
ordered the immediate implementation of the New Constitution, thru his Cabinet, and that the latter are acting
without or in excess of jurisdiction in implementing the said proposed Constitution. He construed that the
President is without authority to create the Citizens Assemblies; to approve the proposed
Constitution; proclaim the ratification; and that the election held to ratify the proposed Constitution was not a
free election, hence null and void.
The Issue:
1. Is the issue of the validity of Proclamation No. 1102 a justiciable, or political and therefore nonjusticiable, question?
2. Has the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention been ratified validly (with
substantial, if not strict, compliance) conformably to the applicable constitutional and statutory
provisions?
3. Has the aforementioned proposed Constitution acquiesced in (with or without valid ratification)
by the people? (acquiesced permission given by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or
agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.)
4. Are petitioners entitled to relief?
5. Is the aforementioned proposed Constitution in force?

Decision and Ratio:

The court was severely divided on the issues raised in the petition but when the crucial question of whether the
petitioners are entitled to relief, six members of the court (Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio and Esguerra) voted to dismiss the petition. Concepcion, together Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and
Teehankee, voted to grant the relief being sought, thus upholding the 1973 Constitution.
1. The Court held that the issue is political and beyond the ambit of judicial inquiry.
2. Court held that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified
in accordance with Article XV, section 1 of the 1935 Constitution, which provides only one way for
ratification, i.e., in an election or plebiscite held in accordance with law and participated in only by
qualified and duly registered voters. However, it is conceded that the doctrine stated in some American
decisions to the effect that independently of the validity of the ratification, a new Constitution once
accepted acquiesced in by the people must be accorded recognition by the Court.

3. On the fourth question, 6 justices voted to DISMISS the petition. Justice Makalintal and Castro so voted
on the strength of their view that The effectivity of the said Constitution, in the final analysis, is the
basic and ultimate question posed by these cases to resolve which considerations other than judicial, and
therefore beyond the competence of this Court, are relevant and unavoidable.

4. On the fifth question of whether the new Constitution of 1973 is in force:

ACCORDINGLY, by virtue of the majority of six (6) votes of Justices Makalintal, Castro, Barredo, Makasiar,
Antonio and Esguerra with the four (4) dissenting votes of the Chief Justice and Justices Zaldivar, Fernando and
Teehankee, all the aforementioned cases are hereby dismissed. This being the vote of the majority, there is no
further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being considered in force and effect.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Barredo qualified his vote, stating that As to whether or not the 1973 Constitution has been validly
ratified pursuant to Article XV, I still maintain that in the light of traditional concepts regarding the meaning
and intent of said Article, the referendum in the Citizens Assemblies, especially in the manner the votes therein
were cast, reported and canvassed, falls short of the requirements thereof.
However, the fact that there was voting and that the majority of the votes were for considering as approved the
1973 Constitution without the necessity of the usual form of plebiscite followed in past ratifications, the people
may be deemed to have cast their favorable votes in the belief that in doing so they did the part required of them
by Article XV, hence, it may be said that in its political aspect, which is what counts most, after all, said Article
has been substantially complied with, and, in effect, the 1973 Constitution has been constitutionally ratified.
Sanidad v. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333 (1976)
SANIDAD VS COMELEC
73 SCRA 333; October 12, 1976
Ponente: Martin, J
FACTS:
On September 27, 1976, Pablo Sanidad and Pablito Sanidad petitioned for prohibition with preliminary
injunction to enjoin COMELEC from holding and conducting the Referendum Plebiscite on October 16; to
declare without force and effect PD Nos. 991 and 1033, as well as PD. 1031. Petitioners contend that the
president has no power to propose amendments to the new constitution, as such, the referendum plebiscite
has no legal basis.
ISSUE:
1. Is the case at bar justiciable?
2. Does the president have authority to propose amendments to the Constitution?
3. Is the submission to the people of the proposed amendments within the time frame allowed sufficient and
proper submission?
HELD:
The issue of whether the President can assume the power of a constituent assembly is a justiciable question
since it is not the wisdom but the constitutional authority of the president to perform such act is in question.
The president has the authority to propose amendments as the governmental powers are generally
concentrated to the president in times of crisis. The time for deliberation of the referendum-plebiscite
questions, 3 weeks, is not too short especially since the questions are issues of the day and the people have
been living with them since the proclamation of martial law.
Ratification Cases, 50 SCRA 30, 373, note 3 (1973)
Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774, 797 (1967)
G.R. No. L-28196
21 SCRA 774
November 9, 1967
Petitioner: Ramon A. Gonzalez / Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA)
Respondent: Commission on Elections (COMELEC)
FACTS: This case is composed of consolidated cases filed separately by Petitioner Gonzalez and
PHILCONSA assailing for the declaration of nullity of RA. No. 4913 and R.B.H. No. 1 and 3. On March 16,
1967, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed the following resolutions (Resolution of Both
Houses/R.B.H.):

