*Biraogo v.

Truth Commission 637 SCRA 78 (2010) - power of president to • SC goes into a discussion of what Truth commissions are in general: o Have the
investigate following characteristics:

FACTS: § they examine only past events; 


• Two consolidated cases which assail the constitutionality of E.O. No. 1 (Creating the § they investigate patterns of abuse committed over a period of time, as
Philippine Truth Commission)
o Biraogo assails the EO for being violative of opposed to a particular event; 

legislative power of Congress under Section 1, Article VI of the Constitution as it
usurps the constitutional authority of the legislature to create a public office and to § they are temporary bodies that finish their work with the submission of a
appropriate report containing conclusions 
and recommendations; and 


funds therefor
• The genesis of the foregoing cases can be traced to the events prior § they are officially sanctioned, authorized or empowered by the State. 

to the historic May 2010 elections, when then Senator
o Commission’s members are usually empowered to conduct research, support
Benigno Simeon Aquino III declared his condemnation of graft and corruption o “Kung victims, and propose policy recommendations to prevent recurrence of crimes.
walang corrupt, walang mahirap.” (Aquino slogan)
o Examples:
• Upon win, Aquino then established the Truth Commission through EO No. 1
o ad
hoc body formed under the Office of the President with the primary task to
§ Nuremburg and Tokyo war crime tribunals (retributory or vindicatory body
set up to try and punish those 
responsible for crimes against humanity.) 

§ investigate reports of graft and corruption committed by third-level public officers
and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous
administration and after, submit its finding and recommendations to the President, § Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa (heal the wounds of
Congress and the Ombudsman past violence and to prevent 
future conflict by providing a cathartic
experience for victims) 

o Though it has been described as an “independent collegial body,” it is essentially an
entity within the Office of the President Proper and subject to his control. • Back to PTC
o PTC is not like the South African Truth Commission in that PTC was
more about the identification and punishment
§ Constitutes a public office
o To accomplish its task, the PTC shall have all the
powers of an investigative body under Section 37, Chapter 9, of perpetrators

Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987. ISSUES/HELD:

§ It is not, however, a quasi-judicial body as it cannot adjudicate, arbitrate, Does the President have the power to create the PTC? – YES.
resolve, settle, or render 
awards in disputes between contending parties. 

• Biraogo argues:
o Truth Commission is a public office and not merely an adjunct
§ All it can do is gather, collect and assess evidence of graft and corruption body of the Office of the President
o Thus, in order that the President may create a
and make recommendations. 
 public office he must be empowered by the Constitution, a statute

§ It may have subpoena powers but it has no power to cite people in or an authorization vested in him by law.
§ This power cannot be presumed since
contempt, much less order their 
arrest. 
 there is no provision in the Constitution or any specific law that

o Although it is a fact-finding body, it cannot determine from such facts if probable authorizes the President to create a truth commission
o Section 31 of the
cause exists as to warrant the Administrative Code of 1987, granting the President the continuing authority to
reorganize his
filing of an information in our courts of law.
§ It cannot impose criminal, civil or
administrative penalties or sanctions. office, cannot serve as basis for the creation of a truth commission considering the
aforesaid provision merely
uses verbs such as “reorganize,” “transfer,” “consolidate,” “merge,” and “abolish.” answer the question: Does the creation of the PTC fall under the President’s
power of Control? (It does
• Petitioner-legislators argue: 
o the creation of a public office lies within the
province of Congress and not with the executive branch of government. 
 not)

• OSG argues: 


o there is nothing exclusively legislative about the creation by the President of a fact- o Control is essentially the power to alter or modify or nullify or set aside what a
finding body such as a truth subordinate officer had done in the performance of his duties and to substitute the
judgment of the former with that of the latter
commission
o Clearly, the power of control is entirely different from the power to create public
offices.
o Executive, just like the other two branches of government, possesses the inherent
authority to create fact-finding committees to assist it in the performance of its § Power of control – inherent in the Executive, 

constitutionally mandated functions and in the exercise of its administrative functions
§ Power to create public offices – based on either a valid delegation from
§ Adjunct of the plenary powers under Sec. 1 and Sec 17, Art. VII 
 Congress, or the President’s 
inherent duty to faithfully execute the laws. 


