Republic of the Philippines rebellious MNLF and MILF was cultivated.

8 Thus, the Autonomous Region of

SUPREME COURT Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) was created through Republic Act No. 6734. The law
Manila took effect on August 1, 1989.
EN BANC Then came the presidency of President Fidel V. Ramos. He issued on September
G.R. Nos. 183591, 183572, 183893 and 183951 - THE PROVINCE OF NORTH 15, 1993, Executive Order No., 125 (E.O. 125) which provided for a
COTABATO, duly represented by GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN and/or comprehensive, integrated and holistic peace process with the Muslim rebels.
VICE-GOVERNOR EMMANUEL PINOL, for and in his own behalf vs. THE E.O. 125 created the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process to
GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON give momentum to the peace talks with the MNLF.
ANCESTRAL DOMAIN (GRP), represented by SEC. RODOLFO GARCIA, In 1996, as the GRP-MNLF peace negotiations were successfully winding down,
ATTY. SEDFREY CANDELARIA, MARK RYAN SULLIVAN, and/or GEN. the government prepared to deal with the MILF problem. Formal peace talks
HERMOGENES ESPERON, JR., the latter in his capacity as the present and started on January of 1997, towards the end of the Ramos administration. The
duly-appointed Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) or the Buldon Ceasefire Agreement was signed in July 19979 but time ran out for the
so-called Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process negotiations to be completed.
Promulgated: President Joseph Estrada continued the peace talks with the MILF. The talks,
October 14, 2008 however, were limited to cessation of hostilities and did not gain any headway.
x--------------------------------------------x President Estrada gave both sides until December 1999 to finish the peace
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION process.10 They did not meet the deadline. The year 2000 saw the escalation of
PUNO, C.J.: acts of violence and the threats to the lives and security of civilians in Southern
It is the duty of the government to seek a just, comprehensive and enduring peace Mindanao. President Estrada then declared an "all-out war" against the MILF.11
with any rebel group but the search for peace must always be in accord with the He bowed out of office with the "war" unfinished.
Constitution. Any search for peace that undercuts the Constitution must be struck Thereafter, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed office. Peace
down. Peace in breach of the Constitution is worse than worthless. negotiations with the MILF were immediately set for resumption. Executive Order
I. Historical Roots No. 3, was issued "Defining Policy and Administrative Structure: For
A historical perspective of our Muslim problem is helpful. Government's Comprehensive Peace Efforts." On March 24, 2001, a General
From time immemorial, an enduring peace with our Muslim brothers and sisters Framework for the Resumption of Peace Talks between the GRP and the MILF
in Mindanao has eluded our grasp. Our Muslim problem exploded in March of was signed. Republic Act No. 905412 was also enacted on March 31, 2001 and
1968 when Muslim trainees were massacred by army officers at Corregidor. About took effect on August 14, 2001 to strengthen and expand the Autonomous Region
180 Muslim trainees had been recruited in the previous year as a part of a covert of Muslim Mindanao. Through the Organic Act of 2001, six municipalities in Lanao
force named Jabidah,1 allegedly formed to wrest away Sabah from Malaysia. The del Norte voted for inclusion in the ARMM.
trainees were massacred when they reportedly protested their unbearable training On June 22, 2001, the ancestral domain aspect of the GRP-MILF Tripoli
and demanded the return to their home.2 The Jabidah Massacre fomented the Agreement was signed in Libya. Several rounds of exploratory talks with the MILF
formation of Muslim groups clamoring for a separate Islamic state. One of these followed. Unfortunately, on April 2, 2003, Davao was twice bombed. Again, the
groups was the Muslim Independence Movement (MIM), founded by the then peace talks were cancelled and fighting with the MILF resumed. On July 19, 2003
Governor of Cotabato, Datu Udtog Matalam.3 Another was the Nurul Islam, led by the GRP and the MILF agreed on "mutual cessation of hostilities" and the parties
Hashim Salamat. returned to the bargaining table. The parties discussed the problem of ancestral
On September 21, 1972 Martial Law was declared by President Ferdinand E. domain, divided into four strands: concept, territory, resources, and governance.
Marcos. Among the reasons cited to justify martial law were the armed conflict On February 7, 2006, the 10th round of Exploratory Talks between the GRP and
between Muslims and Christians and the Muslim secessionist movement in the the MILF ended. The parties issued a joint statement of the consensus points of
Southern Philippines.4 The imposition of martial law drove some of the Muslim the Ancestral Domain aspect of GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June
secessionist movements to the underground. One of them was the Moro National 22, 2001. The Joint Statement provides that:
Liberation Front (MNLF) headed by Nur Misuari. In 1974, the MNLF shot to "Among the consensus points reached were:
prominence, when the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) officially gave it · Joint determination of the scope of the Bangsamoro
recognition. During the 5th ICFM, they strongly urged "the Philippines Government homeland based on the technical maps and data submitted
to find a political and peaceful solution through negotiation with Muslim leaders, by both sides;
particularly with representatives of the MNLF in order to arrive at a just solution to · Measures to address the legitimate grievances of the
the plight of the Filipino Muslims within the framework of national sovereignty and Bangsamoro people arising from the unjust dispossession
territorial integrity of the Philippines"; and recognized "the problem as an internal and/or marginalization;
problem with the Philippine Government to ensure the safety of the Filipino · Bangsamoro people's right to utilize and develop their
Muslims and the preservation of their liberties in accordance with the Universal ancestral domain and ancestral lands;
Declaration of Human Rights."5 · Economic cooperation arrangements for the benefit of the
In December 1976, the Philippine government and the MNLF under the auspices entire Bangsamoro people."
of the OIC started their peace negotiation in Tripoli, Libya. It bore its first fruit when On July 27, 2008, a Joint Statement on the Memorandum of Agreement on
on January 20, 1977, the parties signed the Tripoli Agreement in Zamboanga City Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) was signed by Chairperson Rodolfo C. Garcia on
in the presence of the OIC Representative. behalf of the GRP Peace Panel, and Mohagher Iqbal on behalf of the MILF Panel.
President Marcos immediately implemented the Tripoli Agreement. He issued In the Joint Statement, it was declared that the final draft of the MOA-AD has
Presidential Proclamation No. 1628, "Declaring Autonomy in Southern already been initialed. It was announced that "both sides reached a consensus
Philippines." A plebiscite was conducted in the provinces covered under the Tripoli to initial the final draft pending its official signing by the Chairmen of the two
Agreement to determine the will of the people thereat. Further, the legislature peace panels in early August 2008, in Putrajaya, Malaysia."13
enacted Batasang Pambansa Blg. 20, "Providing for the Organization of The Joint Statement triggered the filing of the petitions at bar. These Petitions,
Sangguniang Pampook (Regional Legislative Assembly) in Each of Regions IX sought among others, to restrain the signing of the MOA-AD. On August 4, 2008,
and XII." President Marcos then ordered the creation of Autonomous Region IX a day before the intended signing of the initialed MOA-AD, this Court issued a
and XII. Temporary Restraining Order stopping the signing of the MOA-AD. Several
In the meanwhile, the MNLF continued enhancing its international status. It was petitions-in-intervention were also filed praying for the same relief. On August 8,
accorded the status of an observer in Tripoli, Libya during the 8th ICFM. In the 15th 2008 and September 1, 2008, the respondents through the Solicitor General,
ICFM at Sana'a, Yemen, in 1984, the MNLF's status was further elevated from a submitted official copies of the initialed MOA-AD to the Court and furnished the
mere 'legitimate representative' to 'sole legitimate representative' of the petitioners and petitioners-in-intervention with copies of the same.
Bangsamoro people.6 All the petitions were heard by the Court in three separate days of oral arguments.
In April 1977, the peace talks between the Government of the Republic of the In the course of the arguments, the Solicitor General informed the Court that the
Philippines (GRP) and MNLF Talks collapsed. Schism split the MNLF leadership. MOA-AD will not be signed "in its present form or any other form." 14 Thereafter,
The irreconcilable differences between Nur Misuari and Hashim Salamat led the government Peace Panel was dismantled by the President.
to the formation of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), headed by II. Petitions should be Decided on the Merits
Hashim Salamat. Thus, the Maguindanao-led MILF, parted ways with the The first threshold issue is whether this Court should exercise its power of judicial
Tausug-led MNLF. review and decide the petitions at bar on the merits.
In 1986, the People Power Revolution catapulted Corazon C. Aquino to the I respectfully submit that the Court should not avoid its constitutional duty to
Presidency. Forthwith, she ordered the peace talks with the MNLF to resume. The decide the petitions at bar on their merit in view of their transcendental importance.
1987 Constitution was ratified by the people. It provided for the creation of the The subject of review in the petitions at bar is the conduct of the peace process
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao through an act of Congress. But again with the MILF which culminated in the MOA-AD. The constitutionality of the
the talks with the MNLF floundered in May 1987.7 Be that as it may, it was during conduct of the entire peace process and not just the MOA-AD should go under
President Aquino's governance that a culture of peace negotiations with the the scalpel of judicial scrutiny. The review should not be limited to the initialed
MOA-AD for it is merely the product of a constitutionally flawed process of In dealing with ripeness, one must distinguish between statutes and
negotiations with the MILF. other acts that are self-executing and those that are not. If a statute
Let us revisit the steps that led to the contested and controversial MOA-AD. Peace is self executing, it is ripe for challenge as soon as it is enacted.
negotiations with the MILF commenced with the execution of ceasefire For such a statute to be subject to judicial review, it is not necessary
agreements. The watershed event, however, occurred in 2001, with the issuance that it be applied by an administrator, a prosecutor, or some other
of Executive Order No. 315 entitled "Defining Policy and Administrative Structure enforcement officer in a concrete case.22
for Government's Comprehensive Peace Efforts." Government Peace Negotiating Although Schwartz employs the term "statute," he qualifies that the principle
Panels were immediately constituted to negotiate peace with rebel groups, which enunciated applies to other governmental acts as well.23
included the MILF. Significantly, Executive Order No. 3 provides that in the Prescinding from these parameters, it is evident that the Court is confronted
pursuit of social, economic and political reforms, administrative action, new with a MOA-AD that is heavily laden with self-executing components. Far
legislation or even constitutional amendments may be required.16 Section 4 from the representation of the Solicitor General, the MOA-AD is not a mere
of Executive Order No. 3 states, viz: collection of consensus points,24 still bereft of any legal consequence. The
SECTION 4. The Six Paths to Peace. - The components of the commitments made by the government panel under the MOA-AD can be divided
comprehensive peace process comprise the processes known as the into (1) those which are self-executory or are immediately effective by the terms
"Paths to Peace". These component processes are interrelated and not of the MOA-AD alone, (2) those with a period or which are to be effective within a
mutually exclusive, and must therefore be pursued simultaneously in a stipulated time, and (3) those that are conditional or whose effectivity depends on
coordinated and integrated fashion. They shall include, but may not be the outcome of a plebiscite.
limited to, the following: Let us cast an eye on the self executory provisions of the MOA-AD which will
a. PURSUIT OF SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL demolish the argument of the respondents that the issues in the petitions at bar
REFORMS. This component involves the vigorous are not ripe for adjudication.
implementation of various policies, reforms, programs and The MOA-AD provides that "the Parties affirm that the core of the BJE shall
projects aimed at addressing the root causes of internal constitute the present geographic area of the ARMM, including the municipalities
armed conflicts and social unrest. This may require of Baloi, Munai, Nunungan, Pantar, Tagoloan and Tangkal in the province of
administrative action, new legislation or even Lanao del Norte that voted for inclusion in the ARMM during the 2001 plebiscite."
constitutional amendments. The MOA-AD then proceeds to enumerate the powers that the BJE possesses
xxxx within its area. The BJE is granted powers of governance which it can exercise
c. PEACEFUL, NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH THE without need of amendments to be made to the Constitution or existing law or
DIFFERENT REBEL GROUPS. This component involves the without imposing any condition whatsoever.
conduct of face-to-face negotiations to reach peaceful The MOA-AD also gives the BJE the unconditional right to participate in
settlement with the different rebel groups. It also involves the international meetings and events, e.g., ASEAN meetings and other specialized
effective implementation of peace agreements. (Emphasis agencies of the United Nations.25 It grants BJE the right to participate in Philippine
supplied) official missions and delegations that are engaged in the negotiation of border
Executive Order No. 3, was later amended by E.O. No. 555, 17 and was followed agreements or protocols for environmental protection, equitable sharing of
by the Tripoli Peace Agreement of 2001. The Tripoli Peace Agreement of 2001 incomes and revenues, in addition to those of fishing rights. 26 Again, these rights
became the basis for several rounds of exploratory talks between the GRP Peace are given to the BJE without imposing prior conditions such as amendments to
Panel and the MILF. These exploratory talks resulted in the signing of the Joint the Constitution, existing law or the enactment of new legislation.
Statements of the GRP and MILF peace panels to affirm commitments that Next, let us go to provisions of the MOA-AD with a period which will further
implement the Tripoli Agreement of 2001, including the ancestral domain aspect. demonstrate the lack of merit of respondents' posture that the petitions at bar are
The issuance of the Joint Statements culminated in the initialing of the MOA- not ripe for adjudication. The MOA-AD provides that "without derogating from the
AD.18 requirements of prior agreements27, the Government stipulates to conduct and
It is crystal clear that the initialing of the MOA-AD is but the evidence of the deliver, within twelve (12) months following the signing of the Memorandum of
government peace negotiating panel's assent to the terms contained therein. If Agreement on Ancestral Domain, a plebiscite covering the areas as enumerated
the MOA-AD is constitutionally infirm, it is because the conduct of the peace in the list and depicted in the map as Category A x x x the Parties shall endeavor
process itself is flawed. It is the constitutional duty of the Court is to determine to complete negotiations and resolve all outstanding issues on the
whether there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess Comprehensive Compact within fifteen (15) months from signing of the MOA-
of jurisdiction on the part of the government peace negotiating panel in the AD."28 Once more, it is evident that no conditions were imposed with respect to
conduct of the peace negotiations with the MILF. The Court should not the conduct of a plebiscite within twelve months following the signing of the MOA-
restrict its review on the validity of the MOA-AD which is but the end product AD. The provision starkly states that within twelve months, the government will
of the flawed conduct of the peace negotiation with the MILF. conduct and deliver a plebiscite covering areas under Category A of the MOA-
Requirements of Ripeness and AD.
Mootness are not bars to review We now come to respondents' argument on mootness. In determining whether a
In contending that this Court should refrain from resolving the merits of the case has been rendered moot, courts look at the development of events to
petitions at bar, two principal defenses were deployed by the Solicitor General: ascertain whether the petitioner making the constitutional challenge is confronted
the issues raised for resolution are not ripe for adjudication and regardless of their with a continuing harm or a substantial potential of harm. Mootness is
ripeness, are moot. sometimes viewed as "the doctrine of standing set in a time frame: The requisite
With due respect, the defenses cannot be sustained. To contend that an issue is personal interest must exist at the commencement of the litigation and must
not ripe for adjudication is to invoke prematurity;19 that the issue has not reached continue throughout its existence."29 Stated otherwise, an actual controversy must
a state where judicial intervention is necessary, hence, there is in reality no actual be extant at all stages of judicial review, not merely at the time the complaint is
controversy. On the other hand, to urge that an issue has become moot concedes filed.30
that judicial intervention was once proper but subsequent developments make Respondents insist that the petitions at bar are moot for three reasons: (1) the
further judicial action unnecessary. Together, mootness and ripeness act as a petitioners North Cotabato and Zamboanga have already been furnished copies
two-pronged pincer, squeezing the resolution of controversies within a narrow of the MOA-AD; (2) the Executive Secretary has issued a Memorandum that the
timeframe.20 government will not sign the MOA-AD and, (3) the GRP Peace Panel has been
First, the issues at bar are ripe for resolution. In Ohio Forestry Ass'n Inc. v. dissolved by the President.
Sierra Club,21 the following factors were identified as indicative of the ripeness of These grounds are barren grounds. For one, the press statements of the
a controversy: Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, Jr., are
1. Whether delayed review would cause hardship to the plaintiffs; clear that the MOA-AD will still be used as a major reference in future
2. Whether judicial intervention would inappropriately interfere with negotiations.31 For another, the MILF considers the MOA-AD a "done deal," 32
further administrative action; hence, ready for implementation. On the other hand, the peace panel may have
3. Whether the Court would benefit from further factual development of been temporarily dismantled but the structures set up by the Executive and their
the issues presented; guidelines which gave rise to the present controversy remain intact. With all
Underlying the use of the foregoing factors is first, the setting of a threshold for these realities, the petitions at bar fall within that exceptional class of cases
review and second, judicial application of the threshold to the facts extant in a which ought to be decided despite their mootness because the complained
controversy. I respectfully submit that where a controversy concerns unconstitutional acts are "capable of repetition yet evading review."33
fundamental constitutional questions, the threshold must be adjusted to allow This well-accepted exception to the non-reviewability of moot cases was first
judicial scrutiny, in order that the issues may be resolved at the earliest stage enunciated in the case of Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC.34 The United
before anything irreversible is undertaken under cover of an States Supreme Court held that a case is not moot where interests of a public
unconstitutional act. Schwartz cites one vital consideration in determining character are asserted under conditions that may be immediately repeated,
ripeness, viz: merely because the particular order involved has expired.
In the petitions at bar, one need not butt heads with the Solicitor General to creating autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and going through
demonstrate the numerous constitutional infirmities of the MOA-AD. There is no the process of a plebiscite and enacting an organic act?
need to iterate and reiterate them. Suffice to stress that it is because of these My amendment is simply to clarify the term "Muslim Mindanao." I really
evident breaches, that the MOA-AD requires the present Constitution to undergo did not expect that this will go this far --- that it is being placed in the
radical revisions. Yet, the unblushing threat is made that the MOA-AD which Constitution, that it is a fait accompli and that all we have to do here is
shattered to smithereens all respect to the Constitution will continue to be a say "amen" to the whole thing and it we do not say "amen," they will still
reference point in future peace negotiations with the MILF. In fine, the MOA-AD is continue to be autonomous regions. I insist on my amendment, Madam
a constitutional nightmare that will come and torment us again in the near future. President.
It must be slain now. It is not moot. MR. OPLE: May I provide more information to Commissioner de Castro
Let us adhere to the orthodox thought that once a controversy as to the application on this matter.
of a constitutional provision is raised before this Court, it becomes a legal issue First of all, we have to correct the misimpression that the autonomous
which the Court is hide-bound to decide.35 Supervening events, whether contrived regions, such as they now exist in Mindanao, do not enjoy the
or accidental, cannot prevent the Court from rendering a decision if there is a recognition of the central government. Secondly, may I point out that
grave violation of the Constitution has already been committed or the threat of the autonomy existing now in Regions IX and XII is a very imperfect
being committed again is not a hypothetical fear.36 It is the function of judicial kind of autonomy. We are not satisfied with the legal sufficiency of these
review to uphold the Constitution at all cost or we forfeit the faith of the people. regions as autonomous regions and that is the reason the initiative has
III. The Deviation from the MNLF been taken in order to guarantee by the Constitution the right to
Model of Pursuing Peace with autonomy of the people embraced in these regions and not merely on
Rebels is Inexplicable the sufferance of any existing or future administration. It is a right,
The MNLF model in dealing with rebels which culminated in the Peace Agreement moreover, for which they have waged heroic struggles, not only in this
of 1996, was free from any infirmity because it respected the metes and bounds generation but in previous eras and, therefore, what we seek is
of the Constitution. While the MNLF model is ostensibly based on the Tripoli constitutional permanence for this right.
Agreement of 1976, its implementation was in perfect accord with Philippine laws. May I also point out, Madam President, that the Tripoli Agreement was
The implementation of the Tripoli Agreement of 1976 came in two phases: the negotiated under the aegis of foreign powers. No matter how friendly
first, under the legislative power of then President Marcos and the second, under and sympathetic they are to our country, this is under the aegis of the
the provisions of Article X of the 1987 Constitution and its implementing 42-nation Islamic Conference. Should our brothers look across the seas
legislation, Republic Act No. 6734.37 to a conclave of foreign governments so that their rights may be
Under President Marcos, autonomy in the affected provinces was recognized recognized in the Constitution? Do they have to depend upon foreign
through Presidential Proclamation No.1628. It declared autonomy in 13 provinces sympathy so that their right can be recognized in final, constitutional
and constituted a provisional government for the affected areas. The proclamation and durable form.
was followed by a plebiscite and the final framework for the autonomous region THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople, the consensus here is to grant
was embodied in Presidential Decree No.1618. autonomy to the Muslim areas of Mindanao?
The establishment of the autonomous region under P.D. 1628 was MR. OPLE: Yes.(Emphasis supplied)38
constitutionalized by the commissioners in the 1987 Constitution as shown Clearly, the mandate for the creation of the ARMM is derived principally from
by the following exchange of views: the 1987 Constitution. Thereafter, ARRM was given life by Republic Act No.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I have stated from the start of our 6734,39 the Organic Act of the ARMM. Our executive officials were guided by and
consideration of this Article on Local Governments that the autonomous did not stray away from these legal mandates at the negotiation and execution of
region exists now in this country. There is a de facto existence of an the Peace Agreement with the MNLF in 1996. Without ifs and buts, its Whereas
autonomous government in what we call now Regions IX and XII. Clauses affirmed our sovereignty and territorial integrity and completely respected
Region IX is composed of the provinces of Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, our Constitution.40
Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur and Zamboanga del Norte, In stark contrast, the peace process with the MILF draws its mandate
including all the component cities in the provinces. Region XII is principally from Executive Order No. 3. This executive order provided the basis
composed of the Provinces of Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, for the execution of the Tripoli Agreement of 2001 and thereafter, the MOA-AD.
Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and North Cotabato. This autonomous During the whole process, the government peace negotiators conducted
region has its central governmental headquarters in Zamboanga City themselves free from the strictures of the Constitution. They played fast and
for Region IX and in Cotabato City for Region XII. In fact, it is stated by loose with the do's and dont's of the Constitution. They acted as if the grant of
Commissioner Ople that it has an executive commission and a executive power to the President allows them as agents to make agreements with
legislative assembly. the MILF in violation of the Constitution. They acted as if these violations can
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President. anyway be cured by committing that the sovereign people will change the
MR. ALONTO: These two regions have been organized by virtue of Constitution to conform with the MOA-AD. They forgot that the Constitution grants
P.D. No. 1618 of President Marcos, as amended by P.D. No. 1843. power but also sets some impotence on power.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President. IV. The Exercise of Executive Power is
MR. ALONTO: If the Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain to him. Subject to the Constitution
That is why there is a de facto autonomous government existing in Clearly, the respondents grossly misunderstood and patently misapplied the
Mindanao executive powers of the President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President. The MILF problem is a problem of rebellion penalized under the Revised Penal
THE PRESIDENT: May we please allow Commissioner Alonto to finish Code.41 The MILF is but a rebel group. It has not acquired any belligerency status.
his remarks before any interruption? The rebellion of the MILF is recognized expressly by E.O. No. 3 42 as well as by
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes Madam President. E.O. No. 555.43 The President's powers in dealing with rebellion are spelled out in
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, this autonomous region is recognized Article VII, section 18 of the Constitution, viz:
by the present regime for the very reason that the present regime is The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of
now in the process of a negotiation with the Moro National Liberation the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out
Front. In a way, what we are doing is to give constitutional basis for the such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
President of this country today to proceed with the negotiation with the rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety
Moro National Liberation Front. requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized. privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
MR. UKA: Madam President, not only that. President Corazon C. part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
Aquino has appointed Mr. Albert Tugum as the Chairman of Region IX proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ
and Mr. Datu Zakaria Candau as chairman of Region XII. They are of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in
doing their work well right now. So there are two recognized writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
autonomous regions. They have also a complete regional assembly as least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
the legislative body. So, it is only a matter of putting this in the revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be
Constitution. set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is before the body is the proposed Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or
amendment on Line 11 of Section 1. suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the
Commissioner de Castro is recognized. invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, if there is now an autonomous The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following
region in Mindanao and if, according to the Honorable Ople, this has such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules
the recognition of the central government, what then is the use of without need of a call.
 The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by Constitution was ordained by the sovereign people and its postulates may not be
any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of employed as bargaining chips without their prior consent.
martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas V. The Constitution as Compact of the People
corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision The question may be asked: In the process of negotiating peace with the MILF,
thereon within thirty days from its filing. why cannot the Executive commit to do acts which are prohibited by the
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution and seek their ratification later by its amendment or revision?
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative Many philosophical perspectives have been advanced in reply to this question.
assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military Yet, no theory has been as influential, nor has been as authoritative, as the social
courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to contract theory,46 articulated by John Locke, viz:
function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual,
corpus. made a community, they have thereby made that community one body,
The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and
only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being
or directly connected with, invasion. only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should
person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent
days, otherwise he shall be released. of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body,
These are the well crafted commander-in-chief powers of the President. They one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it,
enumerate with exactitude the powers which the President should use in dealing agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be
with rebellion. They are graduated in degrees. The strongest of these powers is concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies,
the power to declare martial law and worthy to note, its exercise is subject to empowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that
restraints. But more important, all these commander-in-chief powers can only be positive law which empowers them, the act of the majority passes for
used to quell the rebellion. They cannot be utilized to dismember the State or to the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of
create a state within our State and hand it over to the MILF rebels. nature and reason, the power of the whole.47
In dealing with the MILF rebellion, the President may, however, opt not to The French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rosseau stressed the non-derogability
use force but negotiate peace with the MILF. Undoubtedly, the President as of this social contract, viz:
Chief Executive can negotiate peace with rebels, like the MILF. Article VII, section But the body politic or sovereign, deriving its existence only from the
1 of the Constitution vests in the President the entire panoply of executive power, sanctity of the contract, can never bind itself, even to others, in anything
to reach peace with rebels. But undoubtedly too, the exercise of executive that derogates from the original act, such as alienation of some portion
power to secure peace with rebels is limited by the Constitution. of itself, or submission to another sovereign. To violate the act by which
All these are due to the preeminent principle that our government is fundamentally it exists would be to annihilate itself; and what is nothing produces
one of limited and enumerated powers. As well stated in Angara v. Electoral nothing.48
Commission,44 viz: Dean Vicente Sinco of the U.P. College of Law articulated these precepts in his
But in the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and seminal work, Philippine Political Law, viz:
in bold lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the As adopted in our system of jurisprudence a constitution is a written
judicial departments of the government. The overlapping and instrument which serves as the fundamental law of the state. In theory,
interlacing of functions and duties between the several departments, it is the creation of the will of the people, who are deemed the source
however, sometimes makes it hard to say just where the one leaves off of all political powers. It provides for the organization of the essential
and the other begins. In times of social disquietude or political departments of government, determines and limits their powers, and
excitement, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be prescribes guarantees to the basic rights of the individual.49
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the xxxx
judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called Some authorities have also considered the constitution as a compact,
upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several an "agreement of the people, in their individual capacities, reduced to
departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. writing, establishing and fixing certain principles for the government of
In fine, there is no power in the Constitution that can run riot. There is no power themselves." This notion expresses the old theory of the social contract
in the Constitution that is unbounded. There is no power in the Constitution that obligatory on all parties and revocable by no one individual or group
can be exercised if it will destroy the Constitution. For all powers in the less than the majority of the people; otherwise it will not have the
Constitution are designed to preserve the Constitution. attribute of law.50 (Emphasis supplied)
In other words, the President as Chief Executive can negotiate peace with the In sum, there is no power nor is there any right to violate the Constitution
MILF but it is peace that will insure that our laws are faithfully executed. The on the part of any official of government. No one can claim he has a blank
President can seek peace with the MILF but without crossing the parameters of check to violate the Constitution in advance and the privilege to cure the
powers marked in the Constitution to separate the other branches of government violation later through amendment of its provisions. Respondents' thesis of
to preserve our democracy. For even in times of war, our system of checks and violate now, validate later makes a burlesque of the Constitution.
balances cannot be infringed.45 More so in times where the only danger that faces I vote to grant the petitions.
the State is the lesser danger of rebellion. REYNATO S. PUNO
Needless to stress, the power of the President to negotiate peace with the MILF Chief Justice
is not plenary. While a considerable degree of flexibility and breadth is accorded
to the peace negotiating panel, the latitude has its limits - the Constitution. The
G.R. No. 160261 November 10, 2003 x---------------------------------------------------------x
ERNESTO B. FRANCISCO, JR., petitioner, G.R. No. 160292 November 10, 2003
NAGMAMALASAKIT NA MGA MANANANGGOL NG MGA HERMINIO HARRY L. ROQUE, JR., JOEL RUIZ BUTUYAN, MA. CECILIA
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO, INC., ITS OFFICERS AND MEMBERS, PAPA, NAPOLEON C. REYES, ANTONIO H. ABAD, JR., ALFREDO C. LIGON,
petitioner-in-intervention, JOAN P. SERRANO AND GARY S. MALLARI, petitioners,
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
petitioner-in-intervention, petitioner-in-intervention,
vs. vs.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY SPEAKER JOSE HON. SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, JR. AND ROBERTO P. NAZARENO,
G. DE VENECIA, THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY SENATE PRESIDENT IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY GENERAL OF THE HOUSE OF
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO C. TEODORO, JR. REPRESENTATIVES, AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
AND REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, respondents. respondents,
JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-Intervention, JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-intervention,
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention. SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention.
x---------------------------------------------------------x x---------------------------------------------------------x
G.R. No. 160262 November 10, 2003 G.R. No. 160295 November 10, 2003
SEDFREY M. CANDELARIA, CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR. AND HENEDINA SALACNIB F. BATERINA AND DEPUTY SPEAKER RAUL M. GONZALES,
RAZON-ABAD, petitioners, petitioners,
ATTYS. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL AND PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
petitioners-in-intervention, petitioner-in-intervention,
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
petitioner-in-intervention, vs.
vs. THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN-TATIVES, THROUGH THE SPEAKER OR
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE SPEAKER OR ACTING SPEAKER OR PRESIDING OFFICER, SPEAKER JOSE G. DE
ACTING SPEAKER OR PRESIDING OFFICER, SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO G. TEODORO, JR.,
VENECIA, REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO G. TEODORO, JR., REPRESENTA- REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, THE SENATE OF
TIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, THE SENATE OF THE THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, SENATE PRESIDENT
PHILIPPINES, THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN FRANKLIN M. DRILON, respondents,
M. DRILON, respondents, JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-intervention,
JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-intervention, SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention.
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention. x---------------------------------------------------------x
x---------------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 160310 November 10, 2003
G.R. No. 160263 November 10, 2003 LEONILO R. ALFONSO, PETER ALVAREZ, SAMUEL DOCTOR, MELVIN
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO AND SOLEDAD M. CAGAMPANG, petitioners, MATIBAG, RAMON MIQUIBAS, RODOLFO MAGSINO, EDUARDO
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., MALASAGA, EDUARDO SARMIENTO, EDGARDO NAOE, LEONARDO
petitioners-in-intervention, GARCIA, EDGARD SMITH, EMETERIO MENDIOLA, MARIO TOREJA,
vs. GUILLERMO CASTASUS, NELSON A. LOYOLA, WILFREDO BELLO, JR.,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SENATE PRESIDENT, AND RONNIE TOQUILLO, KATE ANN VITAL, ANGELITA Q. GUZMAN, MONICO
JOSE G. DE VENECIA, JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE PABLES, JR., JAIME BOAQUINA, LITA A. AQUINO, MILA P. GABITO,
OF REPRESENTATIVES, respondents, JANETTE ARROYO, RIZALDY EMPIG, ERNA LAHUZ, HOMER CALIBAG, DR.
JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-intervention, BING ARCE, SIMEON ARCE, JR., EL DELLE ARCE, WILLIE RIVERO, DANTE
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention. DIAZ, ALBERTO BUENAVISTA, FAUSTO BUENAVISTA, EMILY SENERIS,
x---------------------------------------------------------x ANNA CLARISSA LOYOLA, SALVACION LOYOLA, RAINIER QUIROLGICO,
G.R. No. 160277 November 10, 2003 JOSEPH LEANDRO LOYOLA, ANTONIO LIBREA, FILEMON SIBULO,
FRANCISCO I. CHAVEZ, petitioner, MANUEL D. COMIA, JULITO U. SOON, VIRGILIO LUSTRE, AND NOEL
WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC., ISORENA, MAU RESTRIVERA, MAX VILLAESTER, AND EDILBERTO
petitioner-in-intervention, GALLOR, petitioners,
vs. WORLD WAR II VETERANS LEGIONARIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC.,
JOSE G. DE VENECIA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF petitioner-in-intervention,
REPRESENTATIVES, FRANKLIN M. DRILON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS vs.
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, REPRESENTED BY HON. SPEAKER
GILBERT TEODORO, JR., FELIX WILLIAM FUENTEBELLA, JULIO LEDESMA JOSE C. DE VENECIA, JR., THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY HON. SENATE
IV, HENRY LANOT, KIM BERNARDO-LOKIN, MARCELINO LIBANAN, PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, HON. FELIX FUENTEBELLA, ET AL.,
EMMYLOU TALIÑO-SANTOS, DOUGLAS CAGAS, SHERWIN GATCHALIAN, respondents.
LUIS BERSAMIN, JR., NERISSA SOON-RUIZ, ERNESTO NIEVA, EDGAR x---------------------------------------------------------x
ERICE, ISMAEL MATHAY, SAMUEL DANGWA, ALFREDO MARAÑON, JR., G.R. No. 160318 November 10, 2003
CECILIA CARREON-JALOSJOS, AGAPITO AQUINO, FAUSTO SEACHON, PUBLIC INTEREST CENTER, INC., CRISPIN T. REYES, petitioners,
JR., GEORGILU YUMUL-HERMIDA, JOSE CARLOS LACSON, MANUEL vs.
ORTEGA, ULIRAN JUAQUIN, SORAYA JAAFAR, WILHELMINO SY- HON. SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, ALL MEMBERS, HOUSE OF
ALVARADO, CLAUDE BAUTISTA, DEL DE GUZMAN, ZENAIDA CRUZ- REPRESENTATIVES, HON. SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN M. DRILON,
DUCUT, AUGUSTO BACULIO, FAUSTINO DY III, AUGUSTO SYJUCO, AND ALL MEMBERS, PHILIPPINE SENATE, respondents.
ROZZANO RUFINO BIAZON, LEOVIGILDO BANAAG, ERIC SINGSON, x---------------------------------------------------------x
JACINTO PARAS, JOSE SOLIS, RENATO MATUBO, HERMINO TEVES, G.R. No. 160342 November 10, 2003
AMADO ESPINO, JR., EMILIO MACIAS, ARTHUR PINGOY, JR., FRANCIS ATTY. FERNANDO P.R. PERITO, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE
NEPOMUCENO, CONRADO ESTRELLA III, ELIAS BULUT, JR., JURDIN INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, MANILA III, AND ENGR. MAXIMO
ROMUALDO, JUAN PABLO BONDOC, GENEROSO TULAGAN, PERPETUO N. MENEZ JR., IN HIS CAPACITY AS A TAXPAYER AND MEMBER OF THE
YLAGAN, MICHAEL DUAVIT, JOSEPH DURANO, JESLI LAPUS, CARLOS ENGINEERING PROFESSION, petitioners,
COJUANGCO, GIORGIDI AGGABAO, FRANCIS ESCUDERRO, RENE vs.
VELARDE, CELSO LOBREGAT, ALIPIO BADELLES, DIDAGEN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES REPRESENTED BY THE 83
DILANGALEN, ABRAHAM MITRA, JOSEPH SANTIAGO, DARLENE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE LED BY HON. REPRESENTATIVE
ANTONIO-CUSTODIO, ALETA SUAREZ, RODOLF PLAZA, JV BAUTISTA, WILLIAM FUENTEBELLA, respondents.
GREGORIO IPONG, GILBERT REMULLA, ROLEX SUPLICO, CELIA LAYUS, x---------------------------------------------------------x
JUAN MIGUEL ZUBIRI, BENASING MACARAMBON, JR., JOSEFINA JOSON, G.R. No. 160343 November 10, 2003
MARK COJUANGCO, MAURICIO DOMOGAN, RONALDO ZAMORA, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
ANGELO MONTILLA, ROSELLER BARINAGA, JESNAR FALCON, REYLINA vs.
NICOLAS, RODOLFO ALBANO, JOAQUIN CHIPECO, JR., AND RUY ELIAS THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES, THROUGH THE SPEAKER OR
LOPEZ, respondents, ACTING SPEAKER OR PRESIDING OFFICER, SPEAKER JOSE G. DE
JAIME N. SORIANO, respondent-in-intervention, VENECIA, REPRESENTATIVE GILBERTO G. TEODORO, JR.,
SENATOR AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, respondent-in-intervention. REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. FUENTEBELLA, THE SENATE OF
THE PHILIPPINES THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, SENATE PRESIDENT THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES, REPRESENTED BY REP. JOSE G. DE
FRANKLIN M. DRILON, respondents. VENECIA, AS HOUSE SPEAKER AND THE SENATE, REPRESENTED BY
x---------------------------------------------------------x SENATOR FRANKLIN DRILON, AS SENATE PRESIDENT, respondents.
G.R. No. 160360 November 10, 2003 CARPIO MORALES, J.:
CLARO B. FLORES, petitioner, There can be no constitutional crisis arising from a conflict, no matter how
vs. passionate and seemingly irreconcilable it may appear to be, over the
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THROUGH THE SPEAKER, AND THE determination by the independent branches of government of the nature, scope
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH THE SENATE PRESIDENT, and extent of their respective constitutional powers where the Constitution itself
respondents. provides for the means and bases for its resolution.
x---------------------------------------------------------x Our nation's history is replete with vivid illustrations of the often frictional, at times
G.R. No. 160365 November 10, 2003 turbulent, dynamics of the relationship among these co-equal branches. This
U.P. LAW ALUMNI CEBU FOUNDATION, INC., GOERING G.C. PADERANGA, Court is confronted with one such today involving the legislature and the judiciary
DANILO V. ORTIZ, GLORIA C. ESTENZO-RAMOS, LIZA D. CORRO, LUIS V. which has drawn legal luminaries to chart antipodal courses and not a few of our
DIORES, SR., BENJAMIN S. RALLON, ROLANDO P. NONATO, DANTE T. countrymen to vent cacophonous sentiments thereon.
RAMOS, ELSA R. DIVINAGRACIA, KAREN B. CAPARROS-ARQUILLANO, There may indeed be some legitimacy to the characterization that the present
SYLVA G. AGUIRRE-PADERANGA, FOR THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF controversy subject of the instant petitions – whether the filing of the second
OTHER CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioners, impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. with the
vs. House of Representatives falls within the one year bar provided in the
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA-TIVES, SPEAKER JOSE G. DE VENECIA, Constitution, and whether the resolution thereof is a political question – has
THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, SENATE PRESIDENT FRANKLIN resulted in a political crisis. Perhaps even more truth to the view that it was brought
DRILON, HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES FELIX FUENTEBELLA AND upon by a political crisis of conscience.
GILBERTO TEODORO, BY THEMSELVES AND AS REPRESENTATIVES OF In any event, it is with the absolute certainty that our Constitution is sufficient to
THE GROUP OF MORE THAN 80 HOUSE REPRESENTATIVES WHO SIGNED address all the issues which this controversy spawns that this Court unequivocally
AND FILED THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST SUPREME COURT pronounces, at the first instance, that the feared resort to extra-constitutional
CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. respondents. methods of resolving it is neither necessary nor legally permissible. Both its
x---------------------------------------------------------x resolution and protection of the public interest lie in adherence to, not departure
G.R. No. 160370 November 10, 2003 from, the Constitution.
FR. RANHILIO CALLANGAN AQUINO, petitioner, In passing over the complex issues arising from the controversy, this Court is ever
vs. mindful of the essential truth that the inviolate doctrine of separation of powers
THE HONORABLE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE, THE HONORABLE among the legislative, executive or judicial branches of government by no means
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, respondents. prescribes for absolute autonomy in the discharge by each of that part of the
x---------------------------------------------------------x governmental power assigned to it by the sovereign people.
G.R. No. 160376 November 10, 2003 At the same time, the corollary doctrine of checks and balances which has been
NILO A. MALANYAON, petitioner, carefully calibrated by the Constitution to temper the official acts of each of these
vs. three branches must be given effect without destroying their indispensable co-
HON. FELIX WILLIAM FUENTEBELLA AND GILBERT TEODORO, IN equality.
REPRESENTATION OF THE 86 SIGNATORIES OF THE ARTICLES OF Taken together, these two fundamental doctrines of republican government,
IMPEACHMENT AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR. AND intended as they are to insure that governmental power is wielded only for the
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, good of the people, mandate a relationship of interdependence and coordination
REPRESENTED BY ITS SPEAKER, HON. JOSE G. DE VENECIA, respondents. among these branches where the delicate functions of enacting, interpreting and
x---------------------------------------------------------x enforcing laws are harmonized to achieve a unity of governance, guided only by
G.R. No. 160392 November 10, 2003 what is in the greater interest and well-being of the people. Verily, salus populi est
VENICIO S. FLORES AND HECTOR L. HOFILEÑA, petitioners, suprema lex.
vs. Article XI of our present 1987 Constitution provides:
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH SPEAKER JOSE G. DE ARTICLE XI
VENECIA, AND THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH SENATE Accountability of Public Officers
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DRILON, respondents. SECTION 1. Public office is a public trust. Public officers and
x---------------------------------------------------------x employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them
G.R. No. 160397 November 10, 2003 with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency, act with
IN THE MATTER OF THE IMPEACHMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST CHIEF patriotism and justice, and lead modest lives.
JUSTICE HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR., ATTY. DIOSCORO U. VALLEJOS, JR., SECTION 2. The President, the Vice-President, the Members of the
petitioner. Supreme Court, the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, and
x---------------------------------------------------------x the Ombudsman may be removed from office, on impeachment for, and
G.R. No. 160403 November 10, 2003 conviction of, culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery,
PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, petitioner, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. All
vs. other public officers and employees may be removed from office as
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THROUGH THE SPEAKER OR provided by law, but not by impeachment.
PRESIDING OFFICER, HON. JOSE G. DE VENECIA, REPRESENTATIVE SECTION 3. (1) The House of Representatives shall have the
GILBERTO G. TEODORO, JR., REPRESENTATIVE FELIX WILLIAM B. exclusive power to initiate all cases of impeachment.
FUENTEBELA, THE SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, THROUGH SENATE (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member
PRESIDENT, HON. FRANKLIN DRILON, respondents. of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of
x---------------------------------------------------------x endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the
G.R. No. 160405 November 10, 2003 Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper
DEMOCRITO C. BARCENAS, PRESIDENT OF IBP, CEBU CITY CHAPTER, Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after
MANUEL M. MONZON, PRESIDING OF IBP, CEBU PROVINCE, VICTOR A. hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report
MAAMBONG, PROVINCIAL BOARD MEMBER, ADELINO B. SITOY, DEAN OF to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with
THE COLLEG EOF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF CEBU, YOUNG LAWYERS the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for
ASSOCAITION OF CEBU, INC. [YLAC], REPRSEENTED BY ATTY. MANUEL consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt
LEGASPI, CONFEDERATION OF ACCREDITED MEDIATORS OF THE thereof.
PHILIPPINES, INC. [CAMP, INC], REPRESENTED BY RODERIC R. POCA, (3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be
MANDAUE LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, [MANLAW], REPRESENTED BY necessary either to affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of
FELIPE VELASQUEZ, FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE ABOGADAS Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The
[FIDA], REPRESENTED BY THELMA L. JORDAN, CARLOS G. CO, PRESIENT vote of each Member shall be recorded.
OF CEBU CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY AND CEBU LADY (4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. [CELLA, INC.], MARIBELLE NAVARRO AND by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall
BERNARDITO FLORIDO, PAST PRESIDENT CEBU CHAMBER OF constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall
COMMERCE AND INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU forthwith proceed.
CHAPTER, petitioners, (5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same
vs. official more than once within a period of one year.
 (6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide all cases of Tarlac) and Felix William B. Fuentebella (Third District, Camarines Sur) against
impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Senators shall be on Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., founded on the alleged results of the
oath or affirmation. When the President of the Philippines is on trial, the legislative inquiry initiated by above-mentioned House Resolution. This second
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No impeachment complaint was accompanied by a "Resolution of
person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all Endorsement/Impeachment" signed by at least one-third (1/3) of all the Members
the Members of the Senate. of the House of Representatives.13
(7) Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than Thus arose the instant petitions against the House of Representatives, et. al.,
removal from office and disqualification to hold any office under the most of which petitions contend that the filing of the second impeachment
Republic of the Philippines, but the party convicted shall nevertheless complaint is unconstitutional as it violates the provision of Section 5 of Article XI
be liable and subject to prosecution, trial, and punishment according to of the Constitution that "[n]o impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against
law. the same official more than once within a period of one year."
(8) The Congress shall promulgate its rules on impeachment to In G.R. No. 160261, petitioner Atty. Ernesto B. Francisco, Jr., alleging that he has
effectively carry out the purpose of this section. (Emphasis and a duty as a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to use all available
underscoring supplied) legal remedies to stop an unconstitutional impeachment, that the issues raised in
Following the above-quoted Section 8 of Article XI of the Constitution, the 12th his petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus are of transcendental
Congress of the House of Representatives adopted and approved the Rules of importance, and that he "himself was a victim of the capricious and arbitrary
Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings (House Impeachment Rules) on changes in the Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings introduced by
November 28, 2001, superseding the previous House Impeachment Rules 1 the 12th Congress,"14 posits that his right to bring an impeachment complaint
approved by the 11th Congress. The relevant distinctions between these two against then Ombudsman Aniano Desierto had been violated due to the
Congresses' House Impeachment Rules are shown in the following tabulation: capricious and arbitrary changes in the House Impeachment Rules adopted and
11TH CONGRESS RULES 12TH CONGRESS NEW RULES
approved on November 28, 2001 by the House of Representatives and prays that
(1) Rule V, Sections 16 and 17 and Rule III, Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 thereof be
declared unconstitutional; (2) this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing
respondents House of Representatives et. al. to comply with Article IX, Section 3
RULE II RULE V
INITIATING IMPEACHMENT BAR AGAINST INITIATION OF IMPEACHMENT (2), (3) and (5) of the Constitution, to return the second impeachment complaint
Section 2. Mode of Initiating PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SAME OFFICIAL and/or strike it off the records of the House of Representatives, and to promulgate
Impeachment. – Impeachment Section 16. – Impeachment Proceedings Deemed Initiated. rules which are consistent with the Constitution; and (3) this Court permanently
shall be initiated only by a verified – In cases where a Member of the House files a verified
complaint for impeachment filed by complaint of impeachment or a citizen files a verified complaint enjoin respondent House of Representatives from proceeding with the second
any Member of the House of that is endorsed by a Member of the House through a impeachment complaint.
Representatives or by any citizen resolution of endorsement against an impeachable officer, In G.R. No. 160262, petitioners Sedfrey M. Candelaria, et. al., as citizens and
upon a resolution of endorsement impeachment proceedings against such official are deemed
by any Member thereof or by a initiated on the day the Committee on Justice finds that the taxpayers, alleging that the issues of the case are of transcendental importance,
verified complaint or resolution of verified complaint and/or resolution against such official, as the pray, in their petition for Certiorari/Prohibition, the issuance of a writ "perpetually"
impeachment filed by at least one- case may be, is sufficient in substance, or on the date the prohibiting respondent House of Representatives from filing any Articles of
third (1/3) of all the Members of the House votes to overturn or affirm the finding of the said
House. Committee that the verified complaint and/or resolution, as the Impeachment against the Chief Justice with the Senate; and for the issuance of a
case may be, is not sufficient in substance. writ "perpetually" prohibiting respondents Senate and Senate President Franklin
In cases where a verified complaint or a resolution of Drilon from accepting any Articles of Impeachment against the Chief Justice or, in
impeachment is filed or endorsed, as the case may be, by at
least one-third (1/3) of the Members of the House, the event that the Senate has accepted the same, from proceeding with the
impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated at the impeachment trial.
time of the filing of such verified complaint or resolution In G.R. No. 160263, petitioners Arturo M. de Castro and Soledad Cagampang, as
of impeachment with the Secretary General.
citizens, taxpayers, lawyers and members of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines,
alleging that their petition for Prohibition involves public interest as it involves the
RULE V Section 17. Bar Against Initiation Of Impeachment use of public funds necessary to conduct the impeachment trial on the second
BAR AGAINST IMPEACHMENT Proceedings. – Within a period of one (1) year from the date impeachment complaint, pray for the issuance of a writ of prohibition enjoining
Section 14. Scope of Bar. – No impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated as provided in Congress from conducting further proceedings on said second impeachment
impeachment proceedings shall be Section 16 hereof, no impeachment proceedings, as such, can
initiated against the same official be initiated against the same official. (Italics in the original; complaint.
more than once within the period of emphasis and underscoring supplied) In G.R. No. 160277, petitioner Francisco I. Chavez, alleging that this Court has
one (1) year. recognized that he has locus standi to bring petitions of this nature in the cases
On July 22, 2002, the House of Representatives adopted a Resolution,2 of Chavez v. PCGG15 and Chavez v. PEA-Amari Coastal Bay Development
sponsored by Representative Felix William D. Fuentebella, which directed the Corporation,16 prays in his petition for Injunction that the second impeachment
Committee on Justice "to conduct an investigation, in aid of legislation, on the complaint be declared unconstitutional.
manner of disbursements and expenditures by the Chief Justice of the Supreme In G.R. No. 160292, petitioners Atty. Harry L. Roque, et. al., as taxpayers and
Court of the Judiciary Development Fund (JDF)."3 members of the legal profession, pray in their petition for Prohibition for an order
On June 2, 2003, former President Joseph E. Estrada filed an impeachment prohibiting respondent House of Representatives from drafting, adopting,
complaint4 (first impeachment complaint) against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide approving and transmitting to the Senate the second impeachment complaint, and
Jr. and seven Associate Justices5 of this Court for "culpable violation of the respondents De Venecia and Nazareno from transmitting the Articles of
Constitution, betrayal of the public trust and other high crimes." 6 The complaint Impeachment to the Senate.
was endorsed by Representatives Rolex T. Suplico, Ronaldo B. Zamora and In G.R. No. 160295, petitioners Representatives Salacnib F. Baterina and Deputy
Didagen Piang Dilangalen,7 and was referred to the House Committee on Justice Speaker Raul M. Gonzalez, alleging that, as members of the House of
on August 5, 20038 in accordance with Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution Representatives, they have a legal interest in ensuring that only constitutional
which reads: impeachment proceedings are initiated, pray in their petition for
Section 3(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Certiorari/Prohibition that the second impeachment complaint and any act
Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a proceeding therefrom be declared null and void.
resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be In G.R. No. 160310, petitioners Leonilo R. Alfonso et al., claiming that they have
included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred a right to be protected against all forms of senseless spending of taxpayers'
to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The money and that they have an obligation to protect the Supreme Court, the Chief
Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, Justice, and the integrity of the Judiciary, allege in their petition for Certiorari and
shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such Prohibition that it is instituted as "a class suit" and pray that (1) the House
referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall Resolution endorsing the second impeachment complaint as well as all issuances
be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days emanating therefrom be declared null and void; and (2) this Court enjoin the
from receipt thereof. Senate and the Senate President from taking cognizance of, hearing, trying and
The House Committee on Justice ruled on October 13, 2003 that the first deciding the second impeachment complaint, and issue a writ of prohibition
impeachment complaint was "sufficient in form," 9 but voted to dismiss the same commanding the Senate, its prosecutors and agents to desist from conducting
on October 22, 2003 for being insufficient in substance.10 To date, the Committee any proceedings or to act on the impeachment complaint.
Report to this effect has not yet been sent to the House in plenary in accordance In G.R. No. 160318, petitioner Public Interest Center, Inc., whose members are
with the said Section 3(2) of Article XI of the Constitution. citizens and taxpayers, and its co-petitioner Crispin T. Reyes, a citizen, taxpayer
Four months and three weeks since the filing on June 2, 2003 of the first complaint and a member of the Philippine Bar, both allege in their petition, which does not
or on October 23, 2003, a day after the House Committee on Justice voted to state what its nature is, that the filing of the second impeachment complaint
dismiss it, the second impeachment complaint11 was filed with the Secretary involves paramount public interest and pray that Sections 16 and 17 of the House
General of the House12 by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. (First District,
Impeachment Rules and the second impeachment complaint/Articles of Petitions bearing docket numbers G.R. Nos. 160277, 160292 and 160295, which
Impeachment be declared null and void. were filed on October 28, 2003, sought similar relief. In addition, petition bearing
In G.R. No. 160342, petitioner Atty. Fernando P. R. Perito, as a citizen and a docket number G.R. No. 160292 alleged that House Resolution No. 260 (calling
member of the Philippine Bar Association and of the Integrated Bar of the for a legislative inquiry into the administration by the Chief Justice of the JDF)
Philippines, and petitioner Engr. Maximo N. Menez, Jr., as a taxpayer, pray in their infringes on the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and is a direct
petition for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and Permanent violation of the constitutional principle of fiscal autonomy of the judiciary.
Injunction to enjoin the House of Representatives from proceeding with the On October 28, 2003, during the plenary session of the House of Representatives,
second impeachment complaint. a motion was put forth that the second impeachment complaint be formally
In G.R. No. 160343, petitioner Integrated Bar of the Philippines, alleging that it is transmitted to the Senate, but it was not carried because the House of
mandated by the Code of Professional Responsibility to uphold the Constitution, Representatives adjourned for lack of quorum,19 and as reflected above, to date,
prays in its petition for Certiorari and Prohibition that Sections 16 and 17 of Rule the Articles of Impeachment have yet to be forwarded to the Senate.
V and Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 of Rule III of the House Impeachment Rules be Before acting on the petitions with prayers for temporary restraining order and/or
declared unconstitutional and that the House of Representatives be permanently writ of preliminary injunction which were filed on or before October 28, 2003,
enjoined from proceeding with the second impeachment complaint. Justices Puno and Vitug offered to recuse themselves, but the Court rejected their
In G.R. No. 160360, petitioner-taxpayer Atty. Claro Flores prays in his petition for offer. Justice Panganiban inhibited himself, but the Court directed him to
Certiorari and Prohibition that the House Impeachment Rules be declared participate.
unconstitutional. Without necessarily giving the petitions due course, this Court in its Resolution of
In G.R. No. 160365, petitioners U.P. Law Alumni Cebu Foundation Inc., et. al., in October 28, 2003, resolved to (a) consolidate the petitions; (b) require respondent
their petition for Prohibition and Injunction which they claim is a class suit filed in House of Representatives and the Senate, as well as the Solicitor General, to
behalf of all citizens, citing Oposa v. Factoran17 which was filed in behalf of comment on the petitions not later than 4:30 p.m. of November 3, 2003; (c) set
succeeding generations of Filipinos, pray for the issuance of a writ prohibiting the petitions for oral arguments on November 5, 2003, at 10:00 a.m.; and (d)
respondents House of Representatives and the Senate from conducting further appointed distinguished legal experts as amici curiae.20 In addition, this Court
proceedings on the second impeachment complaint and that this Court declare called on petitioners and respondents to maintain the status quo, enjoining all the
as unconstitutional the second impeachment complaint and the acts of parties and others acting for and in their behalf to refrain from committing acts that
respondent House of Representatives in interfering with the fiscal matters of the would render the petitions moot.
Judiciary. Also on October 28, 2003, when respondent House of Representatives through
In G.R. No. 160370, petitioner-taxpayer Father Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, Speaker Jose C. De Venecia, Jr. and/or its co-respondents, by way of special
alleging that the issues in his petition for Prohibition are of national and appearance, submitted a Manifestation asserting that this Court has no jurisdiction
transcendental significance and that as an official of the Philippine Judicial to hear, much less prohibit or enjoin the House of Representatives, which is an
Academy, he has a direct and substantial interest in the unhampered operation of independent and co-equal branch of government under the Constitution, from the
the Supreme Court and its officials in discharging their duties in accordance with performance of its constitutionally mandated duty to initiate impeachment cases.
the Constitution, prays for the issuance of a writ prohibiting the House of On even date, Senator Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., in his own behalf, filed a Motion
Representatives from transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate and to Intervene (Ex Abudante Cautela)21 and Comment, praying that "the
the Senate from receiving the same or giving the impeachment complaint due consolidated petitions be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction of the Court over the
course. issues affecting the impeachment proceedings and that the sole power, authority
In G.R. No. 160376, petitioner Nilo A. Malanyaon, as a taxpayer, alleges in his and jurisdiction of the Senate as the impeachment court to try and decide
petition for Prohibition that respondents Fuentebella and Teodoro at the time they impeachment cases, including the one where the Chief Justice is the respondent,
filed the second impeachment complaint, were "absolutely without any legal be recognized and upheld pursuant to the provisions of Article XI of the
power to do so, as they acted without jurisdiction as far as the Articles of Constitution."22
Impeachment assail the alleged abuse of powers of the Chief Justice to disburse Acting on the other petitions which were subsequently filed, this Court resolved to
the (JDF)." (a) consolidate them with the earlier consolidated petitions; (b) require
In G.R. No. 160392, petitioners Attorneys Venicio S. Flores and Hector L. respondents to file their comment not later than 4:30 p.m. of November 3, 2003;
Hofileña, alleging that as professors of law they have an abiding interest in the and (c) include them for oral arguments on November 5, 2003.
subject matter of their petition for Certiorari and Prohibition as it pertains to a On October 29, 2003, the Senate of the Philippines, through Senate President
constitutional issue "which they are trying to inculcate in the minds of their Franklin M. Drilon, filed a Manifestation stating that insofar as it is concerned, the
students," pray that the House of Representatives be enjoined from endorsing petitions are plainly premature and have no basis in law or in fact, adding that as
and the Senate from trying the Articles of Impeachment and that the second of the time of the filing of the petitions, no justiciable issue was presented before
impeachment complaint be declared null and void. it since (1) its constitutional duty to constitute itself as an impeachment court
In G.R. No. 160397, petitioner Atty. Dioscoro Vallejos, Jr., without alleging his commences only upon its receipt of the Articles of Impeachment, which it had not,
locus standi, but alleging that the second impeachment complaint is founded on and (2) the principal issues raised by the petitions pertain exclusively to the
the issue of whether or not the Judicial Development Fund (JDF) was spent in proceedings in the House of Representatives.
accordance with law and that the House of Representatives does not have On October 30, 2003, Atty. Jaime Soriano filed a "Petition for Leave to Intervene"
exclusive jurisdiction in the examination and audit thereof, prays in his petition "To in G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262, 160263, 160277, 160292, and 160295, questioning
Declare Complaint Null and Void for Lack of Cause of Action and Jurisdiction" that the status quo Resolution issued by this Court on October 28, 2003 on the ground
the second impeachment complaint be declared null and void. that it would unnecessarily put Congress and this Court in a "constitutional
In G.R. No. 160403, petitioner Philippine Bar Association, alleging that the issues deadlock" and praying for the dismissal of all the petitions as the matter in question
raised in the filing of the second impeachment complaint involve matters of is not yet ripe for judicial determination.
transcendental importance, prays in its petition for Certiorari/Prohibition that (1) On November 3, 2003, Attorneys Romulo B. Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadra
the second impeachment complaint and all proceedings arising therefrom be filed in G.R. No. 160262 a "Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and to Admit
declared null and void; (2) respondent House of Representatives be prohibited the Herein Incorporated Petition in Intervention."
from transmitting the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate; and (3) respondent On November 4, 2003, Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga
Senate be prohibited from accepting the Articles of Impeachment and from Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc. filed a Motion for Intervention in G.R. No. 160261.
conducting any proceedings thereon. On November 5, 2003, World War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc.
In G.R. No. 160405, petitioners Democrit C. Barcenas et. al., as citizens and also filed a "Petition-in-Intervention with Leave to Intervene" in G.R. Nos. 160261,
taxpayers, pray in their petition for Certiorari/Prohibition that (1) the second 160262, 160263, 160277, 160292, 160295, and 160310.
impeachment complaint as well as the resolution of endorsement and The motions for intervention were granted and both Senator Pimentel's Comment
impeachment by the respondent House of Representatives be declared null and and Attorneys Macalintal and Quadra's Petition in Intervention were admitted.
void and (2) respondents Senate and Senate President Franklin Drilon be On November 5-6, 2003, this Court heard the views of the amici curiae and the
prohibited from accepting any Articles of Impeachment against the Chief Justice arguments of petitioners, intervenors Senator Pimentel and Attorney Makalintal,
or, in the event that they have accepted the same, that they be prohibited from and Solicitor General Alfredo Benipayo on the principal issues outlined in an
proceeding with the impeachment trial. Advisory issued by this Court on November 3, 2003, to wit:
Petitions bearing docket numbers G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262 and 160263, the Whether the certiorari jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be
first three of the eighteen which were filed before this Court, 18 prayed for the invoked; who can invoke it; on what issues and at what time; and
issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order and/or preliminary injunction to whether it should be exercised by this Court at this time.
prevent the House of Representatives from transmitting the Articles of In discussing these issues, the following may be taken up:
Impeachment arising from the second impeachment complaint to the Senate. a) locus standi of petitioners;
Petition bearing docket number G.R. No. 160261 likewise prayed for the b) ripeness(prematurity; mootness);
