Santiago vs COMELEC Intervention filed by Petitioners-Intervenors DIK,

270 SCRA 106, MARCH 19, 1997 MABINI, IBP, LABAN, and Senator Roco.

FACTS: ISSUES:
Private respondent Delfin filed with the COMELEC a (1) Whether Sec. 2, art. XII of the 1987 Constitution is a
Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits self-executing provision?
of Elective Officials, by Peoples amendments to the (2) Whether R.A. 6735 is a sufficient statutory
Constitution granted under Section 2, Art. XII of the implementation of the said constitutional provision?
1987 Constitution. R.A. 6735 and COMELEC (3) Whether the COMELEC resolution is valid?
Resolution No. 2300. The proposed amendments (4) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national
consist of the submission of this proposition to the and local officials as proposed would constitute a
people Do you approve the lifting of the term limits of revision, or an amendment to the Constitution?
all elective officials, amending for the purpose section
4and 7 of Art. VI, Section 4 of Art. VII, and Section of HELD:
Art. X of the Philippine Consitution? The COMELEC (1) NO. Although the mode of amendment which
issued an order directing the publication of the petition bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis, it is
and the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for still dependent on congressional action. While the
hearing. At the hearing, Senator Raul Roco, the IBP, Constitution has recognized or granted that right, the
Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK), people cannot exercise it if the Congress for whatever
Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng reason, does not provide for its implementation.
Demokratikong Pilipino (LABAN) appeared as
intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco moved to dismiss (2) NO. R.A. 6735 is insufficient and incomplete to fully
the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not initiatory comply with the power and duty of the Congress to
party cognizable by the COMELEC. Petitioners filed a enact the statutory implementation of sec.2, Art. XVII of
special civil action directing respondents COMELEC the Constitution. Although said Act intended to include
and Delfins Petition to directly propose amendments to the system of initiative on amendments to
the Constitution through the system of initiative under theConstitution, it is deemed inadequate to cover that
sec.2 of Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners system and accordingly provide for a local initiative
raise the following arguments: required for proposing Constitutional changes.
1.The constitutional provision on peoples
initiative to amend the Constitution can only be (3) NO. The COMELEC Resolution insofar as it
implemented by law to be passed by Congress. prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of
No such law has been passed. initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void, as
2.R.A. 6735 failed to provide subtitle initiative on expressed in the Latin maxim Potestas delegate non
the Constitutions, unlike in the other modes of delegari potest. In every case of permissible
initiative. It only provides for the effectivity of the delegation, it must be shown that the delegation itself is
law after the publication inprint media indicating valid.
that the Act covers only laws and not
constitutional amendments because the latter (4) The resolution of this issue is held to be
takes effect only upon ratification and not after unnecessary, it not academic, as the proposal to lift the
publication. term limits of elective local and national officials is an
3.COMLEC Resolution No.2300, adopted on amendment to the Constitution and not a revision.
January 16, 1991 to govern the conduct of Thus, the petition was granted, and the COMELEC is
initiative on the Constitution and initiative and permanently enjoined from taking cognizance of any
referendum on national and local laws, is ultra petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution
vires insofar as initiative or amendments to the until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to
Constitution are concerned since the COMELEC provide for the implementation of the system.
has no power to provide rules and regulation for
the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the LAMBINO VS. COMELEC
Constitution. Only the Congress is authorized by G.R. No. 174153; 25 Oct 2006
the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
4.The peoples initiative is limited to amendments Facts:
to the Constitution, to the revision thereof. Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering
Extending or lifting of the term limits constitutes a signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
revision and is therefore outside the power of the constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to
peoples initiative. hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition
5.Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition
funds for peoples initiative, neither the had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was
COMELEC nor any other department, agency or provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition
office of the government has realigned funds for changes the 1987 constitution by modifying sections 1-
the purpose. The Supreme Court gave due 7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by adding Art
course to this petition and granted the Motions for 18. the proposed changes will shift the present
bicameral- presidential form of government to
unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the FACTS:
petition due to lack of enabling law governing initiative
On March 13, 1992, Congress enacted RA. 7227
petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling (The Bases Conversion and Development Act of
that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative 1992), which created the Subic Economic Zone. RA
petitions. 7227 likewise created SBMA to implement the
declared national policy of converting the Subic
Issue: military reservation into alternative productive uses.