§ The power of the President to investigate extends further in the exercise o So is there a valid delegation of power from Congress empowering the
of his other powers, such as 
his power to discipline subordinates, his power President to create the PTC? – NO.
for rule making, adjudication and licensing purposes 
and in order to be
informed on matters which he is entitled to know. 
 • § SC did not accept PD 1416 as the justification for the President
to create a public office because the decree is already “stale, anachronistic,
and inoperable” 

§ TLDR: power of control necessarily includes the power to create
offices. 

• § it was a delegation to then President Marcos of the authority to
reorganize the administrative structure of the national government including
• To answer this question, the SC had to answer the question: Does the creation of
the power to create offices and transfer appropriations pursuant to one of the
PTC fall within the ambit power to
purposes of the decree 

reorganize under Sec 31 of the Revised Admin Code? (It does not)
• HOWEVER, creation of PTC is justified by Sec. 17, Art. VII (duty of President to
o What is “reorganization” under the Admin Code?
ensure that laws are faithfully executed)

§ Restructuring internal organization of the OP by abolishing, consolidating, o One of the recognized powers of the President granted pursuant to this
or merging units 
 constitutionally-mandated duty is the power to create ad hoc committees.

§ Transferring any function under the OP to any other Department/Agency § The purpose of allowing ad hoc investigating bodies to exist is to allow an inquiry
or vice versa 
 into matters which the President is entitled to know so that he can be properly
advised and guided in the performance of his duties relative to the execution and
§ Transferring any agency under the OP to any other Department/Agency or enforcement of the laws of the land.
vice versa 

(MAIN ISSUE) Does the PTC supplant the DOJ and Ombudsman? – NO.
o To say that the PTC is borne out of a restructuring of the Office of the President
under Section 31 is a misplaced supposition, even in the plainest meaning • The President’s power to conduct investigations to ensure that laws are faithfully
attributable to the term “restructure”—an “alteration of an existing structure.” executed is well recognized. o Flows from Sec 17, Art VII

§ PTC was not a part of the OP prior to the enactment of EO No. 1
• Also had to • Invoking this authority, the President constituted the PTC to primarily investigate
 reports of graft and corruption and to recommend the appropriate action. administrations. It is not a class of its own. 


o As previously stated, no quasi-judicial powers have been vested in the said body as Not to include past administrations similarly situated constitutes arbitrariness which
it cannot adjudicate rights of persons who come before it. the equal protection clause cannot 
sanction. 


Power to Investigate Power to Adjudicates Such discriminating differentiation clearly reverberates to label the commission as a
vehicle for vindictiveness and selective 
retribution. 
Do petitioners have
To settle in the exercise of judicial authority. standing to question EO No. 1? – YES. 



To follow up step by step by patient • Re: Petitioners from House of Representatives
o legislators have a legal standing to
inquiry or observation 
 see to it that the prerogative, powers and privileges vested by the Constitution
To determine finally. 


Synonymous with adjudge in its strictest in their office remain inviolate.
o Thus, they are allowed to question the validity of any
sense 
 official action which, to their mind, infringes on their

Investigation is an administrative prerogatives as legislators. • Re: Biraogo (taxpayer)

Implies a judicial determination of a fact, and
function, the exercise of which
the entry of a judgment.
does not ordinarily require hearing o While no standing, this case is of transcendental importance