declaration of the November 28, 2001 House Impeachment Rules as null and void c) political question/justiciability;
for being unconstitutional.
 d) House's "exclusive" power to initiate all cases of very lis mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to
impeachment; dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions
e) Senate's "sole" power to try and decide all cases of unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the
impeachment; judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
f) constitutionality of the House Rules on Impeachment vis-a- expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the
vis Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution; and presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only
g) judicial restraint (Italics in the original) because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but
In resolving the intricate conflux of preliminary and substantive issues arising from also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and
the instant petitions as well as the myriad arguments and opinions presented for controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
and against the grant of the reliefs prayed for, this Court has sifted and determined expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative
them to be as follows: (1) the threshold and novel issue of whether or not the departments of the government.24 (Italics in the original; emphasis and
power of judicial review extends to those arising from impeachment proceedings; underscoring supplied)
(2) whether or not the essential pre-requisites for the exercise of the power of As pointed out by Justice Laurel, this "moderating power" to "determine the proper
judicial review have been fulfilled; and (3) the substantive issues yet remaining. allocation of powers" of the different branches of government and "to direct the
These matters shall now be discussed in seriatim. course of government along constitutional channels" is inherent in all courts25 as
Judicial Review a necessary consequence of the judicial power itself, which is "the power of the
As reflected above, petitioners plead for this Court to exercise the power of judicial court to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable
review to determine the validity of the second impeachment complaint. and enforceable."26
This Court's power of judicial review is conferred on the judicial branch of the Thus, even in the United States where the power of judicial review is not explicitly
government in Section 1, Article VIII of our present 1987 Constitution: conferred upon the courts by its Constitution, such power has "been set at rest by
SECTION 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half centuries." To be
and in such lower courts as may be established by law. sure, it was in the 1803 leading case of Marbury v. Madison27 that the power of
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle judicial review was first articulated by Chief Justice Marshall, to wit:
actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what
enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that
government. (Emphasis supplied) rank.
Such power of judicial review was early on exhaustively expounded upon by Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United
Justice Jose P. Laurel in the definitive 1936 case of Angara v. Electoral States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be
Commission23 after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution whose provisions, essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the
unlike the present Constitution, did not contain the present provision in Article VIII, constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments,
Section 1, par. 2 on what judicial power includes. Thus, Justice Laurel discoursed: are bound by that instrument.28 (Italics in the original; emphasis
x x x In times of social disquietude or political excitement, the great supplied)
landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten or marred, if not In our own jurisdiction, as early as 1902, decades before its express grant in the
entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial department is 1935 Constitution, the power of judicial review was exercised by our courts to
the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to invalidate constitutionally infirm acts.29 And as pointed out by noted political law
determine the proper allocation of powers between the several professor and former Supreme Court Justice Vicente V. Mendoza, 30 the executive
departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof. and legislative branches of our government in fact effectively acknowledged this
As any human production, our Constitution is of course lacking power of judicial review in Article 7 of the Civil Code, to wit:
perfection and perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power of Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
our people, acting through their delegates to so provide, that instrument violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom
which is the expression of their sovereignty however limited, has or practice to the contrary.
established a republican government intended to operate and function When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the
as a harmonious whole, under a system of checks and balances, and Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
subject to specific limitations and restrictions provided in the said Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
the restrictions and limitations upon governmental powers and Constitution. (Emphasis supplied)
agencies. If these restrictions and limitations are transcended it As indicated in Angara v. Electoral Commission,31 judicial review is indeed an
would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not provided for a integral component of the delicate system of checks and balances which, together
mechanism by which to direct the course of government along with the corollary principle of separation of powers, forms the bedrock of our
constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be republican form of government and insures that its vast powers are utilized only
mere verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment, and the for the benefit of the people for which it serves.
principles of good government mere political apothegms. Certainly, the The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system
limitations and restrictions embodied in our Constitution are real as they of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual
should be in any living constitution. In the United States where no division in our Constitution. Each department of the government has
express constitutional grant is found in their constitution, the exclusive cognizance of matters within its jurisdiction, and is supreme
possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to speak of within its own sphere. But it does not follow from the fact that the three
its historical origin and development there, has been set at rest by powers are to be kept separate and distinct that the Constitution
popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and a half intended them to be absolutely unrestrained and independent of each
centuries. In our case, this moderating power is granted, if not other. The Constitution has provided for an elaborate system of
expressly, by clear implication from section 2 of article VIII of our checks and balances to secure coordination in the workings of the
Constitution. various departments of the government. x x x And the judiciary in
The Constitution is a definition of the powers of government. Who is to turn, with the Supreme Court as the final arbiter, effectively checks
determine the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The the other departments in the exercise of its power to determine the
Constitution itself has provided for the instrumentality of the law, and hence to declare executive and legislative acts void if
judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary mediates to violative of the Constitution.32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority In the scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano,
over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an "x x x judicial review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the
act of the legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred separation of powers and the balancing of powers among the three great
obligation assigned to it by the Constitution to determine departments of government through the definition and maintenance of the
conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and to boundaries of authority and control between them." 33 To him, "[j]udicial review is
establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which the chief, indeed the only, medium of participation – or instrument of intervention
that instrument secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth – of the judiciary in that balancing operation."34
all that is involved in what is termed "judicial supremacy" which To ensure the potency of the power of judicial review to curb grave abuse of
properly is the power of judicial review under the Constitution. discretion by "any branch or instrumentalities of government," the afore-
Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases and quoted Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution engraves, for the first time into its
controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the history, into block letter law the so-called "expanded certiorari jurisdiction" of this
parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the Court, the nature of and rationale for which are mirrored in the following excerpt
from the sponsorship speech of its proponent, former Chief Justice Constitutional to ascertain the reason which induced the framers of the
Commissioner Roberto Concepcion: Constitution to enact the particular provision and the purpose
xxx sought to be accomplished thereby, in order to construe the whole
The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It says: as to make the words consonant to that reason and calculated to
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such effect that purpose.39 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
lower courts as may be established by law. As it did in Nitafan v. Commissioner on Internal Revenue40 where, speaking
I suppose nobody can question it. through Madame Justice Amuerfina A. Melencio-Herrera, it declared:
The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and x x x The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with the
explain. fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and should be given effect. The primary task in constitutional construction
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may
part or instrumentality of the government. also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the
experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some framers.41 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
antecedents in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the Finally, ut magis valeat quam pereat. The Constitution is to be interpreted as a
deposed regime was marred considerably by the circumstance whole. Thus, in Chiongbian v. De Leon,42 this Court, through Chief Justice Manuel
that in a number of cases against the government, which then had Moran declared:
no legal defense at all, the solicitor general set up the defense of x x x [T]he members of the Constitutional Convention could not
political questions and got away with it. As a consequence, certain have dedicated a provision of our Constitution merely for the
principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that is, the benefit of one person without considering that it could also affect
authority of courts to order the release of political detainees, and other others. When they adopted subsection 2, they permitted, if not
matters related to the operation and effect of martial law failed because willed, that said provision should function to the full extent of its
the government set up the defense of political question. And the substance and its terms, not by itself alone, but in conjunction
Supreme Court said: "Well, since it is political, we have no authority to with all other provisions of that great document.43 (Emphasis and
pass upon it." The Committee on the Judiciary feels that this was underscoring supplied)
not a proper solution of the questions involved. It did not merely Likewise, still in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary,44 this Court affirmed
request an encroachment upon the rights of the people, but it, in that:
effect, encouraged further violations thereof during the martial law It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no
regime. x x x one provision of the Constitution is to be separated from all the
xxx others, to be considered alone, but that all the provisions bearing
Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the upon a particular subject are to be brought into view and to be so
agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the instrument.
officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and
question whether or not a branch of government or any of its interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, Constitution and one section is not to be allowed to defeat
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion another, if by any reasonable construction, the two can be made
amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is to stand together.
not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must
of this nature. lean in favor of a construction which will render every word operative,
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means that rather than one which may make the words idle and nugatory. 45
the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of this (Emphasis supplied)
nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political If, however, the plain meaning of the word is not found to be clear, resort to other
question.35 (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied) aids is available. In still the same case of Civil Liberties Union v. Executive
To determine the merits of the issues raised in the instant petitions, this Court Secretary, this Court expounded:
must necessarily turn to the Constitution itself which employs the well-settled While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and
principles of constitutional construction. proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the
First, verba legis, that is, wherever possible, the words used in the Constitution reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may
must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms are employed. be had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are
Thus, in J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration,36 this Court, powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning
speaking through Chief Justice Enrique Fernando, declared: is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as
We look to the language of the document itself in our search for showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the
its meaning. We do not of course stop there, but that is where we reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the
begin. It is to be assumed that the words in which constitutional large majority who did not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow
provisions are couched express the objective sought to be citizens whose votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of
attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except where fundamental law. We think it safer to construe the constitution from
technical terms are employed in which case the significance thus what appears upon its face." The proper interpretation therefore
attached to them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting
lawyer's document, it being essential for the rule of law to obtain that it it than in the framers's understanding thereof.46 (Emphasis and
should ever be present in the people's consciousness, its language as underscoring supplied)
much as possible should be understood in the sense they have in It is in the context of the foregoing backdrop of constitutional refinement and
common use. What it says according to the text of the provision to jurisprudential application of the power of judicial review that respondents
be construed compels acceptance and negates the power of the Speaker De Venecia, et. al. and intervenor Senator Pimentel raise the novel
courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people argument that the Constitution has excluded impeachment proceedings from the
mean what they say. Thus these are the cases where the need for coverage of judicial review.
construction is reduced to a minimum. 37 (Emphasis and underscoring Briefly stated, it is the position of respondents Speaker De Venecia et. al. that
supplied) impeachment is a political action which cannot assume a judicial character.
Second, where there is ambiguity, ratio legis est anima. The words of the Hence, any question, issue or incident arising at any stage of the impeachment
Constitution should be interpreted in accordance with the intent of its framers. And proceeding is beyond the reach of judicial review.47
so did this Court apply this principle in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive For his part, intervenor Senator Pimentel contends that the Senate's "sole power
Secretary38 in this wise: to try" impeachment cases48 (1) entirely excludes the application of judicial review
A foolproof yardstick in constitutional construction is the intention over it; and (2) necessarily includes the Senate's power to determine constitutional
underlying the provision under consideration. Thus, it has been held questions relative to impeachment proceedings.49
that the Court in construing a Constitution should bear in mind the In furthering their arguments on the proposition that impeachment proceedings
object sought to be accomplished by its adoption, and the evils, if any, are outside the scope of judicial review, respondents Speaker De Venecia, et. al.
sought to be prevented or remedied. A doubtful provision will be and intervenor Senator Pimentel rely heavily on American authorities, principally
examined in the light of the history of the times, and the condition and the majority opinion in the case of Nixon v. United States.50 Thus, they contend
circumstances under which the Constitution was framed. The object is that the exercise of judicial review over impeachment proceedings is inappropriate
since it runs counter to the framers' decision to allocate to different fora the powers vested exclusively in Congress, this does not detract from the power of the courts
to try impeachments and to try crimes; it disturbs the system of checks and to pass upon the constitutionality of acts of Congress. In Angara v. Electoral
balances, under which impeachment is the only legislative check on the judiciary; Commission,66 it ruled that confirmation by the National Assembly of the election
and it would create a lack of finality and difficulty in fashioning relief. 51 of any member, irrespective of whether his election is contested, is not essential
Respondents likewise point to deliberations on the US Constitution to show the before such member-elect may discharge the duties and enjoy the privileges of a
intent to isolate judicial power of review in cases of impeachment. member of the National Assembly.
Respondents' and intervenors' reliance upon American jurisprudence, the Finally, there exists no constitutional basis for the contention that the exercise of
American Constitution and American authorities cannot be credited to support judicial review over impeachment proceedings would upset the system of checks
the proposition that the Senate's "sole power to try and decide impeachment and balances. Verily, the Constitution is to be interpreted as a whole and "one
cases," as provided for under Art. XI, Sec. 3(6) of the Constitution, is a textually section is not to be allowed to defeat another."67 Both are integral components of
demonstrable constitutional commitment of all issues pertaining to impeachment the calibrated system of independence and interdependence that insures that no
to the legislature, to the total exclusion of the power of judicial review to check and branch of government act beyond the powers assigned to it by the Constitution.
restrain any grave abuse of the impeachment process. Nor can it reasonably Essential Requisites for Judicial Review
support the interpretation that it necessarily confers upon the Senate the As clearly stated in Angara v. Electoral Commission, the courts' power of judicial
inherently judicial power to determine constitutional questions incident to review, like almost all powers conferred by the Constitution, is subject to several
impeachment proceedings. limitations, namely: (1) an actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of
Said American jurisprudence and authorities, much less the American judicial power; (2) the person challenging the act must have "standing" to
Constitution, are of dubious application for these are no longer controlling within challenge; he must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that
our jurisdiction and have only limited persuasive merit insofar as Philippine he has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement; (3)
constitutional law is concerned. As held in the case of Garcia vs. COMELEC,52 the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity;
"[i]n resolving constitutional disputes, [this Court] should not be beguiled by and (4) the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.
foreign jurisprudence some of which are hardly applicable because they have x x x Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases
been dictated by different constitutional settings and needs."53 Indeed, although and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by
the Philippine Constitution can trace its origins to that of the United States, their the parties, and limited further to the constitutional question raised or
paths of development have long since diverged. In the colorful words of Father the very lis mota presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead
Bernas, "[w]e have cut the umbilical cord." to dialectics and barren legal questions and to sterile conclusions
The major difference between the judicial power of the Philippine Supreme Court unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its function is in this manner, the
and that of the U.S. Supreme Court is that while the power of judicial review is judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or
only impliedly granted to the U.S. Supreme Court and is discretionary in nature, expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the
that granted to the Philippine Supreme Court and lower courts, as expressly presumption of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only
provided for in the Constitution, is not just a power but also a duty, and it was because the legislature is presumed to abide by the Constitution but
given an expanded definition to include the power to correct any grave abuse also because the judiciary in the determination of actual cases and
of discretion on the part of any government branch or instrumentality. controversies must reflect the wisdom and justice of the people as
There are also glaring distinctions between the U.S. Constitution and the expressed through their representatives in the executive and legislative
Philippine Constitution with respect to the power of the House of Representatives departments of the government.68 (Italics in the original)
over impeachment proceedings. While the U.S. Constitution bestows sole power Standing
of impeachment to the House of Representatives without limitation, 54 our Locus standi or legal standing or has been defined as a personal and substantial
Constitution, though vesting in the House of Representatives the exclusive power interest in the case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury
to initiate impeachment cases,55 provides for several limitations to the exercise of as a result of the governmental act that is being challenged. The gist of the
such power as embodied in Section 3(2), (3), (4) and (5), Article XI thereof. These question of standing is whether a party alleges such personal stake in the outcome
limitations include the manner of filing, required vote to impeach, and the one year of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the
bar on the impeachment of one and the same official. presentation of issues upon which the court depends for illumination of difficult
Respondents are also of the view that judicial review of impeachments constitutional questions.69
undermines their finality and may also lead to conflicts between Congress and the Intervenor Soriano, in praying for the dismissal of the petitions, contends that
judiciary. Thus, they call upon this Court to exercise judicial statesmanship on the petitioners do not have standing since only the Chief Justice has sustained and
principle that "whenever possible, the Court should defer to the judgment of the will sustain direct personal injury. Amicus curiae former Justice Minister and
people expressed legislatively, recognizing full well the perils of judicial willfulness Solicitor General Estelito Mendoza similarly contends.
and pride."56 Upon the other hand, the Solicitor General asserts that petitioners have standing
But did not the people also express their will when they instituted the above- since this Court had, in the past, accorded standing to taxpayers, voters,
mentioned safeguards in the Constitution? This shows that the Constitution did concerned citizens, legislators in cases involving paramount public interest 70 and
not intend to leave the matter of impeachment to the sole discretion of Congress. transcendental importance,71 and that procedural matters are subordinate to the
Instead, it provided for certain well-defined limits, or in the language of Baker v. need to determine whether or not the other branches of the government have kept
Carr,57 "judicially discoverable standards" for determining the validity of the themselves within the limits of the Constitution and the laws and that they have
exercise of such discretion, through the power of judicial review. not abused the discretion given to them.72 Amicus curiae Dean Raul Pangalangan
The cases of Romulo v. Yniguez58 and Alejandrino v. Quezon,59 cited by of the U.P. College of Law is of the same opinion, citing transcendental importance
respondents in support of the argument that the impeachment power is beyond and the well-entrenched rule exception that, when the real party in interest is
the scope of judicial review, are not in point. These cases concern the denial of unable to vindicate his rights by seeking the same remedies, as in the case of the
petitions for writs of mandamus to compel the legislature to perform non- Chief Justice who, for ethical reasons, cannot himself invoke the jurisdiction of
ministerial acts, and do not concern the exercise of the power of judicial review. this Court, the courts will grant petitioners standing.
There is indeed a plethora of cases in which this Court exercised the power of There is, however, a difference between the rule on real-party-in-interest and the
judicial review over congressional action. Thus, in Santiago v. Guingona, Jr.,60 this rule on standing, for the former is a concept of civil procedure 73 while the latter
Court ruled that it is well within the power and jurisdiction of the Court to inquire has constitutional underpinnings.74 In view of the arguments set forth regarding
whether the Senate or its officials committed a violation of the Constitution or standing, it behooves the Court to reiterate the ruling in Kilosbayan, Inc. v.
grave abuse of discretion in the exercise of their functions and prerogatives. In Morato75 to clarify what is meant by locus standi and to distinguish it from real
Tanada v. Angara,61 in seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the party-in-interest.
ground that it contravened the Constitution, it held that the petition raises a The difference between the rule on standing and real party in interest
justiciable controversy and that when an action of the legislative branch is has been noted by authorities thus: "It is important to note . . . that
seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right standing because of its constitutional and public policy underpinnings,
but in fact the duty of the judiciary to settle the dispute. In Bondoc v. Pineda,62 this is very different from questions relating to whether a particular plaintiff
Court declared null and void a resolution of the House of Representatives is the real party in interest or has capacity to sue. Although all three
withdrawing the nomination, and rescinding the election, of a congressman as a requirements are directed towards ensuring that only certain parties can
member of the House Electoral Tribunal for being violative of Section 17, Article maintain an action, standing restrictions require a partial consideration
VI of the Constitution. In Coseteng v. Mitra,63 it held that the resolution of whether of the merits, as well as broader policy concerns relating to the proper
the House representation in the Commission on Appointments was based on role of the judiciary in certain areas.
proportional representation of the political parties as provided in Section 18, Standing is a special concern in constitutional law because in some
Article VI of the Constitution is subject to judicial review. In Daza v. Singson,64 it cases suits are brought not by parties who have been personally injured
held that the act of the House of Representatives in removing the petitioner from by the operation of a law or by official action taken, but by concerned
the Commission on Appointments is subject to judicial review. In Tanada v. citizens, taxpayers or voters who actually sue in the public interest.
Cuenco,65 it held that although under the Constitution, the legislative power is Hence the question in standing is whether such parties have "alleged
 such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure In not a few cases, this Court has in fact adopted a liberal attitude on the locus
that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues standi of a petitioner where the petitioner is able to craft an issue of transcendental
upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult significance to the people, as when the issues raised are of paramount importance
constitutional questions." to the public.91 Such liberality does not, however, mean that the requirement that
xxx a party should have an interest in the matter is totally eliminated. A party must, at
On the other hand, the question as to "real party in interest" is whether the very least, still plead the existence of such interest, it not being one of which
he is "the party who would be benefited or injured by the judgment, or courts can take judicial notice. In petitioner Vallejos' case, he failed to allege any
the 'party entitled to the avails of the suit.'"76 (Citations omitted) interest in the case. He does not thus have standing.
While rights personal to the Chief Justice may have been injured by the alleged With respect to the motions for intervention, Rule 19, Section 2 of the Rules of
unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives, none of the petitioners Court requires an intervenor to possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation,
before us asserts a violation of the personal rights of the Chief Justice. On the or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, or is so
contrary, they invariably invoke the vindication of their own rights – as taxpayers; situated as to be adversely affected by a distribution or other disposition of
members of Congress; citizens, individually or in a class suit; and members of the property in the custody of the court or of an officer thereof. While intervention is
bar and of the legal profession – which were supposedly violated by the alleged not a matter of right, it may be permitted by the courts when the applicant shows
unconstitutional acts of the House of Representatives. facts which satisfy the requirements of the law authorizing intervention. 92
In a long line of cases, however, concerned citizens, taxpayers and legislators In Intervenors Attorneys Romulo Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadra's case, they
when specific requirements have been met have been given standing by this seek to join petitioners Candelaria, et. al. in G.R. No. 160262. Since, save for one
Court. additional issue, they raise the same issues and the same standing, and no
When suing as a citizen, the interest of the petitioner assailing the constitutionality objection on the part of petitioners Candelaria, et. al. has been interposed, this
of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that Court as earlier stated, granted the Motion for Leave of Court to Intervene and
the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in Petition-in-Intervention.
imminent danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of its enforcement, Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, Inc., et.
and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that al. sought to join petitioner Francisco in G.R. No. 160261. Invoking their right as
the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege citizens to intervene, alleging that "they will suffer if this insidious scheme of the
to which he is lawfully entitled or that he is about to be subjected to some burdens minority members of the House of Representatives is successful," this Court found
or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of. 77 In fine, when the the requisites for intervention had been complied with.
proceeding involves the assertion of a public right, 78 the mere fact that he is a Alleging that the issues raised in the petitions in G.R. Nos. 160261, 160262,
citizen satisfies the requirement of personal interest. 160263, 160277, 160292, 160295, and 160310 were of transcendental
In the case of a taxpayer, he is allowed to sue where there is a claim that public importance, World War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc. filed a
funds are illegally disbursed, or that public money is being deflected to any "Petition-in-Intervention with Leave to Intervene" to raise the additional issue of
improper purpose, or that there is a wastage of public funds through the whether or not the second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice is
enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law.79 Before he can invoke the valid and based on any of the grounds prescribed by the Constitution.
power of judicial review, however, he must specifically prove that he has sufficient Finding that Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang
interest in preventing the illegal expenditure of money raised by taxation and that Pilipino, Inc., et al. and World War II Veterans Legionnaires of the Philippines, Inc.
he would sustain a direct injury as a result of the enforcement of the questioned possess a legal interest in the matter in litigation the respective motions to
statute or contract. It is not sufficient that he has merely a general interest common intervene were hereby granted.
to all members of the public.80 Senator Aquilino Pimentel, on the other hand, sought to intervene for the limited
At all events, courts are vested with discretion as to whether or not a taxpayer's purpose of making of record and arguing a point of view that differs with Senate
suit should be entertained.81 This Court opts to grant standing to most of the President Drilon's. He alleges that submitting to this Court's jurisdiction as the
petitioners, given their allegation that any impending transmittal to the Senate of Senate President does will undermine the independence of the Senate which will
the Articles of Impeachment and the ensuing trial of the Chief Justice will sit as an impeachment court once the Articles of Impeachment are transmitted to
necessarily involve the expenditure of public funds. it from the House of Representatives. Clearly, Senator Pimentel possesses a legal
As for a legislator, he is allowed to sue to question the validity of any official action interest in the matter in litigation, he being a member of Congress against which
which he claims infringes his prerogatives as a legislator. 82 Indeed, a member of the herein petitions are directed. For this reason, and to fully ventilate all
the House of Representatives has standing to maintain inviolate the prerogatives, substantial issues relating to the matter at hand, his Motion to Intervene was
powers and privileges vested by the Constitution in his office. 83 granted and he was, as earlier stated, allowed to argue.
While an association has legal personality to represent its members,84 especially Lastly, as to Jaime N. Soriano's motion to intervene, the same must be denied for,
when it is composed of substantial taxpayers and the outcome will affect their vital while he asserts an interest as a taxpayer, he failed to meet the standing
interests,85 the mere invocation by the Integrated Bar of the Philippines or any requirement for bringing taxpayer's suits as set forth in Dumlao v. Comelec,93 to
member of the legal profession of the duty to preserve the rule of law and nothing wit:
more, although undoubtedly true, does not suffice to clothe it with standing. Its x x x While, concededly, the elections to be held involve the expenditure
interest is too general. It is shared by other groups and the whole citizenry. of public moneys, nowhere in their Petition do said petitioners allege
However, a reading of the petitions shows that it has advanced constitutional that their tax money is "being extracted and spent in violation of specific
issues which deserve the attention of this Court in view of their seriousness, constitutional protection against abuses of legislative power," or that
novelty and weight as precedents.86 It, therefore, behooves this Court to relax the there is a misapplication of such funds by respondent COMELEC, or
rules on standing and to resolve the issues presented by it. that public money is being deflected to any improper purpose. Neither
In the same vein, when dealing with class suits filed in behalf of all citizens, do petitioners seek to restrain respondent from wasting public funds
persons intervening must be sufficiently numerous to fully protect the interests of through the enforcement of an invalid or unconstitutional law. 94
all concerned87 to enable the court to deal properly with all interests involved in (Citations omitted)
the suit,88 for a judgment in a class suit, whether favorable or unfavorable to the In praying for the dismissal of the petitions, Soriano failed even to allege that the
class, is, under the res judicata principle, binding on all members of the class act of petitioners will result in illegal disbursement of public funds or in public
whether or not they were before the court.89 Where it clearly appears that not all money being deflected to any improper purpose. Additionally, his mere interest as
interests can be sufficiently represented as shown by the divergent issues raised a member of the Bar does not suffice to clothe him with standing.
in the numerous petitions before this Court, G.R. No. 160365 as a class suit ought Ripeness and Prematurity
to fail. Since petitioners additionally allege standing as citizens and taxpayers, In Tan v. Macapagal,95 this Court, through Chief Justice Fernando, held that for a
however, their petition will stand. case to be considered ripe for adjudication, "it is a prerequisite that something had
The Philippine Bar Association, in G.R. No. 160403, invokes the sole ground of by then been accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may
transcendental importance, while Atty. Dioscoro U. Vallejos, in G.R. No. 160397, come into the picture."96 Only then may the courts pass on the validity of what was
is mum on his standing. done, if and when the latter is challenged in an appropriate legal proceeding.
There being no doctrinal definition of transcendental importance, the following The instant petitions raise in the main the issue of the validity of the filing of the
instructive determinants formulated by former Supreme Court Justice Florentino second impeachment complaint against the Chief Justice in accordance with the
P. Feliciano are instructive: (1) the character of the funds or other assets involved House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12th Congress, the constitutionality of
in the case; (2) the presence of a clear case of disregard of a constitutional or which is questioned. The questioned acts having been carried out, i.e., the second
statutory prohibition by the public respondent agency or instrumentality of the impeachment complaint had been filed with the House of Representatives and the
government; and (3) the lack of any other party with a more direct and specific 2001 Rules have already been already promulgated and enforced, the
interest in raising the questions being raised.90 Applying these determinants, this prerequisite that the alleged unconstitutional act should be accomplished and
Court is satisfied that the issues raised herein are indeed of transcendental performed before suit, as Tan v. Macapagal holds, has been complied with.
importance. Related to the issue of ripeness is the question of whether the instant petitions
are premature. Amicus curiae former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga opines
that there may be no urgent need for this Court to render a decision at this time, no legal defense at all, the solicitor general set up the defense of
it being the final arbiter on questions of constitutionality anyway. He thus political questions and got away with it. As a consequence, certain
recommends that all remedies in the House and Senate should first be exhausted. principles concerning particularly the writ of habeas corpus, that
Taking a similar stand is Dean Raul Pangalangan of the U.P. College of Law who is, the authority of courts to order the release of political
suggests to this Court to take judicial notice of on-going attempts to encourage detainees, and other matters related to the operation and effect of
signatories to the second impeachment complaint to withdraw their signatures and martial law failed because the government set up the defense of
opines that the House Impeachment Rules provide for an opportunity for members political question. And the Supreme Court said: "Well, since it is
to raise constitutional questions themselves when the Articles of Impeachment political, we have no authority to pass upon it." The Committee on the
are presented on a motion to transmit to the same to the Senate. The dean Judiciary feels that this was not a proper solution of the questions
maintains that even assuming that the Articles are transmitted to the Senate, the involved. It did not merely request an encroachment upon the
Chief Justice can raise the issue of their constitutional infirmity by way of a motion rights of the people, but it, in effect, encouraged further violations
to dismiss. thereof during the martial law regime. I am sure the members of the
The dean's position does not persuade. First, the withdrawal by the Bar are familiar with this situation. But for the benefit of the Members of
Representatives of their signatures would not, by itself, cure the House the Commission who are not lawyers, allow me to explain. I will start
Impeachment Rules of their constitutional infirmity. Neither would such a with a decision of the Supreme Court in 1973 on the case of Javellana
withdrawal, by itself, obliterate the questioned second impeachment complaint vs. the Secretary of Justice, if I am not mistaken. Martial law was
since it would only place it under the ambit of Sections 3(2) and (3) of Article XI of announced on September 22, although the proclamation was dated
the Constitution97 and, therefore, petitioners would continue to suffer their injuries. September 21. The obvious reason for the delay in its publication was
Second and most importantly, the futility of seeking remedies from either or both that the administration had apprehended and detained prominent
Houses of Congress before coming to this Court is shown by the fact that, as newsmen on September 21. So that when martial law was announced
previously discussed, neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate is on September 22, the media hardly published anything about it. In fact,
clothed with the power to rule with definitiveness on the issue of constitutionality, the media could not publish any story not only because our main writers
whether concerning impeachment proceedings or otherwise, as said power is were already incarcerated, but also because those who succeeded
exclusively vested in the judiciary by the earlier quoted Section I, Article VIII of the them in their jobs were under mortal threat of being the object of wrath
Constitution. Remedy cannot be sought from a body which is bereft of power to of the ruling party. The 1971 Constitutional Convention had begun on
grant it. June 1, 1971 and by September 21 or 22 had not finished the
Justiciability Constitution; it had barely agreed in the fundamentals of the
In the leading case of Tanada v. Cuenco,98 Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion Constitution. I forgot to say that upon the proclamation of martial law,
defined the term "political question," viz: some delegates to that 1971 Constitutional Convention, dozens of
[T]he term "political question" connotes, in legal parlance, what it means them, were picked up. One of them was our very own colleague,
in ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. In other words, in the Commissioner Calderon. So, the unfinished draft of the Constitution
language of Corpus Juris Secundum, it refers to "those questions was taken over by representatives of Malacañang. In 17 days, they
which, under the Constitution, are to be decided by the people in their finished what the delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention had
sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full discretionary authority has been unable to accomplish for about 14 months. The draft of the 1973
been delegated to the Legislature or executive branch of the Constitution was presented to the President around December 1, 1972,
Government." It is concerned with issues dependent upon the wisdom, whereupon the President issued a decree calling a plebiscite which
not legality, of a particular measure.99 (Italics in the original) suspended the operation of some provisions in the martial law decree
Prior to the 1973 Constitution, without consistency and seemingly without any which prohibited discussions, much less public discussions of certain
rhyme or reason, this Court vacillated on its stance of taking cognizance of cases matters of public concern. The purpose was presumably to allow a free
which involved political questions. In some cases, this Court hid behind the cover discussion on the draft of the Constitution on which a plebiscite was to
of the political question doctrine and refused to exercise its power of judicial be held sometime in January 1973. If I may use a word famous by our
review.100 In other cases, however, despite the seeming political nature of the colleague, Commissioner Ople, during the interregnum, however, the
therein issues involved, this Court assumed jurisdiction whenever it found draft of the Constitution was analyzed and criticized with such a telling
constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political effect that Malacañang felt the danger of its approval. So, the President
bodies.101 Even in the landmark 1988 case of Javellana v. Executive Secretary102 suspended indefinitely the holding of the plebiscite and announced that
which raised the issue of whether the 1973 Constitution was ratified, hence, in he would consult the people in a referendum to be held from January
force, this Court shunted the political question doctrine and took cognizance 10 to January 15. But the questions to be submitted in the referendum
thereof. Ratification by the people of a Constitution is a political question, it being were not announced until the eve of its scheduled beginning, under the
a question decided by the people in their sovereign capacity. supposed supervision not of the Commission on Elections, but of what
The frequency with which this Court invoked the political question doctrine to was then designated as "citizens assemblies or barangays." Thus the
refuse to take jurisdiction over certain cases during the Marcos regime motivated barangays came into existence. The questions to be propounded were
Chief Justice Concepcion, when he became a Constitutional Commissioner, to released with proposed answers thereto, suggesting that it was
clarify this Court's power of judicial review and its application on issues involving unnecessary to hold a plebiscite because the answers given in the
political questions, viz: referendum should be regarded as the votes cast in the plebiscite.
MR. CONCEPCION. Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. Thereupon, a motion was filed with the Supreme Court praying that the
I will speak on the judiciary. Practically, everybody has made, I suppose, the usual holding of the referendum be suspended. When the motion was being
comment that the judiciary is the weakest among the three major branches of the heard before the Supreme Court, the Minister of Justice delivered to the
service. Since the legislature holds the purse and the executive the sword, the Court a proclamation of the President declaring that the new
judiciary has nothing with which to enforce its decisions or commands except the Constitution was already in force because the overwhelming majority of
power of reason and appeal to conscience which, after all, reflects the will of God, the votes cast in the referendum favored the Constitution. Immediately
and is the most powerful of all other powers without exception. x x x And so, with after the departure of the Minister of Justice, I proceeded to the session
the body's indulgence, I will proceed to read the provisions drafted by the room where the case was being heard. I then informed the Court and
Committee on the Judiciary. the parties the presidential proclamation declaring that the 1973
The first section starts with a sentence copied from former Constitutions. It says: Constitution had been ratified by the people and is now in force.
The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such A number of other cases were filed to declare the presidential
lower courts as may be established by law. proclamation null and void. The main defense put up by the government
I suppose nobody can question it. was that the issue was a political question and that the court had no
The next provision is new in our constitutional law. I will read it first and jurisdiction to entertain the case.
explain. xxx
Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual The government said that in a referendum held from January 10 to
controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and January 15, the vast majority ratified the draft of the Constitution. Note
enforceable and to determine whether or not there has been a grave that all members of the Supreme Court were residents of Manila, but
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the none of them had been notified of any referendum in their respective
part or instrumentality of the government. places of residence, much less did they participate in the alleged
Fellow Members of this Commission, this is actually a product of our referendum. None of them saw any referendum proceeding.
experience during martial law. As a matter of fact, it has some In the Philippines, even local gossips spread like wild fire. So, a majority
antecedents in the past, but the role of the judiciary during the of the members of the Court felt that there had been no referendum.
deposed regime was marred considerably by the circumstance Second, a referendum cannot substitute for a plebiscite. There is a big
that in a number of cases against the government, which then had difference between a referendum and a plebiscite. But another
 group of justices upheld the defense that the issue was a political "judicial power includes" and the reason being that the definition
question. Whereupon, they dismissed the case. This is not the that we might make may not cover all possible areas.
only major case in which the plea of "political question" was set FR. BERNAS. So, this is not an attempt to solve the problems
up. There have been a number of other cases in the past. arising from the political question doctrine.
x x x The defense of the political question was rejected because MR. CONCEPCION. It definitely does not eliminate the fact that
the issue was clearly justiciable. truly political questions are beyond the pale of judicial power.104
xxx (Emphasis supplied)
x x x When your Committee on the Judiciary began to perform its From the foregoing record of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional
functions, it faced the following questions: What is judicial power? What Commission, it is clear that judicial power is not only a power; it is also a duty, a
is a political question? duty which cannot be abdicated by the mere specter of this creature called the
The Supreme Court, like all other courts, has one main function: to political question doctrine. Chief Justice Concepcion hastened to clarify, however,
settle actual controversies involving conflicts of rights which are that Section 1, Article VIII was not intended to do away with "truly political
demandable and enforceable. There are rights which are guaranteed questions." From this clarification it is gathered that there are two species of
by law but cannot be enforced by a judiciary party. In a decided case, a political questions: (1) "truly political questions" and (2) those which "are not truly
husband complained that his wife was unwilling to perform her duties political questions."
as a wife. The Court said: "We can tell your wife what her duties as such Truly political questions are thus beyond judicial review, the reason for respect of
are and that she is bound to comply with them, but we cannot force her the doctrine of separation of powers to be maintained. On the other hand, by virtue
physically to discharge her main marital duty to her husband. There are of Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, courts can review questions which are
some rights guaranteed by law, but they are so personal that to enforce not truly political in nature.
them by actual compulsion would be highly derogatory to human As pointed out by amicus curiae former dean Pacifico Agabin of the UP College
dignity." of Law, this Court has in fact in a number of cases taken jurisdiction over questions
This is why the first part of the second paragraph of Section I provides that: which are not truly political following the effectivity of the present Constitution.
Judicial power includes the duty of courts to settle actual controversies In Marcos v. Manglapus,105 this Court, speaking through Madame Justice Irene
involving rights which are legally demandable or enforceable . . . Cortes, held:
The courts, therefore, cannot entertain, much less decide, hypothetical The present Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine
questions. In a presidential system of government, the Supreme and broadens the scope of judicial inquiry into areas which the Court,
Court has, also another important function. The powers of under previous constitutions, would have normally left to the political
government are generally considered divided into three branches: departments to decide.106 x x x
the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary. Each one is In Bengzon v. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee,107 through Justice Teodoro Padilla,
supreme within its own sphere and independent of the others. this Court declared:
Because of that supremacy power to determine whether a given The "allocation of constitutional boundaries" is a task that this Court
law is valid or not is vested in courts of justice. must perform under the Constitution. Moreover, as held in a recent
Briefly stated, courts of justice determine the limits of power of the case, "(t)he political question doctrine neither interposes an
agencies and offices of the government as well as those of its obstacle to judicial determination of the rival claims. The
officers. In other words, the judiciary is the final arbiter on the jurisdiction to delimit constitutional boundaries has been given to
question whether or not a branch of government or any of its this Court. It cannot abdicate that obligation mandated by the 1987
officials has acted without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction, Constitution, although said provision by no means does away with
or so capriciously as to constitute an abuse of discretion the applicability of the principle in appropriate cases."108
amounting to excess of jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction. This is (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
not only a judicial power but a duty to pass judgment on matters And in Daza v. Singson,109 speaking through Justice Isagani Cruz, this Court
of this nature. ruled:
This is the background of paragraph 2 of Section 1, which means In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection becomes even
that the courts cannot hereafter evade the duty to settle matters of less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, even if we were to
this nature, by claiming that such matters constitute a political assume that the issue presented before us was political in nature, we
question. would still not be precluded from resolving it under the expanded
I have made these extended remarks to the end that the jurisdiction conferred upon us that now covers, in proper cases, even
Commissioners may have an initial food for thought on the subject of the political question.110 x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
the judiciary.103 (Italics in the original; emphasis supplied) Section 1, Article VIII, of the Court does not define what are justiciable political
During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Chief Justice questions and non-justiciable political questions, however. Identification of these
Concepcion further clarified the concept of judicial power, thus: two species of political questions may be problematic. There has been no clear
MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman used the term "judicial power" but standard. The American case of Baker v. Carr111 attempts to provide some:
judicial power is not vested in the Supreme Court alone but also x x x Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political
in other lower courts as may be created by law. question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment
MR. CONCEPCION. Yes. of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially
MR. NOLLEDO. And so, is this only an example? discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the
MR. CONCEPCION. No, I know this is not. The Gentleman seems impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind
to identify political questions with jurisdictional questions. But clearly for non-judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's
there is a difference. undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the
MR. NOLLEDO. Because of the expression "judicial power"? respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need
MR. CONCEPCION. No. Judicial power, as I said, refers to ordinary for questioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the
cases but where there is a question as to whether the government potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by
had authority or had abused its authority to the extent of lacking various departments on one question.112 (Underscoring supplied)
jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, that is not a political Of these standards, the more reliable have been the first three: (1) a textually
question. Therefore, the court has the duty to decide. demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political
xxx department; (2) the lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for
FR. BERNAS. Ultimately, therefore, it will always have to be decided by resolving it; and (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy
the Supreme Court according to the new numerical need for votes. determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion. These standards are not
On another point, is it the intention of Section 1 to do away with the separate and distinct concepts but are interrelated to each in that the presence of
political question doctrine? one strengthens the conclusion that the others are also present.
MR. CONCEPCION. No. The problem in applying the foregoing standards is that the American concept of
FR. BERNAS. It is not. judicial review is radically different from our current concept, for Section 1, Article
MR. CONCEPCION. No, because whenever there is an abuse of VIII of the Constitution provides our courts with far less discretion in determining
discretion, amounting to a lack of jurisdiction. . . whether they should pass upon a constitutional issue.
FR. BERNAS. So, I am satisfied with the answer that it is not In our jurisdiction, the determination of a truly political question from a non-
intended to do away with the political question doctrine. justiciable political question lies in the answer to the question of whether there are
MR. CONCEPCION. No, certainly not. constitutionally imposed limits on powers or functions conferred upon political
When this provision was originally drafted, it sought to define bodies. If there are, then our courts are duty-bound to examine whether the branch
what is judicial power. But the Gentleman will notice it says, or instrumentality of the government properly acted within such limits. This Court
shall thus now apply this standard to the present controversy.
These petitions raise five substantial issues: En passant, this Court notes that a standard for the conduct of legislative inquiries
I. Whether the offenses alleged in the Second impeachment complaint has already been enunciated by this Court in Bengzon, Jr. v. Senate Blue Ribbon
constitute valid impeachable offenses under the Constitution. Commttee,122 viz:
II. Whether the second impeachment complaint was filed in accordance The 1987 Constitution expressly recognizes the power of both houses
with Section 3(4), Article XI of the Constitution. of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of legislation. Thus, Section 21,
III. Whether the legislative inquiry by the House Committee on Justice Article VI thereof provides:
into the Judicial Development Fund is an unconstitutional infringement The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of its respective
of the constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary. committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance
IV. Whether Sections 15 and 16 of Rule V of the Rules on Impeachment with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons
adopted by the 12th Congress are unconstitutional for violating the appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected.
provisions of Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution. The power of both houses of Congress to conduct inquiries in aid of
V. Whether the second impeachment complaint is barred under Section legislation is not, therefore absolute or unlimited. Its exercise is
3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. circumscribed by the afore-quoted provision of the Constitution. Thus,
The first issue goes into the merits of the second impeachment as provided therein, the investigation must be "in aid of legislation in
complaint over which this Court has no jurisdiction. More importantly, accordance with its duly published rules of procedure" and that "the
any discussion of this issue would require this Court to make a rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be
determination of what constitutes an impeachable offense. Such a respected." It follows then that the right rights of persons under the Bill
determination is a purely political question which the Constitution has of Rights must be respected, including the right to due process and the
left to the sound discretion of the legislation. Such an intent is clear from right not be compelled to testify against one's self.123
the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.113 In G.R. No. 160262, intervenors Romulo B. Macalintal and Pete Quirino Quadra,
Although Section 2 of Article XI of the Constitution enumerates six grounds for while joining the original petition of petitioners Candelaria, et. al., introduce the
impeachment, two of these, namely, other high crimes and betrayal of public trust, new argument that since the second impeachment complaint was verified and
elude a precise definition. In fact, an examination of the records of the 1986 filed only by Representatives Gilberto Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella,
Constitutional Commission shows that the framers could find no better way to the same does not fall under the provisions of Section 3 (4), Article XI of the
approximate the boundaries of betrayal of public trust and other high crimes than Constitution which reads:
by alluding to both positive and negative examples of both, without arriving at their Section 3(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment
clear cut definition or even a standard therefor.114 Clearly, the issue calls upon this is filed by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same
court to decide a non-justiciable political question which is beyond the scope of shall constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate
its judicial power under Section 1, Article VIII. shall forthwith proceed.
Lis Mota They assert that while at least 81 members of the House of Representatives
It is a well-settled maxim of adjudication that an issue assailing the signed a Resolution of Endorsement/Impeachment, the same did not satisfy the
constitutionality of a governmental act should be avoided whenever possible. requisites for the application of the afore-mentioned section in that the "verified
Thus, in the case of Sotto v. Commission on Elections,115 this Court held: complaint or resolution of impeachment" was not filed "by at least one-third of all
x x x It is a well-established rule that a court should not pass upon a the Members of the House." With the exception of Representatives Teodoro and
constitutional question and decide a law to be unconstitutional or Fuentebella, the signatories to said Resolution are alleged to have verified the
invalid, unless such question is raised by the parties and that when it is same merely as a "Resolution of Endorsement." Intervenors point to the
raised, if the record also presents some other ground upon which "Verification" of the Resolution of Endorsement which states that:
the court may rest its judgment, that course will be adopted and "We are the proponents/sponsors of the Resolution of Endorsement of
the constitutional question will be left for consideration until a the abovementioned Complaint of Representatives Gilberto Teodoro
case arises in which a decision upon such question will be and Felix William B. Fuentebella x x x"124
unavoidable.116 [Emphasis and underscoring supplied] Intervenors Macalintal and Quadra further claim that what the Constitution
The same principle was applied in Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,117 requires in order for said second impeachment complaint to automatically become
where this Court invalidated Sections 13 and 32 of Republic Act No. 6657 for the Articles of Impeachment and for trial in the Senate to begin "forthwith," is that
being confiscatory and violative of due process, to wit: the verified complaint be "filed," not merely endorsed, by at least one-third of the
It has been established that this Court will assume jurisdiction over Members of the House of Representatives. Not having complied with this
a constitutional question only if it is shown that the essential requirement, they concede that the second impeachment complaint should have
requisites of a judicial inquiry into such a question are first been calendared and referred to the House Committee on Justice under Section
satisfied. Thus, there must be an actual case or controversy involving 3(2), Article XI of the Constitution, viz:
a conflict of legal rights susceptible of judicial determination, the Section 3(2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any
constitutional question must have been opportunely raised by the Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a
proper party, and the resolution of the question is unavoidably resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be
necessary to the decision of the case itself.118 [Emphasis supplied] included in the Order of Business within ten session days, and referred
Succinctly put, courts will not touch the issue of constitutionality unless it is truly to the proper Committee within three session days thereafter. The
unavoidable and is the very lis mota or crux of the controversy. Committee, after hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members,
As noted earlier, the instant consolidated petitions, while all seeking the invalidity shall submit its report to the House within sixty session days from such
of the second impeachment complaint, collectively raise several constitutional referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall
issues upon which the outcome of this controversy could possibly be made to rest. be calendared for consideration by the House within ten session days
In determining whether one, some or all of the remaining substantial issues should from receipt thereof.
be passed upon, this Court is guided by the related cannon of adjudication that Intervenors' foregoing position is echoed by Justice Maambong who opined that
"the court should not form a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by for Section 3 (4), Article XI of the Constitution to apply, there should be 76 or more
the precise facts to which it is applied."119 representatives who signed and verified the second impeachment complaint as
In G.R. No. 160310, petitioners Leonilo R. Alfonso, et al. argue that, among other complainants, signed and verified the signatories to a resolution of impeachment.
reasons, the second impeachment complaint is invalid since it directly resulted Justice Maambong likewise asserted that the Resolution of
from a Resolution120 calling for a legislative inquiry into the JDF, which Resolution Endorsement/Impeachment signed by at least one-third of the members of the
and legislative inquiry petitioners claim to likewise be unconstitutional for being: House of Representatives as endorsers is not the resolution of impeachment
(a) a violation of the rules and jurisprudence on investigations in aid of legislation; contemplated by the Constitution, such resolution of endorsement being
(b) an open breach of the doctrine of separation of powers; (c) a violation of the necessary only from at least one Member whenever a citizen files a verified
constitutionally mandated fiscal autonomy of the judiciary; and (d) an assault on impeachment complaint.
the independence of the judiciary.121 While the foregoing issue, as argued by intervenors Macalintal and Quadra, does
Without going into the merits of petitioners Alfonso, et. al.'s claims, it is the studied indeed limit the scope of the constitutional issues to the provisions on
opinion of this Court that the issue of the constitutionality of the said Resolution impeachment, more compelling considerations militate against its adoption as the
and resulting legislative inquiry is too far removed from the issue of the validity of lis mota or crux of the present controversy. Chief among this is the fact that only
the second impeachment complaint. Moreover, the resolution of said issue would, Attorneys Macalintal and Quadra, intervenors in G.R. No. 160262, have raised
in the Court's opinion, require it to form a rule of constitutional law touching on the this issue as a ground for invalidating the second impeachment complaint. Thus,
separate and distinct matter of legislative inquiries in general, which would thus to adopt this additional ground as the basis for deciding the instant consolidated
be broader than is required by the facts of these consolidated cases. This opinion petitions would not only render for naught the efforts of the original petitioners in
is further strengthened by the fact that said petitioners have raised other grounds G.R. No. 160262, but the efforts presented by the other petitioners as well.
in support of their petition which would not be adversely affected by the Court's Again, the decision to discard the resolution of this issue as unnecessary for the
ruling. determination of the instant cases is made easier by the fact that said intervenors
Macalintal and Quadra have joined in the petition of Candelaria, et. al., adopting the resolution of a case where he sincerely feels that his personal
the latter's arguments and issues as their own. Consequently, they are not unduly interests or biases would stand in the way of an objective and impartial
prejudiced by this Court's decision. judgment. What we are merely saying is that in the light of the
In sum, this Court holds that the two remaining issues, inextricably linked as they Constitution, the Senate Electoral Tribunal cannot legally function as
are, constitute the very lis mota of the instant controversy: (1) whether Sections such, absent its entire membership of Senators and that no amendment
15 and 16 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules adopted by the 12th of its Rules can confer on the three Justices-Members alone the power
Congress are unconstitutional for violating the provisions of Section 3, Article XI of valid adjudication of a senatorial election contest.
of the Constitution; and (2) whether, as a result thereof, the second impeachment More recently in the case of Estrada v. Desierto,132 it was held that:
complaint is barred under Section 3(5) of Article XI of the Constitution. Moreover, to disqualify any of the members of the Court, particularly a
Judicial Restraint majority of them, is nothing short of pro tanto depriving the Court itself
Senator Pimentel urges this Court to exercise judicial restraint on the ground that of its jurisdiction as established by the fundamental law. Disqualification
the Senate, sitting as an impeachment court, has the sole power to try and decide of a judge is a deprivation of his judicial power. And if that judge is the
all cases of impeachment. Again, this Court reiterates that the power of judicial one designated by the Constitution to exercise the jurisdiction of his
review includes the power of review over justiciable issues in impeachment court, as is the case with the Justices of this Court, the deprivation of
proceedings. his or their judicial power is equivalent to the deprivation of the judicial
On the other hand, respondents Speaker De Venecia et. al. argue that "[t]here is power of the court itself. It affects the very heart of judicial
a moral compulsion for the Court to not assume jurisdiction over the impeachment independence. The proposed mass disqualification, if sanctioned and
because all the Members thereof are subject to impeachment."125 But this ordered, would leave the Court no alternative but to abandon a duty
argument is very much like saying the Legislature has a moral compulsion not to which it cannot lawfully discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire
pass laws with penalty clauses because Members of the House of membership of Justices.133 (Italics in the original)
Representatives are subject to them. Besides, there are specific safeguards already laid down by the Court when it
The exercise of judicial restraint over justiciable issues is not an option before this exercises its power of judicial review.
Court. Adjudication may not be declined, because this Court is not legally In Demetria v. Alba,134 this Court, through Justice Marcelo Fernan cited the "seven
disqualified. Nor can jurisdiction be renounced as there is no other tribunal to pillars" of limitations of the power of judicial review, enunciated by US Supreme
which the controversy may be referred."126 Otherwise, this Court would be shirking Court Justice Brandeis in Ashwander v. TVA135 as follows:
from its duty vested under Art. VIII, Sec. 1(2) of the Constitution. More than being 1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a
clothed with authority thus, this Court is duty-bound to take cognizance of the friendly, non-adversary proceeding, declining because to decide such
instant petitions.127 In the august words of amicus curiae Father Bernas, questions 'is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the
"jurisdiction is not just a power; it is a solemn duty which may not be renounced. determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between
To renounce it, even if it is vexatious, would be a dereliction of duty." individuals. It never was the thought that, by means of a friendly suit, a
Even in cases where it is an interested party, the Court under our system of party beaten in the legislature could transfer to the courts an inquiry as
government cannot inhibit itself and must rule upon the challenge because no to the constitutionality of the legislative act.'
other office has the authority to do so.128 On the occasion that this Court had been 2. The Court will not 'anticipate a question of constitutional law in
an interested party to the controversy before it, it has acted upon the matter "not advance of the necessity of deciding it.' . . . 'It is not the habit of the
