ASG Law

Tag: People’s Initiative

  • People’s Initiative and Constitutional Amendments: Ensuring Authentic Citizen Participation

    The Supreme Court clarified that changing the form of government requires more than a simple citizens’ initiative; it demands adherence to constitutional requirements ensuring each voter understands the significant changes proposed. This decision underscores the necessity of a clear and informed process when altering the fundamental law of the land. The ruling safeguards the Constitution by invalidating attempts to bypass established procedures, thereby ensuring changes reflect genuine and well-informed consent from the citizenry.

    When “People Power” Requires Informed Consent: Can a Citizens’ Initiative Revise the Constitution?

    This case revolves around a petition filed by Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado seeking to amend the 1987 Constitution through a people’s initiative. The Lambino Group gathered over six million signatures to propose shifting the Philippine government from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system. They aimed to modify key sections of the Constitution related to the legislative and executive departments. The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dismissed the petition, citing the Supreme Court’s previous ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC, which deemed the existing law inadequate for implementing such initiatives. This prompted the Lambino Group to seek recourse from the Supreme Court, challenging the COMELEC’s decision and reigniting a debate over the scope and limitations of people’s initiatives in constitutional reform.

    The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the Lambino Group’s proposed changes constituted an amendment or a revision of the Constitution, and whether a people’s initiative was the appropriate vehicle for such changes. Amendments typically involve specific alterations without affecting the underlying principles, while revisions entail substantial changes to the Constitution’s basic framework. The Court emphasized that under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, a people’s initiative could only propose amendments, not revisions. It distinguished revisions as changes that alter the basic principles, such as the separation of powers, requiring a more comprehensive process involving Congress or a constitutional convention.

    The Court found that the Lambino Group’s initiative sought a radical overhaul of the existing government structure. The signature sheets used to gather support did not contain the full text of the proposed changes, and of those who signed, only a small fraction actually saw the content of the changes. This created a significant information gap, meaning the signatories could not have fully grasped the implications. As a result, the process failed to comply with the Constitution’s mandate for a “direct” proposal from the people. To permit otherwise could lead to deception, or even a “gigantic fraud on the people”. Therefore, the court concluded that since the Lambino Group’s approach dismally failed to adhere to constitutional safeguards designed for citizen input on constitutional law and due to the failure to attach the full text of changes in their petition to have every signer properly see the material, they denied it for violating Article XVII.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The core issue was whether the Lambino Group’s initiative petition qualified as a permissible amendment or an impermissible revision of the Philippine Constitution, which would require a different process. The Court also assessed whether the initiative followed due constitutional process, especially regarding informed citizen consent.
    What is a people’s initiative in the Philippine context? A people’s initiative is a mechanism enshrined in the Philippine Constitution that allows citizens to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through a petition, provided specific requirements like signature counts are met. It’s a tool for direct democracy, enabling citizens to bypass traditional legislative channels.
    What did the Lambino Group propose? They sought to change the Philippines’ form of government from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system. This involved modifying several articles of the Constitution, primarily those related to the legislative and executive branches.
    What was the COMELEC’s role in this case? The COMELEC is responsible for administering elections and plebiscites. In this case, they were tasked with evaluating the Lambino Group’s petition for compliance with legal and constitutional requirements. The COMELEC ultimately rejected the petition, a decision that triggered the Supreme Court case.
    What is the difference between ‘amendment’ and ‘revision’ of the Constitution? Amendments involve specific alterations or additions to certain provisions without altering the Constitution’s basic framework. Revisions, however, are more comprehensive, impacting the Constitution’s fundamental principles, and can drastically alter the balance and organization of power.
    Why was the Lambino Group’s proposal rejected? The Supreme Court ruled the proposal constituted a revision, which cannot be enacted through a people’s initiative. Moreover, the Court found the signature gathering process to be flawed and a potential for misrepresentation, lacking explicit attachment to the petitions being signed.
    What requirements must be followed for a valid people’s initiative? For a valid people’s initiative, the process must be strictly followed, ensuring the petition reflects the direct, informed will of the people. The full text of changes should be presented for a proper evaluation before they sign it with their information and the required number of signatories needs to be from verifiable registered voters in every legislative district.
    What is the significance of the Santiago v. COMELEC case? Santiago v. COMELEC set a precedent regarding the limitations of people’s initiatives in amending the Constitution. It emphasized the necessity of a clear and enabling law and restricted actions affecting core aspects of Philippine governance.

    This landmark decision serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to constitutional processes, particularly when contemplating significant changes to the nation’s governance. It reaffirms the principle that alterations to the Constitution must stem from a well-informed and genuine expression of the sovereign will of the people, effectively guarding against potential manipulations or oversimplifications of the process. With these safeguards in place, the Filipino people are guaranteed an exercise of the popular sovereign power.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: RAUL L. LAMBINO VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, G.R. NO. 174153, October 25, 2006

  • People’s Initiative: When Can Citizens Directly Change the Constitution?

