Santiago vs. Commission on Elections

R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, and insufficient to implement the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and therefore cannot serve as the enabling law required by Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

The 1987 Constitution introduced a third mode of proposing amendments—people’s initiative—in addition to Congress acting as a constituent assembly and a constitutional convention. This system, characterized by the 1986 Constitutional Commission as “innovative,” allows amendments to be directly proposed by the people upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, with every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. Unlike the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which recognized only two methods, the 1987 Constitution institutionalized direct people power in the amendment process.

• December 6, 1996: Jesus Delfin filed with the COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People’s Initiative” (UND 96-037), seeking an order to fix dates for signature gathering, cause publication, and instruct election registrars to assist.
• December 6, 1996: The COMELEC issued an Order directing Delfin to publish the petition and setting the case for hearing on December 12, 1996.
• December 12, 1996: Hearing held; Senator Raul Roco (intervenor) filed a Motion to Dismiss.
• December 18, 1996: Petitioners Santiago, Padilla, and Ongpin filed a petition for prohibition with the SC, alleging grave abuse of discretion and lack of jurisdiction by the COMELEC.
• December 19, 1996: The SC issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) enjoining the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin petition and the Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive.
• January 2, 1997: Comments filed by Delfin, the Pedrosas, and the COMELEC (through the OSG).
• January 14, 1997: The SC confirmed the TRO nunc pro tunc, granted motions for intervention by DIK, MABINI, IBP, Senator Roco, and LABAN, and set the case for hearing.
• January 23, 1997: Oral arguments held.
• March 19, 1997: Decision rendered granting the petition.

• Delfin, a founding member of the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed an “Initiatory Petition” with the COMELEC to lift term limits of elective officials by deleting provisions in Article VI, Sections 4 and 7 (Congress), Article VII, Section 4 (President and Vice-President), and Article X, Section 8 (local officials).
• The proposed proposition was: “DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS…?”
• Delfin admitted the petition did not yet contain the required signatures; its purpose was to obtain COMELEC assistance in establishing signing stations and fixing dates for gathering signatures.
• The COMELEC issued an Order giving due course to the petition and setting it for hearing, despite its being undocketed (entered only as “UND”).
• Petitioners filed a prohibition suit arguing that (1) no implementing law for constitutional initiative exists; (2) R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate; (3) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires; (4) the proposal constitutes a revision, not an amendment; and (5) no funds were appropriated for the initiative.

• The constitutional provision on people’s initiative (Art. XVII, Sec. 2) is not self-executory and requires an implementing law, which Congress has not passed (Senate Bill No. 1290 was still pending).
• R.A. No. 6735 is deficient because it lacks a specific subtitle for initiative on the Constitution (unlike Subtitles II and III for national and local initiative), indicating Congress deliberately left the matter for future legislation.
• R.A. No. 6735 covers only laws and ordinances (effectivity upon publication), not constitutional amendments (effectivity upon ratification).
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires; only Congress, not the COMELEC, can promulgate rules for constitutional initiative.
• People’s initiative is limited to amendments, not revisions; lifting term limits alters the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution and constitutes a revision.
• No appropriation was made for the initiative.

• R.A. No. 6735 (a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505) is the enabling law; its Section 2 affirms the power of initiative, Section 3 defines “initiative on the Constitution,” and Section 5(b) reiterates the 12% signature requirement.
• The absence of a separate subtitle is not fatal; constitutional initiative is national in scope and covered by Subtitle II on National Initiative.
• Section 9(b) of R.A. No. 6735 specifically provides that constitutional amendments approved in a plebiscite become effective on the day of the plebiscite.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 and Article IX-C, Section 2(1) of the Constitution, which grants the COMELEC rule-making power.
• Lifting term limits is an amendment, not a revision, as it alters only specific provisions (citing Joaquin Bernas, S.J.).
• The Delfin petition seeks only to initiate signature gathering; no public funds would be spent until the required signatures are gathered.

• Procedural Issues: Whether the SC may take cognizance of the petition for prohibition despite the pendency of the case before the COMELEC.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether R.A. No. 6735 was intended to include, and does it adequately cover, initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
  • Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules for initiative on constitutional amendments, is valid.
  • Whether the proposal to lift term limits constitutes an amendment or a revision.
  • Whether the COMELEC has jurisdiction over a petition that does not contain the required number of signatures.

