(1) Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the people's right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress to take effect.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which prescribes rules for initiatives to amend the Constitution, is void because the power to implement the people's initiative cannot be delegated to COMELEC without an implementing law.
(3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment, as it would affect other provisions; however, this issue is now academic since people's initiatives cannot be conducted without an implementing law passed by
(1) Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the people's right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress to take effect.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which prescribes rules for initiatives to amend the Constitution, is void because the power to implement the people's initiative cannot be delegated to COMELEC without an implementing law.
(3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment, as it would affect other provisions; however, this issue is now academic since people's initiatives cannot be conducted without an implementing law passed by
(1) Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the people's right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress to take effect.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which prescribes rules for initiatives to amend the Constitution, is void because the power to implement the people's initiative cannot be delegated to COMELEC without an implementing law.
(3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment, as it would affect other provisions; however, this issue is now academic since people's initiatives cannot be conducted without an implementing law passed by
(1) Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the people's right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution, is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress to take effect.
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which prescribes rules for initiatives to amend the Constitution, is void because the power to implement the people's initiative cannot be delegated to COMELEC without an implementing law.
(3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment, as it would affect other provisions; however, this issue is now academic since people's initiatives cannot be conducted without an implementing law passed by
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC Sec.
2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus,
(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997) without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation. Facts: Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has been elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the of the right to people’s initiative. publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya- The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Court’s Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin revision or amendment has become academic. petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.
Issues: (1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing provision.
(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the
conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would
constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution.