with officiousness but in the discharge of an unavoidable duty and, as always, Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely
with detachment and fairness."129 After all, "by [his] appointment to the office, the necessary to a decision of the case.'
public has laid on [a member of the judiciary] their confidence that [he] is mentally 3. The Court will not 'formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than
and morally fit to pass upon the merits of their varied contentions. For this reason, is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.'
they expect [him] to be fearless in [his] pursuit to render justice, to be unafraid to 4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although
displease any person, interest or power and to be equipped with a moral fiber properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other
strong enough to resist the temptations lurking in [his] office."130 ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found
The duty to exercise the power of adjudication regardless of interest had already most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two
been settled in the case of Abbas v. Senate Electoral Tribunal.131 In that case, the grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of
petitioners filed with the respondent Senate Electoral Tribunal a Motion for statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the
Disqualification or Inhibition of the Senators-Members thereof from the hearing latter. Appeals from the highest court of a state challenging its decision
and resolution of SET Case No. 002-87 on the ground that all of them were of a question under the Federal Constitution are frequently dismissed
interested parties to said case as respondents therein. This would have reduced because the judgment can be sustained on an independent state
the Tribunal's membership to only its three Justices-Members whose ground.
disqualification was not sought, leaving them to decide the matter. This Court 5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint
held: of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the
Where, as here, a situation is created which precludes the substitution many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of
of any Senator sitting in the Tribunal by any of his other colleagues in the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right.
the Senate without inviting the same objections to the substitute's Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the
competence, the proposed mass disqualification, if sanctioned and performance of his official duty will not be entertained . . . In Fairchild v.
ordered, would leave the Tribunal no alternative but to abandon a duty Hughes, the Court affirmed the dismissal of a suit brought by a citizen
that no other court or body can perform, but which it cannot lawfully who sought to have the Nineteenth Amendment declared
discharge if shorn of the participation of its entire membership of unconstitutional. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the challenge of the
Senators. federal Maternity Act was not entertained although made by the
To our mind, this is the overriding consideration — that the Tribunal be Commonwealth on behalf of all its citizens.
not prevented from discharging a duty which it alone has the power to 6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the
perform, the performance of which is in the highest public interest as instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.
evidenced by its being expressly imposed by no less than the 7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and
fundamental law. even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal
It is aptly noted in the first of the questioned Resolutions that the framers principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the
of the Constitution could not have been unaware of the possibility of an statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided (citations
election contest that would involve all Senators—elect, six of whom omitted).
would inevitably have to sit in judgment thereon. Indeed, such The foregoing "pillars" of limitation of judicial review, summarized in Ashwander
possibility might surface again in the wake of the 1992 elections when v. TVA from different decisions of the United States Supreme Court, can be
once more, but for the last time, all 24 seats in the Senate will be at encapsulated into the following categories:
stake. Yet the Constitution provides no scheme or mode for settling 1. that there be absolute necessity of deciding a case
such unusual situations or for the substitution of Senators designated 2. that rules of constitutional law shall be formulated only as required
to the Tribunal whose disqualification may be sought. Litigants in such by the facts of the case
situations must simply place their trust and hopes of vindication in the 3. that judgment may not be sustained on some other ground
fairness and sense of justice of the Members of the Tribunal. Justices 4. that there be actual injury sustained by the party by reason of the
and Senators, singly and collectively. operation of the statute
Let us not be misunderstood as saying that no Senator-Member of the 5. that the parties are not in estoppel
Senate Electoral Tribunal may inhibit or disqualify himself from sitting 6. that the Court upholds the presumption of constitutionality.
in judgment on any case before said Tribunal. Every Member of the As stated previously, parallel guidelines have been adopted by this Court in the
Tribunal may, as his conscience dictates, refrain from participating in exercise of judicial review:
 1. actual case or controversy calling for the exercise of judicial power affirmed during the oral arguments on the instant petitions held on November 5,
2. the person challenging the act must have "standing" to challenge; he 2003 at which he added that the act of "initiating" included the act of taking initial
must have a personal and substantial interest in the case such that he action on the complaint, dissipates any doubt that indeed the word "initiate" as it
has sustained, or will sustain, direct injury as a result of its enforcement twice appears in Article XI (3) and (5) of the Constitution means to file the
3. the question of constitutionality must be raised at the earliest possible complaint and take initial action on it.
opportunity "Initiate" of course is understood by ordinary men to mean, as dictionaries do, to
4. the issue of constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.136 begin, to commence, or set going. As Webster's Third New International
Respondents Speaker de Venecia, et. al. raise another argument for judicial Dictionary of the English Language concisely puts it, it means "to perform or
restraint the possibility that "judicial review of impeachments might also lead to facilitate the first action," which jibes with Justice Regalado's position, and that of
embarrassing conflicts between the Congress and the [J]udiciary." They stress Father Bernas, who elucidated during the oral arguments of the instant petitions
the need to avoid the appearance of impropriety or conflicts of interest in judicial on November 5, 2003 in this wise:
hearings, and the scenario that it would be confusing and humiliating and risk Briefly then, an impeachment proceeding is not a single act. It is a
serious political instability at home and abroad if the judiciary countermanded the comlexus of acts consisting of a beginning, a middle and an end. The
vote of Congress to remove an impeachable official.137 Intervenor Soriano echoes end is the transmittal of the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The
this argument by alleging that failure of this Court to enforce its Resolution against middle consists of those deliberative moments leading to the
Congress would result in the diminution of its judicial authority and erode public formulation of the articles of impeachment. The beginning or the
confidence and faith in the judiciary. initiation is the filing of the complaint and its referral to the Committee
Such an argument, however, is specious, to say the least. As correctly stated by on Justice.
the Solicitor General, the possibility of the occurrence of a constitutional crisis is Finally, it should be noted that the House Rule relied upon by
not a reason for this Court to refrain from upholding the Constitution in all Representatives Cojuangco and Fuentebella says that impeachment is
impeachment cases. Justices cannot abandon their constitutional duties just "deemed initiated" when the Justice Committee votes in favor of
because their action may start, if not precipitate, a crisis. impeachment or when the House reverses a contrary vote of the
Justice Feliciano warned against the dangers when this Court refuses to act. Committee. Note that the Rule does not say "impeachment
x x x Frequently, the fight over a controversial legislative or executive proceedings" are initiated but rather are "deemed initiated." The
act is not regarded as settled until the Supreme Court has passed upon language is recognition that initiation happened earlier, but by legal
the constitutionality of the act involved, the judgment has not only fiction there is an attempt to postpone it to a time after actual initiation.
juridical effects but also political consequences. Those political (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
consequences may follow even where the Court fails to grant the As stated earlier, one of the means of interpreting the Constitution is looking into
petitioner's prayer to nullify an act for lack of the necessary number of the intent of the law. Fortunately, the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution
votes. Frequently, failure to act explicitly, one way or the other, itself can be pried from its records:
constitutes a decision for the respondent and validation, or at least MR. MAAMBONG. With reference to Section 3, regarding the
quasi-validation, follows." 138 procedure and the substantive provisions on impeachment, I
Thus, in Javellana v. Executive Secretary139 where this Court was split and "in the understand there have been many proposals and, I think, these would
end there were not enough votes either to grant the petitions, or to sustain need some time for Committee action.
respondent's claims,"140 the pre-existing constitutional order was disrupted which However, I would just like to indicate that I submitted to the Committee
paved the way for the establishment of the martial law regime. a resolution on impeachment proceedings, copies of which have been
Such an argument by respondents and intervenor also presumes that the furnished the Members of this body. This is borne out of my experience
coordinate branches of the government would behave in a lawless manner and as a member of the Committee on Justice, Human Rights and Good
not do their duty under the law to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws of the Government which took charge of the last impeachment resolution filed
land. Yet there is no reason to believe that any of the branches of government will before the First Batasang Pambansa. For the information of the
behave in a precipitate manner and risk social upheaval, violence, chaos and Committee, the resolution covers several steps in the
anarchy by encouraging disrespect for the fundamental law of the land. impeachment proceedings starting with initiation, action of the
Substituting the word public officers for judges, this Court is well guided by the Speaker committee action, calendaring of report, voting on the
doctrine in People v. Veneracion, to wit:141 report, transmittal referral to the Senate, trial and judgment by the
Obedience to the rule of law forms the bedrock of our system of justice. Senate.
If [public officers], under the guise of religious or political beliefs were xxx
allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they are MR. MAAMBONG. Mr. Presiding Officer, I am not moving for a
required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes reconsideration of the approval of the amendment submitted by
meaningless. A government of laws, not of men excludes the exercise Commissioner Regalado, but I will just make of record my thinking that
of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under we do not really initiate the filing of the Articles of Impeachment on the
this system, [public officers] are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought floor. The procedure, as I have pointed out earlier, was that the
"to protect and enforce it without fear or favor," resist encroachments initiation starts with the filing of the complaint. And what is
by governments, political parties, or even the interference of their own actually done on the floor is that the committee resolution
personal beliefs.142 containing the Articles of Impeachment is the one approved by the
Constitutionality of the Rules of Procedure body.
for Impeachment Proceedings As the phraseology now runs, which may be corrected by the
adopted by the 12th Congress Committee on Style, it appears that the initiation starts on the floor. If
Respondent House of Representatives, through Speaker De Venecia, argues that we only have time, I could cite examples in the case of the impeachment
Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules do not violate proceedings of President Richard Nixon wherein the Committee on the
Section 3 (5) of Article XI of our present Constitution, contending that the term Judiciary submitted the recommendation, the resolution, and the
"initiate" does not mean "to file;" that Section 3 (1) is clear in that it is the House Articles of Impeachment to the body, and it was the body who approved
of Representatives, as a collective body, which has the exclusive power to initiate the resolution. It is not the body which initiates it. It only approves
all cases of impeachment; that initiate could not possibly mean "to file" because or disapproves the resolution. So, on that score, probably the
filing can, as Section 3 (2), Article XI of the Constitution provides, only be Committee on Style could help in rearranging these words because we
accomplished in 3 ways, to wit: (1) by a verified complaint for impeachment by have to be very technical about this. I have been bringing with me The
any member of the House of Representatives; or (2) by any citizen upon a Rules of the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. The
resolution of endorsement by any member; or (3) by at least 1/3 of all the members Senate Rules are with me. The proceedings on the case of Richard
of the House. Respondent House of Representatives concludes that the one year Nixon are with me. I have submitted my proposal, but the Committee
bar prohibiting the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same has already decided. Nevertheless, I just want to indicate this on record.
officials could not have been violated as the impeachment complaint against Chief xxx
Justice Davide and seven Associate Justices had not been initiated as the House MR. MAAMBONG. I would just like to move for a reconsideration of the
of Representatives, acting as the collective body, has yet to act on it. approval of Section 3 (3). My reconsideration will not at all affect the
The resolution of this issue thus hinges on the interpretation of the term "initiate." substance, but it is only in keeping with the exact formulation of the
Resort to statutory construction is, therefore, in order. Rules of the House of Representatives of the United States regarding
That the sponsor of the provision of Section 3(5) of the Constitution, impeachment.
Commissioner Florenz Regalado, who eventually became an Associate Justice of I am proposing, Madam President, without doing damage to any of this
this Court, agreed on the meaning of "initiate" as "to file," as proffered and provision, that on page 2, Section 3 (3), from lines 17 to 18, we delete
explained by Constitutional Commissioner Maambong during the Constitutional the words which read: "to initiate impeachment proceedings" and
Commission proceedings, which he (Commissioner Regalado) as amicus curiae the comma (,) and insert on line 19 after the word "resolution" the
 phrase WITH THE ARTICLES, and then capitalize the letter "i" in The framers of the Constitution also understood initiation in its ordinary meaning.
"impeachment" and replace the word "by" with OF, so that the whole Thus when a proposal reached the floor proposing that "A vote of at least one-
section will now read: "A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary… to initiate impeachment
the House shall be necessary either to affirm a resolution WITH THE proceedings," this was met by a proposal to delete the line on the ground that the
ARTICLES of Impeachment OF the Committee or to override its vote of the House does not initiate impeachment proceeding but rather the filing
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded." of a complaint does.146 Thus the line was deleted and is not found in the present
I already mentioned earlier yesterday that the initiation, as far as Constitution.
the House of Representatives of the United States is concerned, really Father Bernas concludes that when Section 3 (5) says, "No impeachment
starts from the filing of the verified complaint and every resolution proceeding shall be initiated against the same official more than once within a
to impeach always carries with it the Articles of Impeachment. As a period of one year," it means that no second verified complaint may be accepted
matter of fact, the words "Articles of Impeachment" are mentioned on and referred to the Committee on Justice for action. By his explanation, this
line 25 in the case of the direct filing of a verified compliant of one-third interpretation is founded on the common understanding of the meaning of "to
of all the Members of the House. I will mention again, Madam President, initiate" which means to begin. He reminds that the Constitution is ratified by the
that my amendment will not vary the substance in any way. It is only in people, both ordinary and sophisticated, as they understand it; and that ordinary
keeping with the uniform procedure of the House of Representatives of people read ordinary meaning into ordinary words and not abstruse meaning, they
the United States Congress. Thank you, Madam President.143 (Italics in ratify words as they understand it and not as sophisticated lawyers confuse it.
the original; emphasis and udnerscoring supplied) To the argument that only the House of Representatives as a body can initiate
This amendment proposed by Commissioner Maambong was clarified and impeachment proceedings because Section 3 (1) says "The House of
accepted by the Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers. 144 Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of
It is thus clear that the framers intended "initiation" to start with the filing of the impeachment," This is a misreading of said provision and is contrary to the
complaint. In his amicus curiae brief, Commissioner Maambong explained that principle of reddendo singula singulis by equating "impeachment cases" with
"the obvious reason in deleting the phrase "to initiate impeachment "impeachment proceeding."
proceedings" as contained in the text of the provision of Section 3 (3) was to From the records of the Constitutional Commission, to the amicus curiae briefs of
settle and make it understood once and for all that the initiation of two former Constitutional Commissioners, it is without a doubt that the term "to
impeachment proceedings starts with the filing of the complaint, and the initiate" refers to the filing of the impeachment complaint coupled with Congress'
vote of one-third of the House in a resolution of impeachment does not initiate taking initial action of said complaint.
the impeachment proceedings which was already initiated by the filing of a Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing and referral or
verified complaint under Section 3, paragraph (2), Article XI of the endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice
Constitution."145 or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of
Amicus curiae Constitutional Commissioner Regalado is of the same view as is Representatives with the Secretary General of the House, the meaning of Section
Father Bernas, who was also a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. Once an impeachment complaint has been
that the word "initiate" as used in Article XI, Section 3(5) means to file, both initiated, another impeachment complaint may not be filed against the same
adding, however, that the filing must be accompanied by an action to set the official within a one year period.
complaint moving. Under Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules,
During the oral arguments before this Court, Father Bernas clarified that the word impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a finding by the
"initiate," appearing in the constitutional provision on impeachment, viz: House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is
Section 3 (1) The House of Representatives shall have the exclusive sufficient in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or overturns the finding
power to initiate all cases of impeachment. of the Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or resolution is not
xxx sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement before the Secretary-
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same General of the House of Representatives of a verified complaint or a resolution of
official more than once within a period of one year, (Emphasis supplied) impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the House. These rules clearly
refers to two objects, "impeachment case" and "impeachment proceeding." contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI since the rules give the term "initiate" a
Father Bernas explains that in these two provisions, the common verb is "to meaning different meaning from filing and referral.
initiate." The object in the first sentence is "impeachment case." The object in the In his amicus curiae brief, Justice Hugo Gutierrez posits that this Court could not
second sentence is "impeachment proceeding." Following the principle of use contemporaneous construction as an aid in the interpretation of Sec.3 (5) of
reddendo singuala sinuilis, the term "cases" must be distinguished from the term Article XI, citing Vera v. Avelino147 wherein this Court stated that "their personal
"proceedings." An impeachment case is the legal controversy that must be opinions (referring to Justices who were delegates to the Constitution Convention)
decided by the Senate. Above-quoted first provision provides that the House, by on the matter at issue expressed during this Court's our deliberations stand on a
a vote of one-third of all its members, can bring a case to the Senate. It is in that different footing from the properly recorded utterances of debates and
sense that the House has "exclusive power" to initiate all cases of impeachment. proceedings." Further citing said case, he states that this Court likened the former
No other body can do it. However, before a decision is made to initiate a case in members of the Constitutional Convention to actors who are so absorbed in their
the Senate, a "proceeding" must be followed to arrive at a conclusion. A emotional roles that intelligent spectators may know more about the real meaning
proceeding must be "initiated." To initiate, which comes from the Latin word because of the latter's balanced perspectives and disinterestedness.148
initium, means to begin. On the other hand, proceeding is a progressive noun. It Justice Gutierrez's statements have no application in the present petitions. There
has a beginning, a middle, and an end. It takes place not in the Senate but in the are at present only two members of this Court who participated in the 1986
House and consists of several steps: (1) there is the filing of a verified complaint Constitutional Commission – Chief Justice Davide and Justice Adolf Azcuna.
either by a Member of the House of Representatives or by a private citizen Chief Justice Davide has not taken part in these proceedings for obvious reasons.
endorsed by a Member of the House of the Representatives; (2) there is the Moreover, this Court has not simply relied on the personal opinions now given by
processing of this complaint by the proper Committee which may either reject the members of the Constitutional Commission, but has examined the records of the
complaint or uphold it; (3) whether the resolution of the Committee rejects or deliberations and proceedings thereof.
upholds the complaint, the resolution must be forwarded to the House for further Respondent House of Representatives counters that under Section 3 (8) of Article
processing; and (4) there is the processing of the same complaint by the House XI, it is clear and unequivocal that it and only it has the power to make and interpret
of Representatives which either affirms a favorable resolution of the Committee its rules governing impeachment. Its argument is premised on the assumption that
or overrides a contrary resolution by a vote of one-third of all the members. If at Congress has absolute power to promulgate its rules. This assumption, however,
least one third of all the Members upholds the complaint, Articles of Impeachment is misplaced.
are prepared and transmitted to the Senate. It is at this point that the House Section 3 (8) of Article XI provides that "The Congress shall promulgate its rules
"initiates an impeachment case." It is at this point that an impeachable public on impeachment to effectively carry out the purpose of this section." Clearly, its
official is successfully impeached. That is, he or she is successfully charged with power to promulgate its rules on impeachment is limited by the phrase "to
an impeachment "case" before the Senate as impeachment court. effectively carry out the purpose of this section." Hence, these rules cannot
Father Bernas further explains: The "impeachment proceeding" is not initiated contravene the very purpose of the Constitution which said rules were intended
when the complaint is transmitted to the Senate for trial because that is the end to effectively carry out. Moreover, Section 3 of Article XI clearly provides for other
of the House proceeding and the beginning of another proceeding, namely the specific limitations on its power to make rules, viz:
trial. Neither is the "impeachment proceeding" initiated when the House Section 3. (1) x x x
deliberates on the resolution passed on to it by the Committee, because (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any Member
something prior to that has already been done. The action of the House is already of the House of Representatives or by any citizen upon a resolution of
a further step in the proceeding, not its initiation or beginning. Rather, the endorsement by any Member thereof, which shall be included in the
proceeding is initiated or begins, when a verified complaint is filed and referred to Order of Business within ten session days, and referred to the proper
the Committee on Justice for action. This is the initiating step which triggers the Committee within three session days thereafter. The Committee, after
series of steps that follow. hearing, and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its report
 to the House within sixty session days from such referral, together with limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other
the corresponding resolution. The resolution shall be calendared for body or tribunal."
consideration by the House within ten session days from receipt Ballin, clearly confirmed the jurisdiction of courts to pass upon
thereof. the validity of congressional rules, i.e, whether they are
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be constitutional. Rule XV was examined by the Court and it was found
necessary to either affirm a favorable resolution with the Articles of to satisfy the test: (1) that it did not ignore any constitutional restraint;
Impeachment of the Committee, or override its contrary resolution. The (2) it did not violate any fundamental right; and (3) its method had a
vote of each Member shall be recorded. reasonable relationship with the result sought to be attained. By
(4) In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed examining Rule XV, the Court did not allow its jurisdiction to be defeated
by at least one-third of all the Members of the House, the same shall by the mere invocation of the principle of separation of powers.154
constitute the Articles of Impeachment, and trial by the Senate shall xxx
forthwith proceed. In the Philippine setting, there is a more compelling reason for
(5) No impeachment proceedings shall be initiated against the same courts to categorically reject the political question defense when
official more than once within a period of one year. its interposition will cover up abuse of power. For section 1, Article
It is basic that all rules must not contravene the Constitution which is the VIII of our Constitution was intentionally cobbled to empower
fundamental law. If as alleged Congress had absolute rule making power, then it courts "x x x to determine whether or not there has been a grave
would by necessary implication have the power to alter or amend the meaning of abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on
the Constitution without need of referendum. the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government." This
149
In Osmeña v. Pendatun, this Court held that it is within the province of either power is new and was not granted to our courts in the 1935 and 1972
House of Congress to interpret its rules and that it was the best judge of what Constitutions. It was not also xeroxed from the US Constitution or
constituted "disorderly behavior" of its members. However, in Paceta v. Secretary any foreign state constitution. The CONCOM granted this
150
of the Commission on Appointments, Justice (later Chief Justice) Enrique enormous power to our courts in view of our experience under
Fernando, speaking for this Court and quoting Justice Brandeis in United States martial law where abusive exercises of state power were shielded
v. Smith,151 declared that where the construction to be given to a rule affects from judicial scrutiny by the misuse of the political question
persons other than members of the Legislature, the question becomes judicial in doctrine. Led by the eminent former Chief Justice Roberto
nature. In Arroyo v. De Venecia,152 quoting United States v. Ballin, Joseph & Concepcion, the CONCOM expanded and sharpened the checking
Co.,153 Justice Vicente Mendoza, speaking for this Court, held that while the powers of the judiciary vis-à-vis the Executive and the Legislative
Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings, it may departments of government.155
not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and xxx
further that there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of The Constitution cannot be any clearer. What it granted to this Court
proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. is not a mere power which it can decline to exercise. Precisely to
It is only within these limitations that all matters of method are open to the deter this disinclination, the Constitution imposed it as a duty of
determination of the Legislature. In the same case of Arroyo v. De Venecia, this Court to strike down any act of a branch or instrumentality of
Justice Reynato S. Puno, in his Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, was even government or any of its officials done with grave abuse of
more emphatic as he stressed that in the Philippine setting there is even more discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Rightly or
reason for courts to inquire into the validity of the Rules of Congress, viz: wrongly, the Constitution has elongated the checking powers of this
With due respect, I do not agree that the issues posed by the Court against the other branches of government despite their more
petitioner are non-justiciable. Nor do I agree that we will trivialize democratic character, the President and the legislators being elected
the principle of separation of power if we assume jurisdiction over by the people.156
he case at bar. Even in the United States, the principle of separation xxx
of power is no longer an impregnable impediment against the The provision defining judicial power as including the 'duty of the courts
interposition of judicial power on cases involving breach of rules of of justice. . . to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse
procedure by legislators. of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of
Rightly, the ponencia uses the 1891 case of US v Ballin (144 US 1) as any branch or instrumentality of the Government' constitutes the
a window to view the issues before the Court. It is in Ballin where the capstone of the efforts of the Constitutional Commission to upgrade the
US Supreme Court first defined the boundaries of the power of the powers of this court vis-à-vis the other branches of government. This
judiciary to review congressional rules. It held: provision was dictated by our experience under martial law which taught
"x x x us that a stronger and more independent judiciary is needed to abort
"The Constitution, in the same section, provides, that each house may abuses in government. x x x
determine the rules of its proceedings." It appears that in pursuance of xxx
this authority the House had, prior to that day, passed this as one of its In sum, I submit that in imposing to this Court the duty to annul acts of
rules: government committed with grave abuse of discretion, the new
Rule XV Constitution transformed this Court from passivity to activism. This
3. On the demand of any member, or at the suggestion of the Speaker, transformation, dictated by our distinct experience as nation, is not
the names of members sufficient to make a quorum in the hall of the merely evolutionary but revolutionary. Under the 1935 and the 1973
House who do not vote shall be noted by the clerk and recorded in the Constitutions, this Court approached constitutional violations by initially
journal, and reported to the Speaker with the names of the members determining what it cannot do; under the 1987 Constitution, there is
voting, and be counted and announced in determining the presence of a shift in stress – this Court is mandated to approach
a quorum to do business. (House Journal, 230, Feb. 14, 1890) constitutional violations not by finding out what it should not do
The action taken was in direct compliance with this rule. The question, but what it must do. The Court must discharge this solemn duty by not
therefore, is as to the validity of this rule, and not what methods the resuscitating a past that petrifies the present.
Speaker may of his own motion resort to for determining the presence I urge my brethren in the Court to give due and serious consideration
of a quorum, nor what matters the Speaker or clerk may of their own to this new constitutional provision as the case at bar once more calls
volition place upon the journal. Neither do the advantages or us to define the parameters of our power to review violations of the rules
disadvantages, the wisdom or folly, of such a rule present any matters of the House. We will not be true to our trust as the last bulwark
for judicial consideration. With the courts the question is only one of against government abuses if we refuse to exercise this new
power. The Constitution empowers each house to determine its power or if we wield it with timidity. To be sure, it is this exceeding
rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional timidity to unsheathe the judicial sword that has increasingly
restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a emboldened other branches of government to denigrate, if not
reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceedings defy, orders of our courts. In Tolentino, I endorsed the view of former
established by the rule and the result which is sought to be Senator Salonga that this novel provision stretching the latitude of
attained. But within these limitations all matters of method are open to judicial power is distinctly Filipino and its interpretation should not be
the determination of the House, and it is no impeachment of the rule to depreciated by undue reliance on inapplicable foreign jurisprudence. In
say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more resolving the case at bar, the lessons of our own history should provide
just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has us the light and not the experience of foreigners.157 (Italics in the original
been prescribed and in force for a length of time. The power to make emphasis and underscoring supplied)
rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous Thus, the ruling in Osmena v. Pendatun is not applicable to the instant petitions.
power, always subject to be exercised by the House, and within the Here, the third parties alleging the violation of private rights and the Constitution
are involved.
Neither may respondent House of Representatives' rely on Nixon v. US158 as basis bar rule. Beyond this, it did not go about assuming jurisdiction where it had none,
for arguing that this Court may not decide on the constitutionality of Sections 16 nor indiscriminately turn justiciable issues out of decidedly political questions.
and 17 of the House Impeachment Rules. As already observed, the U.S. Federal Because it is not at all the business of this Court to assert judicial dominance over
Constitution simply provides that "the House of Representatives shall have the the other two great branches of the government. Rather, the raison d'etre of the
sole power of impeachment." It adds nothing more. It gives no clue whatsoever judiciary is to complement the discharge by the executive and legislative of their
as to how this "sole power" is to be exercised. No limitation whatsoever is given. own powers to bring about ultimately the beneficent effects of having founded and
Thus, the US Supreme Court concluded that there was a textually demonstrable ordered our society upon the rule of law.
constitutional commitment of a constitutional power to the House of It is suggested that by our taking cognizance of the issue of constitutionality of the
Representatives. This reasoning does not hold with regard to impeachment power impeachment proceedings against the Chief Justice, the members of this Court
of the Philippine House of Representatives since our Constitution, as earlier have actually closed ranks to protect a brethren. That the members' interests in
enumerated, furnishes several provisions articulating how that "exclusive power" ruling on said issue is as much at stake as is that of the Chief Justice. Nothing
is to be exercised. could be farther from the truth.
The provisions of Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the House Impeachment Rules The institution that is the Supreme Court together with all other courts has long
which state that impeachment proceedings are deemed initiated (1) if there is a held and been entrusted with the judicial power to resolve conflicting legal rights
finding by the House Committee on Justice that the verified complaint and/or regardless of the personalities involved in the suits or actions. This Court has
resolution is sufficient in substance, or (2) once the House itself affirms or dispensed justice over the course of time, unaffected by whomsoever stood to
overturns the finding of the Committee on Justice that the verified complaint benefit or suffer therefrom, unfraid by whatever imputations or speculations could
and/or resolution is not sufficient in substance or (3) by the filing or endorsement be made to it, so long as it rendered judgment according to the law and the facts.
before the Secretary-General of the House of Representatives of a verified Why can it not now be trusted to wield judicial power in these petitions just
complaint or a resolution of impeachment by at least 1/3 of the members of the because it is the highest ranking magistrate who is involved when it is an
House thus clearly contravene Section 3 (5) of Article XI as they give the term incontrovertible fact that the fundamental issue is not him but the validity of a
"initiate" a meaning different from "filing." government branch's official act as tested by the limits set by the Constitution? Of
Validity of the Second Impeachment Complaint course, there are rules on the inhibition of any member of the judiciary from taking
Having concluded that the initiation takes place by the act of filing of the part in a case in specified instances. But to disqualify this entire institution now
impeachment complaint and referral to the House Committee on Justice, the initial from the suit at bar is to regard the Supreme Court as likely incapable of
action taken thereon, the meaning of Section 3 (5) of Article XI becomes clear. impartiality when one of its members is a party to a case, which is simply a non
Once an impeachment complaint has been initiated in the foregoing manner, sequitur.
another may not be filed against the same official within a one year period No one is above the law or the Constitution. This is a basic precept in any legal
following Article XI, Section 3(5) of the Constitution. system which recognizes equality of all men before the law as essential to the
In fine, considering that the first impeachment complaint, was filed by former law's moral authority and that of its agents to secure respect for and obedience to
President Estrada against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., along with seven its commands. Perhaps, there is no other government branch or instrumentality
associate justices of this Court, on June 2, 2003 and referred to the House that is most zealous in protecting that principle of legal equality other than the
Committee on Justice on August 5, 2003, the second impeachment complaint filed Supreme Court which has discerned its real meaning and ramifications through
by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William Fuentebella against its application to numerous cases especially of the high-profile kind in the annals
the Chief Justice on October 23, 2003 violates the constitutional prohibition of jurisprudence. The Chief Justice is not above the law and neither is any other
against the initiation of impeachment proceedings against the same impeachable member of this Court. But just because he is the Chief Justice does not imply that
officer within a one-year period. he gets to have less in law than anybody else. The law is solicitous of every
Conclusion individual's rights irrespective of his station in life.
If there is anything constant about this country, it is that there is always a The Filipino nation and its democratic institutions have no doubt been put to test
phenomenon that takes the center stage of our individual and collective once again by this impeachment case against Chief Justice Hilario Davide.
consciousness as a people with our characteristic flair for human drama, conflict Accordingly, this Court has resorted to no other than the Constitution in search for
or tragedy. Of course this is not to demean the seriousness of the controversy a solution to what many feared would ripen to a crisis in government. But though
over the Davide impeachment. For many of us, the past two weeks have proven it is indeed immensely a blessing for this Court to have found answers in our
to be an exasperating, mentally and emotionally exhausting experience. Both bedrock of legal principles, it is equally important that it went through this crucible
sides have fought bitterly a dialectical struggle to articulate what they respectively of a democratic process, if only to discover that it can resolve differences without
believe to be the correct position or view on the issues involved. Passions had ran the use of force and aggression upon each other.
high as demonstrators, whether for or against the impeachment of the Chief WHEREFORE, Sections 16 and 17 of Rule V of the Rules of Procedure in
Justice, took to the streets armed with their familiar slogans and chants to air their Impeachment Proceedings which were approved by the House of
voice on the matter. Various sectors of society - from the business, retired military, Representatives on November 28, 2001 are unconstitutional. Consequently, the
to the academe and denominations of faith – offered suggestions for a return to a second impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. which
state of normalcy in the official relations of the governmental branches affected to was filed by Representatives Gilberto C. Teodoro, Jr. and Felix William B.
obviate any perceived resulting instability upon areas of national life. Fuentebella with the Office of the Secretary General of the House of
Through all these and as early as the time when the Articles of Impeachment had Representatives on October 23, 2003 is barred under paragraph 5, section 3 of
been constituted, this Court was specifically asked, told, urged and argued to take Article XI of the Constitution.
no action of any kind and form with respect to the prosecution by the House of SO ORDERED.
Representatives of the impeachment complaint against the subject respondent Bellosillo and Tinga, JJ., see separate opinion.
public official. When the present petitions were knocking so to speak at the Puno, and Ynares-Santiago, J., see concurring and dissenting opinion.
doorsteps of this Court, the same clamor for non-interference was made through Vitug, Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez and Callejo, Sr., JJ., see separate
what are now the arguments of "lack of jurisdiction," "non-justiciability," and concurring opinion.
"judicial self-restraint" aimed at halting the Court from any move that may have a Quisumbing, J., concurring separate opinion received.
bearing on the impeachment proceedings. Carpio, J., concur.
This Court did not heed the call to adopt a hands-off stance as far as the question Austria-Martinez, J., concur in the majority opinion and in the separate opinion of
of the constitutionality of initiating the impeachment complaint against Chief J. Vitug.
Justice Davide is concerned. To reiterate what has been already explained, the Corona, J., will write a separate concurring opinion.
Court found the existence in full of all the requisite conditions for its exercise of its Azcuna, J., concur in the separate opinion.
constitutionally vested power and duty of judicial review over an issue whose Footnotes
1
resolution precisely called for the construction or interpretation of a provision of Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 180-182; Annex "H."
2
the fundamental law of the land. What lies in here is an issue of a genuine Per Special Appearance with Manifestation of House Speaker Jose
constitutional material which only this Court can properly and competently C. De Venecia, Jr. (Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 325-363) the pertinent
address and adjudicate in accordance with the clear-cut allocation of powers House Resolution is HR No. 260, but no copy of the same was
under our system of government. Face-to-face thus with a matter or problem that submitted before this Court.
3
squarely falls under the Court's jurisdiction, no other course of action can be had Id. at 329. Created through PD No. 1949 (July 18, 1984), the JDF was
but for it to pass upon that problem head on. established "to help ensure and guarantee the independence of the
The claim, therefore, that this Court by judicially entangling itself with the process Judiciary as mandated by the Constitution and public policy and
of impeachment has effectively set up a regime of judicial supremacy, is patently required by the impartial administration of justice" by creating a special
without basis in fact and in law. fund to augment the allowances of the members and personnel of the
This Court in the present petitions subjected to judicial scrutiny and resolved on Judiciary and to finance the acquisition, maintenance and repair of
the merits only the main issue of whether the impeachment proceedings initiated office equipment and facilities."
4
against the Chief Justice transgressed the constitutionally imposed one-year time Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 120-139; Annex "E."
5
The initial complaint impleaded only Justices Artemio V. Panganiban, 2nd District, Surigao del Sur 78. Ruy Elias Lopez, NPC, 3rd District,
Josue N. Bellosillo, Reynato S. Puno, Antonio T. Carpio and Renato C. Davao City.
14
Corona, and was later amended to include Justices Jose C. Vitug, and Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 5. Petitioner had previously filed two
Leonardo A. Quisumbing. separate impeachment complaints before the House of
6
Supra note 4 at 123-124. Representatives against Ombudsman Aniano Desierto.
7 15
Rollo, G.R. No. 160403 at 48-53; Annex "A." 299 SCRA 744 (1998). In Chavez v. PCGG, petitioner Chavez argued
8
that as a taxpayer and a citizen, he had the legal personality to file a
http://www.congress.gov.ph/search/bills/hist_show.php?bill_no=RPT9 petition demanding that the PCGG make public any and all negotiations
999 and agreements pertaining to the PCGG's task of recovering the
9
Rollo, G.R. No. 160262 at 8. Marcoses' ill-gotten wealth. Petitioner Chavez further argued that the
10
Rollo, G.R. No. 160295 at 11. matter of recovering the ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses is an issue of
11
Rollo, G.R. No. 160262 at 43-84; Annex "B." transcendental importance to the public. The Supreme Court, citing
12
Supra note 2. Tañada v. Tuvera, 136 SCRA 27 (1985), Legaspi v. Civil Service
13
A perusal of the attachments submitted by the various petitioners Commission, 150 SCRA 530 (1987) and Albano v. Reyes, 175 SCRA
reveals the following signatories to the second impeachment complaint 264 (1989) ruled that petitioner had standing. The Court, however, went
and the accompanying Resolution/Endorsement. 1. Gilbert Teodoro, on to elaborate that in any event, the question on the standing of
Jr., NPC, Tarlac (principal complainant) 2. Felix Fuentebella, NPC, petitioner Chavez was rendered moot by the intervention of the Jopsons
Camarines Sur (second principal complainant) 3. Julio Ledesma, IV, who are among the legitimate claimants to the Marcos wealth.
16
NPC, Negros Occidental 4. Henry Lanot, NPC, Lone District of Pasig 384 SCRA 152 (2002). In Chavez v. PEA-Amari Coastal Bay
City 5. Kim Bernardo-Lokin, Party List-CIBAC 6. Marcelino Libanan, Development Corporation, wherein the petition sought to compel the
NPC, Lone District of Eastern Samar, (Chairman, House Committee on Public Estates Authority (PEA) to disclose all facts on its then on-going
Justice) 7. Emmylou Talino-Santos, Independent, 1st District, North negotiations with Amari Coastal Development Corporation to reclaim
Cotobato 8. Douglas RA. Cagas, NPC, 1st District, Davao del Sur 9. portions of Manila Bay, the Supreme Court said that petitioner Chavez
Sherwin Gatchalian, NPC, 1st District, Valenzuela City 10. Luis had the standing to bring a taxpayer's suit because the petition sought
Bersamin, Jr., PDSP-PPC, Lone District of Abra 11. Nerissa Soon-Ruiz to compel PEA to comply with its constitutional duties.
17
Alayon, 6th District, Cebu 12. Ernesto Nieva, Lakas, 1st District, Manila 224 SCRA 792 (1993).
18
13. Edgar R. Erice, Lakas, 2nd District, Kalookan City 14. Ismael Subsequent petitions were filed before this Court seeking similar
Mathay III, Independent, 2nd District, Quezon City 15. Samuel Dangwa, relief. Other than the petitions, this Court also received Motions for
Reporma, Lone District of Benguet 16. Alfredo Marañon, Jr., NPC, 2nd Intervention from among others, Sen. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and
District, Negros Occidental 17. Cecilia Jalosjos-Carreon, Reporma, 1st Special Appearances by House Speaker Jose C. de Venecia, Jr., and
District, Zamboanga del Norte 18. Agapito A. Aquino, LDP, 2nd District, Senate President Franklin Drilon.
19
Makati City 19. Fausto L. Seachon, Jr., NPC, 3rd District, Masbate 20. Supra note 2 at 10.
20
Georgilu Yumul-Hermida, Pwersa ng Masa, 4th District, Quezon 21. Justice Florenz D. Regalado, Former Constitutional Commissioners
Jose Carlos Lacson, Lakas, 3rd District, Negros Occidental 22. Manuel Justice Regalado E. Maambong and Father Joaquin G. Bernas, SJ,
C. Ortega, NPC, 1st District, La Union 23. Uliran Joaquin, NPC, 1st Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr., Former Minister of Justice and Solicitor
District, Laguna 24. Soraya C. Jaafar, Lakas, Lone District of Tawi-Tawi General Estelito P. Mendoza, Deans Pacifico Agabin and Raul C.
25. Wilhelmino Sy-Alvarado, Lakas, 1st District, Bulacan 26. Claude P. Pangalangan, and Former Senate President Jovito R. Salonga,.
21
Bautista, NPC, 2nd District, Davao Del Sur 27. Del De Guzman, Lakas, Rollo, G.R. No. 160261 at 275-292.
22
Lone District of Marikina City 28. Zeneida Cruz-Ducut, NPC, 2nd Id. at 292.
23
District, Pampanga 29. Augusto Baculio, Independent-LDP, 2nd 63 Phil 139 (1936).
24
District, Misamis Oriental 30. Faustino Dy III, NPC-Lakas, 3rd District, Id. at 157-159.
25
Isabela 31. Agusto Boboy Syjuco, Lakas, 2nd District, Iloilo 32. Vide Alejandrino v. Quezon, 46 Phil 83 (1924); Tañada v. Cuenco,
Rozzano Rufino B. Biazon, LDP, Lone District of Muntinlupa City 33. 103 Phil 1051 (1957); Ynot v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA
Leovigildo B. Banaag, NPC-Lakas, 1st District, Agusan del Norte 34. 659, 665 (1987).
26
Eric Singson, LP, 2nd District, Ilocos Sur 35. Jacinto Paras, Lakas, 1st Const., art. VIII, sec. 1.
27
District, Negros Oriental 36. Jose Solis, Independent, 2nd District, 5 US 137 (1803).
28
Sorsogon 37. Renato B. Magtubo, Party List-Partido ng Manggagawa Id. at 180.
29
38. Herminio G. Teves, Lakas, 3rd District, Negros Oriental 39. Amado In In re Prautch, 1 Phil 132 (1902), this Court held that a statute
T. Espino, Jr., Lakas, 2nd District, Pangasinan 40. Emilio Macias, NPC, allowing for imprisonment for non-payment of a debt was invalid. In
2nd District, Negros Oriental 41. Arthur Y. Pingoy, Jr., NPC, 2nd Casanovas v. Hord, 8 Phil 125 (1907), this Court invalidated a statute
District, South Cotobato 42. Francis Nepomuceno, NPC, 1st District, imposing a tax on mining claims on the ground that a government grant
Pampanga 43. Conrado M. Estrella III, NPC, 6th District, Pangasinan stipulating that the payment of certain taxes by the grantee would be in
44. Elias Bulut, Jr., NPC, Lone District of Apayao 45. Jurdin Jesus M. lieu of other taxes was a contractual obligation which could not be
Romualdo, NPC, Lone District of Camiguin 46. Juan Pablo Bondoc, impaired by subsequent legislation. In Concepcion v. Paredes, 42 Phil
NPC, 4th District, Pampanga 47. Generoso DC. Tulagan, NPC, 3rd 599 (1921), Section 148 (2) of the Administrative Code, as amended,
District, Pangasinan 48. Perpetuo Ylagan, Lakas, Lone District of which provided that judges of the first instance with the same salaries
Romblon 49. Michael Duavit, NPC, 1st District, Rizal 50. Joseph Ace H. would, by lot, exchange judicial districts every five years, was declared
Durano, NPC, 5th District, Cebu 51. Jesli Lapus, NPC, 3rd District, invalid for being a usurpation of the power of appointment vested in the
Tarlac 52. Carlos Q. Cojuangco, NPC, 4th District, Negros Occidental Governor General. In McDaniel v. Apacible, 42 Phil 749 (1922), Act No.
53. Georgidi B. Aggabao, NPC, 4th District, Santiago, Isabela 54. 2932, in so far as it declares open to lease lands containing petroleum
Francis Escudero, NPC, 1st District, Sorsogon 55. Rene M. Velarde, which have been validly located and held, was declared invalid for being
Party List-Buhay 56. Celso L. Lobregat, LDP, Lone District of a depravation of property without due process of law. In U.S. v. Ang
Zamboanga City 57. Alipio Cirilo V. Badelles, NPC, 1st District, Lanao Tang Ho, 43 Phil 1 (1922), Act No. 2868, in so far as it authorized the
del Norte 58. Didagen P. Dilangalen, Pwersa ng Masa, Lone District of Governor-General to fix the price of rice by proclamation and to make
Maguindanao 59. Abraham B. Mitra, LDP, 2nd District, Palawan 60. the sale of rice in violation of such a proclamation a crime, was declared
Joseph Santiago, NPC, Lone District of Catanduanes 61. Darlene an invalid delegation of legislative power.
30
Antonino-Custodio, NPC, 1st District of South Cotobato & General Vicente V. Mendoza, Sharing The Passion and Action of our Time
Santos City 62. Aleta C. Suarez, LP, 3rd District, Quezon 63. Rodolfo 62-53 (2003).
31
G. Plaza, NPC, Lone District of Agusan del Sur 64. JV Bautista, Party Supra note 23.
32
List-Sanlakas 65. Gregorio Ipong, NPC, 2nd District, North Cotabato Id. at 156-157.
33
66. Gilbert C. Remulla, LDP, 2nd District, Cavite 67. Rolex T. Suplico, Florentino P. Feliciano, The Application of Law: Some Recurring
LDP, 5th District, Iloilo 68. Celia Layus, NPC, Cagayan 69. Juan Miguel Aspects Of The Process Of Judicial Review And Decision Making, 37
Zubiri, Lakas, 3rd District, Bukidnon 70. Benasing Macarambon Jr,. AMJJUR 17, 24 (1992).
34
NPC, 2nd District, Lanao del Sur 71. Josefina Joson, NPC, Lone District Ibid.
35
of Nueva Ecija 72. Mark Cojuangco, NPC, 5th District, Pangasinan 73. I Record of the Constitutional Commission 434-436 (1986).
36
Mauricio Domogan, Lakas, Lone District of Baguio City 74. Ronaldo B. 31 SCRA 413 (1970)
37
Zamora, Pwersa ng Masa, Lone District of San Juan 75. Angelo O. Id. at 422-423; Vide Baranda v. Gustilo, 165 SCRA 757, 770 (1988);
Montilla, NPC, Lone District of Sultan Kudarat 76. Roseller L. Barinaga, Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, 192
NPC, 2nd District, Zamboanga del Norte 77. Jesnar R. Falcon, NPC,
SCRA 51 (1990); Ordillo v. Commission on Elections, 192 SCRA 100 110 Phil 331 (1960); Vide Gonzales v. Narvasa, supra note 77; Pelaez
(1990). v. Auditor General, 15 SCRA 569 (1965); Philconsa v. Gimenez, 15
38
194 SCRA 317 (1991). SCRA 479 (1965); Iloilo Palay & Corn Planters Association v. Feliciano,
39
Id. at 325 citing Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 581. 13 SCRA 377 (1965).
40 80
152 SCRA 284 (1987). BAYAN v. Zamora, supra note 77 citing Bugnay v. Laron, 176 SCRA
41
Id. at 291 citing Gold Creek Mining v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil 259 (1938), 240, 251-252 (1989); Vide Del Mar v. PAGCOR, supra note 79;
J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc v. Land Tenure Administration, supra note 36, Gonzales v. Narvasa, supra note 77; TELEBAP v. COMELEC, supra
and I Tañada and Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines 21 ( Fourth note 77; Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra note 70; Joya v. PCGG,
Ed. ). supra note 69; Dumlao v. COMELEC, supra note 79; Sanidad v.
42
82 Phil 771 (1949). COMELEC, supra note 79; Philconsa v. Mathay, supra note 79; Pelaez
43
Id. at 775. v. Auditor General, supra note 79; Philconsa v. Gimenez, supra note
44
Supra note 38. 79; Iloilo Palay & Corn Planters Association v. Feliciano, supra note 79;
45
Id. at 330-331. Pascual v. Sec. of Public Works, supra note 79.
46 81
Id. at 337-338 citing 16 CJS 2.31; Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111 Pa. Gonzales v. Narvasa, supra note 77 citing Dumlao v. COMELEC,
365, 3 Atl. 220 and Household Finance Corporation v. Shaffner, 203, supra note 79; Sanidad v. COMELEC, supra note 79; Tan v.
SW 2d, 734, 356 Mo. 808. Macapagal, 43 SCRA 677 (1972).
47 82
Supra note 2. Tatad v. Garcia, Jr., 243 SCRA 436 (1995); Kilosbayan, Inc. v.
48
Citing Section 3 (6), Article VIII of the Constitution provides: Morato, supra note 70 at 140-141 citing Philconsa v. Enriquez, 235
(6) The Senate shall have the sole power to try and decide SCRA 506 (1994); Guingona v. PCGG, 207 SCRA 659 (1992);
all cases of impeachment. When sitting for that purpose, the Gonzales v. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452 (1990); Tolentino v. COMELEC,
Senators shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President 41 SCRA 702 (1971).
83
of the Philippines is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Del Mar v. PAGCOR, supra note 79 at 502-503 citing Philconsa v.
Court shall preside, but shall not vote. No person shall be Mathay, supra note 79.
84
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Chinese Flour Importers Association v. Price Stabilization Board, 89
Members of the Senate. Phil 439, 461 (1951) citing Gallego et al. vs. Kapisanan Timbulan ng
49
Supra note 21. mga Manggagawa, 46 Off. Gaz, 4245.
50 85
506 U.S. 224 (1993). Philippine Constitution Association v. Gimenez, supra note 79 citing
51
Supra note 2 at 349-350 citing Gerhardt, Michael J. The Federal Gonzales v. Hechanova, 118 Phil. 1065 (1963); Pascual v. Secretary,
Impeachment Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis, 1996, supra note 79.
86
p. 119. Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000).
52 87
227 SCRA 100 (1993). MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines,
53
Id. at 112. G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003, citing Industrial Generating Co. v.
54
US Constititon. Section 2. x x x The House of Representatives shall Jenkins 410 SW 2d 658; Los Angeles County Winans, 109 P 640;
have the sole Power of Impeachment. Weberpals v. Jenny, 133 NE 62.
55 88
1987 Constitution, Article XI, Section 3 (1). The House of Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and Trust Company, 58 SCRA 559,
Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate all cases of 570-571 (1974), citing Moore's Federal Practice 2d ed., Vol. III, pages
impeachment. 3423-3424; 4 Federal Rules Service, pages 454-455; Johnson, et al.,
56
Supra note 2 at 355 citing Agresto, The Supreme Court and vs. Riverland Levee Dist., et al., 117 2d 711, 715; Borlasa v. Polistico,
Constitutional Democracy, 1984, pp. 112-113. 47 Phil. 345, 348 (1925).
57 89
369 U.S. 186 (1962). MVRS Publications, Inc. v. Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines,
58
141 SCRA 263 (1986). supra note 87, dissenting opinion of Justice Carpio; Bulig-bulig Kita
59
Supra note 25. Kamag-Anak Assoc. v. Sulpicio Lines, 173 SCRA 514, 514-515 (1989);
60
298 SCRA 756 (1998). Re: Request of the Heirs of the Passengers of Doña Paz, 159 SCRA
61
272 SCRA 18 (1997). 623, 627 (1988) citing Moore, Federal Practice, 2d ed., Vol. 3B, 23-257,
62
201 SCRA 792 (1991). 23-258; Board of Optometry v. Colet, 260 SCRA 88 (1996), citing
63
187 SCRA 377 (1990). Section 12, Rule 3, Rules of Court; Mathay v. Consolidated Bank and
64
180 SCRA 496 (1989). Trust Co., supra note 88; Oposa v. Factoran, supra note 17.
65 90
Supra note 25. Kilosbayan v. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110 (1994).
66 91
Supra note 23. Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, supra note 70 citing Civil Liberties Union
67
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, supra note 38 at 330- v. Executive Secretary, supra note 38; Philconsa v. Giménez, supra
331. note 79; Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association v. Feliciano, supra
68
Id. at 158-159. note 79; Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368 (1949); vide Tatad v.
69
IBP v. Zamora, 338 SCRA 81 (2000) citing Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA 330 (1997);
568 (1993); House International Building Tenants Association, Inc. v. Santiago v. COMELEC, 270 SCRA 106 (1997); KMU v. Garcia, Jr., 239
Intermediate Appellate Court, 151 SCRA 703 (1987); Baker v. Carr, SCRA 386 (1994); Joya v. PCGG, 225 SCRA 368 (1993); Carpio v.
supra note 57. Executive Secretary, 206 SCRA 290 (1992); Osmeña v. COMELEC,
70
Citing Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Morato, 250 SCRA 130 (1995). 199 SCRA 750 (1991); Basco v. PAGCOR, 197 SCRA 52 (1991);
71
Citing Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 281 SCRA Guingona v. Carague, 196 SCRA 221 (1991); Daza v. Singson, supra
330 (1997). note 64; Dumlao v. COMELEC, supra note 79.
72 92
Citing Kapatiran ng mga Naglilingkod sa Pamahalaan ng Pilipinas, Firestone Ceramics, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 522, 531
163 SCRA 371, 378 (1988). (1999) citing Gibson vs. Revilla, 92 SCRA 219; Magsaysay-Labrador v.
73
Rule 3, Section 2. Parties in interest. — A real party in interest is the Court of Appeals, 180 SCRA 266, 271 (1989).
93
party who stands to be benefited or injured by the judgment in the suit, Supra note 79.
94
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit. Unless otherwise authorized Id. at 403.
95
by law or these Rules, every action must be prosecuted or defended in Supra note 81.
96
the name of the real party in interest. Id. at 681.
74 97
JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, 345 SCRA 143, 152 SECTION 3. x x x
(2000). (2) A verified complaint for impeachment may be filed by any
75
246 SCRA 540 (1995). Member of the House of Representatives or by any citizen
76
Id. at 562-564. upon a resolution of endorsement by any Member thereof,
77
Agan v. PIATCO, G.R. No. 155001, May 5, 2003 citing BAYAN v. which shall be included in the Order of Business within ten
Zamora, 342 SCRA 449, 562-563 (2000) and Baker v. Carr, supra note session days, and referred to the proper Committee within
57; Vide Gonzales v. Narvasa, 337 SCRA 733 (2000); TELEBAP v. three session days thereafter. The Committee, after hearing,
COMELEC, 289 SCRA 337 (1998). and by a majority vote of all its Members, shall submit its
78
Chavez v. PCGG, supra note 15. report to the House within sixty session days from such
79
Del Mar v. PAGCOR 346 SCRA 485, 501 (2000) citing Kilosbayan, referral, together with the corresponding resolution. The
Inc., et.al. v. Morato, supra note 70; Dumlao v. COMELEC, 95 SCRA resolution shall be calendared for consideration by the House
392 (1980); Sanidad v. Comelec, 73 SCRA 333 (1976); Philconsa v. within ten session days from receipt thereof.
Mathay, 18 SCRA 300 (1966); Pascual v. Secretary of Public Works,
 126
(3) A vote of at least one-third of all the Members of the Perfecto v. Meer, 85 Phil 552, 553 (1950).
127
House shall be necessary either to affirm a favorable Estrada v. Desierto, 356 SCRA 108, 155-156 (2001); Vide Abbas v.
resolution with the Articles of Impeachment of the Committee, Senate Electoral Tribunal, 166 SCRA 651 (1988); Vargas v. Rilloraza,
or override its contrary resolution. The vote of each Member et al., 80 Phil. 297, 315-316 (1948); Planas v. COMELEC, 49 SCRA
shall be recorded. 105 (1973), concurring opinion of J. Concepcion.
98 128
Supra note 25. Philippine Judges Association v. Prado, 227 SCRA 703, 705 (1993).
99 129
Id. at 1067. Ibid.
100 130
Vide Barcelon v. Baker, 5 Phil. 87 (1905); Montenegro v. Castañeda, Ramirez v. Corpuz-Macandog, 144 SCRA 462, 477 (1986).
131
91 Phil. 882 (1952); De la Llana v. COMELEC, 80 SCRA 525 (1977). Supra note 127.
101 132
Vide Avelino v. Cuenco, 83 Phil. 17 (1949); Macias v. COMELEC, 3 Estrada v. Desierto, supra note 127.
133
SCRA 1 (1961); Cunanan v. Tan, Jr., 5 SCRA 1 (1962); Gonzales v. Id. at 155-156 citing Abbas, et al. v. Senate Electoral Tribunal, supra
COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774 (1967); Lansang v. Garcia, 42 SCRA 448 note 127; Vargas v. Rilloraza, et al., supra note 127.
134
(1971); Tolentino v. COMELEC, supra note 82. Supra note 119 at 210-211.
102 135
50 SCRA 30 (1973). Supra note 119.
103 136
Record of the Constitution Commission, Vol. 1, July 10, 1986 at 434- Board of Optometry v. Colet, 260 SCRA 88, 103 (1996); Joya v.
436. PCGG, supra note 69 at 575; Macasiano v. National Housing Authority,
104
Id. at 439-443. 224 SCRA 236, 242 (1993); Santos III v. Northwestern Airlines, 210
105
177 SCRA 668 (1989). SCRA 256, 261-262 (1992), National Economic Protectionism
106
Id. at 695. Association v. Ongpin, 171 SCRA 657, 665 (1989).
107 137
203 SCRA 767 (1991). Supra note 2 at 353.
108 138
Id. at 776 citing Gonzales v. Macaraig, 191 SCRA 452, 463 (1990). Supra note 33 at 32.
109 139
Supra note 64. Supra note 102.
110 140
Id. at 501. Supra note 33.
111 141
Supra note 57. 249 SCRA 244, 251 (1995).
112 142
Id. at 217. Id. at 251.
113 143
2 Record of the Constitutional Commission at 286. 2 Records of the Constitutional Commission at 342-416.
114 144
Id. at 278, 316, 272, 283-284, 286. Id. at 416.
115 145
76 Phil 516 (1946). Commissioner Maambong's Amicus Curiae Brief at 15.
116 146
Id. at 522. 2 Record of the Constitutional Commission at 375-376, 416
117 147
Supra note 37. 77 Phil. 192 (1946).
118 148
Id. at 58 citing Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Justice Hugo Guiterrez's Amicus Curiae Brief at 7.
149
Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989). 109 Phil. 863 (1960).
119 150
Vide concurring opinion of Justice Vicente Mendoza in Estrada 40 SCRA 58, 68 (1971).
151
v.Desierto, 353 SCRA 452, 550 (2001); Demetria v. Alba, 148 SCRA 286 U.S. 6, 33 (1932).
152
208, 210-211 (1987) citing Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). 277 SCRA 268, 286 (1997).
120 153
As adverted to earlier, neither a copy the Resolution nor a record of 144 U.S. 1 (1862).
154
the hearings conducted by the House Committee on Justice pursuant Supra note 152 at 304-306.
155
to said Resolution was submitted to the Court by any of the parties. Id. at 311.
121 156
Rollo, G.R. No. 160310 at 38. Id. at 313.
122 157
Supra note 107. Supra note 152 at 314-315.
123 158
Id. at 777 (citations omitted). Supra note 50.
124
Rollo, G.R. No. 160262 at 73.
125
Supra note 2 at 342.
EN BANC DECISION
G.R. No. 221538, September 20, 2016 LEONEN, J.:
RIZALITO Y. DAVID, Petitioner, v. SENATE ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL AND
MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES, Respondents.
The words of our most fundamental law cannot be read so as to callously Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.23chanrobleslaw
exclude all foundlings from public service.
On July 27, 1991, Senator Poe married Teodoro Misael Daniel V. Llamanzares,
When the names of the parents of a foundling cannot be discovered despite a both an American and Filipino national since birth.24 The marriage took place in
diligent search, but sufficient evidence is presented to sustain a reasonable Sanctuario de San Jose Parish, San Juan, Manila.25cralawred On July 29, 1991,
inference that satisfies the quantum of proof required to conclude that at least Senator Poe returned to the United States with her husband.26 For some time,
one or both of his or her parents is Filipino, then this should be sufficient to she lived with her husband and children in the United States. 27chanrobleslaw
establish that he or she is a natural-born citizen. When these inferences are
made by the Senate Electoral Tribunal in the exercise of its sole and exclusive Senator Poe and her husband had three (3) children: Brian Daniel (Brian),
prerogative to decide the qualifications of the members of the Senate, then there Hanna MacKenzie (Hanna), and Jesusa Anika (Anika).28 Brian was born in the
is no grave abuse of discretion remediable by either Rule 65 of the Rules of United States on April 16, 1992. Hanna was born on July 10, 1998, and Anika
Court or Article VIII, Section I of the Constitution. on June 5, 2004. Both Hanna and Anika were born in the
Philippines.29chanrobleslaw
This case certainly does not decide with finality the citizenship of every single
foundling as natural-born. The circumstances of each case are unique, and Senator Poe was naturalized and granted American citizenship on October 18,
substantial proof may exist to show that a foundling is not natural-born. The 2001.30 She was subsequently given a United States passport.31chanrobleslaw
nature of the Senate Electoral Tribunal and its place in the scheme of political
powers, as devised by the Constitution, are likewise different from the other Senator Poe's adoptive father, Fernando Poe, Jr., ran for President of the
ways to raise questions of citizenship. Republic of the Philippines in the 2004 National Elections.32 To support her
father's candidacy, Senator Poe and her daughter Hanna returned to the
Before this Court is a Petition for Certiorari1 filed by petitioner Rizalito Y. David Philippines on April 8, 2004.33 After the Elections, she returned to the United
(David). He prays for the nullification of the assailed November 17, 2015 States on July 8, 2004.34 It was during her stay in the Philippines that she gave
Decision and December 3, 2015 Resolution of public respondent Senate birth to her youngest daughter, Anika.35chanrobleslaw
Electoral Tribunal in SET Case No. 001-15.2 The assailed November 17, 2015
Decision3 dismissed the Petition for Quo Warranto filed by David, which sought Fernando Poe, Jr. was hospitalized on December 11, 2004 and eventually
to unseat private respondent Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares as a Senator for "slipped into a coma."36 Senator Poe returned to the Philippines on December
allegedly not being a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, therefore, not 13, 2004.37 On December 14, 2004, her father died.38 She stayed in the country
being qualified to hold such office under Article VI, Section 34 of the 1987 until February 3, 2005 to attend her father's funeral and to attend to the settling
Constitution. The assailed December 3, 2015 Resolution5 denied David's Motion of his estate.39chanrobleslaw
for Reconsideration.
In 2004, Senator Poe resigned from work in the United States. She never looked
Senator Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares (Senator Poe) is a foundling whose for work again in the United States.40chanrobleslaw
biological parents are unknown. As an infant, she was abandoned at the Parish
Church of Jaro, Iloilo.6 Edgardo Militar found her outside the church on Senator Poe decided to return home in 2005.41 After consulting her children,
September 3, 1968 at about 9:30 a.m.7 He later turned her over to Mr. and Mrs. they all agreed to return to the Philippines to support the grieving Susan
Emiliano Militar.8 Emiliano Militar reported to the Office of the Local Civil Roces.42 In early 2005, they notified Brian and Hanna's schools Virginia, United
Registrar that the infant was found on September 6, 1968. 9 She was given the States that they would be transferring to the Philippines the following semester.43
name Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar.10 Local Civil Registrar issued a She came back on May 24, 2005.44 Her children also arrived in the first half of
Certificate of Live Birth/Foundling Certificate stating:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary 2005.45 However, her husband stayed in the United States to "finish pending
Circumstances: THE SUBJECT CHILD WAS FOUND IN THE PARISH projects, and to arrange for the sale of the family home there."46chanrobleslaw
CHURCHD [sic] OF JARO, ON SEPTEMBER 3, 1968 AT ABOUT 9:30 A.M. BY
EDGARDO MILITAR AND THE SAID CHILD IS PRESENTLY IN THE Following her return, Senator Poe was issued by the Bureau of Internal
CUSTODY OF MR. AND MRS. EMILIANO MILITAR AT STA. ISABEL STREET, Revenue a Tax Identification Number (TIN) on July 22, 2005. 47chanrobleslaw
JARO . . .11chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On May 13, 1974, the Municipal Court of San Juan, Rizal promulgated the On July 7, 2006, Senator Poe took the Oath of Allegiance to Republic of the
Decision granting the Petition for Adoption of Senator Poe by Spouses Ronald Philippines:48
Allan Poe (more popularly known as Fernando Poe, Jr.) and Jesusa Sonora Poe I, Mary Grace Poe Llamanzares, solemnly swear that I will support and defend
(more popularly known as Susan Roces).12 The Decision also ordered the the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws and legal
change in Senator Poe's name from Mary Grace Natividad Contreras Militar to orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Philippines; and I
Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe.13 October 27, 2005, Clerk of Court III hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme authority of the
Eleanor A. Sorio certified that the Decision had become final in a Certificate of Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto; and that I impose
Finality.14chanrobleslaw this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental reservation or purpose of
evasion.49chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On April 11, 1980, the Office of Civil Registrar-Iloilo received the Decision of the On July 10, 2006, Senator Poe filed a Petition for Retention and or Re-
San Juan Court Municipal Court and noted on Senator Poe's foundling acquisition of Philippine Citizenship through Republic Act No. 9225. 50 She also
15
certificate that she was adopted by Spouses Ronald Allan and Jesusa Poe. "filed applications for derivative citizenship on behalf of her three children who
This hand-written notation appears on Senator Poe's foundling certificate: were all below eighteen (18) years of age at that time."51chanrobleslaw
NOTE: Adopted child by the Spouses Ronald Allan Poe and Jesusa Sonora Poe
as per Court Order, Mun. Court, San Juan, Rizal, by Hon. Judge Alfredo M. The Petition was granted by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation on July
Gorgonio dated May 13, 1974, under Sp. Proc. No. 18, 2006 through an Order signed by Associate Commissioner Roy M. Almoro
138.16chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary for Commissioner Alipio F. Fernandez, Jr:52
Senator Poe became a registered voter in Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila A careful review of the documents submitted in support of the instant petition
when she turned 18 years old.17 The Commission on Elections issued her a indicate that David was a former citizen of the Republic of the Philippines being
Voter's Identification Card for Precinct No. 196, Greenhills, San Juan, Metro born to Filipino parents and is presumed to be a natural born Philippine citizen;
18
Manila on December 13, 1986. chanrobleslaw thereafter, became an American citizen and is now a holder of an American
passport; was issued an ACT and ICR and has taken her oath of allegiance to
On April 4, 1988, the Department of Foreign Affairs issued her a Philippine the Republic of the Philippines on July 7, 2006 and so is thereby deemed to
passport. Her passport was renewed on April 5, 1993, May 19, 1998, October have re-acquired her Philippine Citizenship.53 (Emphasis in the original)
19