Act of receiving evidence and arriving to

factual conclusion + authority of applying the GEROCHI V. DOE
Includes the function of receiving law to the factual conclusions to the end that Facts: The case started when DOE implemented the Electric Power Industry
evidence and ascertaining the controversy may be decided or resolved Reform Act of 2001 (2001) which sought to improve electric services and
therefrom the facts of a controversy authoritatively imposing a universal charge on the end user per monthly basis on a Php0.0373
per kilowatt-hour. This is so that the EPIRA could pay off stranded costs and debts
• Difference between Power to Investigate and Power to Adjudicate: accumulated by National Power Corporation (NPC). Meaning that NPC seeks to
impose charges to customers for the creation of investments in the form of utility
centers or expanding its coverage and in the same way, recoup its lost costs. That is
• PTC will not supplant the Ombudsman or the DOJ or erode their respective powers why in Sec 34 of the EPIRA it seeks not only to recover its assets in a stranded cost
but also in Missionary Electrification (refers to the provision of basic electricity service
in unviable areas with the aim of bringing the operations in these areas to viability
o If at all, the investigative function of the commission will complement those of the levels). The petitioners question the power of ERC to impose through EPIRA
two offices
o Ombudsman’s power to investigate under R.A. No. 6770 is not additional cost that are reminiscent of legislative power of taxation.
exclusive but is shared with other similarly
In the face of the increasing complexity of modern life, the delegation of legislative
authorized government agencies.
o DOJ’s power to investigate is also not exclusive power, or in this case the implementation of the EPIRA Law to the Energy Regulation
Commission (ERC), is allowed as an exception to the principle of separation of
• Finally, nowhere in Executive Order No. 1 can it be inferred that the findings of the powers, since it is doubtful if the legislators can promulgate laws that would
PTC are to be accorded conclusiveness. Does EO No. 1 violate the equal respond promptly to the minutiae of everyday life. Given this, the exercise must
protection clause? – YES. EO No. 1 struck down as unconstitutional on this be adhering to the tests of COMPLETENESS and SUFFICIENT STANDARD.
point. Additionally , the Court finds that the prices imposed are adequate and the standard
of complete electrification that warrant the additional cost are justifiable.
• The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate and find out
the truth “concerning the reported cases of graft and corruption during the previous Completeness – “the law must be complete in all its terms and conditions when it
administration” only. leaves the legislature such that when it reaches the delegate, the only thing he will
have to do is to enforce it.”
o The intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent and manifest.
Sufficiency – “adequate guidelines and limitations must be mandated in the law to
the Arroyo administration is but just a member of a class, that is, a class of past determine the boundaries of the delegate’s authority and prevent the delegation from
running riot.”
 c) RA 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law after publication in print
media. This indicates that the Act covers only laws and not
Santiago v COMELEC constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon
FACTS: ratification and not after publication. 


This case talks about the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the d) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires insofar as initiative on
Constitution through the system of initiative under Sec. 2, Art. 17 of the amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC
Constitution. 
 has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of
the right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is
In 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law. 

Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative"
(Delfin Petition) 
o e) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution,
HewantedtoamendSec.4&7ofArt.VI,Sec.4ofArt.VII,andSec.8ofArticleX. 
 not to revision thereof. 


o Basically, remove the term limits of the Senators, Representatives, President and Respondents on the other hand allege that: 

VP, and of local officials.
• According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first
be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least 12% o RA 6735 is the enabling law implementing the power of people initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution;
of the total number of registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the
COMELEC. o In short, when he filed the petition, the required signatures were not yet o The lifting of the limitation on the term of office of elective officials provided under
taken. the 1987 Constitution is not a “revision” of the Constitution, but only an “amendment”

Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, the COMELEC issued an Order: o The absence therein of a subtitle for such initiative is not fatal, since subtitles are
not requirements for the validity or sufficiency of law;
a) directing Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition, and the notice
of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of 
general circulation at o Resolution No. 2300 is valid, since the Constitution grants the COMELEC the power
his own expense"; and 
 to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an
election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall; and Sec. 20 of RA 6735,
b) setting the case for hearing 
 empowers the COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
Note also that before all these, in 1991, COMELEC had already passed Resolution
No. 2300, to govern the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and ISSUES/HELD:
initiative and referendum on national and local laws. 

