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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 804 views

    DIGEST Santiago v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Meet Meat
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the people's initiative process under RA 6735 does not adequately cover proposing amendments to the Constitution because the law lacks provisions on the process and contents. (2) The COMELEC does not have jurisdiction to implement rules for constitutional amendments by initiative since RA 6735 does not authorize it. (3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution, not just an amendment, and revisions cannot be proposed by initiative, which is limited to amendments. The COMELEC petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    DIGEST Santiago v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Meet Meat
    804 views5 pages
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the people's initiative process under RA 6735 does not adequately cover proposing amendments to the Constitution because the law lacks provisions on the process and contents. (2) The COMELEC does not have jurisdiction to implement rules for constitutional amendments by initiative since RA 6735 does not authorize it. (3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution, not just an amendment, and revisions cannot be proposed by initiative, which is limited to amendments. The COMELEC petition was dismissed.

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the people's initiative process under RA 6735 does not adequately cover proposing amendments to the Constitution because the law lacks provisions on the process and contents. (2) The COMELEC does not have jurisdiction to implement rules for constitutional amendments by initiative since RA 6735 does not authorize it. (3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution, not just an amendment, and revisions cannot be proposed by initiative, which is limited to amendments. The COMELEC petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    804 views5 pages

    DIGEST Santiago v. Comelec

    Uploaded by

    Meet Meat
    (1) The Supreme Court ruled that the people's initiative process under RA 6735 does not adequately cover proposing amendments to the Constitution because the law lacks provisions on the process and contents. (2) The COMELEC does not have jurisdiction to implement rules for constitutional amendments by initiative since RA 6735 does not authorize it. (3) Lifting term limits would constitute a revision of the Constitution, not just an amendment, and revisions cannot be proposed by initiative, which is limited to amendments. The COMELEC petition was dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    People's Initiative

    no

    This is probable the best case there is on the question of the people's right to
    directly propose amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative.

    SANTIAGO VS COMELEC

    Nature: Petition for prohibition; the right of the people to directly propose
    amendments to the constitution through the system of initiative.

    Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, Ma. Isabel Ongpin – petitioners


    Jesus Delfin, Alberto & Carmen Pedrosa (PIRMA), COMELEC – respondents
    Raul Roco, DIK, MABINI, IBP, LABAN – petitioners/intervenors

    Facts:
    Atty. Delfin filed with the COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution by
    People’s initiative. His proposal is to lift the term limits of elective officials and
    thus amending Sections 4 and 7 of Art VI, Section 4 of Art VII and Section 8 of
    Art X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. In his petition, Delfin asked the
    COMELEC to issue an order (1) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering
    all over the country; (2) cause the publication of such order in newspaper of
    general and local circulation; and (3) instructing municipal election registrars in all
    regions of the Philippines to assist him and his volunteers in establishing signing
    stations. The COMELEC then issued an order directing Delfin to cause the
    publication of the petition and set the case for hearing.

    At the hearing, Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin Petition on the
    ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
    Thereafter, Senator Santiago, et al., filed a special civil action for prohibition
    before the Supreme Court.
    Issues:
    The issues in the instant petition are the following:

    (1) Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take cognizance of the petition
    when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.

    (2) Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative
    and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefore, was intended to include or
    cover initiative on amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act, as
    worded, adequately covers such initiative.

    (3) Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 (In re: Rules and
    Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative
    and Referendum on National and Local Laws) 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.

    (4) Whether 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.

    (5) Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a
    petition solely intended to obtain an order (a) fixing the time and dates for
    signature gathering; (b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's
    movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and (c) directing or
    causing the publication of, inter alia, the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative
    on the 1987 Constitution.

    Rulings of the Court:


    The Supreme Court held that:
    (1) The instant petition is viable despite the pendency in the COMELEC of the
    Delfin Petition. The COMELEC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the
    petition filed by Delfin and that it becomes imperative to stop the COMELEC from
    proceeding any further. The SC said that despite the pendency of the Delfin
    Petition in the COMELEC, the SC had jurisdiction over the Defensor-Santiago
    petition because the petition may be treated as a special civil action for certiorari
    under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, given the Roco motion filed with the
    COMELEC seeking dismissal of the Delfin petition on the ground of lack of
    jurisdiction.

    (2) RA 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative to amend the


    constitution because while Sec 3 mentions initiative on the Constitution and Sec
    5 restates the constitutional requirements as to the percentage of registered
    voters needed for a proposal, the law does not provide for the contents of a
    petition for initiative on the Constitution; while there are subtitles for national and
    local initiatives, there is no subtitle for the initiative on the Constitution; thus, the
    law is incomplete, and this inadequacy cannot be cured by empowering the
    COMELEC to promulgate implementing rules and regulations.

    (3) It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and
    regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly
    propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does
    not have that power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC's power
    under Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws
    and regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC
    under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where
    subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and
    the "sufficient standard" tests.

    (4) Santiago’s petition contend that the people's initiative is limited to


    amendments to the constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
    term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the
    people's initiative. Delfin in his memoranda contend that the lifting of the limitation
    on the term of office of elective officials provided under the 1987 constitution is
    not a "revision" of the constitution. It is only an amendment. "Amendment
    envisages an alteration of one or a few specific provisions of the constitution.
    Revision contemplates a re-examination of the entire document to determine how
    and to what extent it should be altered. The Office of the Solicitor General opined
    that extension of term of elected officials constitute a mere amendment to the
    Constitution, not a revision thereof. In its amended petition in intervention DIK
    and MABINI contend that the Delfin proposal does not involve a mere
    amendment to, but a revision of, the Constitution because, in the words of Fr.
    Joaquin Bernas it would involve a change from a political philosophy that rejects
    unlimited tenure to one that accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change
    might appear to be an isolated one, it can affect other provisions, such as, on
    synchronization of elections and on the State policy of guaranteeing equal
    access to opportunities for public service and prohibiting political dynasties. A
    revision cannot be done by initiative which, by express provision of Section 2 of
    Article XVII of the Constitution, is limited to amendments.

    (5) COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in


    entertaining the Delfin Petition. It was held that COMELEC is without jurisdiction
    to entertain the Delfin Petition because it did not contain the signatures of the
    required number of voters as required by the Constitution.
    The petition therefore is granted; R. A. No. 6735 is declared inadequate to cover
    the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and for failure to
    provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation; Those parts of Resolution
    No. 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on
    the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution is declared void; and
    the Commission on Elections is ordered to dismiss the DELFIN petition.

    Word of the Day:


    Initiative is a form of direct legislation by the people consisting of two parts:
    petition and election. It does not become effective until passed by voters and its
    availability does not remedy the denial of the right to referendum.

    You might also like