• Procedural: The SC may take cognizance. The petition is viable because the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin petition. The issues involve transcendental importance warranting the brushing aside of technicalities; moreover, there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy.
• Substantive:
  • R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate: While intended to cover constitutional initiative, the law is incomplete and wanting in essential terms. It merely mentions “Constitution” in Section 2 (which contextually refers to laws/ordinances), defines it in Section 3, and reiterates signature requirements in Section 5, but provides no specific subtitle or detailed procedural rules (unlike the detailed provisions for national and local initiative). Section 5(c) refers only to “proposed laws,” not constitutional provisions. The law failed to provide for: (a) contents of the petition for constitutional initiative; (b) procedure for gathering signatures nationwide; (c) verification of signatures; (d) appeal from COMELEC decisions; and (e) appropriation of funds.
  • Invalid Delegation: The delegation of legislative power to the COMELEC under Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 is invalid regarding constitutional initiative because the law fails the completeness and sufficient standard tests. Potestas delegata non delegari potest.
  • COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is void insofar as it governs initiative on constitutional amendments, as there is no valid law to implement.
  • Amendment vs. Revision: Rendered academic by the ruling on the inadequacy of the law.
  • COMELEC has no jurisdiction: The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction only after the filing of a petition for initiative that is already signed by at least 12% of registered voters with at least 3% from every legislative district. The Delfin petition, filed merely to initiate signature gathering without the required signatures, is not the “initiatory petition” contemplated by the Constitution and the law. It is a mere scrap of paper that the COMELEC improperly dignified.

• People’s Initiative (Art. XVII, Sec. 2) — A mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution directly by the people upon petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters (with 3% per legislative district). The provision is not self-executory and requires an implementing law to be passed by Congress.
• Amendment vs. Revision — Amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific provisions; Revision contemplates a re-examination of the entire document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered (citing Bernas).
• Delegation of Legislative Power — Valid only if (a) the law is complete in itself (sets forth the policy to be executed), and (b) it fixes a sufficient standard (limits are sufficiently determinate). Potestas delegata non delegari potest (what has been delegated cannot be delegated).
• Transcendental Importance — The SC may brush aside technicalities of procedure (such as standing or ripeness) when the issues raised are of transcendental importance to the public and the nation.

• "The system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-executory."
• "R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned."
• "The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid."
• "Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated."
• "The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing."

• Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 125416, Sept. 26, 1996) — Cited by respondents for upholding COMELEC’s rule-making power; distinguished by the SC as involving local initiative where R.A. No. 6735 was complete.
• Pelaez v. Auditor General (15 SCRA 569) — Established the test for valid delegation of legislative power (completeness and sufficient standard).
• Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, Jr. (232 SCRA 110) — On transcendental importance allowing the SC to set aside procedural technicalities.

• 1987 Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 2 — People’s initiative provision requiring Congress to provide for its implementation.
• 1987 Constitution, Art. IX-C, Sec. 2(1) — COMELEC’s power to enforce and administer laws relative to initiative and referendum.
• R.A. No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act) — Declared inadequate to cover constitutional initiative.
• COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 — Declared void insofar as it governs initiative on constitutional amendments.
• Rules of Court, Rule 65 — Petition for prohibition.

• Justice Ricardo J. Francisco (Concurring) — Agreed with the dismissal of the Delfin petition for lack of signatures but disagreed that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate. Argued the law’s intent to cover constitutional initiative is clear from its history and provisions; the lack of a subtitle is not fatal.
• Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (Concurring) — Agreed with dismissal but dissented on the inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735 and the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. Argued the law and resolution, taken together, sufficiently implement the constitutional right; the TRO against the Pedrosas should be lifted as signature gathering is an exercise of free speech.
• Justice Reynato S. Puno (Concurring) — Agreed with dismissal but dissented on the inadequacy ruling. Argued R.A. No. 6735 is sufficient based on legislative intent; the petition against the Pedrosas should be dismissed for lack of cause of action as their signature drive is protected speech.
• Justice Vicente V. Vitug (Concurring) — Argued the Delfin petition should be dismissed solely for lack of required signatures; the SC should refrain from ruling on the adequacy of R.A. No. 6735 as it is premature and would constitute obiter dictum.

• N/A (Justices Francisco, Panganiban, and Puno wrote separate opinions concurring in the result but dissenting from the majority’s ruling on the inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735; no justice wrote a full dissent).