(1) Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative

On November 24, 1992, the American navy turned
petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the over the Subic military reservation to the Philippines
Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through government. Immediately, petitioner commenced
a peoples initiative. the implementation of its task, particularly the
preservation of the sea-ports, airport, buildings,
(2) Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in houses and other installations left by the American
Santiago declaring RA 6735 incomplete, inadequate or navy.
wanting in essential terms and conditions to implement
the initiative clause on proposals to amend the
On April 1993, the Sangguniang Bayan of
Constitution. Morong, Bataan passed Pambayang Kapasyahan
Bilang 10, Serye 1993, expressing therein its
(3) Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave absolute concurrence, as required by said Sec. 12
abuse of discretion in denying due course to the of RA 7227, to join the Subic Special Economic
Lambino Groups petition. Zone and submitted such to the Office of the
President.
Held:
According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply
On May 24, 1993, respondents Garcia filed a
with the basic requirements for conducting a peoples petition with the Sangguniang Bayan of Morong to
initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not annul Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10, Serye
grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino 1993.
petition.

The petition prayed for the following: a) to nullify
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Pambayang Kapasyang Blg. 10 for Morong to join
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct the Subic Special Economi Zone, b) to allow
Proposal by the People Morong to join provided conditions are met.
The petitioners failed to show the court that the
initiative signer must be informed at the time of the
The Sangguniang Bayan ng Morong acted upon the
signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is petition by promulgating Pambayang Kapasyahan
deceptive and misleading which renders the Blg. 18, Serye 1993, requesting Congress of the
initiative void. Philippines so amend certain provisions of RA
7227.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the
Constitution Disallowing Revision through Initiatives
Not satisfied, respondents resorted to their power
The framers of the constitution intended a clear initiative under the LGC of 1991.
distinction between amendment and revision, it is
intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of
On July 6, 1993, COMELEC denied the petition for
the constitution may propose only amendments to the
local initiative on the ground that the subject thereof
constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive
was merely a resolution and not an ordinance.
is a radical change, therefore a constitutes a revision.

