Republic Act No. 6735 is incomplete and inadequate to implement the people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution as mandated by Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution because it fails to provide a sufficient standard for the delegation of rule-making power to the COMELEC concerning constitutional initiatives. Consequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations for the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution introduced a novel provision in Article XVII, Section 2, allowing amendments to the Constitution to be directly proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum of its registered voters. This provision also mandated Congress to provide for its implementation. The case arose from an attempt by private respondent Delfin, representing PIRMA, to utilize this mechanism to propose an amendment lifting the term limits of elective officials, which was met with legal challenges regarding the existence and sufficiency of an enabling law.

• On December 6, 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" with the public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC).
• The Delfin Petition asked COMELEC to issue an order fixing the time and dates for signature gathering nationwide, causing the publication of said order and the attached "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," and instructing Municipal Election Registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.
• The proposed constitutional amendments aimed to delete provisions concerning term limits found in Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution.
• The proposition presented was: "DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION?"
• Delfin stated that the "Petition for Initiative" would first be submitted to the people for signature and, once signed by at least twelve percent (12%) of the total number of registered voters (with at least three percent (3%) in every legislative district), it would be formally filed with COMELEC.
• Upon filing, COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an Order (UND 96-037 INITIATIVE) directing Delfin to publish the petition, the proposed constitutional amendment, the signature form, and the notice of hearing in three daily newspapers of general circulation at his own expense, and set the case for hearing on December 12, 1996.
• At the December 12, 1996 hearing, various oppositors appeared, including Senator Raul S. Roco, who filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that it was not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by COMELEC.
• On December 18, 1996, petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition with the Supreme Court.

• The constitutional provision on people's initiative to amend the Constitution (Article XVII, Section 2) is not self-executory and requires an implementing law by Congress, which has not yet been passed.
• Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient as an enabling law for constitutional initiatives, evidenced by its lack of a specific subtitle for constitutional initiatives and its effectivity clause (after publication, unlike constitutional amendments which take effect upon ratification).
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, purporting to govern initiative on constitutional amendments, is ultra vires as COMELEC lacks the power to provide such rules; only Congress can pass the implementing law.
• The proposal to lift term limits constitutes a revision of the Constitution, not merely an amendment, and is therefore outside the scope of people's initiative.
• Congress has not appropriated funds for people's initiative, and the proposed initiative would entail substantial public expenditure.
• (Intervenor Roco) While R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling law and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, COMELEC has no jurisdiction over the Delfin Petition because it is not the initiatory pleading (lacks required signatures) and proponents cannot use COMELEC resources for signature gathering.
• (Intervenors DIK & MABINI) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate as an enabling law, failing to specify essential procedures, thus COMELEC lacks jurisdiction; the proposal is a revision, not an amendment.
• (Intervenor IBP) Congress has failed to enact an enabling law, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute it, the Delfin Petition is fatally defective (no signatures), and it seeks a revision.
• (Intervenor LABAN) COMELEC should have dismissed the Delfin Petition for failure to state a sufficient cause of action; its refusal constituted grave abuse of discretion.

• (Private Respondents Delfin and Pedrosas) R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling law for people's initiative to amend the Constitution, and Senator Santiago's pending bill is a mere duplication.
• (Private Respondents Delfin and Pedrosas) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, promulgated pursuant to R.A. No. 6735, is valid and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. COMELEC.
• (Private Respondents Delfin and Pedrosas) The lifting of term limits is an amendment, not a revision, as it only alters a few specific provisions.
• (Private Respondents Delfin and Pedrosas) The Delfin Petition before COMELEC was merely an "Initiatory Pleading" to start the signature campaign under COMELEC supervision, and all expenses for signature gathering would be shouldered by Delfin and his volunteers.
• (Public Respondent COMELEC, via Solicitor General) R.A. No. 6735 explicitly covers people's initiative to amend the Constitution in its Sections 2, 3, and 5.
• (Public Respondent COMELEC, via Solicitor General) A separate subtitle for constitutional initiative in R.A. No. 6735 is unnecessary as it is national in scope and deemed included under "National Initiative and Referendum."
• (Public Respondent COMELEC, via Solicitor General) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was validly issued under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 and the Omnibus Election Code.

