Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC

MIRIAM DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO v. COMELEC, (G)
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

FACTS:

• December 6, 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative.
• Upon the filing of the Petition, the COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an Order directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution including the proposal, proposed constitutional amendment, and the signature form, and the notice of hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of general circulation at his own expense and setting the case for hearing on 12 December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
• December 12, 1996, Senator Roco, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
• December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed this special civil action for prohibition raising that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes, and on local legislation. However, it failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates that the matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution was left to some future law.
• December 19, 1996, the Court required the respondents to comment on the petition and issued a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further orders, enjoining public respondent COMELEC from proceeding with the Petition, and private respondents conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
• January 2, 1997, private respondents filed their Comment on the petition. They argue therein that R.A No. 6735 is the enabling law implementing the power of people initiative to propose amendments to the constitution.

ISSUE:

• Whether or not R.A. No. 6735, entitled 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.

HELD:

• No, Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation.
• First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section, which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions."
• Second. It is true that Section 3 of the Act defines initiative on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the three systems of initiative, and that Section 5 restates the constitutional requirements as to the percentage of the registered voters who must submit the proposal. But unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Section 5, paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be. It does not include, as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
• Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on national and local laws.