SANTIAGO V.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 127325
19 March 1997
Davide, Jr., J.

SUBJECT MATTER:
II. Interpreting the Constitution
Adoption and Amendment of the Constitution

DOCTRINE(S): NA

LEGAL BASIS
Article XVII: Amendments or Revisions
● Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by:
o Congress, upon a vote of 3/4s of all its members
o A constitutional convention
● 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.
NOTE: Provision states requirements when proposing an amendment to any provisions of the Constitution
RA No. 6735
● Sec. 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.
NOTE: This RA is in question if it intends to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution

INDEX:NA

ACTION BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT:

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION for prohibition.

Petitioners: Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexandra Padilla, Maria Isabel Ongpin

Respondents: Commission on Elections, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa (PIRMA)
Parties Sen. Raul S. Roco, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol and Konstitusyon (DIK), Movement of Attorneys for
Petitioners-
Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI), Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Laban
Intervenors:
ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LABAN)

SUMMARY:
Atty. Jesus Delfin, a founding member of the Movement for People’s Initiative, filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the
Constitution and lift term limits of elective officials. He intends to institutionalize people power and exercise the power to directly
propose amendments to the Constitution as well as COMELEC’s power to take cognizance of related petitions. After a hearing of
Delfin’s petition, wherein COMELEC made no ruling, the petitioners (Santiago, et. al) filed a special civil action for prohibition of the
petition. Santiago et. al raised that there is no law yet on people’s initiative to amend; that RA 6735—which provides a system of
initiative to propose amendments—“only covers laws and not constitutional amendments,” and COMELEC can’t validly promulgate
rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution.
Santiago further stressed that Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative. The Court ruled in favor of the

C2023(BULAN) – LAW121, GATMAYTAN

petitioners, declaring RA 6735 inadequate, declaring Resolution 2300 of COMELEC prescribing rules and regulations on amending
constitution void, and ordering the dismissal of the Delfin Petition.

ANTECEDENT FACTS:
● 6 December 1996 - private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with Comelec a petition to amend the Constitution and lift the
term limits of elective officials.
● Delfin, a founding member of the Movement for People’s Initiative, alleged in his petition that he intends to institutionalize
people power and exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution (Sec. 2 Article XVII)
1. He asked the COMELEC for an order to: (1) designate a time and date for signature gathering; (2) cause necessary
publications; (3) establish signing stations to be presided by municipal election registrars all over the country
(COMELEC Resolution No. 2300)
● Process of Petition for Initiative, according to Delfin:
1. Must be submitted to the people (which is why above mentioned orders from the COMELEC is vital)
2. Signed by at least 12 percent of registered voters in the country(Sec. 2 Article XVII)
● 12 December 1996 – During the hearing, COMELEC made no ruling. It instead directed the petitioners and oppositor (Sen.
Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition on the ground that it is not a petition cognizable by the COMELEC) to file their
memoranda within five days.
● 18 December 1996 - Petitioners Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil
action for prohibition of the petition raising six arguments:
1. There is no law yet on the people’s initiative to amend.
2. RA 6735 failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution—"a deliberate omission” that indicates
that the matter of people’s initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
3. RA 6735 covers only laws and not constitutional amendments because the latter take effect only upon ratification,
NOT after publication
4. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the right of initiative to amend the
Constitution. Only Congress is authorized to pass the implementing law.
5. The people’s initiative is limited to amendments, not revisions.
■ Amendment -
■ Revision
6. Congress has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative, which would amount to at least 180 million.
● COMELEC responded to the petitioner’s points:
1. On the absence of law (point 1): RA 6735 is already an enabling law implementing the power of people initiative to
propose amendments
2. On Comelec’s power (point 4): Comelec is duty bound to supervise closely pursuant to its “initiatory jurisdiction”
upheld by the honorable court
3. On amendment v. revision (point 5): The lifting of term limits is not a revision but an amendment since it envisages
an alteration of one or a few provisions of the Constitution.
4. On the funds (point 6): Not a single centavo would be spent by the national government if COMELEC grants the
petition of respondent Delfin since all expenses will be shouldered by Delfin and his volunteers.
● Delfin filed another comment, adding that Santiago’s “instant petition is a knee-jerk reaction to a draft petition which is not
formally filed yet.” He added a claim that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires, contradicted by Section 2, Article IX-C
of the Constitution, which grants COMELEC the power to enforce all laws relative to election, plebiscite, initiative,
referendum, and recall.
● Office of the Solicitor General sided with respondents, claiming that:
1. RA 6735’s Section 2 on Statement of Policy affirms, recognizes, and guarantees the power of the law
2. Separate subtitle is not necessary
3. Extension of term limits of officials is a mere amendment
4. Rule-making power of COMELEC to implement RA 6735’s provision was upheld in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority
v. COMELEC