1. R.B.H No. 1: Proposes that Sec 5, Art VI of Constitution be amended so as to increase the membership of
the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120 in accordance with the present Constitution, to a
maximum of 180, to be apportioned among several provinces and that each province shall have at least one (1)
member.
2. R.B.H. No. 2: Calls for a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which will be composed
of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held
on the second Tuesday of November 1971.
3. R.B.H. No. 3: Proposes that Sec 16, Art VI of the Constitution be amended so as to authorize Senators and
Members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional convention,
without the need to forfeit their respective seats in Congress.
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which became RA No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the
Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people
at the general elections on November 14, 1967. This act fixes the date and manner of elevtion for the proposed
amendments to be voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for said election.
Petitioners assail the validity/constitutionality of RA No. 4913 and for the prohibition with preliminary
injunction to restrain COMELEC from implementing or complying with the said law. PHILCONSA also assails
R.B.H No. 1 and 3.
ISSUE:
1.) Whether or not RA No. 4913 is unconstitutional.
2.) Whether or not the issue involves a political question.
HELD:
1.) Pursuant to Article XV of the 1935 Constitution, SC held that there is nothing in this provision that states
that the election referred to is special, different from the general election. The Congress deemed it best to
submit the amendments for ratification in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution. It does not negate
its authority to submit proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. Petition is therefore DENIED.
2.) SC also noted that the issue is a political question because it attacks the wisdom of the action taken by
Congress and not the authority to take it. A political question is not subject to review by the Court.

RAUL M. GONZALES vs COMELEC G.R. No. L-32443 September 11, 1970

Ponente:

Makasiar

Facts:
These two separate but related petitions for declaratory relief were filed pursuant to Sec. 19 of R.A. No.
6132 by petitioners Manuel B. Imbong and Raul M. Gonzales, both members of the Bar, taxpayers and
interested in running as candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Both impugn the
constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, claiming during the oral argument that it prejudices their rights as
such candidates.
On March 16, 1967, Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly pursuant to Art. XV of the
Constitution, passed Resolution No. 2 which among others called for a Constitutional Convention to
propose constitutional amendments to be composed of two delegates from each representative district
who shall have the same qualifications as those of Congressmen, to be elected on the second Tuesday of
November, 1970 in accordance with the Revised Election Code. On June 17, 1969, Congress, also acting
as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 4 amending the aforesaid Resolution No. 2 of March
16, 1967 by providing that the convention shall be composed of 320 delegates apportioned among the
existing representative districts according to the number of their respective inhabitants: Provided, that a
representative district shall be entitled to at least two delegates, who shall have the same qualifications
as those required of members of the House of Representatives, 1 and that any other details relating to
the specific apportionment of delegates, election of delegates to, and the holding of, the Constitutional
Convention shall be embodied in an implementing legislation: Provided, that it shall not be inconsistent
with the provisions of this Resolution. 2
On August 24, 1970, Congress, acting as a legislative body, enacted Republic Act No. 6132,
implementing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly repealing R.A. No. 4914.

Petitioner Raul M. Gonzales assails the validity of the entire law as well as the particular provisions
embodied in Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of 8(a). Petitioner Manuel B. Imbong impugns the
constitutionality of only par. I of Sec. 8(a) of said R.A. No. 6132 practically on the same grounds
advanced by petitioner Gonzales.
Issue:
1. Whether the Congress has a right to call for Constitutional Convention;
2. Whether the parameters set by such a call is constitutional.
Decision:
The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a Constituent Assembly.
Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as constitutional.
Ratio:
Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution
-Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:
Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose amendments, or call for
convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were attained by Resolution 2 and 4
Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Resolution 4 and is enough that the basis employed for
such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonzales is not reasonable for that case granted
more representatives to provinces with less population and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to
the number of delegates I other provinces with more population.
Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members thereof.
Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism to prevent political
figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more time to the Constituional
Convention.
Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure candidates equal
opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual merits, and not the support of political
parties. This provision does not create discrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all
organizations.
Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Fernando I find it difficult to reconcile the decision reached insofar as the aforesaid ban on political
parties and civic, professional and other organizations is concerned with the explicit provision that the freedom
to form associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged. 2 The right of an
individual to join others of a like persuasion to pursue common objectives and to engage in activities is
embraced within if not actually encouraged by the regime of liberty ordained by the Constitution. This
particular freedom has an indigenous cast, its origin being traceable to the Malolos Constitution.
Planas v. COMELEC, 49 SCRA 105 (1973)
Tolentino v. COMELEC, 41 SCRA 702 (1971)
Political Law Amendment to the Constitution
FACTS: The Constitutional Convention of 1971 scheduled an advance plebiscite on the proposal to lower the
voting age from 21 to 18, before the rest of the draft of the Constitution (then under revision) had been
approved. Tolentino et al filed a motion to prohibit such plebiscite and the same was granted by the SC.
ISSUE: Whether or not the petition will prosper.
HELD: The propose amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for ratification. Election here is singular which meant that the entire
constitution must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given
a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision because they had at the time no idea yet of what
the rest of the revised Constitution would ultimately be and therefore would be unable to assess the proposed
amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the Doctrine of Submission which means that all the
proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection at
the same time, NOT piecemeal.

 Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997)

Santiago vs COMELEC G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997
Ponente:

Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

Facts:
On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift
Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples Initiative The COMELEC then, upon its approval
1. set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country,
2. caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation, and
3. instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.
On 18 Dec 1996, Miriam Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition.
Also, Raul Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition, the petition having been
untenable due to the foregoing. Santiago argues among others that the Peoples Initiative is limited to
amendments to the Constitution NOT a revision thereof. The extension or the lifting of the term limits of those
in power (particularly the President) constitutes revision and is therefore beyond the power of peoples
initiative. The respondents argued that the petition filed by Roco is pending under the COMELEC hence the
Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of it.
Issue:
1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to call for Peoples Initiative to amend the constitution
specifically to lift term limits of elected officials.
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case
Decision:
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN
ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.
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.
Ratio:
Under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELECs power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the
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.

Dissenting Opinion:
Justice Puno does not share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally
defective and cannot implement the peoples initiative to amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the
petition with respect to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed.
Significantly, the majority decision concedes that . . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to
propose amendments to the Constitution. It ought to be so for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the
law which was a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3 and Senate Bill No. 17. 4 Senate Bill No. 17 was
entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception Therefrom, Whereby
People in Local Government Units Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or
Reject any Ordinance or Resolution Passed by the Local Legislative Body. Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No. 17
did not include peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast, House Bill
No. 21505 5 expressly included peoples initiative to amend the Constitution.

Lambino v. COMELEC, 505 SCRA 160 (2006)

Lambino Vs. Comelec G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25 2006

Ponente:

Justice Antonio Carpio

Facts:
Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition
under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was
provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of
Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameralpresidential form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of
enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is
inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.
Issue:
1. Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a peoples initiative.
2. Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete,
inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to implement the initiative clause on proposals
to amend the Constitution.
3. Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the
Lambino Groups petition.
Decision:
According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for conducting a peoples
initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino
petition.
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct
Proposal by the People
The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time of the signing of
the nature and effect, failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which renders the initiative void.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing Revision through
Initiatives
The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between amendment and revision, it is intended
that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the
constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change, therefore constitutes a revision.
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the present petition violated Sec 2
Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with the constitution before complying with RA 6735
Petition is dismissed.
Ratio:
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a peoples
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis
supplied)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment directly
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,

C.

LAWS:

REPUBLIC

ACT

NO.

6132:

CALLING

FOR

CONSTITUTIONAL

CONVENTION, ETC. August 24, 1970.

REPUBLIC ACT No. 6132
AN ACT IMPLEMENTING RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NUMBERED TWO AS
AMENDED BY RESOLUTION OF BOTH HOUSES NUMBERED FOUR OF THE CONGRESS OF
THE PHILIPPINES CALLING FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, PROVIDING FOR
PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION THEREIN AND OTHER DETAILS RELATING TO THE
ELECTION OF DELEGATES TO AND THE HOLDING OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL
CONVENTION, REPEALING FOR THE PURPOSE REPUBLIC ACT FOUR THOUSAND NINE
HUNDRED FOURTEEN, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Section 1. Short Title. This Act shall be known as "The 1971 Constitutional Convention Act."
Section 2. Composition of the Convention; Qualifications of Delegates. The Constitutional Convention
authorized by Resolution of Both Houses Numbered Two of the Congress of the Philippines, adopted on
March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, as amended by Resolution of Both Houses Numbered
Four of the Congress of the Philippines, adopted on June seventeen, nineteen hundred and sixty- nine, shall
be composed of three hundred and twenty delegates who shall have the same qualifications as those required
of Members of the House of Representatives.