Is implementing legislation necessary for people’s initiative to amend the
Petitioners (Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Constitution? YES.
Ongpin) filed a special civil action for prohibition, alleging that:
16
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory. 

a) IMPT: No implementing legislation. The constitutional provision on
people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be
While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right to amend the constitution,
implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has
the people cannot exercise it if 
Congress, for whatever reason, does not
yet been passed. In fact, there is a pending Senate Bill for this. 

provide for its implementation. 

b) RA 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, (1) initiative
on the Constitution, (2) on statutes, and (3) on local legislation. Furthermore, in the Constitutional Deliberations, the interpellations on Section 2
However, it failed to provide any subtitle / subsection talking about showed that the details for carrying out 
Section 2 are left to the legislature.
initiative on the Constitution (it is inadequate), unlike in the other 2 

modes of initiative. This deliberate omission indicates that the
matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was left to Thus, Congress must first pass a law to enable the exercise of the people’s initiative
some future law. 
 to amend the constitution. 

What is included in People’s initiative, amendment, revision or both? Only (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is
Amendment provided for initiative on the Constitution.

• It was made clear during the interpellations that Section 2 is limited to proposals to o This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the
AMEND -- not to REVISE -- the Constitution. Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws.

Is RA 6735 sufficient to be the implementing legislation for the exercise of o If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the
people’s initiative? NO initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle
therefor.
RA 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution. However, as it is presently worded, it is o Especially considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or
NOT a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to "provide for hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the
the implementation of the exercise of the right” 
 Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws.

17 • Fourth. We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the
First. Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of RA 6735 does not
Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum
suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. 

because it is national in scope.
o The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought.
o That
o It is "national initiative," if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a national
word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to law, or a law which only Congress can pass.
initiative and referendum
o It is "local initiative" if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law,
on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as ordinance, or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the governments of the
to amendments on the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.

Constitution.
o As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to • Fifth. While RA 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing for the details
proposals to AMEND. in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national and local legislation
thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to do so on the
§ The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. As to initiative on
approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of amendments to the Constitution, R.A. No. 6735, in all of its twenty-three sections,
initiative. 
 merely:

§ They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." 
 a) mentions, the word "Constitution" in Section 2; 


• Second. RA 6735 does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the enumeration of the
Constitution. three systems of initiative in Section 
3; 


o Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of the proposed c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on
law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case the Constitution may be approved 
or rejected by the people; 

may be.
d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should
o It does not include, as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the sign the petition; 

Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
e) provides for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition. 

o The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected,
amended or repealed" only strengthens the conclusion that it, excludes initiative on
amendments to the Constitution. • 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. 

• Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum
• Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by
"empowering" the COMELEC "to promulgate such rules and regulations as FACTS: (loooong case)
may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act. 

Feb 2006: Atty. Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado (Lambino group), together with
Since RA 6735 is incomplete, can COMELEC issue implementing rules to fill up other groups and individuals began gathering signatures for an initiative
this incompleteness? NO petition to change the 1987 Constitution. 


For there to be a valid delegation, the law must be complete in itself and fixes a Aug. 2006: they petitioned COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative
sufficient standard. 
 petition under RA 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act. 


Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. o Lambino Group alleged that they had the support of 6,327,952 individuals
6735 miserably failed to satisfy both 
requirements in subordinate constituting at least 12% of ALL registered voters, with each legislative district
legislation. 
 represented by at least 3% of its registered voters.

