CONSTITUTIONAL LAW REVIEW | SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 129745, September 23, 1997
PIRMA vs. COMELEC,
G.R. No. 129745, September 23, 1997
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot operate.The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6735, 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.”
FACTS
Private respondent Atyy,. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Private initiative for Reforms,Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest LawCenter, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco fileda motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC.The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention. Private respondent Atyy,. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Private initiative for Reforms,Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on Article XVII, Sec. 2of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest LawCenter, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco fileda motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC.The petitioners herein Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.
ISSUE
Whether COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions onthe conduct of such initiative.
Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution.
RULING
No on first issue. Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing legislation the same cannot operate.The right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides for its implementation. Under Section 2 of R.A. No. 6735, 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.” COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void.
It is a revision. The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A revision cannot be done by initiative.