Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Lambino Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    kayelaurente
    The Lambino group filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite ratifying their initiative petition to amend the 1987 constitution through a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of enabling law. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment of the constitution. The Court also found that the initiative violated the prohibition on revising the constitution through initiatives and that COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lambino Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    kayelaurente
    108 views2 pages
    The Lambino group filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite ratifying their initiative petition to amend the 1987 constitution through a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of enabling law. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment of the constitution. The Court also found that the initiative violated the prohibition on revising the constitution through initiatives and that COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.

    Original Description:

    #ElectionLaw #CaseDigest #LawSchool

    Original Title

    Lambino vs Comelec

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Lambino group filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite ratifying their initiative petition to amend the 1987 constitution through a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of enabling law. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment of the constitution. The Court also found that the initiative violated the prohibition on revising the constitution through initiatives and that COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    108 views2 pages

    Lambino Vs Comelec

    Uploaded by

    kayelaurente
    The Lambino group filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite ratifying their initiative petition to amend the 1987 constitution through a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of enabling law. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment of the constitution. The Court also found that the initiative violated the prohibition on revising the constitution through initiatives and that COMELEC did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the petition.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LAMBINO VS.

    COMELEC
    G.R. No. 174153; 25 Oct 2006

    Facts:
    Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative
    petition to change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC
    to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino
    group alleged that the petition had the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what
    was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their petition changes the 1987
    constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art 7 and by
    adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential
    form of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition
    due to lack of enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the
    Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA 6735 is inadequate to implement the
    initiative petitions.

    Issue:

    (1) Whether or Not the Lambino Groups initiative petition complies with Section
    2, Article XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a
    peoples initiative.

    (2) Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA
    6735 incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions to
    implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.

    (3) Whether or Not the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in


    denying due course to the Lambino Groups petition.

    Held:
    According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic
    requirements for conducting a peoples initiative. The Court held that the
    COMELEC did not grave abuse of discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

    1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the
    Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People
    The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be
    informed at the time of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is
    deceptive and misleading which renders the initiative void.

    2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Disallowing


    Revision through Initiatives
    The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between
    amendment and revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2
    art 17 of the constitution may propose only amendments to the constitution.
    Merging of the legislative and the executive is a radical change, therefore a
    constitutes a revision.

    3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary


    Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because the
    present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply
    with the constitution before complying with RA 6735

    Petition is dismissed.

    You might also like