The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Thus, Resolution No, o They claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the
2300, insofar, as it prescribes rules and 
regulations on the conduct of 6.3M.
• The petition wants to modify Sections 1-7 of Art. VI (Legislative Dept) and
initiative on amendments to the constitution, is void. 
Did COMELEC have Secs. 1-4 of Art. VII (Executive), and an
jurisdiction to entertain the Delfin Petition? NO 

amended petition was filed to add a new set of Art. XVIII (Transitory
• Under Sec. 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 6735, a Provisions)
o Will shift present Bicameral-Presidential System to a Unicameral-
petition for initiative on the Constitution: o must be signed by at least 12% of the total Parliamentary form of government
number of registered voters of which every legislative district is
• The petition prayed that after due publication, COMELEC should submit the
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. following proposition in a plebiscite for the voter’s ratification:

The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. o Do you approve the amendment of articles vi and vii of the 1987 constitution,
Delfin himself admits that he has not yet 
gathered signatures and that the changing the form of government from the present bicameral-presidential to a
purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather unicameral-parliamentary system, and providing article xviii as transitory
signatures. 
 provisions for the orderly shift from one system to the other?

Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. • COMELEC denied due course to the Lambino Group’s petition.
o Lack of an

WHEREFORE: 
 enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution.
o Santiago v.
COMELEC: declared that RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on
GRANTING the instant petition for prohibition. Enjoining the COMELEC from proposals to
entertaining or taking cognizance of any 
petition for initiative on
amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly amend the Constitution.
• Hence, the different petitions before the SC:
enacted to provide for 
the implementation of the system. 

o Lambino Group: certiorari and mandamus; COMELEC committed GAD because
DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on Santiago is NOT binding precedent, and that their petition deserves cognizance as an
amendments to the Constitution, and to have 
failed to provide sufficient expression of “the will of the sovereign people.”
standard for subordinate legislation; 

o Binay group: prays that COMELEC Commissioners show cause why they should
DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300 of the Commission on not be cited in contempt for COMELEC’s verification of signatures.
Elections prescribing rules and regulations 
on the conduct of initiative or
amendments to the Constitution; 
 o Other supporting intervenors: COMELEC committed GAD in relying on Santiago
o
Other opposing intervenors questioned Lambino’s standing, validity of the signatures
ORDERING the COMELEC to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN petition. 
 and the verification process,

Lambino v COMELEC
the compliance with the minimum requirement for the initiative petition under Sec. 2, supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is signing; [non-
Art. XVII of the Consti, on the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not compliance] poses a significant
mere amendments, and compliance with Sec. 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative
petitions to only one subject. potential for fraud.
o Kerr v. Bradbury: to provide sufficient info so that registered
voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the
ISSUES/HELD:
initiative petition.
(MAIN ISSUE) Is the Lambino Group’s initiative petition compliant with Sec. 2,
Article XVII of the Consti on amendments to the Constitution? – NO. An initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing the nature and effect of
that which is proposed and failure to do so is deceptive and misleading which
• The provision provides that: “Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be renders the initiative void.
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 • In this case, the petition did not contain or incorporate the full text of the proposed
must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein...” amendments.
o It merely submitted to the Supreme Court a copy of a signature
sheet, which is the same signature sheet
o Meaning of “directly proposed...”:
o This means that the draft of the proposed
constitutional amendment should be ready and shown to the attached to an opposition filed 7 Sept, 2006 by a certain Atty. Quirino-Quadra.
o The
signature sheet contains the following info: (1) province/city/municipality; (2)
people before they sign such proposal;
o That the people should sign on the legislative district; (3) barangay;
proposal itself because the proponents must prepare that proposal and pass
(4) no. of verified signatures; the proposition (the question quoted above); and the
it around for signature.
o SO 2 elements must be present: statement “I hereby approve the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My
signature herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the
people must author and thus sign the entire proposal; no agent/representative Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.
can sign on their behalf; and 