R.A. 6735: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE AND

REFERENDUM. August 4, 1989.

Republic Act No. 6735

August 4, 1989

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A SYSTEM OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AND

APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::
I. General Provisions
Section 1. Title. This Act shall be known as "The Initiative and Referendum Act."
Section 2. Statement of Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to
directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall mean:
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose and
enact legislations through an election called for the purpose.
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely:
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution;
a.2. Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and
a.3. Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional,
provincial, city, municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
(b) "Indirect initiative" is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress or
the local legislative body for action.
(c) "Referendum" is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an election
called for the purpose. It may be of two classes, namely:
c.1. Referendum on statutes which refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part
thereof, passed by Congress; and

c.2. Referendum on local law which refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or
ordinance enacted by regional assemblies and local legislative bodies.
(d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by the voters.
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process by which an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected
by the people.
(f) "Petition" is the written instrument containing the proposition and the required number of signatories.
It shall be in a form to be determined by and submitted to the Commission on Elections, hereinafter
referred to as the Commission.
(g) "Local government units" refers to provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.
(h) "Local legislative bodies" refers to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, Sangguniang Panlungsod,
Sangguniang Bayan, and Sangguniang Nayon.
(i) "Local executives" refers to the Provincial Governors, City or Municipal Mayors and Punong
Barangay, as the case may be.
Section 4. Who may exercise. The power of initiative and referendum may be exercised by all registered
voters of the country, autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays.
Section 5. Requirements. (a) To exercise the power of initiative or referendum, at least ten per centum
(10%) of the total number of the registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least
three per centum (3%) of the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition for the purpose and register the same
with the Commission.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of
the total number of registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the
Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and
only once every five (5) years thereafter.
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or
repealed, as the case may be;
c.2. the proposition;
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words which shall be legibly
written or printed at the top of every page of the petition.
(d) A referendum or initiative affecting a law, resolution or ordinance passed by the legislative assembly
of an autonomous region, province or city is deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof is signed by
at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the province or city, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein; Provided,
however, That if the province or city is composed only of one (1) legislative district, then at least each
municipality in a province or each barangay in a city should be represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters therein.
(e) A referendum of initiative on an ordinance passed in a municipality shall be deemed validly initiated
if the petition therefor is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in the
municipality, of which every barangay is represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein.
(f) A referendum or initiative on a barangay resolution or ordinance is deemed validly initiated if signed
by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters in said barangay.

The recent effort to amend the Constitution through peoples initiative met the same fate as the previous ones.
As early as 1997, in the case of Defensor-Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997), the
Supreme Court already decided, although with vigorous dissenting opinions, that the law intended to provide
the mechanism for peoples initiative is not sufficient. Lets take a look at that case.
The 1935 and 1973 Constitutions recognize only two methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution: (1)
by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; and (2) by a constitutional convention. The 1987
Constitution added a third method the people initiative. Article 17, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution reads:
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. 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.
This provision, however, is not self-executory. 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.
In 1989, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6735 (also known as the Peoples Initiative and Referendum Act),
which is intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. However, R.A. No. 6735 is
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned.
R.A. 6735 failed to provide for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on amendments to
the Constitution, in contrast to that of national and local legislation. In all of its twenty-three sections, RA 6735
relates to initiative on amendments to the Constitution only in the following manner:
(a) it mentions the word Constitution in Section 2;
(b) it defines initiative on the Constitution and includes it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in
Section 3;
(c) it speaks of plebiscite as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on the Constitution may be
approved or rejected by the people;
(d) it reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should sign the petition; and
(e) it provides for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition.
However, Section 2 does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Section 2 reads:
SECTION 2. Statement and Policy. The power of the people under a system of initiative and referendum to
directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
recognized and guaranteed.
Section 2 speaks of the peoples power to directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the
Constitution through the system of initiative which is not allowed under the Constitution. Initiative on the
Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND, and Section 2 is silent as to amendments on the
Constitution.
Section 3 (Definition of Terms), on the other hand, defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and
mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative. However, R.A. 6735 does not provide for the contents of a
petition for initiative on the Constitution, as compared to that of national and local laws.
Indeed, while the law provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local
Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This
conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on
national and local laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the
initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in
the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws.

D. REFERENCE Joaquin Bernas S.J., The JV Ongpin Lecture on Constitutional Change

(2006)