On February 1, 1995, the President issued
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not
Proclamation No. 532 defining the metes and
Necessary
bounds of the SSEZ including therein the portion of
Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not
the former naval base within the territorial
change the result because the present petition
jurisdiction of the Municipality of Morong.
violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must
first comply with the constitution before complying
with RA 6735 On June 18, 19956, respondent Comelec issued
Resolution No. 2845 and 2848, adopting a
Petition is dismissed. "Calendar of Activities for local referendum and
providing for "the rules and guidelines to govern the
SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY vs. conduct of the referendum
COMELEC
G.R. No. 125416 September 26, 1996
 speaking, courts may decide only actual controversies,
On July 10, 1996, SBMA instituted a petition for
certiorari contesting the validity of Resolution No. not hypothetical questions or cases.
2848 alleging that public respondent is intent on In the present case, it is quite clear that the Court has
proceeding with a local initiative that proposes an authority to review Comelec Resolution No. 2848 to
amendment of a national law determine the commission of grave abuse of discretion.
However, it does not have the same authority in regard
ISSUE: to the proposed initiative since it has not been
promulgated or approved, or passed upon by any
1. WON Comelec committed grave abuse of discretion "branch or instrumentality" or lower court, for that
in promulgating Resolution No. 2848 which governs matter. The Commission on Elections itself has made
the conduct of the referendum proposing to annul no reviewable pronouncements about the issues
or repeal Pambayang Kapasyahan Blg. 10 brought by the pleadings. The Comelec simply included
verbatim the proposal in its questioned Resolution No.
2. WON the questioned local initiative covers a 2848. Hence, there is really no decision or action made
subject within the powers of the people of Morong by a branch, instrumentality or court which this Court
to enact; i.e., whether such initiative "seeks the could take cognizance of and acquire jurisdiction over,
amendment of a national law." in the exercise of its review powers.
HELD:
1. YES. COMELEC committed grave abuse of ANGOBUNG vs COMELEC
discretion. G. R. No. 126576 (March 5, 1997)
FIRST. The process started by private respondents was
an INITIATIVE but respondent Comelec made This is a petition for certiorari to annul and set aside
preparations for a REFERENDUM only. Resolution No. 96-2951 (15 October 1996) issued by
In fact, in the body of the Resolution as reproduced in the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), which
the footnote below, the word "referendum" is repeated approved the Petition for Recall filed and signed by only
at least 27 times, but "initiative" is not mentioned at all. one registered voter, private respondent Ma. Aurora S.
The Comelec labeled the exercise as a "Referendum"; de Alban, against petitioner incumbent Mayor Ricardo
the counting of votes was entrusted to a "Referendum M. Angobung; set the further signing of said petition by
Committee"; the documents were called "referendum the rest of the registered voters of Tumauini, Isabela on
returns"; the canvassers, "Referendum Board of 09 November 1996; and in case the said petition is
Canvassers" and the ballots themselves bore the signed by at least 25% of the total number of registered
description "referendum". To repeat, not once was the votes in Tumauini, Isabela, scheduled the recall election
word "initiative" used in said body of Resolution No. on 02 December 1996. The Supreme Court issued a
2848. And yet, this exercise is unquestionably an Temporary Restraining Order enjoining COMELEC from
INITIATIVE. implementing and enforcing the assailed Resolution.
As defined, Initiative is the power of the people to
propose bills and laws, and to enact or reject them at FACTS:
the polls independent of the legislative assembly. On Petitioner Ricardo M. Angobung was the elected Mayor
the other hand, referendum is the right reserved to the of the Municipality of Tumauini, Isabela in the local
people to adopt or reject any act or measure which has elections of 1995. Private respondent de Alban was
been passed by a legislative body and which in most also a candidate in said elections. In September 1996,
cases would without action on the part of electors de Alban filed with the Local Election Registrar of
become a law. Tumauini, Isabela, a Petition for Recall against
In initiative and referendum, the Comelec exercises Angubong. Said petition was forwarded to the Regional
administration and supervision of the process itself, akin Office in Tuguegarao, Cagayan and then to the main
to its powers over the conduct of elections. These law- office of COMELEC in Manila, for approval. Deputy
making powers belong to the people, hence the Executive Director for Operations Pio Jose Joson then
respondent Commission cannot control or change submitted to the COMELEC en banc, a Memorandum
the substance or the content of legislation. (08 October 1996) which recommends the approval of
2. The local initiative is NOT ultra vires because the the petition for recall filed by de Alban and its signing by
municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage other qualified voters in order to garner at least 25% of
and not yet an approved law. the total number of registered voters as required by
The municipal resolution is still in the proposal stage. It Section 69[d] of the Local Government Code of 1991.
is not yet an approved law. Should the people reject it, The COMELEC en banc, acting on said Memorandum,
then there would be nothing to contest and to issued the herein assailed Resolution No. 96-2951.
adjudicate. It is only when the people have voted for it
and it has become an approved ordinance or resolution Petitioner now attacks the aforementioned resolution as
that rights and obligations can be enforced or being unconstitutional and therefore invalid.
implemented thereunder. At this point, it is merely a
proposal and the writ or prohibition cannot issue upon a ISSUES
mere conjecture or possibility. Constitutionally (1) Whether the Resolution violated the one-year bar on
recall elections;
(2) Whether the Resolution violated the statutory one disgruntled loser in the elections or a small
minimum requirement of 25% as to the number of percentage of disenchanted electors. Otherwise, its
signatures supporting any petition for recall. purpose as a direct remedy of the people shall be
defeated by the ill motives of a few among them whose
(1) NO. The recall election scheduled on 02 selfish resort to recall would destabilize the community
December 1996 is not barred by the May 1997 and seriously disrupt the running of government.
Barangay Elections. The one-year bar finds no While the people are vested with the power to
application in the case; Resolution No. 96-2951 is recall their elected officials, the same power is
therefore valid on this ground. accompanied by the concomitant responsibility to see
Section 74 of the Local Government Code of 1991 through all the consequences of the exercise of such
provides that "no recall shall take place within one year power, including rising above anonymity, confronting
immediately preceding a regular local election." For the the official sought to be recalled, his family, his
time bar to apply, the approaching regular local election friends, and his supporters, and seeing the recall
must be one where the position of the official to be election to its ultimate end. The procedure of allowing
recalled is to be actually contested and filled by the just one person to file the initiatory recall petition and
electorate. then setting a date for the signing of the petition, which
amounts to inviting and courting the public which may
(2) YES. Private respondent de Alban filed the have not, in the first place, even entertained any
petition for recall with only herself as the filer and displeasure in the performance of the official sought to
initiator. She claims in her petition that she has, be recalled, is not only violative of statutory law but also
together with many others in Tumauini, Isabela, lost tainted with an attempt to go around the law.
confidence in the leadership of petitioner. The The Supreme Court (1) granted the Petition for
petition, however, does not bear the names of all Certiorari; (2) declared COMELEC Resolution No. 96-
these other citizens of Tumauini who have 2951 null and void; (3) set aside the same; made
reportedly also become anxious to oust petitioner permanent the restraining order it issued.
from the post of mayor.
Section 69 [d] of the Local Government Code of 1991
expressly provides that "recall of any elective municipal Paras v. Comelec
official may also be validly initiated upon petition of at least GR 123169, 4 November 1996 (264 SCRA 49) En
25% of the total number of registered voters in the local Banc, Francisco
government unit concerned during the election in which
the local official sought to be recalled was elected". The Facts: Danilo E. Paras is the incumbent Punong
law is plain and unequivocal as to what initiates recall Barangay of Pula, Cabanatuan City who won during the
proceedings: only a petition of at least 25% of the total 1994 barangay election. A petition for his recall as
number of registered voters may validly initiate recall Punong Barangay was filed by the registered voters of
proceedings. The law does not state that the petition must the barangay, which was approved by the Comelec.
be signed by at least 25% of the registered voters but Petition signing was scheduled on 14 October 1995,
rather it must be "of" or by, at least 25% of the registered where at least 29.30% of the registered voters signed
voters, i.e., the petition must be filed, not by one person the petition, well above the 25% requirement provided
only, but by at least 25% of the total number of registered by law. The Comelec also set the recall election on 13
voters. November 1995, but which was deferred to 16
December 1995 due to the petitioners opposition. To
Recall is a mode of removal of a public prevent the holding of the recall election, petitioner filed
officer by the people before the end of his term of before the RTC Cabanatuan City a petition for
office. The people's prerogative to remove a injunction (Special Proceeding Civil Action 2254-AF),
public officer is an incident of their sovereign with the trial court issuing a restraining order. After
power and in the absence of constitutional conducting a summary hearing, the trial court lifted the
restraint, the power is implied in all governmental restraining order, dismissed the petition and required
operations. Such power has been held to be petitioner and his counsel to explain why they should
indispensable for the proper administration of not be cited for contempt for misrepresenting that the
public affairs. Not undeservedly, it is frequently barangay recall election was without Comelec approval.
described as a fundamental right of the
people in a representative democracy (Garcia v. In a resolution dated 5 January 1996, the Comelec, for
COMELEC, 27 SCRA 100, 1993). the third time, re-scheduled the recall election on 13
Recall was intended to be an effective and January 1996; hence, the instant petition for certiorari
speedy remedy to remove an official who is not giving with urgent prayer for injunction. The petitioner
satisfaction to the electorate regardless of whether or contends that no recall can take place within one year
not he is discharging his full duty to the best of his preceding a regular local election, the Sangguniang
ability and as his conscience dictates. It is a power Kabataan elections slated on the first Monday of May
granted to the people who, in concert, desire to change 1996. He cited Associated Labor Union v. Letrondo-
their leaders for reasons only they, as a collective, can Montejo to support the argument, the Court in which
justify. It must be pursued by the people, not just by
case considered the SK election as a regular local
election.