o There is not a single word phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino Group’s
a petition; the proposal must be embodied in a petition. 
 proposed changes in the signature sheet, nor is there a statement that the text of the
proposed changes is attached.
• Elements are present only if:
o The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift
from the Bicameral- Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of
o Full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their
govt.
assent by signing the same complete proposal in a petition.
o It does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes.
• Am amendment is “directly proposed by the people...” ONLY if the people sign on a
petition that contains the FULL text of the proposed amendments.
o CLEARLY, this is not the petition needed under the Constitution.
• Neither does
18
o Full text may be on the face of the petition or attached.
o If attached, the petition the ULAP Resolution supporting the proposals of the people’s consultative
must state fact of such attachment, as assurance that every one of the several commission on charter change
millions of
through people’s initiative and referendum as a mode of amending the Constitution
signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before sufficient authorization to file the initiative petition.
signing.
• Why the requirement of seeing the full text before signing? Sec. 2, Art. XVII
does not expressly state the above elements o The proposals of the Consultative Comm. are vastly different from the initiative
petition filed by the Lambino Group w the COMELEC.
BUT Consti framers intended to adopt relevant US Jurisprudence:
o Capezzuto v.
State Ballot Commission (US case): A signature requirement would be meaningless if • Lambino Group never alleged in their petition that they circulated printed copies of
the person the draft petition together with the signature sheets.
o Signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is attached
to, or circulated with, the signature sheets.
Proposals of the Consultative
o It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that they first Commission under the ULAP Lambino Petition
claimed that they circulated the petition, which appears as an afterthought. Reso

o Even assuming that they circulated the amended petition, the Lambino Group
admitted that they only circulated 100,000 copies of the draft petition. • Affects ALL provisions of • Affects only ART. VI and
the existing Consti; from VII, + introduction of a
o This admission binds them and establishes beyond any doubt that they failed to Preamble to Transitory new set of Transitory
show the full text of the proposed changes to the great majority of the people who Provisions Provisions.
signed.

o Note that of the 6.3M signatories, only 100K signatories could have received with Adopted 6 months before
certainty one copy of the petition, assuming 100% distribution. Each sig sheet filing of the Lambino
contains space for 10 signatures, and assuming all 10 people signed, max number petition 

who would hae seen the petition would not exceed 1M. (10 signatures/sheet x 100K
copies = 1M max) DOES NOT refer at all to the
-
draft petition or to
o Inescapable conclusion is that the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3M the 
Lambino
the full text of the proposed changes. Group’s proposed
changes 

• These 6.3M could not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes:
o
Term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted; allowing for indefinite
reelection;
o Members of the interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their § This puts the people in a dilemma since they can answer only
own term of office;
o W/in 45 days from ratification of changes, interim Parliament either Y/N to the entire proposition, 
forcing them to sign a petition that
shall convene to propose further amendments. effectively contains 2 propositions. 


• The above amendments are not even indicated in the signature sheets, so the § Under American jur, effect of logrolling would be to nullify entire
people who signed had no idea that they were proposing these amendments. Below proposition. 

are the items NOT found on the signature sheets.
18
o The reason on why the rush in amending or revising so soon the Constitution
o Proposed Sec 5(2) on Transitory Provisions which allows the Interim Parliament to
Union of Local Authorities of the PH
provide for the election of the IP, synchronized and held simultaneously with election
of all locgov officials without specifying the year.
Proposed Sec 4(3) which allows Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 to be
th
§ Without this specification, this can enable the IP to schedule elections for the members of parliament only until noon of 30 day of June 2010.
regular parliament simultaneously with ANY future local elections. So pwedeng
forever silang part ng Parliament. § No counterpart provision for the present members of HoR is inserted so
all present members of the HoR will remain members of the Parliament even
o Proposed Sec 4(4) on Transitory Provisions allowing the IP to convene to propose after June 2010. 

amendments/revisions the Constitution w/in 45 days from ratification of the
amendments § Note that the President’s term ends on June 30, 2010 as well. So, if the IP
does not sched elections for regular Parliament by then, the Prime Minister
§ Atty. Lambino admitted in the oral arguments that this was a surplusage 
 can only come from the present HoR to the exclusion of the present
Senators. 

§ But more than that, such provision is a subject matter totally unrelated to
the shift on the form of 
government being proposed. This is logrolling, § The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against Senators.
which is prohibited. 
 