13, 2009, December 19, 2013, and March 18, 2014.20 Having become Senator, In the same Order, Senator Poe's children were "deemed Citizens of the
she was also issued a Philippine diplomatic passport on December 19, Philippines in accordance with Section 4 of R[epublic] A[ct] No. 9225." 54 Until
2013.21chanrobleslaw now, the Order "has not been set aside by the Department of Justice or any
other agency of Government."55chanrobleslaw
Senator Poe took Development Studies at the University of the Philippines,
Manila, but eventually went to the United States in 1988 to obtain her college On July 31, 2006, the Bureau of Immigration issued Identification Certificates in
degree.22 In 1991, she earned a bachelor's degree in Political Science from the name of Senator Poe and her children.56 It stated that Senator Poe is a
 "citizen of the Philippines pursuant to the Citizenship Retention and Re-
acquisition Act of 2003 . . . in relation to Administrative Order No. 91, Series of
Ako, si MARY GRACE POE LLAMANZARES, na itinalaga sa katungkulan bilang
2004 and Memorandum Circular No. AFF-2-005 per Office Order No. AFF-06-
Chairperson, Movie and Television Review and Classification Board, ay taimtim
9133 signed Associate Commissioner Roy M. Almoro dated July 18, na nanunumpa na tutuparin ko nang buong husay at katapatan, sa abot ng
2006."57chanrobleslaw aking kakayahan, ang mga tungkulin ng aking kasalukuyang katungkulan at ng
mga iba pang pagkaraan nito'y gagampanan ko sa ilalim ng Republika ng
Senator Poe became a registered voter of Barangay Santa Lucia, San Juan City Pilipinas; na aking itataguyod at ipagtatanggol ang Saligan Batas ng Pilipinas;
on August 31, 2006.58chanrobleslaw na tunay na mananalig at tatalima ako rito; na susundin ko ang mga batas, mga
kautusang lega, at mga dekretong pinaiiral ng mga sadyang itinakdang may
Senator Poe made several trips to the United States of America between 2006 kapangyarihan ng Republika ng Pilipinas; at kusa kong babalikatin ang
and 2009 using her United States Passport No. 170377935. 59 She used her pananagutang ito, nang walang ano mang pasubali o hangaring umiwas.
passport "after having taken her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic on 07 July
2006, but not after she has formally renounced her American citizenship on 20 Kasihan nawa ako ng Diyos.
October 2010."60 The following are the flight records given by the Bureau of
Immigration:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary NILAGDAAN AT PINANUMPAAN sa harap ko ngayong ika-21 ng Oktubre 2010,
Lungsod ng Maynila, Pilipinas.67 (Emphasis in the original)
p a r t u r e s F l i g h t N o . Senator Poe executed an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of Nationality of the
United States68 in the presence of Vice-Consul Somer E. Bessire-Briers on July
e m b e r 1 , 2 0 0 6 S Q 0 7 1 12, 2011.69 On this occasion, she also filled out the Questionnaire Information
for Determining Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship.70 On December 9, 2011, Vice
y 2 0 , 2 0 0 7 P R 7 3 0 Consul Jason Galian executed a Certificate of Loss of Nationality for Senator
Poe.71 The certificate was approved by the Overseas Citizen Service,
Department of State, on February 3, 2012.72chanrobleslaw
o b e r 3 1 , 2 0 0 7 P R 3 0 0
Senator Poe decided to run as Senator in the 2013 Elections.73 On September
o b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 P R 3 5 8 27, 2012, she executed a Certificate of Candidacy, which was submitted to the
Commission on Elections on October 2, 2012.74 She won and was declared as
i l 2 0 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 0 4 Senator-elect on May 16, 2013.75chanrobleslaw