C2023(BULAN) – LAW121, GATMAYTAN

 ● DIK and MABINI, Sen. Roco, LABAN, and IBP all filed motions for intervention.
1. DIK and MABINI: Delfin petition is a revision—not an amendment—since, in the words of Fr. Bernas: it would
involve a change from a political philosophy and the change can affect other provisions
2. DIK and MABINI: There being no enabling law, the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to hear Delfin’s petition since that
function exclusively pertains to Congress
3. SEN. ROCO: While RA 6735 is the enabling law that implements people’s right to initiate constitutional
amendments and while COMELEC is empowered under Sec. 20 of the law, the respondent still acted without
jurisdiction to take cognizance on the petition and order its publication. COMELEC may only assist in the gathering
of signatures.
4. LABAN: No comment.
5. IBP: Congress failed to enact an enabling law mandated under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution

ISSUE(S) AND HOLDING(S):

1. WoN R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution. If so, WoN the Act
adequately covers such—YES and NO
2. WoN the portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is
valid—NO
3. WoN COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition solely intended to obtain an order— NO
4. WON it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case before the
COMELEC – YES

RATIO:
1. RA 6735 intended to include the system of initiative on amendments but is inadequate to cover that system
○ The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through system of initiative would
remain entombed until Congress provides for its implementation. While the Constitution has recognized or
granted that right, people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.
○ Subtitling is inaccurate
2. COMELEC Resolution no. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to
the constitution, is void. COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right
of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution
○ It does not have power under RA No 6735. Reliance on COMELEC’s power under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C is
misplaced.
3. COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition
○ Sec. 2 of Article XVII and Section 5(b) of RA 6735 states that a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be
signed by at least 12 percent of total number of registered voters. Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of
the required number of voters.
○ COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. Delfin Petition is an initiatory
pleading which means nothing about it is cognizable by the COMELEC.
4. Instant petition is viable despite pendency in the COMELEC of Delfin petition
○ COMELEC’s failure to act on Roco’s initial motion to dismiss Delfin Petition and its insistence to hold on to the
petition rendered ripe and viable the instant petition under Petition for Prohibition, Section 2 of Rule 65, Rules of
Court.

DISPOSITIVE:
Instant petition is GRANTED. R.A. No. 6735 is DECLARED INADEQUATE to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution. Parts of Comelec Resolution No. 2300 prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of amendments to the
Constitution is DECLARED VOID. COMELEC is ORDERED TO DISMISS the Delfin Petition.

DISSENTING OPINIONS:
● Puno, J. (CONCURRING AND DISSENTING)

C2023(BULAN) – LAW121, GATMAYTAN

 ○ Concur: Decision to DISMISS the Delfin Petition and Pedrosa’s Petition
○ Dissent: RA 6735 and Comelec Res. 2300 are not legally defective
■ “Our effort to discover the meaning of RA 6735 should start with the search for the intent of our
lawmakers. Intent is the essence of the law, the spirit which gives life to its enactment.” Thus it cannot be
dismissed that RA 6735 implement people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.

● Vitug, J. (SEPARATE)
○ COMELEC should have outrightly dismissed the Delfin Petition
■ Instead of complying with constitutional imperatives (number of signatures, etc.), the Delfin Petition
would rather have much of its burden passed to the COMELEC. The petition would then require COMELEC
to do the signature gathering for it.
■ Congress should have been the one providing implementation for the exercise of this right.

● Francisco, J. (DISSENTING AND CONCURRING)

○ Dissent: RA 6735 is NOT inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
■ People are now vested with power to propose amendments to the constitution
■ Based on the Conference Committee Report of the proceedings for the Senate and House Bills for RA
6735, Mr. Roco specified that the initiative and referendum is in consonance with the provision of the
Constitution to enact the enabling law.

● Panganiban, J. (Concurring and Dissenting)

○ Concur: COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the “initiatory” Delfin Petition
○ Dissent: Majority’s position is too sweeping and extremist. The fact that Delfin Petition proposes a misuse of
initiative does not justify a ban against its proper use
o Taken together and interpreted properly, the Constitution, RA 6735 and Comelec Resolution are sufficient to
implement constitutional initiatives.
o Direct COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition on the grounds of prematurity

C2023(BULAN) – LAW121, GATMAYTAN