 § The people could not have known that their signatures would be used to o Constitutional Convention for any amendment to, revision of the Constitution (Sec.
discriminate against Senators. 
 1 also); OR
o People’s initiative, only insofar as “amendments” are concerned (Sec
2). This was intentional as per the
Revision Amendment
Constitutional Committee Deliberations.
§ Amendment does not contemplate a total
overhaul of the Constitution.
• Altering a basic principle in the
constitution (like altering principle of • McFadden v. Jordan: initiative power reserved by the people by amendment
separation of powers or system of • A change that adds, applies only to the proposing and the adopting or rejecting of laws and
checks-and- balances) 
 reduces, or deletes amendments, and does not extend to a constitutional revision.” 

without altering the basic
• Altering the substantial entirety (when principle involved. • Note: definition of a “constitution”: an instrument of a permanent and abiding
change affects substantial nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicate the will
provisions) 
 of the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the
substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and
abiding nature. 

• Generally affects only the
• Generally affects several provisions specific provision being • Revision v. Amendment IMPT 

amendment

• Californian two-part test, where the initiative clause allows amendments but not
• Examples: reducing revisions, like our Consti:
o Quantitative test asks “is the change so extensive in its
voting age from 18 to 15; provisionsn as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’
reducing Filipino ownership
of mass media from 100% of the constitution by the deletion/alteration of numerous existing provisions?”
o
• (Examples as mentioned above)
to 60%; requiring college Qualitative: “will the change accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of
degree as an additional our basic government plan as
qualification for election to
the Presidency to amount to a revision?” (govt plan pertaining to fundamental framework/fundamental
powers of the Branches) • Under both tests, the Lambino Group’s initiative is a
revision AND NOT MERELY AN AMENDMENT.
An initiative that gathers signatures from people without first showing to the people
the full text of the proposed amendments 
is most likely a deception, a o Quantitatively: the initiative wants to affect a total of 105 provisions
o Qualitatively:
gigantic fraud on the people. 
 will alter substantially the basic plan of government, from presidential to
parliamentary, and from
This is why the Constitution requires that an initiative be directly proposed by the
people...in a petition. 
(ISSUE2) Does the initiative violate the bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
§ This alters the separation of powers. From 3
Constitution disallowing revision through initiatives? – YES. 
 branches down to 2. (Only Judiciary and Legislative-

People’s initiative to change the Consti only applies to an amendment, NOT to its Executive as one)
§ Abolition of one chamber of Congress alters system of checks-
revision. 
 and-balances within the legislature.

In contrast, Congress/a ConCon can propose both amendments and revisions. 
 • Note that the difference between “amendment” and “revision” is not a mere
procedural matter, but one of substance 

Art. XVII speaks of 3 modes of amending the Consti: 

• Why is can’t a people’s initiative undertake a revision? 

o Through Congress upon 3⁄4 vote of ALL of its members for any amendment to,
revision of the Constitution (Sec 1.)
o Since it affects basic principles or of several provisions of a constitution, a
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a
revision.

o Revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered
principles with those that remain unaltered.

o People’s initiatives do not have these fixed and identifiable deliberative

bodies/recorded proceedings

• In this case, a shift on the form of government requires harmonizing several

provisions in many articles of the Consti. A 
revision of the Consti through a
people’s initiative will only result in gross absurdities. 


• Lambino’s initiative, is no doubt, a revision, not an amendment. Hence, it is void

and unconstitutional because it violates 
Sec 2, Art.XVII limiting the scope of
a people’s initiative to mere Amendments. 


Does the Court need to revisit Santiago – NO.

Court will not revisit a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute if the current
case (on Lambino’s petition) can be resolved on some other grounds 


Nonetheless, even if RA 6735 is constitutional to implement the constitutional

provision on initiatives, the current petition is still void for being
constitutionally infirm. 
Other note: COMELEC did not commit GAD,
because it merely followed the SC’s ruling in Santiago and in PIRMA v
COMELEC.