    People’s Initiative Requires Complete Implementing Law

    G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

    Can ordinary citizens directly amend the Philippine Constitution? The Supreme Court, in Miriam Defensor Santiago vs. Commission on Elections, addressed this very question, clarifying the extent of the people’s power to propose constitutional changes through a system known as “initiative.” The ruling underscores that while the Constitution grants this right, its exercise hinges on the existence of a complete and adequate implementing law passed by Congress. In the absence of such a law, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot act on petitions for constitutional amendments initiated by the people.

    The Case: A Push to Lift Term Limits

    The case arose when Atty. Jesus Delfin, representing the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to amend certain provisions of the Constitution. Specifically, Delfin aimed to lift term limits for elective government officials. He requested the COMELEC to set dates for a nationwide signature campaign and to instruct local election registrars to assist in establishing signature stations. Several parties, including Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, opposed the petition, arguing that no law existed to properly implement the constitutional provision on people’s initiative for amendments.

    Senator Santiago and other petitioners argued that Republic Act No. 6735 (R.A. 6735), the law on initiative and referendum, was insufficient to cover constitutional amendments. They also contended that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which provided rules for initiatives, was ultra vires (beyond its powers) since Congress had not yet passed an implementing law. The central legal question was whether the people’s right to directly propose constitutional amendments could be exercised in the absence of a complete and adequate implementing law.

    Understanding People’s Initiative and Constitutional Amendments

    The 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes three ways to propose amendments: (1) Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; (2) a constitutional convention; and (3) directly by the people through initiative. The system of initiative, allowing citizens to directly propose changes, was a novel addition intended to empower the populace. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution lays down the requirements for amendments via people’s initiative:

    SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

    However, this provision is not self-executing, meaning it requires implementing legislation from Congress to be operational. R.A. 6735, while intended to provide a system for initiative and referendum, was found by the Court to be inadequate for constitutional amendments. For instance, while R.A. 6735 mentions initiative on the Constitution, it lacks specific provisions on the contents of such petitions, and lacks a separate subtitle dedicated to it.

    To illustrate, imagine a scenario where citizens want to propose an amendment regarding education. Without a clear law outlining the specifics of the petition, signature verification, and plebiscite procedures, the COMELEC would lack the necessary guidelines to properly facilitate the initiative.

    How the Supreme Court Ruled

    The Supreme Court granted the petition, effectively stopping the COMELEC from proceeding with Delfin’s initiative. The Court held that R.A. 6735 was insufficient to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. It also declared portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 void, as the COMELEC lacked the power to create rules for constitutional amendments in the absence of a proper law. The Court emphasized that Congress had not yet fulfilled its constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the people’s right to propose amendments through initiative.

    Here are some key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

    • “Without implementing legislation Section 2 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.”
    • “R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by ’empowering’ the COMELEC ‘to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.”

    The Court highlighted several deficiencies in R.A. 6735, including the lack of a separate subtitle for initiative on the Constitution, and the absence of specific requirements for the contents of petitions for constitutional amendments. The Court further explained that even if the COMELEC had the power to issue implementing rules, R.A. 6735 failed to provide sufficient standards for the COMELEC to do so, making the delegation of power invalid.

    Practical Implications of the Ruling

    This landmark ruling has significant implications for future attempts to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative. The absence of a complete and adequate implementing law effectively puts this method of amendment on hold. The Court’s decision underscores the crucial role of Congress in enabling the exercise of this right. Without congressional action, the people’s power to directly propose constitutional changes remains dormant. This ruling also highlights the limits of the COMELEC’s power, preventing it from overstepping its authority in the absence of clear legal guidelines.

    Key Lessons:

    • The people’s right to directly propose constitutional amendments through initiative is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress.
    • R.A. 6735, the existing law on initiative and referendum, is insufficient to cover constitutional amendments.
    • The COMELEC lacks the power to create rules for constitutional amendments in the absence of a proper implementing law.

    Moving forward, any attempt to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative will necessitate a comprehensive law that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court. This law must clearly outline the procedures for petitioning, signature gathering, verification, and holding a plebiscite.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution?

    A: It is a system where citizens can directly propose amendments to the Constitution through a petition signed by at least 12% of registered voters, with representation from every legislative district.

    Q: Why can’t we use the existing law on initiative and referendum (R.A. 6735) to amend the Constitution?

    A: The Supreme Court has ruled that R.A. 6735 is incomplete and inadequate for constitutional amendments because it lacks specific provisions and guidelines for this process.

    Q: What needs to happen before citizens can directly propose constitutional amendments?

    A: Congress must pass a new law that fully implements the constitutional provision on people’s initiative, addressing the deficiencies in R.A. 6735.

    Q: Can the COMELEC create its own rules to implement people’s initiative?

    A: No, the COMELEC’s power to create rules is limited to what is authorized by law. In the absence of a proper implementing law from Congress, the COMELEC cannot make rules for constitutional amendments.

    Q: What are the implications of this ruling for future attempts to amend the Constitution?

    A: Any future attempts to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative will require a new, comprehensive law from Congress that addresses the issues identified by the Supreme Court.

    Q: Does this ruling completely eliminate the possibility of people’s initiative?

    A: No, the ruling simply clarifies that a proper implementing law is necessary before this right can be exercised. It is up to Congress to pass such a law.

    ASG Law specializes in election law and constitutional law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.