Case Digest: Santiago vs. Comelec, G.R. 127325, March 19, 1997
Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal By the people thru initiative
Atty. Jesus Delfin sought to amend the 1987 Constitution by removing term limits for elective officials through a people’s initiative. He asked COMELEC to set dates for signature gathering and to assist in the process.
COMELEC granted due course and proceeded under COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, based on R.A. No. 6735 (the Initiative and Referendum Act).
The petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin sought to stop implementation on the grounds that the initiative process for amending the Constitution was defective.
The Court ruled that R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the system of initiative for constitutional amendments.
Though the law mentions initiative on the Constitution, it lacks specific provisions on:
Who may file
How signatures are gathered and verified
COMELEC’s role
Procedures for submission and ratification
Therefore, no valid enabling law exists, and the constitutional provision on initiative is not self-executing.
Consequently, the Court held that COMELEC has no jurisdiction to act on any petition to amend the Constitution via initiative until Congress enacts a fully sufficient implementing law.
Lambino v. COMELEC (2006) — Follow-up Case
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, ruling that the proposed shift to a parliamentary system was a revision, not a mere amendment.
However, in the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration, a majority of justices expressed the view that R.A. No. 6735 is sufficient and adequate to support a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution.
The Solicitor General supported the Lambino petition and urged the Court to treat RA 6735 and its implementing rules as temporary mechanisms to operationalize the initiative process until a more comprehensive law is passed. The Constitution does not require a perfect law, only one that reasonably enables the process.
This effectively abandoned the Santiago ruling on the inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735, although the petition still failed due to the nature of the proposed change.