Issue: Whether the Sangguniang Kabataan election is

to be construed as a regular local election in a recall
proceeding

Held: It is a rule in statutory construction that every part

of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the
context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be
considered together with the other parts, and kept
subservient to the general intent of the whole
enactment. Further, the spirit, rather than the letter of a
law determines its construction; hence, a statute must
be read according to its spirit and intent. The too literal
interpretation of the law leads to absurdity which the
Court cannot countenance. A too-literal reading of the
law constrict rather than fulfill its purpose and defeat the
intention of its authors. That intention is usually found
not in the letter that killeth but in the spirit that vivifieth.
In the present case, Paragraph (b) of Section 74
construed together with paragraph (a) merely
designates the period when such elective local official
may be subject of a recall election. The Sangguniang
Kabataan elections cannot be considered a regular
election, as this would render inutile the recall provision
of the Local Government Code. It would be more in
keeping with the intent of the recall provision of the
Code to construe regular local election as one referring
to an election where the office held by the local elective
official sought to be recalled will be contested and be
filled by the electorate.
The Supreme Court, however, has to dismiss the
petition for having become moot and academic, as the
next regular elections involving the barangay office
concerned were seven months away. Thus, the
Temporary Restraining Order issued on 12 January
1996, enjoining the recall election, was made
permanent.