y 3 1 , 2 0 0 9 P R 7 3 0 David, a losing candidate in the 2013 Senatorial Elections, filed before the
Senate Electoral Tribunal a Petition for Quo Warranto on August 6, 2015.76 He
o b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 0 2 contested the election of Senator Poe for failing to "comply with the citizenship
and residency requirements mandated by the 1987
Constitution."77chanrobleslaw
m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 0 3
Thereafter, the Senate Electoral Tribunal issued Resolution No. 15-01 requiring
m b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 1 2 David "to correct the formal defects of his petition." 78 David filed his amended
Petition on August 17, 2015.79chanrobleslaw
c h 2 7 , 2 0 1 0 P R 1 0 2
On August 18, 2015, Resolution No. 15-02 was issued by the Senate Electoral
r i v a l s F l i g h t N o . Tribunal, through its Executive Committee, ordering the Secretary of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal to summon Senator Poe to file an answer to the amended
e m b e r 4 , 2 0 0 6 S Q 0 7 6 Petition.80chanrobleslaw

Pending the filing of Senator Poe's answer, David filed a Motion Subpoena the
y 2 3 , 2 0 0 7 P R 7 3 1 Record of Application of Citizenship Re-acquisition and related documents from
the Bureau of Immigration on August 25, 2015.81 The documents requested
e m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 7 P R 3 3 7 included Senator Poe's record of travels and NSO kept Birth Certificate. 82 On
August 26, 2015, the Senate Electoral Tribunal issued Resolution No. 15-04
y 8 , 2 0 0 8 P R 1 0 3 granting the Motion.83 The same Resolution directed the Secretary of the
Tribunal to issue a subpoena to the concerned officials of the Bureau of
o b e r 5 , 2 0 0 8 P R 3 5 9 Immigration and the National Statistics Office.84 The subpoenas ordered the
officials to appear on September 1, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the Office of the
Secretary of the Senate bearing three (3) sets of the requested documents. 85
2 1 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 0 5
The subpoenas were complied with by both the Bureau of Immigration and the
National Statistics Office on September 1, 2015.86chanrobleslaw
u s t 3 , 2 0 0 9 P R 7 3 3
On September 1, 2015, Senator Poe submitted her Verified Answer with (1)
6 1
m b e r 1 5 , 2 0 0 9 P R 1 0 3 Prayer for Summary Dismissal; (2) Motion for Preliminary Hearing on Grounds
for Immediate Dismissal/Affirmative Defenses; (3) Motion to Cite David for Direct
On October 6, 2010, President Benigno Simeon Aquino III appointed Senator Contempt of Court; and (4) Counterclaim for Indirect Contempt of
Poe as Chairperson of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Court.87chanrobleslaw
Board (MTRCB).62 On October 20, 2010, Senator Poe executed an Affidavit of
Renunciation of Allegiance to the United States of America and Renunciation of On September 2, 2015, the Senate Electoral Tribunal issued Resolution No. 15-
American Citizenship,63 stating: 05 requiring the parties to file a preliminary conference brief on or before
September 9, 2015.88 The Resolution also set the Preliminary Conference on
I, MARY GRACE POE-LLAMANZARES, Filipino, of legal age, and presently September 11, 2015.89 During the Preliminary Conference, the parties "agreed
residing at No. 107 Rodeo Drive, Corinthian Hills, Quezon City, Philippines, after to drop the issue of residency on the ground of prescription." 90chanrobleslaw
having been duly sworn to in accordance with the law, do hereby depose and
state that with this affidavit, I hereby expressly and voluntarily renounce my Oral arguments were held by the Senate Electoral Tribunal on September 21,
United States nationality/American citizenship, together with all rights and 2015.91 The parties were then "required to submit their respective [memoranda],
privileges and all duties and allegiance and fidelity thereunto pertaining. I make without prejudice to the submission of DNA evidence by [Senator Poe] within
this renunciation intentionally, voluntarily, and of my own free will, free of any thirty (30) days from the said date."92chanrobleslaw
duress or undue influence.64 (Emphasis in the original)
The affidavit was submitted to the Bureau of Immigration on October 21, 2010. 65 On October 21, 2015, Senator Poe moved to extend for 15 days the submission
On October 21, 2010, she took her Oath of Office as MTRCB Chairperson and of DNA test results.93 The Senate Electoral Tribunal granted the Motion on
assumed office on October 26, 2010.66 Her oath of office October 27, 2015 through Resolution No. 15-08.94 On November 5, 2015,
stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary Senator Poe filed a Manifestation regarding the results of DNA Testing, 95 which
PANUNUMPA SA KATUNGKULAN stated that "none of the tests that [Senator Poe] took provided results that would
shed light to the real identity of her biological parents."96 The Manifestation also I
stated that Senator Poe was to continue to find closure regarding the issue and Petitioner comes to this Court invoking our power of judicial review through a
submit any development to the Senate Electoral Tribunal. Later, Senator Poe petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. He
submitted "the issue of her natural-born Filipino citizenship as a foundling for seeks to annul the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Senate Electoral
resolution upon the legal arguments set forth in her submissions to the Tribunal, which state its findings and conclusions on private respondent's
Tribunal."97 On November 6, 2015, through Resolution No. 15-10, the Senate citizenship.
Electoral Tribunal "noted the [M]anifestation and considered the case submitted
for resolution."98chanrobleslaw Ruling on petitioner's plea for post-judgment relief calls for a consideration of
two (2) factors: first, the breadth of this Court's competence relative to that of the
On November 17, 2015, the Senate Electoral Tribunal promulgated its assailed Senate Electoral Tribunal; and second, the nature of the remedial vehicle—a
Decision finding Senator Poe to be a natural-born citizen and, therefore, petition for certiorari—through which one who is aggrieved by a judgment of the
qualified to hold office as Senator.99 The Decision Senate Electoral Tribunal may seek relief from this Court.
stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary I. A
We rule that Respondent is a natural-born citizen under the 1935 Constitution The Senate Electoral Tribunal, along with the House of Representatives
and continue to be a natural-born citizen as defined under the 1987 Constitution, Electoral Tribunal, is a creation of Article VI, Section 17 of the 1987
as she is a citizen of the Philippines from birth, without having to perform any act Constitution:112
to acquire or perfect (her) Philippine citizenship. ARTICLE VI
.... The Legislative Department
In light of our earlier pronouncement that Respondent is a natural-born Filipino ....
citizen, Respondent validly reacquired her natural-born Filipino citizenship upon SECTION 17. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an
taking her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, as required Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the
under Section 3 of R.A. No. 9225. election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of
Under Section 11 of B.I. Memorandum Circular No. AFF 05-002 (the Revised the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six
Rules Implementing R.A. No. 9225), the foregoing Oath of Allegiance is the shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
"final act" to reacquire natural-born Philippine citizenship. may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from
.... the political parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party-
To repeat, Respondent never used her USA passport from the moment she list system represented therein. The senior Justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall
renounced her American citizenship on 20 October 2010. She remained solely a be its Chairman. (Emphasis supplied)
natural-born Filipino citizen from that time on until today. Through Article VI, Section 17, the Constitution segregates from all other judicial
and quasi-judicial bodies (particularly, courts and the Commission on
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition for quo warranto is Elections113) the power to rule on contests114 relating to the election, returns, and
DISMISSED. qualifications of members of the Senate (as well as of the House of
Representatives). These powers are granted to a separate and distinct
No pronouncement as to costs. constitutional organ. There are two (2) aspects to the exclusivity of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal's power. The power to resolve such contests is exclusive to
SO ORDERED.100 (Citations omitted) any other body. The resolution of such contests is its only task; it performs no
On November 23, 2015, David moved for reconsideration.101 The Senate other function.
Electoral Tribunal issued Resolution No. 15-11 on November 24, 2015, giving
Senator Poe five (5) days to comment on the Motion for The 1987 Constitution is not the first fundamental law to introduce into our legal
Reconsideration.102chanrobleslaw system an "independent, impartial and non-partisan body attached to the
legislature and specially created for that singular purpose." 115 The 1935
Senator Poe filed her Comment/Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration on Constitution similarly created an Electoral Commission, independent from the
December 1, 2015.103 David's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the National Assembly, to be the sole judge of all contests relating to members of
Senate Electoral Tribunal on December 3, 2015:104 the National Assembly.116 This was a departure from the system introduced by
WHEREFORE, the Tribunal resolves to DENY the Verified Motion for prior organic acts enforced under American colonial rule—namely: the Philippine
Reconsideration (of the Decision promulgated on 17 November 2015) of David Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916—which vested the power to resolve
Rizalito Y. David dated 23 November 2015. such contests in the legislature itself. When the 1935 Constitution was amended
to make room for a bicameral legislature, a corresponding amendment was
The Tribunal further resolves to CONFIRM Resolution No. 15-11 dated 24 made for there to be separate electoral tribunals for each chamber of
November 2015 issued by the Executive Committee of the Tribunal; to NOTE Congress.117 The 1973 Constitution did away with these electoral tribunals, but
the Comment/Opposition filed by counsel for Respondent on 01 December they have since been restored by the 1987 Constitution.
2015; to GRANT the motion for leave to appear and submit memorandum as
amici curiae filed by Dean Arturo de Castro [and to] NOTE the Memorandum (for All constitutional provisions—under the 1935 and 1987 Constitutions—which
Volunteer Amicus Curiae) earlier submitted by Dean de Castro before the provide for the creation of electoral tribunals (or their predecessor, the Electoral
Commission on Elections in SPA No. 15-139 (DC), entitled "Amado D. Valdez, Commission), have been unequivocal in their language. The electoral tribunal
Petitoner, versus Mary Grace Natividad Sonora Poe Llaman[z]ares, shall be the "sole" judge.
Respondent."
In Lazatin v. House Electoral Tribunal:118
105
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original) The use of the word "sole" emphasizes the exclusive character of the jurisdiction
On December 8, 2015, the Senate Electoral Tribunal's Resolution was received conferred. . . . The exercise of the power by the Electoral Commission under the
106
by David. On December 9, 2015, David filed the pre Petition for Certiorari 1935 Constitution has been described as "intended to be as complete and
before this Court.107chanrobleslaw unimpaired as if it had remained originally in the legislature[.]" Earlier, this grant
of power to the legislature was characterized by Justice Malcohn as "full, clear
On December 16, 2015, this Court required the Senate Electoral Tribunal and and complete." . . . Under the amended 1935 Constitution, the power was
Senator Poe to comment on the Petition "within a non-extendible period of unqualifiedly reposed upon the Electoral Tribunal . . . and it remained as full,
fifteen (15) days from notice."108 The Resolution also set oral arguments on clear and complete as that previously granted the legislature and the Electoral
January 19, 2016.109 The Senate Electoral Tribunal, through the Office of the Commission. . . . The same may be said with regard to the jurisdiction of the
110
Solicitor General, submitted its Comment on December 30, 2015. Senator Electoral Tribunals under the 1987 Constitution.119chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
111
Poe submitted her Comment on January 4, 2016. chanrobleslaw Exclusive, original jurisdiction over contests relating to the election, returns, and
qualifications of the elective officials falling within the scope of their powers is,
This case was held in abeyance pending the resolution of the Commission on thus, vested in these electoral tribunals. It is only before them that post-election
Elections case on the issue of private respondent's citizenship. challenges against the election, returns, and qualifications of Senators and
Representatives (as well as of the President and the Vice-President, in the case
For resolution is the sole issue of whether the Senate Electoral Tribunal of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal) may be initiated.
committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction
in dismissing petitioner's Petition for Quo Warranto based on its finding that The judgments of these tribunals are not beyond the scope of any review. Article
private respondent is a natural-born Filipino citizen, qualified to hold a seat as VI, Section 17's stipulation of electoral tribunals' being the "sole" judge must be
Senator under Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution. read in harmony with Article VIII, Section 1's express statement that "[j]udicial
power includes the duty of the courts of justice . . . to determine whether or not the point of being grossly unreasonable";129 and (d) where the tribunal invokes
there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of erroneous or irrelevant considerations in resolving an issue. 130chanrobleslaw
jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government." I. C
Judicial review is, therefore, still possible. In Libanan v. House of We find no basis for concluding that the Senate Electoral Tribunal acted without
Representatives Electoral Tribunal:120 or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack
The Court has stressed that ". . . so long as the Constitution grants the [House or excess of jurisdiction.
of Representatives Electoral Tribunal] the power to be the sole judge of all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of members of the The Senate Electoral Tribunal's conclusions are in keeping with a faithful and
House of Representatives, any final action taken by the [House of exhaustive reading of the Constitution, one that proceeds from an intent to give
Representatives Electoral Tribunal] on a matter within its jurisdiction shall, as a life to all the aspirations of all its provisions.
rule, not be reviewed by this Court . . . the power granted to the Electoral
Tribunal . . . excludes the exercise of any authority on the part of this Court that Ruling on the Petition for Quo Warranto initiated by petitioner, the Senate
would in any wise restrict it or curtail it or even affect the same." Electoral Tribunal was confronted with a novel legal question: the citizenship
status of children whose biological parents are unknown, considering that the
The Court did recognize, of course, its power of judicial review in exceptional Constitution, in Article IV, Section 1(2) explicitly makes reference to one's father
cases. In Robles vs. [House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal], the Court or mother. It was compelled to exercise its original jurisdiction in the face of a
has explained that while the judgments of the Tribunal are beyond judicial constitutional ambiguity that, at that point, was without judicial precedent.
interference, the Court may do so, however, but only "in the exercise of this
Court's so-called extraordinary jurisdiction, . . . upon a determination that the Acting within this void, the Senate Electoral Tribunal was only asked to make a
Tribunal's decision or resolution was rendered without or in excess of its reasonable interpretation of the law while needfully considering the established
jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion or paraphrasing Morrero, upon a personal circumstances of private respondent. It could not have asked the
clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use by the Tribunal of its power impossible of private respondent, sending her on a proverbial fool's errand to
as constitutes a denial of due process of law, or upon a demonstration of a very establish her parentage, when the controversy before it arose because private
clear unmitigated error, manifestly constituting such grave abuse of discretion respondent's parentage was unknown and has remained so throughout her life.
that there has to be a remedy for such abuse."
The Senate Electoral Tribunal knew the limits of human capacity. It did not insist
In the old, but still relevant, case of Morrero vs. Bocar, the Court has ruled that on burdening private respondent with conclusively proving, within the course of
the power of the Electoral Commission "is beyond judicial interference except, in the few short months, the one thing that she has never been in a position to
any event, upon a clear showing of such arbitrary and improvident use of power know throughout her lifetime. Instead, it conscientiously appreciated the
as will constitute a denial of due process." The Court does not, to paraphrase it implications of all other facts known about her finding. Therefore, it arrived at
in Co vs. [House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal], venture into the perilous conclusions in a manner in keeping with the degree of proof required in
area of correcting perceived errors of independent branches of the Government; proceedings before a quasi-judicial body: not absolute certainty, not proof
it comes in only when it has to vindicate a denial of due process or correct an beyond reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence, but "substantial
abuse of discretion so grave or glaring that no less than the Constitution itself evidence, or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might
calls for remedial action.121 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) accept as adequate to justify a conclusion."131chanrobleslaw
This Court reviews judgments of the House and Senate Electoral Tribunals not
in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. Our review is limited to a In the process, it avoided setting a damning precedent for all children with the
determination of whether there has been an error in jurisdiction, not an error in misfortune of having been abandoned by their biological parents. Far from
judgment. reducing them to inferior, second-class citizens, the Senate Electoral Tribunal
I. B did justice to the Constitution's aims of promoting and defending the well-being
A party aggrieved by the rulings of the Senate or House Electoral Tribunal of children, advancing human rights, and guaranteeing equal protection of the
invokes the jurisdiction of this Court through the vehicle of a petition for certiorari laws and equal access to opportunities for public service.
under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. An appeal is a continuation II
of the proceedings in the tribunal from which the appeal is taken. A petition for Article VI, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution spells out the requirement that "[n]o
certiorari is allowed in Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution and described in person shall be a Senator unless he [or she] is a natural-born citizen of the
the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as an independent civil action. 122 The viability Philippines."
of such a petition is premised on an allegation of "grave abuse of
discretion."123chanrobleslaw Petitioner asserts that private respondent is not a natural-born citizen and,
therefore, not qualified to sit as Senator of the Republic, chiefly on two (2)
The term "grave abuse of discretion" has been generally held to refer to such grounds. First, he argues that as a foundling whose parents are unknown,
arbitrary, capricious, or whimsical exercise of judgment as is tantamount to lack private respondent fails to satisfy the jus sanguinis principle: that is, that she
of jurisdiction:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary failed to establish her Filipino "blood line," which is supposedly the essence of
[T]he abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion the Constitution's determination of who are natural-born citizens of the
of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act Philippines. Proceeding from this first assertion, petitioner insists that as private
at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary respondent was never a natural-born citizen, she could never leave reverted to
and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Mere abuse of natural-born status despite the performance of acts that ostensibly comply with
discretion is not enough: it must be grave.124chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Republic Act No. 9225, otherwise known as the Citizenship Retention and Re-
There is grave abuse of discretion when a constitutional organ such as the acquisition Act of 2003.
Senate Electoral Tribunal or the Commission on Elections, makes manifestly
gross errors in its factual inferences such that critical pieces of evidence, which Petitioner's case hinges on the primacy he places over Article IV, Section 1 of
have been nevertheless properly introduced by a party, or admitted, or which the 1987 Constitution and its enumeration of who are Filipino citizens, more
were the subject of stipulation, are ignored or not accounted for. 125chanrobleslaw specifically on Section 1(2), which identifies as citizens "[t]hose whose fathers or
mothers are citizens of the Philippines." Petitioner similarly claims that, as
A glaring misinterpretation of the constitutional text or of statutory provisions, as private respondent's foundling status is settled, the burden to prove Filipino
well as a misreading or misapplication of the current state of jurisprudence, is parentage was upon her. With private respondent having supposedly failed to
also considered grave abuse of discretion.126 The arbitrariness consists in the discharge this burden, the supposed inevitable conclusion is that she is not a
disregard of the current state of our law. natural-born Filipino.
III
Adjudication that fails to consider the facts and evidence or frivolously departs At the heart of this controversy is a constitutional ambiguity. Definitely,
from settled principles engenders a strong suspicion of partiality. This can be a foundlings have biological parents, either or both of whom can be Filipinos. Yet,
badge of hostile intent against a party. by the nature of their being foundlings, they may, at critical times, not know their
parents. Thus, this controversy must consider possibilities where parentage may
Writs of certiorari have, therefore, been issued: (a) where the tribunal's approach be Filipino but, due to no fault of the foundling, remains unknown.132 Resolving
to an issue is premised on wrong considerations and its conclusions founded on this controversy hinges on constitutional interpretation.
a gross misreading, if not misrepresentation, of the evidence;127 (b) where a
tribunal's assessment of a case is "far from reasonable[,] [and] based solely on Discerning constitutional meaning is an exercise in discovering the sovereign's
very personal and subjective assessment standards when the law is replete with purpose so as to identify which among competing interpretations of the same
standards that can be used";128 "(c) where the tribunal's action on the text is the more contemporarily viable construction. Primarily, the actual words—
appreciation and evaluation of evidence oversteps the limits of its discretion to text—and how they are situated within the whole document—context—govern.
Secondarily, when discerning meaning from the plain text (i.e., verba legis) fails,
contemporaneous construction may settle what is more viable. Nevertheless, Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, which enumerates who are
even when a reading of the plain text is already sufficient, contemporaneous citizens of the Philippines, may be compared with counterpart provisions, not
construction may still be resorted to as a means for verifying or validating the only in earlier Constitutions but even in organic laws142 and in similar
clear textual or contextual meaning of the Constitution. mechanisms143 introduced by colonial rulers whose precepts nevertheless still
III. A resonate today.
The entire exercise of interpreting a constitutional provision must necessarily
begin with the text itself. The language of the provision being interpreted is the Even as ordinary meaning is preeminent, a realistic appreciation of legal
principal source from which this Court determines constitutional interpretation must grapple with the truth that meaning is not always singular
intent.133chanrobleslaw and uniform. In Social Weather Stations, Inc. v. Commission on Elections,144 this
Court explained the place of a holistic approach in legal
To the extent possible, words must be given their ordinary meaning; this is interpretation:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
consistent with the basic precept of verba legis.134 The Constitution is truly a Interestingly, both COMELEC and petitioners appeal to what they (respectively)
public document in that it was ratified and approved by a direct act of the People construe to be plainly evident from Section 5.2(a)'s text on the part of
exercising their right of suffrage, they approved of it through a plebiscite. The COMELEC, that the use of the words "paid for" evinces no distinction between
preeminent consideration in reading the Constitution, therefore, is the People's direct purchasers and those who purchase via subscription schemes; and, on
consciousness: that is, popular, rather than technical-legal, understanding. the part of petitioners, that Section 5.2(a)'s desistance from actually using the
Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary word "subscriber" means that subscribers are beyond its contemplation. The
We look to the language of the document itself in our search for its meaning. We variance in the parties' positions, considering that they are both banking on what
do not of course stop there, but that is where we begin. It is to be assumed that they claim to be the Fair Election Act's plain meaning, is the best evidence of an
the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the objective extant ambiguity.
sought to be attained. They are to be given their ordinary meaning except where
technical terms are employed in which case the significance thus attached to Second, statutory construction cannot lend itself to pedantic rigor that foments
them prevails. As the Constitution is not primarily a lawyer's document, it being absurdity. The dangers of inordinate insistence on literal interpretation are
essential for the rule of law to obtain that it should ever be present in the commonsensical and need not be belabored. These dangers are by no means
people's consciousness, its language as much as possible should be endemic to legal interpretation. Even in everyday conversations, misplaced
understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to literal interpretations are fodder for humor. A fixation on technical rules of
the text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the grammar is no less innocuous. A pompously doctrinaire approach to text can
power of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the stifle, rather than facilitate, the legislative wisdom that unbridled textualism
people mean what they say. Thus, these are the cases where the need for purports to bolster.
construction is reduced to a minimum.135 (Emphasis supplied)
Reading a constitutional provision requires awareness of its relation with the Third, the assumption that there is, in all cases, a universal plain language is
whole of the Constitution. A constitutional provision is but a constituent of a erroneous. In reality, universality and uniformity in meaning is a rarity. A contrary
greater whole. It is the framework of the Constitution that animates each of its belief wrongly assumes that language is static.
components through the dynamism of these components' interrelations. What is
called into operation is the entire document, not simply a peripheral item. The The more appropriate and more effective approach is, thus, holistic rather
Constitution should, therefore, be appreciated and read as a singular, whole than parochial: to consider context and the interplay of the historical, the
unit—ut magis valeat quam pereat.136 Each provision must be understood and contemporary, and even the envisioned. Judicial interpretation entails the
effected in a way that gives life to all that the Constitution contains, from its convergence of social realities and social ideals. The latter are meant to be
foundational principles to its finest fixings.137chanrobleslaw effected by the legal apparatus, chief of which is the bedrock of the prevailing
legal order: the Constitution. Indeed, the word in the vernacular that describes
The words and phrases that establish its framework and its values color each the Constitution — saligan — demonstrates this imperative of constitutional
provision at the heart of a controversy in an actual case. In Civil Liberties Union primacy.
v. Executive Secretary:138
It is a well-established rule in constitutional construction that no one provision of Thus, we refuse to read Section 5.2(a) of the Fair Election Act in isolation. Here,
the Constitution is to be separated from all the others, to be considered alone, we consider not an abstruse provision but a stipulation that is part of the whole,
but that all the provisions bearing upon a particular subject are to be brought into i.e., the statute of which it is a part, that is aimed at realizing the ideal of fair
view and to be so interpreted as to effectuate the great purposes of the elections. We consider not a cloistered provision but a norm that should have a
instrument. Sections bearing on a particular subject should be considered and present authoritative effect to achieve the ideals of those who currently read,
interpreted together as to effectuate the whole purpose of the Constitution and depend on, and demand fealty from the Constitution.145 (Emphasis supplied)
one section is not to be allowed to defeat another, if by any reasonable III. B
construction, the two can be made to stand together. Contemporaneous construction and aids that are external to the text may be
resorted to when the text is capable of multiple, viable meanings. 146 It is only
In other words, the court must harmonize them, if practicable, and must lean in then that one can go beyond the strict boundaries of the document.
favor of construction which will render every word operative, rather than one Nevertheless, even when meaning has already been ascertained from a reading
which may make the words idle and nugatory.139 (Citations omitted) of the plain text, contemporaneous construction may serve to verify or validate
Reading a certain text includes a consideration of jurisprudence that has the meaning yielded by such reading.
previously considered that exact same text, if any. Our legal system is founded
on the basic principle that "judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or Limited resort to contemporaneous construction is justified by the realization that
the Constitution shall form part of [our] legal system."140 Jurisprudence is not an the business of understanding the Constitution is not exclusive to this Court. The
independent source of law. Nevertheless, judicial interpretation is deemed part basic democratic foundation of our constitutional order necessarily means that
of or written into the text itself as of the date that it was originally passed. This is all organs of government, and even the People, read the fundamental law and
because judicial construction articulates the contemporaneous intent that the are guided by it. When competing viable interpretations arise, a justiciable
text brings to effect.141 Nevertheless, one must not fall into the temptation of controversy may ensue requiring judicial intervention in order to arrive with
considering prior interpretation as immutable. finality at which interpretation shall be sustained. To remain true to its
democratic moorings, however, judicial involvement must remain guided by a
Interpretation grounded on textual primacy likewise looks into how the text has framework or deference and constitutional avoidance. This same principle
evolved. Unless completely novel, legal provisions are the result of the re- underlies the basic doctrine that courts are to refrain from issuing advisory
adoption—often with accompanying re-calibration—of previously existing rules. opinions. Specifically as regards this Court, only constitutional issues that are
Even when seemingly novel, provisions are often introduced as a means of narrowly framed, sufficient to resolve an actual case, may be
addressing the inadequacies and excesses of previously existing rules. entertained.147chanrobleslaw

One may trace the historical development of text by comparing its current When permissible then, one may consider analogous jurisprudence (that is,
iteration with prior counterpart provisions, keenly taking note of changes in judicial decisions on similar, but not the very same, matters or concerns), 148 as
syntax, along with accounting for more conspicuous substantive changes such well as thematically similar statutes and international norms that form part of our
as the addition and deletion of provisos or items in enumerations, shifting legal system. This includes discerning the purpose and aims of the text in light of
terminologies, the use of more emphatic or more moderate qualifiers, and the the specific facts under consideration. It is also only at this juncture—when
imposition of heavier penalties. The tension between consistency and change external aids may be consulted—that the supposedly underlying notions of the
galvanizes meaning.
framers, as articulated through records of deliberations and other similar (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.150
accounts, can be illuminating.
III. C Article IV, Section 2 identifies who are natural-born
In the hierarchy of the means for constitutional interpretation, inferring meaning citizens:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
from the supposed intent of the framers or fathoming the original understanding Sec. 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
of the individuals who adopted the basic document is the weakest approach. from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
These methods leave the greatest room for subjective interpretation. Moreover, with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
they allow for the greatest errors. The alleged intent of the framers is not (Emphasis supplied)
necessarily encompassed or exhaustively articulated in the records of Section 2's significance is self-evident. It provides a definition of the term
deliberations. Those that have been otherwise silent and have not actively "natural-born citizens." This is distinct from Section 1's enumeration of who are
engaged in interpellation and debate may have voted for or against a proposition citizens. As against Section 1's generic listing, Section 2 specifically articulates
for reasons entirely their own and not necessarily in complete agreement with those who may count themselves as natural-born.
those articulated by the more vocal. It is even possible that the beliefs that
motivated them were based on entirely erroneous premises. Fathoming original The weight and implications of this categorical definition are better appreciated
understanding can also misrepresent history as it compels a comprehension of when supplemented with an understanding of how our concepts of citizenship
actions made within specific historical episodes through detached, and not and natural-born citizenship have evolved. As will be seen, the term "natural-
necessarily better-guided, modern lenses. born citizen" was a transplanted, but tardily defined, foreign concept.
V. B
Moreover, the original intent of the framers of the Constitution is not always Citizenship is a legal device denoting political affiliation. It is the "right to have
uniform with the original understanding of the People who ratified it. In Civil rights."151 It is one's personal and . . . permanent membership in a political
Liberties Union:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary community. . . The core of citizenship is the capacity to enjoy political rights, that
While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and proceedings is, the right to participate in government principally through the right to vote, the
of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the reason and purpose of right to hold public office[,] and the right to petition the government for redress of
152
the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be had only when other guides fail grievance. chanrobleslaw
as said proceedings are powerless to vary the terms of the Constitution when
the meaning is clear. Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as Citizenship also entails obligations to the political community of which one is
showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for part.153 Citizenship, therefore, is intimately tied with the notion that loyalty is
their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did owed to the state, considering the benefits and protection provided by it. This is
not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls particularly so if these benefits and protection have been enjoyed from the
gave the instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it safer to construe moment of the citizen's birth.
the constitution from what appears upon its face." The proper interpretation
therefore depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it Tecson v. Commission on Elections154 reckoned with the historical development
than in the framer's understanding thereof.149 (Emphasis supplied) of our concept of citizenship, beginning under Spanish colonial rule.155 Under the
IV Spanish, the native inhabitants of the Philippine Islands were identified not as
Though her parents are unknown, private respondent is a Philippine citizen citizens but as "Spanish subjects."156 Church records show that native
without the need for an express statement in the Constitution making her so. Her inhabitants were referred to as "indios." The alternative identification of native
status as such is but the logical consequence of a reasonable reading of the inhabitants as subjects or as indios demonstrated the colonial master's regard
Constitution within its plain text. The Constitution provides its own cues; there is for native inhabitants as inferior.157 Natives were, thus, reduced to subservience
not even a need to delve into the deliberations of its framers and the implications in their own land.
of international legal instruments. This reading proceeds from several levels.
Under the Spanish Constitution of 1876, persons born within Spanish territory,
On an initial level, a plain textual reading readily identifies the specific provision, not just peninsular Spain, were considered Spaniards, classification, however,
which principally governs: the Constitution's actual definition, in Article IV, did not extend to the Philippine Islands, as Article 89 expressly mandated that
Section 2, of "natural-born citizens." This definition must be harmonized with the archipelago was to be governed by special laws.158 It was only on December
Section 1's enumeration, which includes a reference to parentage. These 18, 1889, upon the effectivity in this jurisdiction of the Civil Code of Spain, that
provisions must then be appreciated in relation to the factual milieu of this case. there existed a categorical enumeration of who were Spanish citizens, 159
The pieces of evidence before the Senate Electoral Tribunal, admitted facts, and thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
uncontroverted circumstances adequately justify the conclusion of private (a) Persons born in Spanish territory,
respondent's Filipino parentage.

