MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA AND MARIA ISABEL ONGPIN, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA & CARMEN PEDROSA, IN THEIR CAPACITIE…

Santiago versus Commission on Elections

The Case

This is a special civil action for prohibition brought by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin against the Commission on Elections and private respondents Jesus Delfin and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa. The petitioners ask the Supreme Court to stop the Commission on Elections from acting on a petition that sought to lift the term limits of elective officials through a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The case matters because it is the first time the Court squarely confronted the people's power of initiative under the 1987 Constitution, a system the 1986 Constitutional Commission itself called innovative, since the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions recognized only amendment by Congress or by a constitutional convention.

Procedural History

On 6 December 1996, private respondent Jesus Delfin filed with the Commission on Elections a Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative. The Commission issued an order directing Delfin to publish the petition and setting the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Raul Roco appeared as intervenor-oppositor and moved to dismiss on the ground that the initiatory petition was not properly cognizable by the Commission. The Commission directed the parties to file their memoranda and oppositions.

On 18 December 1996, the petitioners filed this special civil action for prohibition before the Supreme Court, invoking the transcendental importance of the issues and the absence of any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. The Court required the respondents to comment and issued a temporary restraining order enjoining the Commission from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and the Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive. Several parties intervened, including Senator Roco, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism, and Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino. The Court heard the case on 23 January 1997, formulated the pivotal issues, and required the parties to submit their memoranda. The Court then resolved to give due course to the petition.

Facts

On 6 December 1996, Jesus Delfin, a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, filed with the Commission on Elections a petition asking the Commission to fix the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country, to cause the publication of the petition and the attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, and to instruct municipal election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations. The proposed amendments sought to delete the provisions on term limits from Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution, and posed the proposition of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials.

Delfin alleged that the petition would first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the total number of registered voters in the country, it would be formally filed with the Commission. The Commission issued an order directing Delfin to cause the publication of the petition and its attachments in three daily newspapers of general circulation, and set the case for hearing.

At the hearing, Senator Roco moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that it was not the initiatory petition cognizable by the Commission. The petitioners then filed this action for prohibition, raising several arguments, including that no enabling law had been passed to implement the constitutional provision on people's initiative, that Republic Act Number 6735 failed to provide a subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, that the Commission's resolution was ultra vires, that the lifting of term limits constituted a revision and not an amendment, and that no funds had been appropriated for the purpose.

Issues

• Whether or not Republic Act Number 6735 was intended to include or cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and if so, whether the Act, as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
• Whether or not that portion of Commission on Elections Resolution Number 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of such initiative.
• Whether or not the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, would constitute a revision of, or an amendment to, the Constitution.
• Whether or not the Commission on Elections can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order fixing the time and dates for signature gathering, instructing municipal election officers to assist in establishing signature stations, and directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
• Whether or not it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case before the Commission on Elections.

Applicable Provisions

Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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.

This provision is the very source of the people's right of initiative and expressly commands Congress to provide for its implementation, which is the crux of the case.

Section 1 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention.

This provision distinguishes amendment from revision and identifies the ordinary modes of proposing changes to the Constitution, against which the people's initiative is measured.

Section 2 of Article IX-C of the 1987 Constitution provides:

The Commission on Elections shall enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and recall.

This provision defines the scope of the Commission's authority, which the respondents invoked to justify its resolution on initiative.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Republic Act Number 6735 was intended to include initiative on amendments to the Constitution, but the Act, as worded, is inadequate to cover such initiative. The Court found that while the law mentions initiative on the Constitution in its policy statement and in its enumeration of the three systems of initiative, it failed to provide the necessary subtitles, procedural details, and standards for the conduct of a constitutional initiative. The Court noted that the Act provided subtitles for national and local initiative and referendum, but none for initiative on the Constitution, and that this omission was not a mere matter of form but a substantial defect.

On the second issue, the Court held that the portion of Commission on Elections Resolution Number 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is invalid. Since the law itself did not adequately provide for the conduct of such initiative, the Commission had no sufficient statutory basis to promulgate rules and regulations on the matter. The Court explained that the Commission's rule-making power under Section 20 of Republic Act Number 6735 could not supply the missing legislation, as the law did not set a sufficient standard for a valid delegation of power.

On the third issue, the Court held that the lifting of term limits of elective national and local officials, as proposed in the draft petition, would constitute a revision of, and not a mere amendment to, the Constitution. The Court reasoned that the proposal would alter the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution, which rejects unlimited tenure, and would affect other provisions, such as those on synchronization of elections and the prohibition against political dynasties. Since the people's initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII is limited to amendments, the proposal was outside the scope of the power.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the Commission on Elections cannot take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order fixing the time and dates for signature gathering, instructing municipal election officers to assist in establishing signature stations, and directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative. The Court explained that what vests jurisdiction upon the Commission in an initiative on the Constitution is the filing of a petition for initiative signed by the required number of registered voters, and not a mere initiatory pleading.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition despite the pendency of the case before the Commission on Elections. The Court found that the issues raised were of transcendental importance to the public and the nation, and that there was no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.

Doctrine

The people's right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution is not self-executing. Congress must first enact a sufficient and adequate enabling law to implement the exercise of this right. Without such a law, the Commission on Elections has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for initiative on the Constitution, and any resolution it promulgates on the matter is invalid for lack of statutory basis.

The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the Constitution, while a revision contemplates a re-examination of the entire document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. A proposal that seeks to lift term limits of elective officials constitutes a revision, as it would alter the fundamental philosophy of the Constitution and affect other provisions, and is therefore outside the scope of the people's initiative.

The Commission on Elections has no jurisdiction over a petition that is merely an initiatory pleading to start a signature campaign. What vests jurisdiction upon the Commission in an initiative on the Constitution is the filing of a petition for initiative signed by the required number of registered voters.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition for prohibition, declared Republic Act Number 6735 inadequate to implement the people's initiative on amendments to the Constitution, invalidated the portion of Commission on Elections Resolution Number 2300 on constitutional initiative, and permanently enjoined the Commission on Elections from proceeding with the Delfin Petition.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the people's initiative to amend the Constitution requires a sufficient enabling law, and without it, the Commission on Elections has no jurisdiction, and the initiative cannot be used to revise the Constitution. Examiners like to use this case to test the distinction between amendment and revision, the requisites for a valid people's initiative, and the limits of the Commission on Elections' rule-making power.