Case 3 Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997 - Summary

Santiago vs Comelec (1997)
Summary Cases:
Santiago vs. COMELEC
Subject:
Initiative and Referendum
Facts:
Under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two methods of proposing amendments to, or revision of,
the Constitution were recognized: (1) by Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members and (2)
by a constitutional convention.
Under the 1987 Constitution, in Section 2 of Article XVII, the system of initiative was introduced through
which the people may directly propose amendments to the Constitution.
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits
of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (Delfin Petition)
The Delfin Petition alleged that the provisions sought to be amended are Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI,
Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution. Attached to the petition is a copy of
a "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution" embodying the proposed amendments. It moved that
Comelec fix the time and dates for signature gathering. After it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the
total number of registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC
Senator Roco filed a Motion to Dismiss contending that the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition
properly cognizable by the COMELEC. What vests jurisdiction upon the COMELEC is the filing of a
petition for initiative which is already signed by the required number of registered voters. Proponents of a
constitutional amendment cannot avail of the authority and resources of the COMELEC to assist them in
securing the required number of signatures.
Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago and others filed an action for prohibition raising the argument that: (1)
The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by
law and no such law has been passed. While Republic Act 6735 provides for three systems of initiative
(on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation), however, said law is inadequate with respect
to a system of initiative on the Constitution. (2) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision and is,
therefore, outside the power of the people's initiative
Held:
System of Initiative
1. The system of initiative on the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not
self-executory.
2. While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the people to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative, the people cannot exercise it if
Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation by way of a law or statute.
Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved
3. Based on the interpellations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission which drafted the 1987
Constitution, initiative can only relate to "amendments" not "revision of the Constitution.
Moreover, the process of proposing amendments to the Constitution through initiative must be more
rigorous and difficult than the initiative on legislation.
RA 6735 is Inadequate to cover the System of Initiative on the Constitution
4. RA 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution. However, RA 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned.
5. Although Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of RA 6753 defines initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, it does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Other
provisions of the Act cannot be made to apply to fill in the gap since these provisions expressly refer to
proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed
6. While RA 6735 provides separate Subtitles for initiative and referendum on laws and ordinances, no
subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This omission means that the main thrust of RA 6753
is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If Congress intended RA 6735 to fully provide for
the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a
subtitle therefor.
7. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was
left to some separate and future law.
Subordinate Legislation (Delegation to fill in gaps in the law)
8. The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed in a Latin maxim:
potestas delegata non delegari potest.
9. The recognized exceptions to the rule are as follows:
(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of the Constitution;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2) of
Article VI of the Constitution;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies
10. The delegation is valid only if the law (a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be
executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a sufficient standard - the limits of
which are sufficiently determinate and determinable - to which the delegate must conform in the
performance of his functions.
11. A sufficient standard is one which defines legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its
boundaries and specifies the public agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the
legislative command is to be effected.
Invalid Delegation to Comelec (Lack of Sufficient Standard)
12. The deficiency of RA 6735 are fatal and cannot be cured by "empowering" the COMELEC "to
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
13. Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial functions, to
promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority. However, in every case
of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid.
14. RA 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation (completeness test and
sufficient standard test). The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. Necessarily,
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. It does not
have that power under R.A. No. 6735
Petition for Initiative to Propose Amendments on the Constitution
15. Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b)of RA 6735, a petition for
initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein. The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin admits
that the purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Without
the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated.
16. Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No.
2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC.
17. Given the foregoing, the court stated that further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal to
lift the term limits of elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and not a revision of, the
Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic.

Case 3 Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997 - Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3 Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997 - Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3 Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997 - Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Santiago vs Comelec (1997)

Santiago vs. COMELEC

Copyright Thinc Office Corp. All rights reserved

You might also like