• Whether R.A. No. 6735, "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor," was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
• Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in R.A. No. 6735 of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
• Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution," would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.
• Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing or causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
• Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.

• The Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition.
• The Court ruled that Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for people's initiative to amend the Constitution, is not self-executory and requires an implementing law from Congress.
• While R.A. No. 6735 was intended by Congress to cover initiative on constitutional amendments, the Act is incomplete, inadequate, and wanting in essential terms and conditions to implement the constitutional provision. Specifically, R.A. No. 6735 fails to provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution, lacks a specific subtitle for it, and does not lay down sufficient and adequate standards for the COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules.
• Due to the inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735 as an enabling law for constitutional initiative, the delegation of rule-making power to COMELEC under Section 20 of said Act is invalid with respect to constitutional initiatives, as it fails the completeness test and the sufficient standard test for valid delegation.
• Consequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.
• The COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition because the petition was not signed by the required minimum number of registered voters (12% nationwide, with 3% per legislative district) as mandated by the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735. Such a petition, lacking the requisite signatures, is not the "initiatory petition" that can be cognizable by the COMELEC.
• The Court found it proper to take cognizance of the petition despite the pending case in COMELEC, citing the urgency, transcendental importance of the issues, and COMELEC's actions which practically gave due course to a deficient petition.
• The issue of whether the proposed lifting of term limits constitutes an amendment or a revision was deemed unnecessary to resolve.
• The Court ordered COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin Petition (UND-96-037). The TRO against COMELEC was made permanent, but lifted against private respondents (Delfin and Pedrosas, allowing them to conduct a signature drive as private citizens).

• Non-Self-Executing Constitutional Provisions — A constitutional provision is not self-executing if it merely lays down a general principle or requires implementing legislation by Congress to become operative. Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution, on people's initiative for amendments, was held to be non-self-executing as it explicitly mandates Congress to "provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right."
• Potestas Delegata Non Delegari Potest — A maxim meaning "what has been delegated cannot be delegated." This principle limits the ability of a delegate (like Congress) to further delegate its vested powers (like legislative power) unless specific exceptions apply, such as delegation to administrative bodies under strict conditions.
• Valid Delegation of Legislative Power — For legislative power to be validly delegated to an administrative body, the law must be (1) complete in itself, setting forth the policy to be executed, and (2) fix a standard, the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable, to which the delegate must conform. R.A. No. 6735 was found to have failed these tests with respect to initiative on constitutional amendments, rendering the delegation to COMELEC for this purpose invalid.
• Statutory Construction (Legislative Intent vs. Adequacy of Law) — While the intent of the legislature is a primary guide in interpreting a statute, if the statute itself is fundamentally incomplete or inadequate in its substantive provisions and fails to provide sufficient standards for delegated rule-making, it cannot be considered a full compliance with a constitutional mandate. The Court found R.A. No. 6735 intended to cover constitutional initiative but was substantively inadequate.
• Jurisdictional Prerequisite for Initiative Petitions — For COMELEC to acquire jurisdiction over a petition for people's initiative to amend the Constitution, the petition filed must already be signed by the constitutionally and statutorily required number of registered voters. A petition that lacks these signatures and merely seeks COMELEC's assistance in gathering them is not the "initiatory petition" contemplated by law and cannot be entertained by COMELEC.
• Transcendental Importance Doctrine — The Supreme Court may brush aside procedural technicalities and take cognizance of a case if the issues raised are of transcendental importance to the public and the nation, demanding prompt and definitive resolution. This was applied to justify the Court's intervention despite a pending matter before COMELEC.
• Writ of Prohibition — An extraordinary judicial writ issued by a superior court to an inferior court, tribunal, corporation, board, or person to prevent it from usurping or exercising jurisdiction with which it is not legally vested, or from acting in excess of its jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. This was the remedy sought by the petitioners.

• "Without implementing legislation Section 2 [of Article XVII] cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action." (Quoting Joaquin Bernas, S.J.)
• "R.A. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a reluctant lip service."
• "Without the required signatures, the petition [for initiative on the Constitution] cannot be deemed validly initiated."
• "We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of the people under that system."

• Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr. (232 SCRA 110) — Cited for the principle that the Supreme Court may set aside procedural technicalities (like standing) in cases of transcendental importance.
• Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996) — Cited by respondents as upholding COMELEC's rule-making power under R.A. No. 6735. The Court, however, distinguished this by stating that the delegation for constitutional initiative under R.A. No. 6735 was itself invalid.
• Pelaez v. Auditor General (122 Phil. 965) — Cited for the test of valid delegation of legislative power (completeness of the law and sufficiency of the standard).
• Edu v. Ericta (35 SCRA 481) — Cited for the definition of a "sufficient standard" in delegation of legislative power.
• People v. Vera (65 Phil. 56) — Cited for the definition of a writ of prohibition and principles of delegation of power.

• 1987 Constitution, Article XVII, Section 2 — This is the core provision establishing the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative and mandating Congress to provide for its implementation. Its non-self-executing nature and the requirements for a valid initiative petition (12% total voters, 3% per district) were central to the ruling.
• 1987 Constitution, Article IX-C, Section 2(1) — Grants COMELEC the power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall. The Court held this power is contingent on a valid underlying law authorizing COMELEC action, which was found lacking for constitutional initiative.
• Republic Act No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) — The statute purported to implement the constitutional provisions on initiative and referendum. The Court found it inadequate for constitutional amendments due to incompleteness and lack of sufficient standards for delegation of rule-making power to COMELEC for such initiatives.
  • R.A. No. 6735, Section 2 (Statement and Policy) — Analyzed and found not genuinely suggestive of initiative on the Constitution, with the word "Constitution" deemed an afterthought.
  • R.A. No. 6735, Section 3 (Definition of Terms) — Defines "initiative on the Constitution" but this alone was insufficient to make the Act adequate.
  • R.A. No. 6735, Section 5(b) (Requirements for initiative on the Constitution) — Restates the constitutional signature requirements but the Act fails to provide further essential details for implementing constitutional initiative.
  • R.A. No. 6735, Section 5(c) (Contents of petition) — Found to detail contents for petitions on laws, but not for constitutional amendments.
  • R.A. No. 6735, Section 20 (COMELEC power to promulgate rules) — The delegation of power under this section was held invalid for constitutional initiatives due to the inadequacy of the Act itself.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 — Rules and regulations promulgated by COMELEC to govern initiative on the Constitution and on national/local laws. The parts pertaining to initiative on the Constitution were declared void.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section 1 (Certiorari) and Section 2 (Prohibition) — The procedural bases for the petition filed with the Supreme Court.

• Justice Ricardo J. Francisco — Concurred in dismissing the Delfin petition before COMELEC due to lack of required signatures (a jurisdictional defect) but without prejudice to refiling. Dissented from the majority's finding that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate, arguing it sufficiently covers initiative on constitutional amendments based on its provisions and legislative intent. Believed determining if the proposal was an amendment or revision was premature.
• Justice Artemio V. Panganiban — Concurred that COMELEC acted without jurisdiction over Delfin's petition (due to lack of signatures). Dissented from the ruling that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is void for constitutional initiatives, arguing that taken together, the Constitution, R.A. No. 6735, and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are sufficient. Believed the TRO against private respondents (Delfin and Pedrosas) for their signature campaign should not have been issued as it muzzled their right of initiative, a form of free speech.
• Justice Reynato S. Puno — Concurred with dismissing the Delfin petition. Dissented from the view that R.A. No. 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective for implementing constitutional initiative. Argued R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently implements the right, based on legislative intent and its text, and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was a valid exercise of delegated power as R.A. No. 6735 provided sufficient policy and standards. Argued the petition against the Pedrosas should be dismissed as their signature campaign is an exercise of constitutional rights.
• Justice Jose C. Vitug — Believed COMELEC should have dismissed the Delfin petition outright as it was utterly deficient (lacking required signatures). Argued the TRO should only cover the Delfin petition and not the Pedrosas' signature drive, which is implicit in the constitutional mandate. Stated that pending a sufficient petition, resolving whether R.A. No. 6735 is sufficient is an obiter dictum.