On another level, the assumption should be that foundlings are natural-born (b) Children of a Spanish father or mother, even if they were born outside
unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. This is necessarily of Spain,
engendered by a complete consideration of the whole Constitution, not just its
provisions on citizenship. This includes its mandate of defending the well-being (c) Foreigners who have obtained naturalization papers,
of children, guaranteeing equal protection of the law, equal access to
opportunities for public service, and respecting human rights, as well as its (d) Those who, without such papers, may have become domiciled
reasons for requiring natural-born status for select public offices. Moreover, this inhabitants of any town of the Monarchy.160
is a reading validated by contemporaneous construction that considers related
legislative enactments, executive and administrative actions, and international 1898 marked the end of Spanish colonial rule. The Philippine Islands were
instruments. ceded by Spain to the United States of America under the Treaty of Paris, which
V was entered into on December 10, 1898. The Treaty of Paris did not
Private respondent was a Filipino citizen at birth. This status' commencement automatically convert the native inhabitants to American citizens. 161 Instead, it
from birth means that private respondent never had to do anything to left the determination of the native inhabitants' status to the Congress of the
consummate this status. By definition, she is natural-born. Though subsequently United States:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
naturalized, she reacquired her natural-born status upon satisfying the Spanish subjects, natives of the Peninsula, residing in the territory over which
requirement of Republic Act No. 9225. Accordingly, she is qualified to hold office Spain by the present treaty relinquishes or cedes her sovereignty may remain in
as Senator of the Republic. such territory or may remove therefrom. . . . In case they remain in the territory
V. A they may preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain by making . . . a
Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution enumerates who are citizens of the declaration of their decision to preserve such allegiance; in default of which
Philippines:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary declaration they shall be held to have renounced it and to have adopted the
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: nationality of the territory in which they may reside.
Thus -
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
this Constitution;
The civil rights and political status of the native inhabitants of the territories
(2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines; hereby ceded to the United States shall be determined by
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Congress.162chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and Pending legislation by the United States Congress, the native inhabitants who
had ceased to be Spanish subjects were "issued passports describing them to
be citizens of the Philippines entitled to the protection of the United President of the Philippines. Article VII, Section 3
States."163chanrobleslaw read:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SECTION 3. No person may be elected to the office of President or Vice-
The term "citizens of the Philippine Islands" first appeared in legislation in the President, unless he be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines, a qualified
Philippine Organic Act, otherwise known as the Philippine Bill of 1902:164 voter, forty years of age or over, and has been a resident of the Philippines for at
Section 4. That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands continuing to reside least ten years immediately preceding the election.
therein, who were Spanish subjects on the eleventh day of April, eighteen While it used the term "natural-born citizen," the 1935 Constitution did not define
hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in said Islands, and their children the term.
born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and held to be citizens of the
Philippine Islands and as such entitled to the protection of the United States, Article II, Section 1(4) of the 1935 Constitution—read with the then civil law
except such as shall have elected to preserve their allegiance to the Crown of provisions that stipulated the automatic loss of Filipino citizens lip by women
Spain in accordance with the provisions of the treaty of peace between the who marry alien husbands—was discriminatory towards women.170 The 1973
United States and Spain signed at Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and Constitution rectified this problematic situation:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
ninety-eight. (Emphasis supplied) SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
The Philippine Bill of 1902 explicitly covered the status of children born in the
Philippine Islands to its inhabitants who were Spanish subjects as of April 11, (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
1899. However, it did not account for the status of children born in the Islands to this Constitution.
parents who were not Spanish subjects. A view was expressed that the common
law concept of jus soli (or citizenship by place of birth), which was operative in (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines.
the United States, applied to the Philippine Islands.165chanrobleslaw
(3) Those who elect Philippine citizenship pursuant to the provisions of
On March 23, 1912, the United States Congress amended Section 4 of the the Constitution of nineteen hundred and thirty-five.
Philippine Bill of 1902. It was made to include a proviso for the enactment by the
legislature of a law on acquiring citizenship. This proviso
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
read:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Provided, That the Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby SECTION 2. A female citizen of the Philippines who marries an alien shall retain
authorized to provide by law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those her Philippine citizenship, unless by her act or omission she is deemed, under
natives of the Philippine Islands who do not come within the foregoing the law, to have renounced her citizenship.171chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
provisions, the natives of the insular possessions of the United States, and such The 1973 Constitution was the first instrument to actually define the term
other persons residing in the Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United "natural-born citizen." Article III, Section 4 of the 1973 Constitution
States, or who could become citizens of the United States under the laws of the provided:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
United States if residing therein.166chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SECTION 4. A natural-born citizen is one who is a citizen of the Philippines from
In 1916, the Philippine Autonomy Act, otherwise known as the Jones Law of birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect his Philippine
1916, replaced the Philippine Bill of 1902. It restated the citizenship provision of citizenship.172chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
the Philippine Bill of 1902, as amended:167 The present Constitution adopted most of the provisions of the 1973 Constitution
Section 2.—Philippine Citizenship and Naturalization on citizenship, "except for subsection (3) thereof that aimed to correct the
irregular situation generated by the questionable proviso in the 1935
That all inhabitants of the Philippine Islands who were Spanish subjects on the Constitution."173chanrobleslaw
eleventh day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and then resided in
said Islands, and their children born subsequent thereto, shall be deemed and Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution now reads: Section 1. The following
held to be citizens of the Philippine Islands, except such as shall have elected to are citizens of the Philippines:
preserve their allegiance to the Crown of Spain in accordance with the
provisions of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed at (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of
Paris December tenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, and except such this Constitution;
others as have since become citizens of some other country: Provided, That the (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
Philippine Legislature, herein provided for, is hereby authorized to provide by
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
law for the acquisition of Philippine citizenship by those natives of the Philippine
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
Islands who do not come within the foregoing provisions, the natives of the
insular possessions of the United States, and such other persons residing in the (4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.174
Philippine Islands who are citizens of the United States, or who could become Article IV, Section 2 also calibrated the 1973 Constitution's previous definition of
citizens of the United States under the laws of the United States if residing natural-born citizens, as follows:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
therein. Sec. 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines
The Jones Law of 1916 provided that a native-born inhabitant of the Philippine from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their
Islands was deemed to be a citizen of the Philippines as of April 11, 1899 if he Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance
or she was "(1) a subject of Spain on April 11, 1899, (2) residing in the with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Philippines on said date, and (3) since that date, not a citizen of some other (Emphasis supplied)
country."168chanrobleslaw Ironically, the concept of "natural-born" citizenship is a "foreign" concept that
was transplanted into this jurisdiction as part of the 1935 Constitution's eligibility
There was previously the view that jus soli may apply as a mode of acquiring requirements for President and Vice-President of the Philippines.
citizenship. It was the 1935 Constitution that made sole reference to parentage
vis-a-vis the determination of citizenship.169 Article III, Section 1 of the 1935 In the United States Constitution, from which this concept originated, the term
Constitution provided:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary "natural-born citizen" appears in only a single instance: as an eligibility
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: requirement for the presidency.175 It is not defined in that Constitution or in
American laws. Its origins and rationale for inclusion as a requirement for the
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary presidency are not even found in the records of constitutional deliberations.176
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the However, it has been suggested that, as the United States was under British
adoption of this Constitution. colonial rule before its independence, the requirement of being natural-born was
introduced as a safeguard against foreign infiltration in the administration of
(2) Those born in the Philippines Islands of foreign parents who, before
national government:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in
It has been suggested, quite plausibly, that this language was inserted in
the Philippine Islands.
response to a letter sent by John Jay to George Washington, and probably to
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. other delegates, on July 25, 1787, which stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and upon Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national
Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born
The term "natural-born citizen" first appeared in this jurisdiction in the 1935 Citizen.
Constitution's provision stipulating the qualifications for President and Vice- Possibly this letter was motivated by distrust of Baron Von Steuben, who had
served valiantly in the Revolutionary forces, but whose subsequent loyalty was
suspected by Jay. Another theory is that the Jay letter, and the resulting V. E
constitutional provision, responded to rumors that the Convention was Natural-born citizenship is not concerned with being a human thoroughbred.
concocting a monarchy to be ruled by a foreign
monarch.177chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Section 2 defines "natural-born citizens." Section 1(2) stipulates that to be a
In the United States, however, citizenship is based on jus soli, not jus sanguinis. citizen, either one's father or one's mother must be a Filipino citizen.
V. C
Today, there are only two (2) categories of Filipino citizens: natural-born and That is all there is to Section 1(2). Physical features, genetics, pedigree, and
naturalized. ethnicity are not determinative of citizenship.

A natural-born citizen is defined in Article IV, Section 2 as one who is a citizen of Section 1(2) does not require one's parents to be natural-born Filipino citizens. It
the Philippines "from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect does not even require them to conform to traditional conceptions of what is
Philippine citizenship." By necessary implication, a naturalized citizen is one who indigenously or ethnically Filipino. One or both parents can, therefore, be
is not natural-born. Bengson v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal178 ethnically foreign.
articulates this definition by dichotomy:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[O]nly naturalized Filipinos are considered not natural-born citizens. It is Section 1(2) requires nothing more than one ascendant degree: parentage. The
apparent from the enumeration of who are citizens under the present citizenship of everyone else in one's ancestry is irrelevant. There is no need, as
Constitution that there are only two classes of citizens: . . . A citizen who is not a petitioner insists, for a pure Filipino bloodline.
naturalized Filipino, i.e., did not have to undergo the process of naturalization to
obtain Philippine citizenship, necessarily is a natural-born Section 1(2) requires citizenship, not identity. A conclusion of Filipino citizenship
Filipino.179chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary may be sustained by evidence adduced in a proper proceeding, which
Former Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban further shed light on the concept substantially proves that either or both of one's parents is a Filipino citizen.
of naturalized citizens in his Concurring Opinion in Bengson: naturalized V. F
citizens, he stated, are "former aliens or foreigners who had to undergo a rigid
procedure, in which they had to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that they Private respondent has done this. The evidence she adduced in these
possessed all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law proceedings attests to how at least one—if not both—of her biological parents
in order to become Filipino citizens."180chanrobleslaw were Filipino citizens.

One who desires to acquire Filipino citizenship by naturalization is generally Proving private respondent's biological parentage is now practically impossible.
required to file a verified petition.181 He or she must establish. among others, that To begin with, she was abandoned as a newborn infant. She was abandoned
he or she is of legal age, is of good moral character, and has the capacity to almost half a century ago. By now, there are only a handful of those who, in
adapt to Filipino culture, tradition, and principles, or otherwise has resided in the 1968, were able-minded adults who can still lucidly render testimonies on the
Philippines for a significant period of time.182 Further, the applicant must show circumstances of her birth and finding. Even the identification of individuals
that he or she will not be a threat to the state, to the public, and to the Filipinos' against whom DNA evidence may be tested is improbable, and by sheer
core beliefs.183chanrobleslaw economic cost, prohibitive.
V. D
Article IV, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution merely gives an enumeration. However, our evidentiary rules admit of alternative means for private respondent
Section 2 categorically defines "natural-born citizens." This constitutional to establish her parentage.
definition is further clarified in jurisprudence, which delineates natural-born
citizenship from naturalized citizenship. Consistent with Article 8 of the Civil In lieu of direct evidence, facts may be proven through circumstantial evidence.
Code, this jurisprudential clarification is deemed written into the interpreted text, In Suerte-Felipe v. People:185
thus establishing its contemporaneous intent. Direct evidence is that which proves the fact in dispute without the aid of any
inference or presumption; while circumstantial evidence is the proof of fact or
Therefore, petitioner's restrictive reliance on Section 1 and the need to establish facts from which, taken either singly or collectively, the existence of a particular
bloodline is misplaced. It is inordinately selective and myopic. It divines Section fact in dispute may be inferred as a necessary or probable
1's mere enumeration but blatantly turns a blind eye to the succeeding Section's consequence.186chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
unequivocal definition. People v. Raganas187 further defines circumstantial
evidence:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Between Article IV, Section 1(2), which petitioner harps on, and Section 2, it is Circumstantial evidence is that which relates to a series of facts other than the
Section 2 that is on point. To determine whether private respondent is a natural- fact in issue, which by experience have been found so associated with such fact
born citizen, we must look into whether she had to do anything to perfect her that in a relation of cause and effect, they lead us to a satisfactory conclusion. 188
citizenship. In view of Bengson, this calls for an inquiry into whether she (Citation omitted)
underwent the naturalization process to become a Filipino. Rule 133, Section 4 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, for instance, stipulates
when circumstantial evidence is sufficient to justify a conviction in criminal
She did not. proceedings:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence
At no point has it been substantiated that private respondent went through the is sufficient for conviction if:
actual naturalization process. There is no more straightforward and more
effective way to terminate this inquiry than this realization of total and utter lack chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) There is more than one circumstances;
of proof.
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
At most, there have been suggestions likening a preferential approach to cralawlawlibrary
foundlings, as well as compliance with Republic Act No. 9225, with
naturalization. These attempts at analogies are misplaced. The statutory (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
mechanisms for naturalization are clear, specific, and narrowly devised. The beyond reasonable doubt.
investiture of citizenship on foundlings benefits children, individuals whose Although the Revised Rules on Evidence's sole mention of circumstantial
capacity to act is restricted.184 It is a glaring mistake to liken them to an adult evidence is in reference to criminal proceedings, this Court has nevertheless
filing before the relevant authorities a sworn petition seeking to become a sustained the use of circumstantial evidence in other proceedings. 189 There is no
Filipino, the grant of which is contingent on evidence that he or she must himself rational basis for making the use of circumstantial evidence exclusive to criminal
or herself adduce. As shall later be discussed, Republic Act No. 9225 is proceedings and for not considering circumstantial facts as valid means for proof
premised on the immutability of natural-born status. It privileges natural-born in civil and/or administrative proceedings.
citizens and proceeds from an entirely different premise from the restrictive
process of naturalization. In criminal proceedings, circumstantial evidence suffices to sustain a conviction
(which may result in deprivation of life, liberty, and property) anchored on the
So too, the jurisprudential treatment of naturalization vis-a-vis natural-born highest standard or proof that our legal system would require, i.e., proof beyond
status is clear. It should be with the actual process of naturalization that natural- reasonable doubt. If circumstantial evidence suffices for such a high standard,
born status is to be contrasted, not against other procedures relating to so too may it suffice to satisfy the less stringent standard of proof in
citizenship. Otherwise, the door may be thrown open for the unbridled diminution administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings such as those before the Senate
of the status of citizens. Electoral Tribunal, i.e., substantial evidence.190chanrobleslaw
Private respondent was found as a newborn infant outside the Parish Church of from one party to another. What shifts is the burden of evidence. This shift
Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968.191 In 1968, Iloilo, as did most—if not all— happens when a party makes a prima facie case in his or her favor. 200 The other
Philippine provinces, had a predominantly Filipino population.192 Private party then bears the "burden of going forward"201 with the evidence considering
respondent is described as having "brown almond-shaped eyes, a low nasal that which has ostensibly been established against him or her.
bridge, straight black hair and an oval-shaped face."193 She stands at 5 feet and
2 inches tall.194 Further, in 1968, there was no international airport in Jaro, Iloilo. In an action for quo warranto, the burden of proof necessarily falls on the party
who brings the action and who alleges that the respondent is ineligible for the
These circumstances are substantial evidence justifying an inference that her office involved in the controversy. In proceedings before quasi-judicial bodies
biological parents were Filipino. Her abandonment at a Catholic Church is more such as the Senate Electoral Tribunal, the requisite quantum of proof is
or less consistent with how a Filipino who, in 1968, lived in a predominantly substantial evidence.202 This burden was petitioner's to discharge. Once the
religious and Catholic environment, would have behaved. The absence of an petitioner makes a prima facie case, the burden of evidence shifts to the
international airport in Jaro, Iloilo precludes the possibility of a foreigner mother, respondent.
along with a foreigner father, swiftly and surreptitiously coming in and out of
Jaro, Iloilo just to give birth and leave her offspring there. Though proof of Private respondent's admitted status as a foundling does not establish a prima
ethnicity is unnecessary, her physical features nonetheless attest to it. facie case in favor of petitioner. While it does establish that the identities of
private respondent's biological parents are not known, it does not automatically
In the other related case of Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on Elections,195 the mean that neither her father nor her mother is a Filipino.
Solicitor General underscored how it is statistically more probable that private
respondent was born a Filipino citizen rather than as a foreigner. He submitted The most that petitioner had in his favor was doubt. A taint of doubt, however, is
the following table is support of his statistical inference:196 by no means substantial evidence establishing a prima facie case and shifting
NUMBER OF FOREIGN AND FILIPINO CHILDREN BORN IN THE the burden of evidence to private respondent.
PHILIPPINES: 1965-1975 and 2010-2014
FOREIGN CHILDREN BORN FILIPINO CHILDREN BORN IN Isolating the fact of private respondent's being a foundling, petitioner trivializes
YEAR other uncontroverted circumstances that we have previously established as
IN THE PHILIPPINES THE PHILIPPINES
substantive evidence of private respondent's
1965 1,479 795,415 parentage:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
1966 1,437 823,342 (1) Petitioner was found in front of a church in Jaro, Iloilo;
1967 1,440 840,302
1968 1,595 898,570 (2) She was only an infant when she was found, practically a newborn;
1969 1,728 946,753
1970 1,521 966,762 (3) She was-found sometime in September 1968;
1971 1,401 963,749
1972 1,784 968,385 (4) Immediately after she was found, private respondent was registered
1973 1,212 1,045,290 as a foundling;
1974 1,496 1,081,873
1975 1,493 1,223,837 (5) There was no international airport in Jaro, Iloilo; and
2010 1,244 1,782,877
2011 1,140 1,746,685 (6) Private respondent's physical features are consistent with those of
typical Filipinos.
2012 1,454 1,790,367
Petitioner's refusal to account for these facts demonstrates an imperceptive
2013 1,315 1,751,523 bias. As against petitioner's suggested conclusions, the more reasonable
2014 1,351 1,748,782 inference from these facts is that at least one of private respondent's parents is
a Filipino.
Source: Philippine Statistics Authority [illegible]197chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary VII
Thus, out of the 900,165 recorded births in the Philippines in 1968, only 1,595 or Apart from how private respondent is a natural-born Filipino citizen consistent
0.18% newborns were foreigners. This translates to roughly 99.8% probability with a reading that harmonizes Article IV, Section 2's definition of natural-born
that private respondent was born a Filipino citizen. citizens and Section 1(2)'s reference to parentage, the Constitution sustains a
presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are born to at least either
Given the sheer difficulty, if not outright impossibility, of identifying her parents a Filipino father or a Filipino mother and are thus natural-born, unless there is
after half a century, a range of substantive proof is available to sustain a substantial proof otherwise. Consistent with Article IV, Section 1(2), any such
reasonable conclusion as to private respondent's parentage. countervailing proof must show that both—not just one—of a foundling's
VI biological parents are not Filipino citizens.
Before a discussion on how private respondent's natural-born status is sustained VII. A
by a general assumption on foundlings arising from a comprehensive reading Quoting heavily from Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro's
and validated by a contemporaneous construction of the Constitution, and Dissenting Opinion to the assailed November 17, 2015 Decision, petitioner
considering that we have just discussed the evidence pertaining to the intimates that no inference or presumption in favor of natural-born citizenship
circumstances of private respondent's birth, it is opportune to consider may be indulged in resolving this case.203 He insists that it is private
petitioner's allegations that private respondent bore the burden of proving— respondent's duty to present incontrovertible proof of her Filipino parentage.
through proof of her bloodline—her natural-born status.
Relying on presumptions is concededly less than ideal. Common sense dictates
Petitioner's claim that the burden of evidence shifted to private respondent upon that actual proof is preferable. Nevertheless, resolving citizenship issues based
a mere showing that she is a foundling is a serious error. on presumptions is firmly established in jurisprudence.

Petitioner invites this Court to establish a jurisprudential presumption that all In 2004, this Court resolved Tecson on the basis of presumptions. Ruling on the
newborns who have been abandoned in rural areas in the Philippines are not allegations that former presidential candidate Ronald Allan Poe (more popularly
Filipinos. His emphasis on private respondent's supposed burden to prove the known as Fernando Poe, Jr.) was not a natural-born Filipino citizen, this Court
circumstances of her birth places upon her an impossible condition. To require proceeded from the presumptions that: first, Fernando Poe Jr.'s grandfather,
proof from private respondent borders on the absurd when there is no dispute Lorenzo Pou, was born sometime in 1870, while the country was still under
that the crux of the controversy—the identity of her biological parents—is simply Spanish colonial rule;204 and second, that Lorenzo Pou's place of residence, as
not known. indicated in his dearth certificate, must have also been his place of residence
"Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue before death, which subjected him to the "en masse Filipinization," or sweeping
necessary to establish his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required investiture of Filipino citizenship effected by the Philippine Bill of 1902. 205 This
by law." Burden of proof lies on the party making the allegations;198 that is, the Court then noted that Lorenzo Pou's citizenship would have extended to his son
party who "alleges the affirmative of the issue"199 Burden of proof never shifts and Fernando Poe Jr.'s father, Allan F. Poe. Based on these, Fernando Poe. Jr.
would then have been a natural-born Filipino as he was born while the 1935 well-being of children, to guarantee equal protection of the law and equal access
Constitution, which conferred Filipino citizenship to those born to Filipino fathers, to opportunities for public service, and to respect human rights. They must also
was in effect:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary be read in conjunction with the Constitution's reasons for requiring natural-born
In ascertaining, in G.R. No. 161824, whether grave abuse of discretion has been status for select public offices. Further, this presumption is validated by
committed by the COMELEC, it is necessary to take on the matter of whether or contemporaneous construction that considers related legislative enactments,
not respondent FPJ is a natural-born citizen, which, in turn, depended on executive and administrative actions, and international instruments.
whether or not the father of respondent, Allan F. Poe, would have himself been
a Filipino citizen and, in the affirmative, whether or not the alleged illegitimacy of Article II, Section 13 and Article XV, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution require
respondent prevents him from taking after the Filipino citizenship of his putative the state to enhance children's well-being and to project them from conditions
father. Any conclusion on the Filipino citizenship of Lorenzo Pou could only be prejudicial to or that may undermine their development. Fulfilling this mandate
drawn from the presumption that having died in 1954 at 84 years old, when the includes preventing discriminatory conditions and, especially, dismantling
Philippines was under Spanish rule, and that San Carlos, Pangasinan, his place mechanisms for discrimination that hide behind the veneer of the legal
of residence upon his death in 1954, in the absence of any other evidence, apparatus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
could have well been his place of residence before death, such that Lorenzo ARTICLE II
Pou would have benefited from the "en masse Filipinization" that the Philippine ....
Bill had effected in 1902. That citizenship (of Lorenzo Pou), if acquired, would State Policies
thereby extend to his son, Allan F. Poe, father of respondent FPJ. The 1935 ....
Constitution, during which regime respondent FPJ has seen first light, confers SECTION 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building
citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino citizens regardless of and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual,
whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate. 206chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary and social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism,
It is true that there is jurisprudence—Paa v. Chan207 and Go v. Ramos208 (which and encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
merely cites Paa)—to the effect that presumptions cannot be entertained in ....
citizenship cases. ARTICLE XV
The Family
Paa, decided in 1967, stated:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary ....
It is incumbent upon the respondent, who claims Philippine citizenship, to prove SECTION 3. The State shall defend:
to the satisfaction of the court that he is really a Filipino. No presumption can be
indulged in favor of the claimant, of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt (2) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and
regarding citizenship must be resolved in favor of the State. 209 (Emphasis special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation,
supplied) and other conditions prejudicial to their development[.] (Emphasis supplied)
These pronouncements are no longer controlling in light of this Court's more Certain crucial government offices are exclusive to natural-born citizens of the
recent ruling in Tecson. Philippines. The 1987 Constitution makes the following offices exclusive to
natural-born citizens:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Moreover, what this Court stated in Paa was that "no presumption can be (1) President;212
indulged in favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship." This reference to "the
claimant" was preceded by a sentence specifically referencing the duty of "the (2) Vice-President;213
respondent." The syntax of this Court's pronouncement—using the definitive (3) Senator;214
article "the"—reveals that its conclusion was specific only to Chan and to his
circumstances. Otherwise, this Court would have used generic language. (4) Member of the House of Representatives;215
Instead of the definite article "the," it could have used the indefinite article "a" in (5) Member of the Supreme Court or any lower collegiate court;216
that same sentence: "no presumption can be indulged in favor of a claimant of (6) Chairperson and Commissioners of the Civil Service Commission;217
Philippine citizenship." In the alternative, it could have used other words that
would show absolute or sweeping application, for instance: "no presumption can (7) Chairperson and Commissioners of the Commission on Elections;218
be indulged in favor of any/every claimant of Philippine citizenship;" or, "no (8) Chairperson and Commissioners of the Commission on Audit;219
presumption can be indulged in favor of all claimants of Philippine citizenship."
(9) Ombudsman and his or her deputies;220
The factual backdrop of Paa is markedly different from those of this case. Its (10) Board of Governors of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas;221 and
statements, therefore, are inappropriate precedents for this case. In Paa, clear (11) Chairperson and Members of the Commission on Human Rights. 222
evidence was adduced showing that respondent Quintin Chan was registered as
an alien with the Bureau of Immigration. His father was likewise registered as an Apart from these, other positions that are limited to natural-born citizens include,
alien. These pieces of evidence already indubitably establish foreign citizenship among others, city fiscals,223 assistant city fiscals,224 Presiding Judges and
and shut the door to any presumption. In contrast, petitioner in this case Associate Judges of the Sandiganbayan, and other public offices. 225 Certain
presents no proof, direct or circumstantial, of private respondent's or of both of professions are also limited to natural-born citizens,226 as are other legally
her parents' foreign citizenship. established benefits and incentives.227chanrobleslaw

Go cited Paa, taking the same quoted portion but revising it to make it appear Concluding that foundlings are not natural-born Filipino citizens is tantamount to
that the same pronouncement was generally permanently discriminating against our foundling citizens. They can then never
applicable:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary be of service to the country in the highest possible capacities. It is also
It is incumbent upon one who claims Philippine citizenship to prove to the tantamount to excluding them from certain means such as professions and state
satisfaction of the court that he is really a Filipino. No presumption can be scholarships, which will enable the actualization of their aspirations. These
indulged hi favor of the claimant of Philippine citizenship, and any doubt consequences cannot be tolerated by the Constitution, not least of all through
regarding citizenship must be resolved in favor of the state. 210 (Emphasis the present politically charged proceedings, the direct objective of which is
supplied) merely to exclude a singular politician from office. Concluding that foundlings are
Thus, Paa's essential and pivotal nuance was lost in proverbial translation. In not natural-born citizens creates an inferior class of citizens who are made to
any case, Go was decided by this Court sitting in Division. It cannot overturn suffer that inferiority through no fault of their own.
Tecson, which was decided by this Court sitting En Banc. Likewise, Go's factual
and even procedural backdrops are different from those of this case. Go If that is not discrimination, we do not know what is.
involved the deportation of an allegedly illegal and undesirable alien, not an
election controversy. In Go, copies of birth certificates unequivocally showing The Constitution guarantees equal protection of the laws and equal access to
the Chinese citizenship of Go and of his siblings were adduced. opportunities for public service:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
VII. B ARTICLE II
The presumption that all foundlings found in the Philippines are born to at least ....
either a Filipino father or a Filipino mother (and are thus natural-born, unless State Policies
there is substantial proof otherwise) arises when one reads the Constitution as a ....
whole, so as to "effectuate [its] whole purpose."211chanrobleslaw SECTION 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
As much as we have previously harmonized Article IV, Section 2 with Article IV, ....
Section 1(2), constitutional provisions on citizenship must not be taken in ARTICLE III
isolation. They must be read in light of the constitutional mandate to defend the Bill of Rights
 Consistent with this statute is our ratification230 of the United Nations Convention
SECTION 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due on the Rights of the Child. This specifically requires the states-parties' protection
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the of: first, children's rights to immediate registration and nationality after birth;
laws. second, against statelessness; and third, against discrimination on account of
.... their birth status.231 Pertinent portions of the Convention
ARTICLE XIII read:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Social Justice and Human Rights Preamble

SECTION 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of The State Parties to the present Convention,
measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in the Charter of
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the the United Nations, recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and
common good. (Emphasis supplied) inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of
The equal protection clause serves as a guarantee that "persons under like freedom, justice and peace in the world,
circumstances and falling within the same class are treated alike, in terms of
'privileges conferred and liabilities enforced.' It is a guarantee against 'undue Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in the Charter,
favor and individual or class privilege, as well as hostile discrimination or reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights and in the dignity and
oppression of inequality.'"228chanrobleslaw worth of the human person, and have determined to promote social progress
and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Other than the anonymity of their biological parents, no substantial distinction229
differentiates foundlings from children with known Filipino parents. They are both Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human
entitled to the full extent of the state's protection from the moment of their birth. Rights and in the International Covenants on Human Rights, proclaimed and
Foundlings' misfortune in failing to identify the parents who abandoned them— agreed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth
an inability arising from no fault of their own—cannot be the foundation of a rule therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
that reduces them to statelessness or, at best, as inferior, second-class citizens religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
who are not entitled to as much benefits and protection from the state as those other status,
who know their parents. Sustaining this classification is not only inequitable; it is
dehumanizing. It condemns those who, from the very beginning of their lives, Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations
were abandoned to a life of desolation and deprivation. has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to special care and assistance,
....
This Court does not exist in a vacuum. It is a constitutional organ, mandated to
effect the Constitution's dictum of defending and promoting the well-being and Have agreed as follows:
development of children. It is not our business to reify discriminatory classes Article 2
based on circumstances of birth. 1. State parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in
the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction
Even more basic than their being citizens of the Philippines, foundlings are without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the
human persons whose dignity we value and rights we, as a civilized nation, child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race,
respect. Thus:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,
ARTICLE II national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability,
.... birth or other status.
State Policies 2. States Parties shall take appropriate measures to
.... ensure that the child is protected against all forms of
SECTION 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status,
guarantees full respect for human rights. (Emphasis supplied) activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's
VII. C parents, legal guardians, or family members.
Though the matter is settled by interpretation exclusively within the confines of Article 3
constitutional text, the presumption that foundlings are natural-born citizens of 1. In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by
the Philippines (unless substantial evidence of the foreign citizenship of both of public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
the foundling's parents is presented) is validated by a parallel consideration or administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best
contemporaneous construction of the Constitution with acts of Congress, interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
international instruments in force in the Philippines, as well as acts of executive 2. States Parties undertake to ensure the child such
organs such as the Bureau of Immigration, Civil Registrars, and the President of protection and care as is necessary for his or her well-
the Philippines. being, taking into account the rights and duties of his or her
parents, legal guardians, or other individuals legally
Congress has enacted statutes founded on the premise that foundlings are responsible for him or her, and, to this end, shall take all
Filipino citizens at birth. It has adopted mechanisms to effect the constitutional appropriate legislative and administrative measures.
mandate to protect children. Likewise, the Senate has ratified treaties that put Article 7
this mandate into effect. 1. The child, shall be registered immediately after birth and
shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to
Republic Act No. 9344, otherwise known as the Juvenile Justice and Welfare acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to
Act of 2006, provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary know and be cared for by his or her parents.
SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policy. - The following State policies shall be 2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these
observed at all times: rights in accordance with their national law and their
obligations under the relevant international instruments in
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary. . . . this field, in particular where the child would otherwise
be stateless. (Emphasis supplied)
(b) The State shall protect the best interests of the child through measures The Philippines likewise ratified232 the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and
that will ensure the observance of international standards of child Political Rights. As with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, this treaty
protection, especially those to which the Philippines is a party. Proceedings requires that children be allowed immediate registration after birth and to acquire
before any authority shall be conducted in the best interest of the child and in a a nationality. It similarly defends them against
manner which allows the child to participate and to express himself/herself discrimination:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
freely. The participation of children in the program and policy formulation and Article 24. . . .
implementation related to juvenile justice and welfare shall be ensured by the
concerned government agency. (Emphasis supplied) 1. Every child shall have, without any discrimination as to race, colour, sex,
Section 4(b) of the Republic Act No. 9344 defines the "best interest of the child" language, religion, national or social origin, property or birth, the right to such
as the "totality of the circumstances and conditions which are most congenial to measures of protection as are required by his status as a minor, on the part of
the survival, protection and feelings of security of the child and most his family, society and the State.
encouraging to the child's physical, psychological and emotional development."
2. Every child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have a
name. chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary a) Child study;

3. Every child has the right to acquire a nationality. b) Birth certificate/foundling certificate;

.... c) Deed of voluntary commitment/decree of abandonment/death certificate of

parents;
Article 26. All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall d) Medical evaluation/history;
prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and
effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, e) Psychological evaluation, as necessary; and cralawlawlibrary
colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status. (Emphasis supplied) f) Recent photo of the child. (Emphasis supplied)
Treaties are "international agreements] concluded between state| in written form In the case of foundlings, foundling certificates may be presented in lieu of
and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or authenticated birth certificates to satisfy the requirement for the issuance of
in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation." 233 passports, which will then facilitate their adoption by
Under Article VII, Section 21 of the 1987 Constitution, treaties require foreigners:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
concurrence by the Senate before they became SECTION 5. If the applicant is an adopted person, he must present a certified
binding:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary true copy of the Court Order of Adoption, certified true copy of his original and
SECTION 21. No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective amended birth certificates as issued by the OCRG. If the applicant is a minor, a
unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate. Clearance from the DSWD shall be required. In case the applicant is for
The Senate's ratification of a treaty makes it legally effective and binding by adoption by foreign parents under R.A. No. 8043, the following, shall be
transformation. It then has the force and effect of a statute enacted by required:
Congress. In Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines v. a) Certified true copy of the Court Decree of Abandonment of Child, the
Duque III, et al.:234 Death Certificate of the child's parents, or the Deed of Voluntary
Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of Commitment executed after the birth of the child.
domestic law either by transformation or incorporation. The transformation
method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation b) Endorsement of child to the Intercountry Adoption Board by the DSWD.
method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
deemed to have the force of domestic law.
c) Authenticated Birth or Foundling Certificate.238 (Emphasis supplied)
Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to Our statutes on adoption allow for the recognition of foundlings' Filipino
Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or citizenship on account of their birth. They benefit from this without having to do
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at any act to perfect their citizenship or without having to complete the
least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional naturalization process. Thus, by definition, they are natural-born citizens.
international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it
to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. 235 Specifically regarding private respondent, several acts of executive organs have
(Emphasis supplied) recognized her natural-born status. This status was never questioned
Following ratification by the Senate, no further action, legislative or otherwise, is throughout her life; that is, until circumstances made it appear that she was a
necessary. Thereafter, the whole of government—including the judiciary—is viable candidate for President of the Philippines. Until this, as well as the
duty-bound to abide by the treaty, consistent with the maxim pacta sunt proceedings in the related case of Poe-Llamanzares, private respondent's
servanda. natural-born status has been affirmed and reaffirmed through various official
public acts.
Accordingly, by the Constitution and by statute, foundlings cannot be the object
of discrimination. They are vested with the rights to be registered and granted First, private respondent was issued a foundling certificate and benefitted from
nationality upon birth. To deny them these rights, deprive them of citizenship, the domestic adoption process. Second, on July 18, 2006, she was granted an
and render them stateless is to unduly burden them, discriminate them, and order of reacquisition of natural-born citizenship under Republic Act No. 9225 by
undermine their development. the Bureau of Immigration. Third, on October 6, 2010, the President of the
Philippines appointed her as MTRCB Chairperson—an office that requires
Not only Republic Act No. 9344, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and natural-born citizenship.239chanrobleslaw
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights effect the constitutional VIII
dictum of promoting the well-being of children and protecting them from As it is settled that private respondent's being a foundling is not a bar to natural-
discrimination. Other legislative enactments demonstrate the intent to treat born citizenship, petitioner's proposition as to her inability to benefit from
foundlings as Filipino citizens from birth. Republic Act No. 9225 crumbles. Private respondent, a natural-born Filipino
citizen, re-acquired natural-born Filipino citizenship when, following her
Republic Act No. 8552, though briefly referred to as the Domestic Adoption Act naturalization as a citizen of the United States, she complied with the requisites
of 1998, is formally entitled An Act Establishing the Rules and Policies on of Republic Act No. 9225.
Domestic Adoption of Filipino Children and for Other Purposes. It was enacted VIII. A
as a mechanism to "provide alternative protection and assistance through foster "Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by
care or adoption of every child who is neglected, orphaned, or law."240 Commonwealth Act No. 63, which was in effect when private respondent
abandoned."236chanrobleslaw was naturalized an American citizen on October 18, 2001, provided in Section
1(1) that "[a] Filipino citizen may lose his citizenship . . . [b]y naturalization in a
Foundlings are explicitly among the "Filipino children" covered by Republic Act foreign country." Thus, private respondent lost her Philippine citizenship when
237
No. 8552: she was naturalized an American citizen. However, on July 7, 2006, she took
SECTION 5. Location of Unknown Parent(s). — It shall be the duty of the her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines under Section 3 of
Department or the child-placing or child-caring agency which has custody of the Republic Act No. 9225. Three (3) days later, July 10, 2006, she filed before the
child to exert all efforts to locate his/her unknown biological parent(s). If such Bureau of Immigration and Deportation a Petition for Reacquisition of her
efforts fail, the child shall be registered as a foundling and subsequently Philippine citizenship. Shortly after, this Petition was granted.241chanrobleslaw
be the subject of legal proceedings where he/she shall be declared
abandoned. (Emphasis supplied) Republic Act No. 9225 superseded Commonwealth Act No. 63242 and Republic
Similarly, Republic Act No. 8043, though briefly referred to as the Inter-Country Act No. 8171243 specifically "to do away with the provision in Commonwealth Act
Adoption Act of 1995, is formally entitled An Act Establishing the Rules to No. 63 which takes away Philippine citizenship from natural-born Filipinos who
Govern Inter-Country Adoption of Filipino Children, and for Other Purposes. become naturalized citizens of other countries."244chanrobleslaw
As with Republic Act No. 8552, it expressly includes foundlings among "Filipino
children" who may be adopted:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary The citizenship regime put in place by Republic Act No. 9225 is designed, in its
SECTION 8. Who May Be Adopted. — Only a legally free child may be the own words, to ensure "that all Philippine citizens who become citizens of another
subject of inter-country adoption, hi order that such child may be considered for country shall be deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship."245 This
placement, the following documents must be submitted: to the Board: Court shed light on this in Calilung v. Commission on Elections:246 "[w]hat Rep.
Act No. 9225 does is allow dual citizenship to natural-born Filipino citizens who
have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a
foreign country."247chanrobleslaw (5) That the right to vote or be elected or appointed to any public
office in the Philippines cannot be exercised by, or extended to,
Republic Act No. 9225 made natural-born Filipinos' status permanent and those who:
immutable despite naturalization as citizens of other countries. To effect this,
Section 3 of Republic Act No. 9225 provides:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
SEC. 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship. — Any provision of law to the
contrary notwithstanding, natural-born citizens of the Philippines who have lost a. are candidates for or are occupying any public office in the
their Philippine citizenship by reason of their naturalization as citizens of a country of which they are naturalized citizens; and/or
foreign country are hereby deemed to have reacquired Philippine citizenship
upon taking the following oath of allegiance to the b. are in active service as commissioned or noncommissioned
Republic:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
officers in the armed forces of the country which they are
"I _________________________, solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support
naturalized citizens. (Emphasis supplied)
and defend the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines and obey the laws
and legal orders promulgated by the duly constituted authorities of the Thus, natural-born Filipinos who have been naturalized elsewhere and wish to
Philippines; and I hereby declare that I recognize and accept the supreme run for elective public office must comply with all of the following requirements:
authority of the Philippines and will maintain true faith and allegiance thereto;
and that I impose this obligation upon myself voluntarily without mental chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFirst, taking the oath of allegiance to the Republic.
reservation or purpose of evasion." This effects the retention or reacquisition of one's status as a natural-born
Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, Filipino.249 This also enables the enjoyment of full civil and political rights,
become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws,
taking the aforesaid oath. provided the solemnities recited in Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9225 are
Section 3's implications are clear. Natural-born Philippine citizens who, after satisfied.250chanrobleslaw
Republic Act 9225 took effect, are naturalized in foreign countries "retain," that
is, keep, their Philippine citizenship, although the effectivity of this retention and Second, compliance with Article V, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, 251
the ability to exercise the rights and capacities attendant to this status are Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as the Overseas Absentee Voting Act
subject to certain solemnities (i.e., oath of allegiance and other requirements for of 2003, and other existing laws. This is to facilitate the exercise of the right of
specific rights and/or acts, as enumerated in Section 5). On the other hand, suffrage; that is, to allow for voting in elections.252chanrobleslaw
those who became citizens of another country before the effectivity of Republic
Act No. 9225 "reacquire" their Philippine citizenship and may exercise attendant Third, "mak[ing] a personal and sworn renunciation of any and all foreign
rights and capacities, also upon compliance with certain solemnities. Read in citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an oath."253 This,
conjunction with Section 2's declaration of a policy of immutability, this along with satisfying the other qualification requirements under relevant laws,
reacquisition is not a mere restoration that leaves a vacuum in the intervening makes one eligible for elective public office.
period. Rather, this reacquisition works to restore natural-born status as though
it was never lost at all. As explained in Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections,254 this required
VIII. B sworn renunciation is intended to complement Article XI, Section 18 of the
Taking the Oath of Allegiance effects the retention or reacquisition of natural- Constitution in that "[p]ublic officers and employees owe the State and this
born citizenship. It also facilitates the enjoyment of civil and political rights, Constitution allegiance at all times and any public officer or employee who seeks
"subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities." 248 However, other to change his citizenship or acquire the status of an immigrant of another
conditions must be met for the exercise of other country during his tenure shall be dealt with by law."255 It is also in view of this
faculties:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary that Section 5(5) similarly bars those who seek or occupy public office
Sec. 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities. - Those who retain or re-acquire elsewhere and/or who are serving in the armed forces of other countries from
Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and being appointed or elected to public office in the Philippines.
be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of VIII. C
the Philippines and the following conditions: Private respondent has complied with all of these requirements. First, on July 7,
2006, she took the Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. 256
(1) Those intending to exercise their right of suffrage must meet the Second, on August 31, 2006, she became a registered voter of Barangay Santa
requirements under Section 1, Article V of the Constitution, Lucia, San Juan.257 This evidences her compliance with Article V, Section 1 of
Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "the Overseas the 1987 Constitution. Since she was to vote within the country, this dispensed
Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws; with the need to comply with the Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003. Lastly,
on October 20, 2010, she executed an Affidavit of Renunciation of Allegiance to
the United States of America and Renunciation of American Citizenship. 258 This
was complemented by her execution of an Oath/Affirmation of Renunciation of
(2) Those seeking elective public office in the Philippines shall meet Nationality of the United States259 before Vice-Consul Somer E. Bessire-Briers
the qualifications for holding such public office as required by the on July 12, 2011,260 which was, in turn, followed by Vice Consul Jason Galian's
Constitution and existing laws and, at the time of the filing of issuance of a Certificate of Loss of Nationality on December 9, 2011261 and the
the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and sworn approval of this certificate by the Overseas Citizen Service, Department of State,
renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any on February 3, 2012.262chanrobleslaw
public officer authorized to administer an oath;
Private respondent has, therefore, not only fully reacquired natural-born
citizenship; she has also complied with all of the other requirements for eligibility
to elective public office, as stipulated in Republic Act No. 9225.
VIII. D
(3) Those appointed to any public office shall subscribe and swear to
an oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines and It is incorrect to intimate that private respondent's having had to comply with
its duly constituted authorities prior to their assumption of Republic Act No. 9225 shows that she is a naturalized, rather than a natural-
office; Provided, That they renounce their oath of allegiance to born, Filipino citizen. It is wrong to postulate that compliance with Republic Act
the country where they took that oath; No. 9225 signifies the performance of acts to perfect citizenship.

To do so is to completely disregard the unequivocal policy of permanence and

immutability as articulated in Section 2 of Republic Act No. 9225 and as
(4) Those intending to practice their profession in the Philippines illuminated in jurisprudence. It is to erroneously assume that a natural-born
shall apply with the proper authority for a license or permit to Filipino citizen's naturalization elsewhere is an irreversible termination of his or
engage in such practice; and her natural-born status.

To belabor the point, those who take the Oath of Allegiance under Section 3 of
Republic Act No. 9225 reacquire natural-born citizenship. The prefix "re"
signifies reference to the preceding state of affairs. It is to this status quo ante
that one returns. "Re"-acquiring can only mean a reversion to "the way things
were." Had Republic Act No. 9225 intended to mean the investiture of an entirely Perlas-Bernabe, J., please see dissenting opinion.
new status, it should not have used a word such as "reacquire." Republic Act Jardeleza, J., in result.
No. 9225, therefore, does not operate to make new citizens whose citizenship Endnotes:
1
commences only from the moment of compliance with its requirements. Rollo, pp. 3-76. The Petition was filed under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2
Bengson, speaking on the analogous situation of repatriation, ruled that Id. at 73
3
repatriation involves the restoration of former status or the recovery of one's Id. at 227-258.
4
original nationality:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary CONST., art. VI, sec. 3 provides:
Moreover, repatriation results in the recovery of the original nationality. This SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of
means that a naturalized Filipino who lost his citizenship will be restored to his the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age,
prior status as a naturalized Filipino citizen. On the other hand, if he was able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for
originally a natural-born citizen before he lost his Philippine citizenship, he will not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election
be restored to his former status as a natural-born Filipino.263 (Emphasis 5
Rollo, pp. 80-83.
6
supplied) Id. at 8.
7
Although Bengson was decided while Commonwealth Act No. 63 was in force, Id. See also rollo, p. 227, SET Decision.
9
its ruling is in keeping with Republic Act No. 9225 's policy of permanence and Id. at 227.
10
immutablity: "all Philippine citizens of another country shall be deemed not to Id. at 681, Poe Comment.
have lost their Philippine citizenship."264 In Bengson's words, the once 11
Id. at 8.
12
naturalized citizen is "restored" or brought back to his or her natural-born status. Id. at 681.
17
There may have been an interruption in the recognition of this status, as, in the Id. at 9.
interim, he or she was naturalized elsewhere, but the restoration of natural-born 20 Id. at 228.
21
status expurgates this intervening fact. Thus, he or she does not become a Id. at 682.
22
Philippine citizen only from the point of restoration and moving forward. He or Id. at 9 and 682.
23
she is recognized, de jure, as a Philippine citizen from birth, although the Id. at 9.
24
intervening fact may have consequences de facto. Id. at 682-683.
25
cralawred Id. at 228.
Republic Act No. 9225 may involve extended processes not limited to taking the 27 Id. at 9.
28
Oath of Allegiance and requiring compliance with additional solemnities, but Id. at 683.
30
these are for facilitating the enjoyment of other incidents to citizenship, not for Id. at 9.
32
effecting the reacquisition of natural-born citizenship itself. Therefore, it is Id. at 683.
markedly different from naturalization as there is no singular, extended process 33 Id. at 9.
35
with which the former natural-born citizen must comply. Id. at 683.
36
IX Id. at 10.
To hold, as petitioner suggests, that private respondent is stateless265 is not only 40 Id. at 684.
to set a dangerous and callous precedent. It is to make this Court an accomplice 41 Id. at 228.
42
to injustice. Id. at 684.
44
Id. at 685.
47
Equality, the recognition of the humanity of every individual, and social justice Id. at 228.
48
are the bedrocks of our constitutional order. By the unfortunate fortuity of the Id. at 10.
49
inability or outright irresponsibility of those gave them life, foundlings are Id. at 685.
compelled to begin their very existence at a disadvantage. Theirs is a continuing 50 Id. at 228.
51
destitution that can never be truly remedied by any economic relief. Id. 686.
52
Id. at 228.
If we are to make the motives of our Constitution true, then we an never tolerate 53 Id. at 686.
56
an interpretation that condemns foundlings to an even greater misfortune Id. at 686-687.
57
because of their being abandoned. The Constitution cannot be rendered inert Id. at 687.
59
and meaningless for them by mechanical judicial fiat. Id. at 256.
62
Id. at 10.
63
Dura lex sed lex is not a callous and unthinking maxim to be deployed against Id. at 687.
64
other reasonable interpretations of our basic law. It does command us to Id. at 687-688.
65
consider legal text, but always with justice in mind. Id. at 688.
66
Id. at 229.
67
It is the empowering and ennobling interpretation of the Constitution that we Id. at 689, Poe Comment.
68
must always sustain. Not only will this manner of interpretation edify the less Id. at 229.
78
fortunate; it establishes us, as Filipinos, as a humane and civilized people. Id. at 230.
88
Id. at 231.
99
The Senate Electoral Tribunal acted well within the bounds of its constitutional Id. at 257.
100
competence when it ruled that private respondent is a natural-born citizen Id. at 253-257.
101
qualified to sit as Senator of the Republic. Contrary to petitioner's arguments, Id. at 84-100.
102
there is no basis for annulling its assailed Decision and Resolution. Id. at 80, SET Resolution No. 15-12.
103
Id. at 81.
104
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Public respondent Id. at 80-83.
105
Senate Electoral Tribunal did not act without or in excess of its jurisdiction or Id. at 82.
106
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in Id. at 7.
107
rendering its assailed November 17, 2015 Decision and December 3, 2015 Id. at 7-8.
108
Resolution. Id. at 647, SET Comment.
110
Id. at 669.
111
Private respondent Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino Id. at 677-828.
112
citizen qualified to hold office as Senator of the Republic. A counterpart electoral tribunal for the positions of President and Vice-
President was also created by the seventh paragraph of Article VII, Section 4 of
SO ORDERED.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary the 1987 Constitution.

Sereno, C.J., Velasco, Jr., Peralta, Bersamin, Perez, and Caguioa, JJ., concur. CONST., art. VII, sec. 4 provides:
Carpio, J., no part. SECTION 4 . . . .
Leonardo-De Castro, J., no part. ....
Brion, J., no part. The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
Del Castillo, J., not natural born until proven otherwise. relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the President or Vice-
Mendoza, J., with some reservation. President, and may promulgate its rules for the purpose.
Reyes, J., dissenting.
113
Trial courts and the Commission on Elections still exercise jurisdiction over 5/211833_leonen.pdf> 4-5 [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
123
contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of local elective RULES OF COURT, Rule 65, sec. 1 provides:
offices. SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. — When any tribunal, board or officer
exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess its or
CONST., art. IX-C, sec. 2(2) provides: his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
exercise the following powers and functions: petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
(2) Exercise exclusive original jurisdiction over all contests relating to the board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
elections, returns, and qualifications of all elective regional, provincial, and city require.
officials, and appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal
officials decided by trial courts of general jurisdiction or involving elective The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order
barangay officials decided by trial courts of limited jurisdiction. or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping as provided in
Decisions, final orders, or rulings of the Commission on election contests the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46.
124
involving elective municipal and barangay offices shall be final, executory, and Mitra v. Commission on Elections, 636 Phil. 753, 777 (2010) [Per J. Brion, En
not appealable. Banc].
125
Abosta Shipmanagement Corporation v. National Labor Relations
114
The term "contest" refers to post-election disputes. In Tecson v. Commission Commission (First Division) and Arnulfo R. Flores, 670 Phil. 136, 151 (2011)
on Elections, 468 Phil. 421 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc], this Court referring to [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
the counterpart electoral tribunal for the President and Vice President — the 126
Nightowl Watchman & Security Agency, Inc. v. Lumahan, G.R. No. 212096,
Presidential Electoral Tribunal - explained: "Ordinary usage would characterize a October 14, 2015
"contest" in reference to a post-election scenario. Election contests consist of <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/october
eitheir an election protest or a quo warranto which, although two distinct 2015/212096.pdf> 7 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
127
remedies, would have one objective in view, i.e. to dislodge the whining Mitra v. Commission on Elections, 636 Phil. 753, 777-778, 782 (2010) [Per J.
candidate from office. A perusal of the phraseology in Rule 12, Rule 13, and Brion, En Banc].
Rule 14 of the "Rules of the Presidential Electoral Tribunal" promulgated by the 128 Id. at 787.
129
Supreme Court en banc on 18 April 1992, would support this premise. . . . Id. at 778. In Mitra, this Court faulted the Commission on Elections for relying
on very select facts that appeared to have been appreciated precisely in such a
"The rules categorically speak of the jurisdiction of the tribunal over contests manner as to make it appear that the candidate whose residence was in
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the "President" or "Vice- question was not qualified. Viewing these facts in isolation indicated a practically
President", of the Philippines, and not of "candidates" for President or Vice- deliberate, ill-intentioned intent at sustaining a previously-conceived myopic
President. A quo warranto proceeding is generally defined as being an action conclusion:
against a person who usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises a "In considering the residency issue, the [Commission on Elections] practically
public office. In such context, the election contest can only contemplate a post- focused solely on its consideration of Mitra's residence at Maligaya Feedmill, on
election scenario. In Rule 14, only a registered candidate who would have the basis of mere photographs of the premises. In the [Commission on
received either the second or third highest number of votes could file an election Elections'] view (expressly voiced out by the Division and fully concurred in by
protest. This rule again presupposes a post-election scenario. the En Banc), the Maligaya Feedmill building could not have been Mitra's
residence because it is cold and utterly devoid of any indication of Mitra's
"It is fair to conclude that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court [sitting as the personality and that it lacks loving attention and details inherent in every home
Presidential Electoral Tribunal], defined by Section 4, paragraph 7, of the 1987 to make it one's residence. This was the main reason that the [Commission on
Constitution, would not include cases directly brought before it, questioning the Elections] relied upon for its conclusion.
qualifications of a candidate for the presidency or vice-presidency before the
elections are held." "Such assessment, in our view, based on the interior design and furnishings of a
dwelling as showm by and examined only through photographs, is far from
115
Lazatin v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 250 Phil. 390, 399 reasonable; the [Commission on Elections] thereby determined the fitness of a
(1988). [Per J. Cortes, En Banc]. dwelling as a person's residence based solely on very personal and subjective
116
CONST. (1935), art. VI, sec. 4 provides: assessment standards when the law is replete with standards that can be used.
SECTION 4. There shall be an Electoral Commission composed of three Where a dwelling qualifies as a residence - i.e., the dwelling where a person
Justices of the Supreme Court designated by the Chief Justice, and of six permanently intends to return to and to remain - his or her capacity or inclination
Members chosen by the National Assembly, three of whom shall be nominated to decorate the place, or the lack of it, is immaterial."
by the party having the largest number of votes, and three by the party having
130
the second largest number of votes therein. The senior Justice in the In Varias v. Commission on Elections, 626 Phil. 292, 314-315 (2010) [Per J.
Commission shall be its Chairman. The Electoral Commission shall be the sole Brion, En Banc], this Court, citing Pecson v. Commission on Elections, 595 Phil.
judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of the 1214, 1226 (2008) [Per J. Brion, En Banc] stated: "[A] court abuses its discretion
Members of the National Assembly. when it lacks jurisdiction, fails to consider and make a record of the factors
relevant to its determination, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings,
117
CONST. (1935 amended), art. VI, sec. 11 provides: considers clearly irrelevant or improper factors, clearly gives too much weight to
SECTION 11. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall have an one factor, relies on erroneous conclusions of law or equity, or misapplies its
Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the factual or legal conclusions."
election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral 131 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 5.
Tribunal shall be composed of nine Members, three of whom shall be Justices of 132 CONST., art. IV, sec. 1(2):
the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, who shall be chosen by each House, three upon nomination of the party (2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines[.]
having the largest number of votes and three of the party having the second
133
largest numbers of votes therein. The senior Justice in each Electoral Tribunal Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Commission on Elections, 412 Phil.
shall be its Chairman. 308, 338 (2001) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
118 134
250 Phil. 390 (1988) [Per J. Cortes, En Banc]. See J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Chavez v. Judicial and Bar Council, 709
119
Id. at 399-400. Phil. 478, 501-523 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, En Banc].
120 135
347 Phil. 797 (1997) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc]. Francisco v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 885 (2003) [Per J.
121
Id. at 804-805. Carpio Morales, En Banc], citing J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure
122
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinions in Rappler v. Bautista, G.R. No. 222702, Administration, 142 Phil. 393 (1970) [Per J. Fernando, Second Division]. This
April 5, 2016 was also cited in Saguisag v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 212426, January 12, 2016
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/april201 <http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/january
6/222702.pdf> 2-3 [Per J. Carpio, En Banc] and in Villanueva v. Judicial Bar 2016/212426.pdf> [Per C.J. Sereno, En Banc].
136
Council, G.R. No. 211833, April 7, 2015 Francisco v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 886 (2003) [Per J.
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/april201 Carpio Morales, En Banc].
137 163
La Bugal-B'laan Tribal Association, Inc. v. Ramos (Resolution), 486 Phil. 754, Id. at 467.
164
773 (2004) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc] states that "[t]he Constitution should Id. at 467-468.
165
be read in broad, life-giving strokes." Id.
138 166
272 Phil. 147 (1991) [Per C.J. Fernan, En Banc]. Id. at 468.
139 167
Id. at 162, as cited in Atty. Macalintal v. Presidential Electoral Tribunal, 650 Id.
168
Phil. 326, 341 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, En Banc]. Id. at 469.
140 169
CIVIL CODE, art. 8. Id.
141 170
Senarillos v. Hermosisima, 100 Phil. 501, 504 (1956) [Per J. J. B. L. Reyes, Id.
171
En Banc]. CONST. (1973), art. III, secs. 1 and 2.
142 172
The adoption of the Philippine Bill of 1902, otherwise known as the Philippine CONST. (1973), art. III, sec. 4.
173
Organic Act of 1902, crystallized the concept of "Philippine citizens." See Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 470 (2004) [Per J. Vitug,
Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 467-468 (2004) per J. Vitug, En Banc].
174
En Banc]. The 1935 Constitution was in effect when petitioner was born. However, the
143
For example, the Civil Code of Spain became effective in the jurisdiction on provisions are now substantially similar to the present Constitution, except that
December 18, 1889, making the first categorical listing on who were Spanish the present Constitution provides clarity for "natural born" status. For
citizens. See Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 465 (2004) comparison, the 1935 provisions state:
[Per J. Vitug, En Banc]. SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines.
144
G.R. No. 208062, April 7, 2015
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/april201 (1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of
5/208062.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc]. this Constitution.
145
Id. at 26.
146
Sobejana-Condon v. Commission on Elections, 692 Phil. 407, 421 (2012) [Per (2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the
J. Reyes, En Banc]: "Ambiguity is a condition of admitting two or more adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine
meanings, of being understood in more than one way, or of referring to two or Islands.
more things at the same time. For a statute to be considered ambiguous, it must
admit of two or more possible meanings." (3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
147
See, for example, In the Matter of Save the Supreme Court Judicial
Independence and Fiscal Autonomy Movement v. Abolition of Judiciary (4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the
Development Fund, UDK-15143, January 21, 2015 age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship.
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2015/january
2015/15143.pdf> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc], citing J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion (5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
in Belgica v. Ochoa, G.R. No. 208566, November 19, 2013, 710 SCRA 1, 278-
279 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc]. SECTION 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner
148
Cf. what was previously discussed regarding previous judicial decisions on the provided by law.
175
very same text. See Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The
149
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 830, 887 [Per J. Carpio Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1968).
176
Morales, En Banc], citing Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 272 Phil. Id. at 3-4.
147, 169-170 (1991) [Per C.J. Fernan, En Banc].
150 177
The 1935 Constitution was in effect when petitioner was born. However, the Id. at 5.
178
provisions are now substantially similar to the present Constitution, except that 409 Phil. 633 (2001) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
179
the present Constitution provides clarity for "natural born" status. For Id. at 651.
180
comparison, the 1935 provisions state: Id. at 656.
181
See Rep. Act No. 9139 (2000), sec. 5 provides:
SECTION 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines. SECTION 5. Petition for Citizenship. — (1) Any person desiring to acquire
Philippine, citizenship under this Act shall file with the Special Committee on
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the adoption of Naturalization created under Section 6 hereof, a petition of five (5) copies legibly
this Constitution. typed and signed, thumbmarked and verified by him/her, with the latter's
passport-sized photograph attached to each copy of the petition, and setting
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the forth the following:
adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine
Islands. Com. Act No. 473, sec.7 provides:
SECTION 7. Petition for Citizenship. — Any person desiring to acquire
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines. Philippine citizenship shall file with the competent court, a petition in triplicate,
accompanied by two photographs of the petitioner, setting forth his name and
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the surname; his present and former places of residence; his occupation; the place
age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. and date of his birth; whether single or married and if the father of children, the
name, age, birthplace and residence of the wife and of the children; the
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. approximate date of his or her arrival in the Philippines, the name of the port of
debarkation, and, if he remembers it, the name of the ship on which he came; a
SECTION 2. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner declaration that he has the qualifications required by this Act, specifying the
provided by law. same, and that he is not disqualified for naturalization under the provisions of
this Act; that he has complied with the requirements of section five of this Act;
151
C.J. Warren, Dissenting Opinion in Perez v. Brownwell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958). and that he will reside continuously in the Philippines from the date of the filing
152
Go v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. 202809, July 2, 2014, 729 SCRA 138, of the petition up to the time of his admission to Philippine citizenship. The
149 [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division], citing BERNAS, THE 1987 petition must be signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and be
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, A supported by the affidavit of at least two credible persons, stating that they are
COMMENTARY (2009 ed.). citizens of the Philippines and personally know the petitioner to be a resident of
153
Id. the Philippines for the period of time required by this Act and a person of good
154
468 Phil. 421 (2004) [Per J.Vitug, En Banc]. repute and morally irreproachable, and that said petitioner has in then opinion all
155
Id. at 464-470. the qualifications necessary to become a citizen of the Philippines and is not in
156
Id. at 464. any way disqualified under the provisions of this Act. The petition shall also set
157
Id. forth the names and post-office addresses of such witnesses as the petitioner
158
Id. at 465. may desire to introduce at the hearing of the case. The certificate of arrival, and
159
Id. the declaration of intention must be made part of the petition.
160
Id. at 465-466, citing The Civil Code of Spain, art. 17.
161
Id. at 466-467, citing RAMON M. VELAYO, PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP AND 182See Rep. Act No. 9139 (2000), sec. 3 provides:
NATURALIZATION 22-23 (1965). SECTION 3. Qualifications. — Subject to the provisions of the succeeding
162
Id. at 466, citing RAMON M. VELAYO, PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP AND section, any person desiring to avail of the benefits of this Act must meet the
NATURALIZATION 22-23 (1965). following qualifications:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) The applicant must be born in the Philippines (d) Those convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
and residing therein since birth;
(e) Those suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
(b) The applicant must not be less than eighteen (18) years of age, at the time of
filing of his/her petition; (f) Those who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
mingled socially with Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to learn
(c) The applicant must be of good moral character and believes in the underlying and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipinos;
principles of the Constitution, and must have conducted himselfherself in a
proper and irreproachable manner during his/her entire period of residence in (g) Citizens or subjects with whom the Philippines is at war, during the period of
the Philippines in his relation with the duly constituted government as well as such war; and cralawlawlibrary
with the community in which he/she is living;
(h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country whose laws do not grant Filipinos
(d) The applicant must have received his/her primary and secondary education the right to be naturalized citizens or subjects thereof.
in any public school or private educational institution duly recognized by the
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, where Philippine history, Com. Act No. 473 (1939), sec. 4 provides:
government and civics are taught and prescribed as part of the school
curriculum and where enrollment is not limited to any race or nationality: SECTION 4. Who are Disqualified. — The following can not be naturalized as
Provided, That should he/she have minor children of school age, he/she must Philippine citizens:
have enrolled them in similar schools;
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) Persons opposed to organized government or
(e) The applicant must have a known trade, business, profession or lawful affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach
occupation, from which he/she derives income sufficient for his/her support and doctrines opposing all organized governments;
if he/she is married and/or has dependents, also that of his/her family: Provided,
however, That this shall not apply to applicants who are college degree holders (b) Persons defending or teaching the necessity or propriety of violence,
but are unable to practice their profession because they are disqualified to do so personal assault or assassination for the success and predominance of their
by reason of their citizenship; ideas;

(f) The applicant must be able to read, write and speak Filipino or any of the (c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
dialects of the Philippines; and cralawlawlibrary
(d) Persons convicted of crimes involving moral turpitude;
(g) The applicant must have mingled with the Filipinos and evinced a sincere
desire to learn and embrace the customs, traditions and ideals of the Filipino (e) Persons suffering from mental alienation or incurable contagious diseases;
people.
(f) Persons who, during the period of their residence in the Philippines, have not
Comm. Act No. 473, sec. 2 provides: mingled socially with the Filipinos, or who have not evinced a sincere desire to
learn and embrace the customs, traditions, and ideals of the Filipinos;
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 2. Qualifications. — Subject to section
four of this Act, any person having the following qualifications may become a (g) Citizens or subjects of nations with whom the United States and the
citizen of the Philippines by naturalization: Philippines are at war, during the period of such war;

chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryFirst. He must be not less than twenty-one years of (h) Citizens or subjects of a foreign country other than the United States, whose
age on the day of the hearing of the petition; laws do not grant Filipinos the right to become naturalized citizens or subjects
thereof.
Second. He must have resided in the Philippines for a continuous period of not
184
less than ten years; The Civil Code states:
Article 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal
Third. He must be of good moral character and believes in the principles relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death.
underlying the Philippine Constitution, and must have conducted himself in a Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and
proper and irreproachable manner during the entire period of his residence in may be lost.
the Philippines in his relation with the constituted government as well as with the
community in which he is living. Article 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute,
prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do
Fourth. He must own real estate in the Philippines worth not less than five not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter
thousand pesos, Philippine currency, or must have some known lucrative trade, arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements.
profession, or lawful occupation;
Article 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity
Fifth. He must be able to speak and write English or Spanish and any of the to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty,
principal Philippine languages; prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The
consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes,
Sixth. He must have enrolled his minor children of school age, in any of the the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account
public schools or private schools recognized by the Office of Private Education of religious belief or political opinion.
of the Philippines, where Philippine history, government and civics are taught or
prescribed as part of the school curriculum, during the entire period of the A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all acts of civil
residence in the Philippines required of him prior to the hearing of his petition for life, except in cases specified by law.
naturalization as Philippine citizen.
183 185
Rep. Act No. 9139 (2000), sec. 4 provides: 571 Phil. 170 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division].
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 4. Disqualifications. — The following are 186 Id. at 189-190, citing Lack County v. Neilon, 44 Or. 14, 21, 74, p. 212; State
not qualified to be naturalized as Filipino citizens under this Act: v. Avery, 113 Mo. 475, 494, 21 S.W. 193; and Reynolds Trial Ev., Sec. 4, p. 8.
187
374 Phil. 810 (1999) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
188
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(a) Those opposed to organized government or Id. at 822.
189
affiliated with any association or group of persons who uphold and teach See Lua v. O'Brien, et al., 55 Phil. 53 (1930) [Per J. Street, En Banc]; Vda. De
doctrines opposing all organized governments; Laig, et al. v. Court of Appeals, 172 Phil. 283 (1978) [Per J. Makasiar, First
Division]; Baloloy v. Hular, 481 Phil. 398 (2004) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Second
(b) Those defending or teaching the necessity of or propriety of violence, Division]; and Heirs of Celestial v. Heirs of Celestial, 455 Phil. 704 (2003) [Per J.
personal assault or assassination for the success or predominance of their Ynares-Santiago, First Division].
190
ideas; Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations, 69 Phil. 635 (1940) [Per J. Laurel,
En Banc]. Also, Rule 133, Section 5 of the Revised Rules on Evidence states:
(c) Polygamists or believers in the practice of polygamy;
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 5. Substantial evidence. — In cases filed Commission composed of a Chairman and two Commissioners who shall be
before administrative or quasi-judicial bodie's, a fact may be deemed natural-born citizens of the Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at
established if it is supported by substantial evidence, or that amount of relevant least thirty-five years of age, with proven capacity for public administration, and
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a must not have been candidates for any elective position in the elections
conclusion. immediately preceding their appointment.
191 218
Rollo, p. 8. CONST., art. IX-C, sec. 1(1) provides:
192
See J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on ARTICLE IX. Constitutional Commissions
Elections, G.R. No. 221698-700, March 8, 2016 ....
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2 C. The Commission on Elections
016/221697_leonen.pdf> 83 [Per J. Perez, En Banc].
193
Id. SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Elections composed of a
194
Id. Chairman and six Commissioners who shall be natural-born citizens of the
195
G.R. No. 221698-700, March 8, 2016 Philippines and, at the time of their appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2 holders of a college degree, and must not have been candidates for any elective
016/221697.pdf> position in the immediately preceding elections. However, a majority thereof,
196
J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion in Poe-Llamanzares v. Commission on including the Chairman, shall be Members of the Philippine Bar who have been
Elections, G.R. No. 221698-700, March 8, 2016 engaged in the practice of law for at least ten years.
<http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/march2
219
016/221697_leonen.pdf> 83 [Per J. Perez, En Banc]. CONST., art. IX-D, sec. 1(1) provides:
197
Id. at 84. ARTICLE IX. Constitutional Commissions
198
Uytengsu III v. Baduel, 514 Phil. 1 (2005) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]. ....
199
Jison v. Court of Appeals, 350 Phil. 138 (1998) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First D. Commission on Audit
Division].
200
Id. SECTION 1. (1) There shall be a Commission on Audit composed of a
201
Tañada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc]. Chairman and two Commissioners, who shall be natural-born citizens of the
202
RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, sec. 5. Philippines and, at the time of men-appointment, at least thirty-five years of age,
203
Rollo, pp. 56-58. certified public accountants with not less than ten years of auditing experience,
204
Tecson v. Commission on Elections, 468 Phil. 421, 473-474 (2004) [Per J. or members of the Philippine Bar who have been engaged in the practice of law
Vitug, En Banc]. for at least ten years, and must not have been candidates for any elective
205
Id. at 473-474 and 488. position in the elections immediately preceding their appointment. At no time
206
Id. at 487-488. shall all Members of the Commission beloiig to the same profession.
207
128 Phil. 815 (1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc].
208 220
614 Phil. 451, 479 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. CONST., art. XI, sec.8 provides:
209
128 Phil. 815, 825 (1967) [Per J. Zaldivar, En Banc]. ARTICLE XI. Accountability of Public Officers
210
Go v. Ramos, 614 Phil. 451, 479 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second ....
Division]. SECTION 8. The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born citizens of
211
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, 272 Phil. 147, 162 (1991) [Per the Philippines, and at the time of their appointment, at least forty years old, of
C.J. Fernan, En Banc]. recognized probity and independence, and members of the Philippine Bar, and
212
CONST., art. VII, sec. 2 provides: must not have been candidates for any elective office in the immediately
ARTICLE VII. Executive Department preceding election. The Ombudsman must have for ten years or more been a
.... judge or engaged in the practice of law in the Philippines.
221
SECTION 2. No person may be elected President unless he is a natural-born CONST., art. XII, sec. 20 provides:
citizen of the Philippines, a registered voter, able to read and write, at least forty ARTICLE XII. National Economy and Patrimony
years of age on the day of the election, and a resident of the Philippines for at ...
least ten years immediately preceding such election. SECTION 20. The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary
authority, the members of whose governing board must be natural-born Filipino
213
CONST., art. VII, sec. 3. citizens, of known probity, integrity, and patriotism, the majority of whom shall
214
CONST., art. VI, sec. 3 provides: come from the private sector. They shall also be subject to such other
ARTICLE VI. The Legislative Department qualifications and disabilities as may be prescribed by law. The authority shall
.. . provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit. It shall have
SECTION 3. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of supervision over the operations of banks and exercise such regulatory powers
the Philippines, and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, as may be provided by law over the operations of finance companies and other
able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for institutions performing similar functions.
222
not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election. CONST., art. XIII, sec. 17(2) provides:
ARTICLE XIII. Social Justice and Human Rights
215
CONST., art. VI, sec. 6 provides: ....
ARTICLE VI. The Legislative Department Human Rights
....
SECTION 6. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives SECTION 17. . . .
unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the
election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and, except (2) The Commission shall be composed of a Chairman and four Members who
the party-list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall must be natural-born citizens of the Philippines and a majority of whom shall be
be elected, and a resident thereof for a period of not less than one year members of the Bar. The term of office and other qualifications and disabilities of
immediately preceding the day of the election. the Members of the Commission shall be provided by law.
223
Rep. Act No. 3537 (1963), sec. 1. Section thirty-eight of Republic Act
216
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 7(1) provides: Numbered Four hundred nine, as amended by Republic Act Numbered Eighteen
ARTICLE VIII. Judicial Department hundred sixty and Republic Act Numbered Three thousand ten, is further
.... amended to read as follows:
SECTION 7. (1) No person shall be appointed Member of the Supreme Court or
any lower collegiate court unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. A Sec. 38. The City Fiscal and Assistant City Fiscals. — There shall be in the
Member of the Supreme Court must be at least forty years of age, and must Office of the City Fiscal one chief to be known as the City Fiscal with the rank,
have been for fifteen years or more a judge of a lower court or engaged in the salary and privileges of a Judge of the Court of First Instance, an assistant chief
practice of law in the Philippines. to be known as the first assistant city fiscal, three second assistant city fiscals
217
CONST., art. LX-B, sec. 1(1) provides: who shall be the chiefs of divisions, and fifty-seven assistant fiscals, who shall
ARTICLE IX. Constitutional Commissions discharge their duties under the general supervision of the Secretary of Justice.
.... To be eligible for appointment as City Fiscal one must be a natural born citizen
B. The Civil Service Commission of the Philippines and must have practiced law in the Philippines for a period of
not less than ten years or held during a like period of an office in the Philippine
SECTION 1. (1) The Civil Service shall be administered by the Civil Service Government requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable
requisite. To be eligible for appointment as assistant fiscal one must be a natural be entitled to transportation, representation and other allowances which shall in
born citizen of the Philippines and must have practiced law for at least five years no case exceed FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) per month.
240
prior to his appointment or held during a like period an office in the Philippine CONST, art. IV, sec. 3.
241
Government requiring admission to the practice of law as an indispensable Rollo, pp. 685-686.
242
requisite. (Emphasis supplied) An Act Providing for the Ways in which Philippine Citizenship may be Lost or
224
Rep. Act No. 3537 (1963). Reacquired.
225 243
Examples of these are: the Land Transportation Office Commissioner, the An Act Providing for the Repatriation of Filipino Women who have Lost their
Mines and Geosciences Bureau Director, the Executive Director of Bicol River Philippine Citizenship by Marriage to Aliens and Natural-born Filipinos.
244
Basin, the Board Member of the Energy Regulatory Commission, and the See Calilung v. Commission on Elections, 551 Phil. 110, 117-18 (2007) [Per
National Youth Commissioner, among others. J. Quisumbing, En Banc] in which this Court stated that this was the clear intent
226
Examples of these are pharmacists and officers of the Philippine Coast of the legislature when it enacted Republic Act No. 9225.
245
Guard, among others. Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 2.
227 246
Among these incentives are state scholarships in science and certain 551 Phil. 110 (2007) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
247
investment rights. Id. at 118.
228 248
Sameer v. Cabiles, G.R. No. 170139, August 5, 2014, 732 SCRA 22, 57 [Per Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 5.
249
J. Leonen, En Banc]. Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 3, par. 2:
229
People v. Cayat, 68 Phil. 12, 18 (1939) [Per J. Moran, First Division]. Section 3. Retention of Philippine Citizenship - . . .
230
Ratified on August 21, 1990.
231
See United Nations Treaty Collection, Convention on the Rights of the Child Natural-born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act,
(visited March 7, 2016). become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon
232
Ratified on October 23, 1986. taking the aforesaid oath.
233 250
See Bayan v. Zamora, 396 Phil. 623, 657-660 (2000) [Per J. Buena, En Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 5 provides:
Banc], citing the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties. Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-
234
561 Phil. 386 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, En Banc]. acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political
235
Id. at 397-398. rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing
236
Rep. Act No. 8552 (1998), sec. 2(b) provides: laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:
251
Section 2 (b). In all matters relating to the care, custody and adoption of a child, CONST., art. V, sec. 1 provides:
his/her interest shall be the paramount consideration in accordance with the chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 1. Suffrage maybe exercised by all citizens
tenets set forth in the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen
Child; UN Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year,
and Welfare of Children with Special Reference to Foster Placement and and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months
Adoption, Nationally and Internationally; and the Hague Convention on the immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive
Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.
252
Toward this end, the State shall provide alternative protection and assistance Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 5(1) provides:
through foster care or adoption for every child who is neglected, orphaned, or Section 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities - Those who retain or re-
abandoned. acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy full civil and political
237
See also Rep. Act No. 9523 (2009), An Act Requiring the Certification of the rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) to Declare a "Child laws of the Philippines and the following conditions:
Legally Available for Adoption" as a Prerequisite for Adoption Proceedings,
Amending for this Purpose Certain Provision of Rep. Act No. 8552, otherwise chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary(1) Those intending to exercise their right of
known as the Inter-country Adoption Act of 1995, Pres. Decree No. 603, suffrage must meet the requirements under Section 1, Article V of the
otherwise known as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, and for Other Purposes. Constitution, Republic Act No. 9189, otherwise known as "The Overseas
Absentee Voting Act of 2003" and other existing laws;
253
Rep. Act No. 9523 (2009), sec. 2 provides: Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 5(2) provides:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 5. Civil and Political Rights and Liabilities -
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — As used in this Those who retain or re-acquire Philippine citizenship under this Act shall enjoy
Act, the following terms shall mean: full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and
(1) Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the agency responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines and the following
charged to implement the provisions of this Act and shall have the sole authority conditions:
to issue the certification declaring a child legally available for adoption. (2) Those seeking elective public in the Philippines shall meet the qualification
.... for holding such public office as required by the Constitution and existing laws
(3) Abandoned Child refers to a child who has no proper parental care or and, at the time of the filing of the certificate of candidacy, make a personal and
guardianship, or whose parent(s) have deserted him/her for a period of at least sworn renunciation of any and all foreign citizenship before any public officer
three (3) continuous months, which includes a foundling. authorized to administer an oath;
238
DFA Order No. 11-97, Implementing Rules and Regulations for Rep. Act No. 254 692 Phil. 407 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, En Banc].
255
8239 (1997), Philippine Passport Act. Id. at 428.
239 256
Pres. Decree No. 1986, sec. 2 provides: Rollo, p. 10.
257
Section 2. Composition; qualifications; benefits. - The BOARD shall be Id. at 687.
258
composed of a Chairman, a Vice-Chairman and thirty (30) members, who shall Id.
259
all be appointed by the President of the Philippines. The Chairman, the Vice- Id. at 229.
260
Chairman, and the members of the BOARD, shall hold office for a term of one Id.
261
(1) year, unless sooner removed by the President for any cause; Provided, That Id.
262
they shall be eligible for re-appointment after the expiration of their term. If the Id.
Chairman, or the Vice-Chairman or any member of the BOARD fails to complete 263Bengson v. Bouse of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 409 Phil. 633, 649
his term, any person appointed to fill the vacancy shall serve only for the (2001) [Per J. Kapunan, En Banc].
264
unexpired portion of the term of the BOARD member whom he succeeds. Rep. Act No. 9225 (2003), sec. 2.
265
Rollo, p. 35.
No person shall be appointed to the BOARD, unless he is a natural-born citizen DISSENTING OPINION
of the Philippines, not less than twenty-one (21) years of age, and of good moral
character and standing in the community; Provided, That in the selection of the PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
members of the BOARD due consideration shall be given to such qualifications I dissent.
as would produce a multi-sectoral combination of expertise in the various areas I respectfully submit that the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET) committed grave
of motion picture and television; Provided, further, That at least five (5) members abuse of discretion in ruling that private respondent Mary Grace Poe-
of the BOARD shall be members of the Philippine Bar. Provided, finally That at Llamanzares (respondent) was a natural-born citizen and, thus, qualified to hold
least fifteen (15) members of the BOARD may come from the movie and office as Senator of the Republic of the Philippines. 1chanrobleslaw
television industry to be nominated by legitimate associations representing the
various sectors of said industry. An act of a court or tribunal can only be considered as committed with grave
abuse of discretion when such act is done in a capricious or whimsical exercise
The Chairman, the Vice-Chairman and the other members of the BOARD shall of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must
be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a However, the foregoing "circumstantial evidence" do not adequately prove the
virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation determination sought to be established: that is, whether or not respondent can
of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by trace her parentage to a Filipino citizen. These circumstances can be easily
reason of passion and hostility.2 In this relation, "grave abuse of discretion debunked by contrary but likewise rationally-sounding suppositions. Case law
arises when a lower court or tribunal patently violates the Constitution, the holds that "[m]atters dealing with qualifications for public elective office must be
law or existing jurisprudence."3chanrobleslaw strictly complied with."10 The proof to hurdle a substantial challenge against a
candidate's qualifications must therefore be solid. This Court cannot make a
The advent of the 1935 Constitution established the principle of jus sanguinis as definitive pronouncement on a candidate's citizenship when there is a looming
4
basis for acquiring Philippine citizenship. Following this principle, citizenship is possibility that he/she is not Filipino. The circumstances surrounding
conferred by virtue of blood relationship to a Filipino parent.5chanrobleslaw respondent's abandonment (both as to the milieu of time and place), as well as
her physical characteristics, hardly assuage this possibility. By parity of
It was admitted that respondent was a foundling with unknown facts of birth and reasoning, they do not prove that she was born to a Filipino: her abandonment
parentage. On its face, Section 1, Article IV of the 1935 Constitution - the in the Philippines is just a restatement of her foundling status, while her physical
applicable law to respondent's case - did not include foundlings in the features only tend to prove that her parents likely had Filipino features and yet it
enumeration of those who are considered Filipino citizens. It reads: remains uncertain if their citizenship was Filipino. More so, the statistics cited -
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines: assuming the same to be true - do not account for all births but only of those
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippine Islands at the time of the recorded. To my mind, it is uncertain how "encompassing" was the Philippine's
adoption of this Constitution. civil registration system at that time - in 1968 - to be able to conclude that those
statistics logically reflect a credible and representative sample size. And even
assuming it to be so, 1,595 were reflected as foreigners, rendering it factually
(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the possible that respondent belonged to this class. Ultimately, the opposition
adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the against respondent's natural-born citizenship claim is simple but striking: the fact
Philippine Islands. that her parents are unknown directly puts into question her Filipino citizenship
because she has no prima facie link to a Filipino parent from which she could
have traced her Filipino citizenship.
(3) Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines.
Absent satisfactory proof establishing any blood relation to a Filipino parent, and
without any mention in the 1935 Constitution that foundlings are considered or
(4) Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon even presumed to be Filipino citizens at birth, it is my view that, under the
reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine citizenship. auspices of the 1935 Constitution, respondent could not be considered a
natural-born Filipino citizen. As worded, the provisions of Section 1, Article IV of
the 1935 Constitution are clear, direct, and unambiguous. This Court should
(5) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law. therefore apply the statutory construction principles of expressio unius est
This case was originally a quo warranto proceeding before the SET.6 The initial exclusio alterius and verba legis non est recedendum. Consequently, it would be
burden, thus, fell upon petitioner Rizalito Y. David to show that respondent unnecessary to resort to the constitutional deliberations or to examine the
lacked the qualifications of a Senator. However, upon respondent's voluntary underlying intent of the framers of the 1935 Constitution. In Civil Liberties Union
admission that she was a foundling, the burden of evidence was shifted to her. v. The Executive Secretary,11 this Court remarked
In his Dissenting Opinion before the SET, Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion that:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
pertinently explains: Debates in the constitutional convention "are of value as showing the views of
[I]n quo warranto, the petitioner who challenges the respondent's qualification to the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes, but
office carries the burden of proving, by preponderance of evidence, the facts they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did not talk, much
constituting the disqualification. Upon such proof, the burden shifts to the less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose votes at the polls gave that
respondent who must now present opposing evidence constituting his or her instrument the force of fundamental law. We think it [is] safer to construe the
defense or establishing his or her affirmative defense. constitution from what appears upon its face."12
In fact, it should be pointed out that the 1935 Constitution, as it was adopted in
xxxx its final form, never carried over any proposed provision on foundlings
being considered or presumed to be Filipino citizens. Its final exclusion is
In the present case, the petitioner has alleged that the respondent is a foundling. therefore indicative of the framers' prevailing intent.13 The ponencia's theorized
He posits that, as a foundling has no known parents from whom to trace the "harmonization"14 of the constitutional provisions on citizenship with the
origins of her citizenship, the respondent is not a Filipino citizen and is, provisions on the promotion of children's well-being,15 equal protection,16 public
therefore, not eligible for the position of senator. service,17 and even human dignity and human rights18 appears to be a tailor-
fitted advocacy for allowing foundlings to run for key national posts that, quite
Significantly, the respondent admitted her status as a foundling, thus, lifting the frankly, stretches the import of these distinct provisions to the separate and
petitioner's burden of proving his claim that she is a foundling. With the unique matter of citizenship. There seems to be an evident logical problem with
admission, the fact necessary to establish the petitioner's claim is considered the argument that since the Constitution protects its children, and respects
established.7 human rights and equality to run for office, then ergo, foundlings should be
In this case, respondent failed to present competent and sufficient evidence to presumed to be natural-born. It appears that this approach aims to collate all
prove her blood relation to a Filipino parent which is necessary to determine possibly related constitutional text, albeit far-flung, just to divine a presumption
natural-born citizenship pursuant to the jus sanguinis principle. This when unfortunately, there is none.
notwithstanding, the ponencia concludes that the following circumstances are
substantial evidence justifying the inference that respondent's biological parents Moreover, as Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio (Justice Carpio) aptly
are Filipino:8chanrobleslaw pointed out in his Dissenting Opinion before the SET, it would be insensible to
suppose that the framers of the 1935 Constitution intended that foundlings be
(a) Circumstances of abandonment: Respondent was found as a newborn considered as natural-born citizens:ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
infant outside the Parish Church of Jaro, Iloilo on September 3, 1968. In 1968, [N]one of the framers of the 1935 Constitution mentioned the term natural-born
Iloilo, as did most if not all other Philippine provinces, had a predominantly in relation to the citizenship of foundlings. Again, under the 1935 Constitution,
Filipino population. In 1968, there was also no international airport in Jaro, Iloilo. only those whose fathers were Filipino citizens were considered natural-born
citizens. Those who were born of Filipino mothers and alien fathers were still
(b) Physical features: She is described as having "brown almond-shaped eyes, required to elect Philippine citizenship, preventing them from being natural-born
a low nasal bridge, straight black hair and an oval-shaped face." She stands at citizens. If, as respondent would like us to believe, the framers intended that
only 5 feet and 2 inches tall. foundlings be considered natural-born Filipino citizens, this would create an
absurd situation where a child with unknown parentage would be placed in a
(c) Statistical inference: in the related case of Poe-Llamanzares v. better position than child whose mother is actually known to be a Filipino citizen.
Commission on Elections,9 former Solicitor General Florin T. Hilbay underscored The framers of the 1935 Constitution could not have intended to create such
how it was statistically more probable that respondent was born a Filipino absurdity.19
citizen, submitting that out of 900,165 recorded births in the Philippines in 1968, While the predicament of foundlings of having their parents unknown would
over 1,595 or 0.18% were foreigners. This translates to, roughly, a 99.8% seem to entail the difficult, if not impossible, task of proving their Filipino
probability that respondent was born a Filipino citizen. parentage, the current state of the law which requires evidence of blood relation
to a Filipino parent to establish natural-born citizenship under the jus sanguinis
principle must be respected at all costs. This is not to say that the position of nothing but my honest and conscientious assessment of the facts parallel to the
foundlings in relation to their endeavors for high public offices has been applicable legal principles. As a magistrate of this High Court, I am impelled to
overlooked in this discourse. Rather, the correction of this seeming "misfortune" do no less than fulfill my duty to faithfully interpret the laws and the Constitution,
- as the ponencia would suppose20 - lies in legislative revision, not judicial bereft of any politics or controversy, or of any regard to the tides of popularity or
supplication. For surely, it is not for this Court to step in and supply additional gleam of any personality.
meaning when clarity is evoked in the citizenship provisions of the Constitution.
WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition.
For another, I would also like to express my reservations on the ponencia's Endnotes:
reliance on Tecson v. Commission on Elections21 (Tecson) wherein this Court 1
See Section 3, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution.
2
resolved that respondent's adoptive father, Ronald Allan Kelley Poe, more Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126-27, November 10, 2015,
popularly known as Fernando Poe Jr. (FPJ), was qualified to run for the citing Yu v. Reyes-Carpio, 667 Phil. 474, 481-482 (2011).
3
presidential post during the 2004 National Elections which, according to the See id., citing Tagolino v. House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal, 706
ponencia,22 was based on the basis of "presumptions" that proved his status as Phil. 534, 558 (2013).
4
a natural-born citizen. In that case, the identity of FPJ's parents, Allan F. Poe Valles v. Commission on Elections, 392 Phil. 327, 336 (2000).
5
and Bessie Kelley, was never questioned. More importantly, there was direct Id.
6
documentary evidence to trace Allan F. Poe's parentage to Lorenzo Pou, whose Docketed as SET Case No. 001-15.
7
death certificate identified him to be a Filipino. Thus, by that direct proof alone, See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Brion in David v. Poe-Llamanzares, SET
there was a substantial trace of Allan F. Poe's parentage to a Filipino (Lorenzo Case No. 001-15, November 17, 2015, pp. 12-13.
8
Pou), which in turn, allowed the substantial tracing of FPJ's parentage to a See ponencia, pp. 39-40.
9
Filipino (Allan F. Poe). As such, FPJ was declared qualified to run for the See G.R. Nos. 221697 and 221698-221700, March 8, 2016.
10
presidential post in 2004. The Court further explained that while the birth See Arnado v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 210164, August 18, 2015.
11
certificate of FPJ's grandfather, Lorenzo Pou, was not presented, it could be 272 Phil. 147 (1991).
12
assumed that the latter was born in 1870 while the Philippines was still a colony Id. at 169-170.
13
of Spain. This inference was drawn from the fact that Lorezo Pou died at the age See Civil Liberties Union v. The Executive Secretary, 272 Phil. 147, 157
of 84 years old in 1954. Thus, absent any evidence to the contrary, and against (1991).
14
petitioner therein's bare allegation, Lorenzo Pou was deemed to be a resident of Ponencia, pp. 45-50.
15
the Philippines and hence, a Filipino citizen by operation of the Philippine Section 13, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Organic Act of 1902,23 on the premise that the place of residence of a person at Section 13. The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building
the time of his death was also his residence before his death. In any event, the and shall promote and protect their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and
certified true copy of the original death certificate of Lorenzo Pou reflecting that social well-being. It shall inculcate in the youth patriotism and nationalism, and
he was a Filipino citizen was enough basis to trace FPJ's Filipino natural-born encourage their involvement in public and civic affairs.
citizenship. As the Court aptly cited, according to Section 44, Rule 130 of the Section 3, Article XV of the 1987 Constitution also provides:
Rules of Court, "entries in official records made in the performance of his duty by Section 3. The State shall defend:
a public officer of the Philippines, or by a person in the performance of a duty xxxx
specially enjoined by law, are prima facie evidence of the facts therein
stated." (3) The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition,
and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty,
In contrast, by her admission as a foundling whose parents are unknown, and exploitation and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
without presenting any other evidence to show any substantial tracing of Filipino
parentage similar to FPJ, the legal and factual nuances of respondent's case xxxx
16
should be treated differently. Accordingly, Tecson provides no authoritative Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution reads:
jurisprudential anchorage to this case. Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
17
Finally, it bears stressing that they jus sanguinis principle of citizenship Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution state:
established in the 1935 Constitution was subsequently carried over and adopted Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public
in the 1973 and 1987 Constitutions.24 Thus, notwithstanding the existence of any service
18
and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
treaty or generally accepted principle of international law which purportedly Section 1, Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
evince that foundlings are accorded natural-born citizenship in the State in which Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
they are found, the same, nonetheless, could not be given effect as it would measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity,
contravene the Constitution. To recall, should international law be adopted in reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
this jurisdiction, it would only form part of the sphere of domestic law. 25cralawred inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good.
Being relegated to the same level as domestic laws, they could not modify or
alter, much less prevail, over the express mandate of the Constitution. In this xxxx
relation, I deem it fitting to echo the point made by Associate Justice Teresita J. Section 11, Article II of the 1987 Constitution states:
Leonardo-De Castro, likewise in her Separate Opinion before the SET: Section 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees
Citizenship is not automatically conferred under the international conventions full respect for human rights.
19
cited but will entail an affirmative action of the State, by a national law or See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio in David v. Poe-Llamanzares, SET
legislative enactment, so that the nature of citizenship, if ever acquired pursuant Case No. 001-15, November 17, 2015, pp. 28-29.
20
thereto, is citizenship by naturalization. There must be a law by which citizenship See ponencia, pp. 18-19.
21
can be acquired. By no means can this citizenship be considered that of a 468 Phil. 421 (2004).
22
natural-born character under the principle of jus sanguinis in the Philippine See ponencia, pp. 42-43.
23
Constitution.26 See Section 4 of the Philippine Organic Act of 1902, entitled "AN ACT
For all these reasons, I unfortunately depart from the ruling of the majority and TEMPORARILY TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE AFFAIRS
perforce submit that the SET committed grave abuse of discretion in declaring OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, AND FOR OTHER
respondent a natural-born citizen. The majority ruling runs afoul of and even PURPOSES."
24
distorts the plain language of the Constitution which firmly and consistently See Valles v. Commission on Elections, supra note 4, at 336-337.
25
follows the jus sanguinis principle. In the final analysis, since respondent has not cralawred Pharmaceutical and Health Care Assoc. of the Phils, v. Duque III,
presented any competent and sufficient evidence to prove her blood relation to a 561 Phil. 386, 397-398 (2007).
26
Filipino parent in these proceedings, she should not be deemed to be a natural- See Separate Opinion of Justice De Castro in David v. Poe-Llamanzares, SET
born citizen of the Philippines, which, thus, renders the instant petition Case No. 001-15, November 17, 2015, p. 18.
27
meritorious. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that respondent is not See Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio in David v. Poe-Llamanzares, SET
precluded from later on proving her natural-born citizenship through such Case. No. 001-15, p. 35, citing Kilosbayan Foundation v. Ermita, 553 Phil. 331,
necessary evidence in the appropriate proceeding therefor, considering that a 343-344 (2007).
decision determining natural-born citizenship never becomes final.27 I reach
these conclusions solely under the peculiar auspices of this case and through
Republic of the Philippines undeniable violations of jus cogensnorms; that the need to punish crimes against
SUPREME COURT the laws of humanity has long become jus cogensnorms, and that international
Manila legal obligations prevail over national legal norms; that the Court’s invocation of
EN BANC the political doctrine in the instant case is misplaced; and that the Chief Executive
G.R. No. 162230 August 13, 2014 has the constitutional duty to afford redress and to give justice to the victims ofthe
ISABELITA C. VINUY A, VICTORIA C. DELA PENA, HERMINIHILDA comfort women system in the Philippines.8
MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMA WANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. Petitioners further argue that the Court has confused diplomatic protection with
QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. the broader responsibility of states to protect the human rights of their citizens,
NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. especially where the rights asserted are subject of erga omnesobligations and
SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. pertain to jus cogensnorms; that the claims raised by petitioners are not simple
SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PENA, EUGENIA M. private claims that are the usual subject of diplomatic protection; that the crimes
LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. committed against petitioners are shocking to the conscience of humanity; and
MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. that the atrocities committed by the Japanese soldiers against petitionersare not
MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. subject to the statute of limitations under international law.9
HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PENA, MARIA DELA PAZ B. Petitioners pray that the Court reconsider its April 28, 2010 decision, and declare:
CULALA,ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. (1) that the rapes, sexual slavery, torture and other forms of sexual violence
GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN, committed against the Filipina comfort women are crimes against humanity and
JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. war crimes under customary international law; (2) that the Philippines is not bound
GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PENA, RUFINA Q. by the Treaty of Peace with Japan, insofar as the waiver of the claims of the
CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. Filipina comfort women against Japan is concerned; (3) that the Secretary of
DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA 0. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, Foreign Affairs and the Executive Secretary committed grave abuse of discretion
CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, in refusing to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women; and (4) that
ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, petitioners are entitled to the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against
MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. the respondents.
MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA Petitioners also pray that the Court order the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and the
PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA Executive Secretary to espouse the claims of Filipina comfort women for an official
S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. apology,legal compensation and other forms of reparation from Japan.10
CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, In their Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners stress that it was
et al. in their capacityand as members of the "Malaya Lolas Organizations," highly improper for the April 28, 2010 decision to lift commentaries from at least
Petitioners, three sources without proper attribution – an article published in 2009 in the Yale
vs. Law Journal of International Law; a book published by the Cambridge University
THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE Press in 2005; and an article published in 2006 in the Western ReserveJournal of
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA International Law – and make it appear that such commentaries supported its
DOMINGOALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE arguments for dismissing the petition, when in truth the plagiarized sources even
MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, and THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR made a strong case in favour of petitioners’ claims.11
GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, Respondents. In their Comment,12 respondents disagree withpetitioners, maintaining that aside
RESOLUTION from the statements on plagiarism, the arguments raised by petitioners merely
BERSAMIN, J.: rehashed those made in their June 7, 2005 Memorandum; that they already
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration1 and a Supplemental Motion for refuted such arguments in their Memorandumof June 6, 2005 that the Court
Reconsideration,2 praying that the Court reverse its decision of April 28, 2010, resolved through itsApril 28, 2010 decision, specifically as follows:
and grant their petition for certiorari. 1. The contentions pertaining tothe alleged plagiarism were then
In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners argue that our constitutional and already lodged withthe Committee on Ethics and Ethical Standards of
jurisprudential histories have rejected the Court’s ruling that the foreign policy the Court; hence, the matter of alleged plagiarism should not be
prerogatives ofthe Executive Branch are unlimited; that under the relevant discussed or resolved herein.13
jurisprudence and constitutional provisions, such prerogatives are proscribed by 2. A writ of certioraridid not lie in the absence of grave abuse of
international human rights and international conventions of which the Philippines discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Hence, in view of
is a party; that the Court, in holding that the Chief Executive has the prerogative the failureof petitioners to show any arbitrary or despotic act on the part
whether to bring petitioners’ claims against Japan, has read the foreign policy of respondents,the relief of the writ of certiorariwas not warranted.14
powers of the Office of the President in isolation from the rest of the constitutional 3. Respondents hold that the Waiver Clause in the Treaty of Peace with
protections that expressly textualize international human rights; that the foreign Japan, being valid, bound the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
policy prerogatives are subject to obligations to promote international the international law principle of pacta sunt servanda.The validity of the
humanitarian law as incorporated intothe laws of the land through the Treaty of Peace was the result of the ratification by two mutually
Incorporation Clause; that the Court must re-visit its decisions in Yamashita v. consenting parties. Consequently, the obligations embodied in the
Styer3 and Kuroda v. Jalandoni4 which have been noted for their prescient Treaty of Peace must be carried out in accordance with the common
articulation of the import of laws of humanity; that in said decision, the Court ruled and real intention of the parties at the time the treaty was concluded.15
that the State was bound to observe the laws of war and humanity; that in 4. Respondents assert that individuals did not have direct international
Yamashita, the Court expressly recognized rape as an international crime under remedies against any State that violated their human rights except
international humanitarian law, and in Jalandoni, the Court declared that even if where such remedies are provided by an international agreement.
the Philippines had not acceded or signed the Hague Convention on Rules and Herein, neither of the Treaty of Peace and the Reparations
Regulations covering Land Warfare, the Rules and Regulations formed part of the Agreement,the relevant agreements affecting herein petitioners,
law of the nation by virtue of the Incorporation Clause; that such commitment to provided for the reparation of petitioners’ claims. Respondents aver that
the laws ofwar and humanity has been enshrined in Section 2, Article II of the the formal apology by the Government of Japan and the reparation the
1987 Constitution, which provides "that the Philippines…adopts the generally Government of Japan has provided through the Asian Women’s Fund
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres (AWF) are sufficient to recompense petitioners on their claims,
to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all specifically:
nations." a. About 700 million yen would be paid from the national treasury over
The petitioners added that the statusand applicability of the generally accepted the next 10 years as welfare and medical services;
principles of international law within the Philippine jurisdiction would be uncertain b. Instead of paying the money directly to the former comfort women,
without the Incorporation Clause, and that the clause implied that the general the services would be provided through organizations delegated by
international law forms part of Philippine law only insofar as they are expressly governmental bodies in the recipient countries (i.e., the Philippines, the
adopted; that in its rulings in The Holy See, v. Rosario, Jr.5 and U.S. v. Guinto6 Republic of Korea,and Taiwan); and
the Court has said that international law is deemed part of the Philippine law as a c. Compensation would consist of assistance for nursing services (like
consequence of Statehood; that in Agustin v. Edu,7 the Court has declared that a home helpers), housing, environmental development, medical
treaty, though not yet ratified by the Philippines, was part of the law of the land expenses, and medical goods.16
through the Incorporation Clause; that by virtue of the Incorporation Clause, the Ruling
Philippines is bound to abide by the erga omnesobligations arising from the jus The Court DENIESthe Motion for Reconsiderationand Supplemental Motion for
cogensnorms embodied in the laws of war and humanity that include the principle Reconsideration for being devoid of merit.
of the imprescriptibility of war crimes; that the crimes committed against 1. Petitioners did not show that their resort was timely under the Rules of Court.
petitioners are proscribed under international human rights law as there were
Petitioners did not show that their bringing ofthe special civil action for Herein petitioners have not shown any compelling reason for us to relax the rule
certiorariwas timely, i.e., within the 60-day period provided in Section 4, Rule 65 and the requirements under current jurisprudence. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
of the Rules of Court, to wit: 2. Petitioners did not show that the assailed act was either judicial or quasi-judicial
Section 4. When and where position filed. – The petition shall be filed not later on the part of respondents.
than sixty (60) daysfrom notice of judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion Petitioners were required to show in their petition for certiorarithat the assailed act
for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion is required or was either judicial or quasi-judicial in character. Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules
not, the sixty (60) day period shall be counted from notice of the denial of said of Courtrequires such showing, to wit:
motion. Section 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or officer exercising
As the rule indicates, the 60-day period starts to run from the date petitioner judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
receives the assailed judgment, final order or resolution, or the denial of the jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
motion for reconsideration or new trial timely filed, whether such motion is required jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
or not. To establish the timeliness of the petition for certiorari, the date of receipt in the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified
of the assailed judgment, final order or resolution or the denial of the motion for petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that
reconsideration or new trial must be stated in the petition;otherwise, the petition judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
for certiorarimust be dismissed. The importance of the dates cannot be board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
understated, for such dates determine the timeliness of the filing of the petition for require.
certiorari. As the Court has emphasized in Tambong v. R. Jorge Development The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the judgment, order,
Corporation:17 or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and documents relevant and
There are three essential dates that must be stated in a petition for certiorari pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification of nonforum shopping as provided in
brought under Rule 65. First, the date when notice of the judgment or final order the third paragraph of Section 3, Rule 46. However, petitioners did notmake such
or resolution was received; second, when a motion for new trial or reconsideration a showing.
was filed; and third, when notice of the denial thereof was received. Failure of 3. Petitioners were not entitled to the injunction.
petitioner to comply with this requirement shall be sufficient ground for the The Court cannot grant petitioners’ prayer for the writ of preliminary mandatory
dismissal of the petition. Substantial compliance will not suffice in a matter injunction. Preliminary injunction is merely a provisional remedy that is adjunct to
involving strict observance with the Rules. (Emphasis supplied) the main case, and is subject to the latter’s outcome. It is not a cause of action
The Court has further said in Santos v. Court of Appeals:18 itself.22 It is provisional because it constitutes a temporary measure availed of
The requirement of setting forth the three (3) dates in a petition for certiorari under during the pendency of the action; and it is ancillary because it is a mere incident
Rule 65 is for the purpose of determining its timeliness. Such a petition is required in and is dependent upon the result of the main action.23 Following the dismissal
to be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, order or of the petition for certiorari, there is no more legal basis to issue the writ of
Resolution sought to be assailed. Therefore, that the petition for certiorariwas filed injunction sought. As an auxiliary remedy, the writ of preliminary mandatory
forty-one (41) days from receipt of the denial of the motion for reconsideration is injunction cannot be issued independently of the principal action.24
hardly relevant. The Court of Appeals was notin any position to determine when In any event, a mandatory injunction requires the performance of a particular
this period commenced to run and whether the motion for reconsideration itself act.1âwphi1 Hence, it is an extreme remedy,25 to be granted only if the following
was filed on time since the material dates were not stated. It should not be requisites are attendant, namely:
assumed that in no event would the motion be filed later than fifteen (15) days. (a) The applicant has a clear and unmistakable right, that is, a right in
Technical rules of procedure are not designed to frustrate the ends of justice. esse;
These are provided to effect the proper and orderly disposition of cases and thus (b) There is a material and substantial invasion of such right; and
effectively prevent the clogging of court dockets. Utter disregard of the Rules (c) There is an urgent need for the writ to prevent irreparable injury to
cannot justly be rationalized by harking on the policy ofliberal construction.19 the applicant; and no other ordinary, speedy, and adequate remedy
The petition for certioraricontains the following averments, viz: exists to prevent the infliction of irreparable injury.26
82. Since 1998, petitioners and other victims of the "comfort women In Marquez v. The Presiding Judge (Hon. Ismael B. Sanchez), RTC Br. 58, Lucena
system," approached the Executive Department through the City,27 we expounded as follows:
Department of Justice in order to request for assistance to file a claim It is basic that the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction is addressed to the
against the Japanese officials and military officers who ordered the sound discretion of the trial court, conditioned on the existence of a clear and
establishment of the "comfort women" stations in the Philippines; positive right of the applicant which should be protected. It is an extraordinary,
83. Officials of the Executive Department ignored their request and peremptory remedy available only on the grounds expressly provided by law,
refused to file a claim against the said Japanese officials and military specifically Section 3, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, extreme caution
officers; must be observed in the exercise of such discretion. It should be granted only
84. Undaunted, the Petitioners in turnapproached the Department of when the court is fully satisfied that the law permits it and the emergency demands
Foreign Affairs, Department of Justice and Office of the of the Solicitor it. The very foundation of the jurisdiction to issue a writ of injunction rests in the
General to file their claim against the responsible Japanese officials and existence of a cause of action and in the probability of irreparable injury,
military officers, but their efforts were similarly and carelessly inadequacy of pecuniary compensation, and the prevention of multiplicity of suits.
disregarded;20 Where facts are not shown to bring the case within these conditions, the relief of
The petition thus mentions the year 1998 only as the time when petitioners injunction should be refused.28
approached the Department ofJustice for assistance, but does not specifically Here, the Constitution has entrusted to the Executive Department the conduct of
state when they received the denial of their request for assistance by the foreign relations for the Philippines. Whether or not to espouse petitioners' claim
Executive Department of the Government. This alone warranted the outright against the Government of Japan is left to the exclusive determination and
dismissal of the petition. judgment of the Executive Department. The Court cannot interfere with or
Even assuming that petitioners received the notice of the denial of their request question the wisdom of the conduct of foreign relations by the Executive
for assistance in 1998, their filing of the petition only on March 8, 2004 was still Department. Accordingly, we cannot direct the Executive Department, either by
way beyond the 60-day period. Only the most compelling reasons could justify the writ of certiorari or injunction, to conduct our foreign relations with Japan in a
Court’s acts of disregarding and lifting the strictures of the rule on the period. As certain manner.
we pointed out inMTM Garment Mfg. Inc. v. Court of Appeals:21 WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the Motion for Reconsideration and
All these do not mean, however, that procedural rules are to be ignored or Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration for their lack of merit.
disdained at will to suit the convenience of a party. Procedural law has its own SO ORDERED.
rationale in the orderly administration of justice, namely: to ensure the effective LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
enforcement of substantive rights by providing for a system that obviates Associate Justice
arbitrariness, caprice, despotism, or whimsicality in the settlement of disputes. WE CONCUR:
Hence, it is a mistake to suppose that substantive law and procedural law are MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
contradictory to each other, or as often suggested, that enforcement of procedural Chief Justice
rules should never be permitted if it would result in prejudice to the substantive
rights of the litigants. PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
As we have repeatedly stressed, the right to file a special civil action of certiorariis JR.
Associate Justice
neither a natural right noran essential element of due process; a writ of certiorariis Associate Justice
a prerogative writ, never demandable as a matter of right, and never issued except
in the exercise of judicial discretion. Hence, he who seeks a writ of certiorarimust
apply for it only in the manner and strictly in accordance with the provisions of the TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
ARTURO D. BRION
law and the Rules. CASTRO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
 (no part)
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ

Associate Justice Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA BIENVENIDO L. REYES

Associate Justice Associate Justice

No part
ESTELA M. PERLAS-
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F.
BERNABE
LEONEN
Associate Justice
Associate Justice

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 419-429.
2 Id. at 435-529.
3 75 Phil. 563 (1945).
4 83 Phil. 171 (1949).
5 G.R. No. 101949, December 1, 1994, 238SCRA 524.
6 G.R. No. 76607, February 26, 1990, 182 SCRA 644.
7 No. L-49112, February 2, 1979, 88 SCRA 195.
8 Supra note 1.
9 Id. at 426-427.
10 Id. at 427-428.
11 Id. at 436.
12 Id. at 665-709.
13 Id. at 684-685.
14 Id. at 686-690.
15 Id. at 690-702.
16 Id. at 703-706.
17 G.R. No. 146068, August 31, 2006, 500 SCRA 399, 403-404.
18 G.R. No. 141947, July 5, 2001, 360 SCRA 521, 527-528.
19 Id. at 527-528.
20 Rollo, p. 18.
21 G.R. No. 152336, June 9, 2005, 460 SCRA 55, 66.
22 Buyco v. Baraquia, G.R. No. 177486, December 21, 2009, 608
SCRA 699, 703-704.
23 Id. at 704.
24 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Monetary Board v. Antonio-Valenzuela,
G.R. No. 184778, October 2, 2009, 602 SCRA 698, 715, citing Lim v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134617, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 326,
331.
25 I Regalado, Remedial Law Compendium, Seventh Revised Edition,
p. 638.
26 Philippine Leisure and Retirement Authority v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 156303, December 19, 2007, 541 SCRA 85,99-100.
27 G.R. No. 141849, February 13, 2007, 515 SCRA 577.
28 At 589.
Republic of the Philippines The parties filed their respective memoranda.
SUPREME COURT The petition is partly imbued with merit.
Manila On the issue of petitioner's standing
EN BANC With regard to the issue of whether petitioner may prosecute this case as the real
G.R. No. 173034 October 9, 2007 party-in-interest, the Court adopts the view enunciated in Executive Secretary v.
PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION OF THE Court of Appeals,4 to wit:
PHILIPPINES, petitioner, The modern view is that an association has standing to complain of
vs. injuries to its members. This view fuses the legal identity of an
HEALTH SECRETARY FRANCISCO T. DUQUE III; HEALTH UNDER association with that of its members. An association has standing to
SECRETARIES DR. ETHELYN P. NIETO, DR. MARGARITA M. GALON, ATTY. file suit for its workers despite its lack of direct interest if its
ALEXANDER A. PADILLA, & DR. JADE F. DEL MUNDO; and ASSISTANT members are affected by the action. An organization has standing
SECRETARIES DR. MARIO C. VILLAVERDE, DR. DAVID J. LOZADA, AND to assert the concerns of its constituents.
DR. NEMESIO T. GAKO, respondents. xxxx
DECISION x x x We note that, under its Articles of Incorporation, the respondent
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: was organized x x x to act as the representative of any individual,
The Court and all parties involved are in agreement that the best nourishment for company, entity or association on matters related to the manpower
an infant is mother's milk. There is nothing greater than for a mother to nurture recruitment industry, and to perform other acts and activities necessary
her beloved child straight from her bosom. The ideal is, of course, for each and to accomplish the purposes embodied therein. The respondent is,
every Filipino child to enjoy the unequaled benefits of breastmilk. But how should thus, the appropriate party to assert the rights of its members,
this end be attained? because it and its members are in every practical sense identical.
Before the Court is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, x x x The respondent [association] is but the medium through
seeking to nullify Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2006-0012 entitled, Revised which its individual members seek to make more effective the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of Executive Order No. 51, Otherwise expression of their voices and the redress of their grievances. 5
Known as The "Milk Code," Relevant International Agreements, Penalizing (Emphasis supplied)
Violations Thereof, and for Other Purposes (RIRR). Petitioner posits that the which was reasserted in Purok Bagong Silang Association, Inc. v. Yuipco,6 where
RIRR is not valid as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go the Court ruled that an association has the legal personality to represent its
beyond the law it is supposed to implement. members because the results of the case will affect their vital interests. 7
Named as respondents are the Health Secretary, Undersecretaries, and Assistant Herein petitioner's Amended Articles of Incorporation contains a similar provision
Secretaries of the Department of Health (DOH). For purposes of herein petition, just like in Executive Secretary, that the association is formed "to represent
the DOH is deemed impleaded as a co-respondent since respondents issued the directly or through approved representatives the pharmaceutical and health care
questioned RIRR in their capacity as officials of said executive agency. 1 industry before the Philippine Government and any of its agencies, the medical
Executive Order No. 51 (Milk Code) was issued by President Corazon Aquino on professions and the general public."8 Thus, as an organization, petitioner definitely
October 28, 1986 by virtue of the legislative powers granted to the president under has an interest in fulfilling its avowed purpose of representing members who are
the Freedom Constitution. One of the preambular clauses of the Milk Code states part of the pharmaceutical and health care industry. Petitioner is duly authorized 9
that the law seeks to give effect to Article 112 of the International Code of to take the appropriate course of action to bring to the attention of government
Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health agencies and the courts any grievance suffered by its members which are directly
Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several affected by the RIRR. Petitioner, which is mandated by its Amended Articles of
Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and Incorporation to represent the entire industry, would be remiss in its duties if it fails
protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not to act on governmental action that would affect any of its industry members, no
permitted for breastmilk substitutes. matter how few or numerous they are. Hence, petitioner, whose legal identity is
In 1990, the Philippines ratified the International Convention on the Rights of the deemed fused with its members, should be considered as a real party-in-interest
Child. Article 24 of said instrument provides that State Parties should take which stands to be benefited or injured by any judgment in the present action.
appropriate measures to diminish infant and child mortality, and ensure that all On the constitutionality of the provisions of the RIRR
segments of society, specially parents and children, are informed of the First, the Court will determine if pertinent international instruments adverted to by
advantages of breastfeeding. respondents are part of the law of the land.
On May 15, 2006, the DOH issued herein assailed RIRR which was to take effect Petitioner assails the RIRR for allegedly going beyond the provisions of the Milk
on July 7, 2006. Code, thereby amending and expanding the coverage of said law. The defense
However, on June 28, 2006, petitioner, representing its members that are of the DOH is that the RIRR implements not only the Milk Code but also various
manufacturers of breastmilk substitutes, filed the present Petition for Certiorari international instruments10 regarding infant and young child nutrition. It is
and Prohibition with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order respondents' position that said international instruments are deemed part of the
(TRO) or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. law of the land and therefore the DOH may implement them through the RIRR.
The main issue raised in the petition is whether respondents officers of the DOH The Court notes that the following international instruments invoked by
acted without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion respondents, namely: (1) The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and in violation of the provisions of the Child; (2) The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
Constitution in promulgating the RIRR.3 and (3) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
On August 15, 2006, the Court issued a Resolution granting a TRO enjoining Women, only provide in general terms that steps must be taken by State Parties
respondents from implementing the questioned RIRR. to diminish infant and child mortality and inform society of the advantages of
After the Comment and Reply had been filed, the Court set the case for oral breastfeeding, ensure the health and well-being of families, and ensure that
arguments on June 19, 2007. The Court issued an Advisory (Guidance for Oral women are provided with services and nutrition in connection with pregnancy and
Arguments) dated June 5, 2007, to wit: lactation. Said instruments do not contain specific provisions regarding the use or
The Court hereby sets the following issues: marketing of breastmilk substitutes.
1. Whether or not petitioner is a real party-in-interest; The international instruments that do have specific provisions regarding
2. Whether Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 or the Revised breastmilk substitutes are the ICMBS and various WHA Resolutions.
Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) issued by the Department Under the 1987 Constitution, international law can become part of the sphere of
of Health (DOH) is not constitutional; domestic law either by transformation or incorporation.11 The transformation
2.1 Whether the RIRR is in accord with the provisions of Executive method requires that an international law be transformed into a domestic law
Order No. 51 (Milk Code); through a constitutional mechanism such as local legislation. The incorporation
2.2 Whether pertinent international agreements1 entered into by the method applies when, by mere constitutional declaration, international law is
Philippines are part of the law of the land and may be implemented by deemed to have the force of domestic law.12
the DOH through the RIRR; If in the affirmative, whether the RIRR is in Treaties become part of the law of the land through transformation pursuant to
accord with the international agreements; Article VII, Section 21 of the Constitution which provides that "[n]o treaty or
2.3 Whether Sections 4, 5(w), 22, 32, 47, and 52 of the RIRR violate international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least
the due process clause and are in restraint of trade; and two-thirds of all the members of the Senate." Thus, treaties or conventional
2.4 Whether Section 13 of the RIRR on Total Effect provides sufficient international law must go through a process prescribed by the Constitution for it
standards. to be transformed into municipal law that can be applied to domestic conflicts. 13
_____________ The ICMBS and WHA Resolutions are not treaties as they have not been
1 (1) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child; (2) the WHO concurred in by at least two-thirds of all members of the Senate as required under
and Unicef "2002 Global Strategy on Infant and Young Child Feeding;" Section 21, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution.
and (3) various World Health Assembly (WHA) Resolutions.
However, the ICMBS which was adopted by the WHA in 1981 had been similar products moving in international commerce,"27 and to "make
transformed into domestic law through local legislation, the Milk Code. recommendations to members with respect to any matter within the competence
Consequently, it is the Milk Code that has the force and effect of law in this of the Organization."28 The legal effect of its regulations, as opposed to
jurisdiction and not the ICMBS per se. recommendations, is quite different.
The Milk Code is almost a verbatim reproduction of the ICMBS, but it is well to Regulations, along with conventions and agreements, duly adopted by the WHA
emphasize at this point that the Code did not adopt the provision in the ICMBS bind member states thus:
absolutely prohibiting advertising or other forms of promotion to the general Article 19. The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt
public of products within the scope of the ICMBS. Instead, the Milk Code conventions or agreements with respect to any matter within the
expressly provides that advertising, promotion, or other marketing competence of the Organization. A two-thirds vote of the Health
materials may be allowed if such materials are duly authorized and Assembly shall be required for the adoption of such conventions or
approved by the Inter-Agency Committee (IAC). agreements, which shall come into force for each Member when
On the other hand, Section 2, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, to wit: accepted by it in accordance with its constitutional processes.
SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of Article 20. Each Member undertakes that it will, within eighteen
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of months after the adoption by the Health Assembly of a convention or
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the agreement, take action relative to the acceptance of such
policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with convention or agreement. Each Member shall notify the Director-
all nations. (Emphasis supplied) General of the action taken, and if it does not accept such convention
embodies the incorporation method.14 or agreement within the time limit, it will furnish a statement of the
In Mijares v. Ranada,15 the Court held thus: reasons for non-acceptance. In case of acceptance, each Member
[G]enerally accepted principles of international law, by virtue of the agrees to make an annual report to the Director-General in accordance
incorporation clause of the Constitution, form part of the laws of the land with Chapter XIV.
even if they do not derive from treaty obligations. The classical Article 21. The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt
formulation in international law sees those customary rules accepted as regulations concerning: (a) sanitary and quarantine requirements and
binding result from the combination [of] two elements: the established, other procedures designed to prevent the international spread of
widespread, and consistent practice on the part of States; and a disease; (b) nomenclatures with respect to diseases, causes of death
psychological element known as the opinion juris sive necessitates and public health practices; (c) standards with respect to diagnostic
(opinion as to law or necessity). Implicit in the latter element is a belief procedures for international use; (d) standards with respect to the
that the practice in question is rendered obligatory by the existence of safety, purity and potency of biological, pharmaceutical and similar
a rule of law requiring it.16 (Emphasis supplied) products moving in international commerce; (e) advertising and labeling
"Generally accepted principles of international law" refers to norms of general or of biological, pharmaceutical and similar products moving in
customary international law which are binding on all states,17 i.e., renunciation of international commerce.
war as an instrument of national policy, the principle of sovereign immunity, 18 a Article 22. Regulations adopted pursuant to Article 21 shall come into
person's right to life, liberty and due process,19 and pacta sunt servanda,20 among force for all Members after due notice has been given of their adoption
others. The concept of "generally accepted principles of law" has also been by the Health Assembly except for such Members as may notify the
depicted in this wise: Director-General of rejection or reservations within the period stated in
Some legal scholars and judges look upon certain "general principles of law" as a the notice. (Emphasis supplied)
primary source of international law because they have the "character of jus On the other hand, under Article 23, recommendations of the WHA do not
rationale" and are "valid through all kinds of human societies." (Judge come into force for members, in the same way that conventions or agreements
Tanaka in his dissenting opinion in the 1966 South West Africa Case, 1966 I.C.J. under Article 19 and regulations under Article 21 come into force. Article 23 of
296). O'Connell holds that certain priniciples are part of international law because the WHO Constitution reads:
they are "basic to legal systems generally" and hence part of the jus Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to make
gentium. These principles, he believes, are established by a process of reasoning recommendations to Members with respect to any matter within the
based on the common identity of all legal systems. If there should be doubt or competence of the Organization. (Emphasis supplied)
disagreement, one must look to state practice and determine whether the The absence of a provision in Article 23 of any mechanism by which the
municipal law principle provides a just and acceptable solution. x x x 21 (Emphasis recommendation would come into force for member states is conspicuous.
supplied) The former Senior Legal Officer of WHO, Sami Shubber, stated that WHA
Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas defines customary international law as follows: recommendations are generally not binding, but they "carry moral and political
Custom or customary international law means "a general and weight, as they constitute the judgment on a health issue of the collective
consistent practice of states followed by them from a sense of legal membership of the highest international body in the field of health." 29 Even the
obligation [opinio juris]." (Restatement) This statement contains the ICMBS itself was adopted as a mere recommendation, as WHA Resolution No.
two basic elements of custom: the material factor, that is, how 34.22 states:
states behave, and the psychological or subjective factor, that is, "The Thirty-Fourth World Health Assembly x x x adopts, in the sense
why they behave the way they do. of Article 23 of the Constitution, the International Code of Marketing
xxxx of Breastmilk Substitutes annexed to the present resolution."
The initial factor for determining the existence of custom is the actual (Emphasis supplied)
behavior of states. This includes several elements: duration, The Introduction to the ICMBS also reads as follows:
consistency, and generality of the practice of states. In January 1981, the Executive Board of the World Health Organization
The required duration can be either short or long. x x x at its sixty-seventh session, considered the fourth draft of the code,
xxxx endorsed it, and unanimously recommended to the Thirty-fourth World
Duration therefore is not the most important element. More important is Health Assembly the text of a resolution by which it would adopt the
the consistency and the generality of the practice. x x x code in the form of a recommendation rather than a regulation. x x
xxxx x (Emphasis supplied)
Once the existence of state practice has been established, it becomes The legal value of WHA Resolutions as recommendations is summarized in Article
necessary to determine why states behave the way they do. Do states 62 of the WHO Constitution, to wit:
behave the way they do because they consider it obligatory to Art. 62. Each member shall report annually on the action taken with
behave thus or do they do it only as a matter of courtesy? Opinio respect to recommendations made to it by the Organization, and with
juris, or the belief that a certain form of behavior is obligatory, is respect to conventions, agreements and regulations.
what makes practice an international rule. Without it, practice is not Apparently, the WHA Resolution adopting the ICMBS and subsequent WHA
law.22 (Underscoring and Emphasis supplied) Resolutions urging member states to implement the ICMBS are merely
Clearly, customary international law is deemed incorporated into our domestic recommendatory and legally non-binding. Thus, unlike what has been done
system.23 with the ICMBS whereby the legislature enacted most of the provisions into
WHA Resolutions have not been embodied in any local legislation. Have they law which is the Milk Code, the subsequent WHA Resolutions,30 specifically
attained the status of customary law and should they then be deemed providing for exclusive breastfeeding from 0-6 months, continued
incorporated as part of the law of the land? breastfeeding up to 24 months, and absolutely prohibiting advertisements
The World Health Organization (WHO) is one of the international specialized and promotions of breastmilk substitutes, have not been adopted as a
agencies allied with the United Nations (UN) by virtue of Article 57,24 in relation to domestic law.
Article 6325 of the UN Charter. Under the 1946 WHO Constitution, it is the WHA It is propounded that WHA Resolutions may constitute "soft law" or non-binding
which determines the policies of the WHO,26 and has the power to adopt norms, principles and practices that influence state behavior.31
regulations concerning "advertising and labeling of biological, pharmaceutical and
"Soft law" does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in breastfeeding for the first six months, extended breastfeeding up to two years and
Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice. 32 It beyond; (2) appropriate complementary feeding, which is to start at age six
is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that months; (3) micronutrient supplementation; (4) universal salt iodization; (5) the
influence state behavior.33 Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General exercise of other feeding options; and (6) feeding in exceptionally difficult
Assembly fall under this category.34 The most notable is the UN Declaration of circumstances. Indeed, the primacy of breastfeeding for children is emphasized
Human Rights, which this Court has enforced in various cases, specifically, as a national health policy. However, nowhere in A.O. No. 2005-0014 is it
Government of Hongkong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,35 Mejoff v. declared that as part of such health policy, the advertisement or promotion
Director of Prisons,36 Mijares v. Rañada37 and Shangri-la International Hotel of breastmilk substitutes should be absolutely prohibited.
Management, Ltd. v. Developers Group of Companies, Inc..38 The national policy of protection, promotion and support of breastfeeding cannot
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), a specialized agency automatically be equated with a total ban on advertising for breastmilk substitutes.
attached to the UN with the mandate to promote and protect intellectual property In view of the enactment of the Milk Code which does not contain a total ban on
worldwide, has resorted to soft law as a rapid means of norm creation, in order the advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes, but instead, specifically
"to reflect and respond to the changing needs and demands of its constituents."39 creates an IAC which will regulate said advertising and promotion, it follows that
Other international organizations which have resorted to soft law include the a total ban policy could be implemented only pursuant to a law amending the
International Labor Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization (in Milk Code passed by the constitutionally authorized branch of government, the
the form of the Codex Alimentarius).40 legislature.
WHO has resorted to soft law. This was most evident at the time of the Severe Thus, only the provisions of the Milk Code, but not those of subsequent WHA
Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) and Avian flu outbreaks. Resolutions, can be validly implemented by the DOH through the subject RIRR.
Although the IHR Resolution does not create new international law Third, the Court will now determine whether the provisions of the RIRR are in
binding on WHO member states, it provides an excellent example accordance with those of the Milk Code.
of the power of "soft law" in international relations. International In support of its claim that the RIRR is inconsistent with the Milk Code, petitioner
lawyers typically distinguish binding rules of international law- alleges the following:
"hard law"-from non-binding norms, principles, and practices that 1. The Milk Code limits its coverage to children 0-12 months old, but the
influence state behavior-"soft law." WHO has during its existence RIRR extended its coverage to "young children" or those from ages two
generated many soft law norms, creating a "soft law regime" in years old and beyond:
international governance for public health. MILK CODE RI
The "soft law" SARS and IHR Resolutions represent significant steps in WHEREAS, in order to ensure that safe and adequate nutrition Se
laying the political groundwork for improved international cooperation for infants is provided, there is a need to protect and promote are
on infectious diseases. These resolutions clearly define WHO member breastfeeding and to inform the public about the proper use of ad
states' normative duty to cooperate fully with other countries and with breastmilk substitutes and supplements and related products pro
WHO in connection with infectious disease surveillance and response through adequate, consistent and objective information and en
to outbreaks. appropriate regulation of the marketing and distribution of the su
This duty is neither binding nor enforceable, but, in the wake of said substitutes, supplements and related products; ind
the SARS epidemic, the duty is powerful politically for two reasons. SECTION 4(e). "Infant" means a person falling within the age inf
First, the SARS outbreak has taught the lesson that participating in, and bracket of 0-12 months. dis
enhancing, international cooperation on infectious disease controls is Se
in a country's self-interest x x x if this warning is heeded, the "soft law" mo
in the SARS and IHR Resolution could inform the development of (36
general and consistent state practice on infectious disease surveillance
2. The Milk Code recognizes that infant formula may be a proper and
and outbreak response, perhaps crystallizing eventually into customary
possible substitute for breastmilk in certain instances; but the RIRR
international law on infectious disease prevention and control.41
provides "exclusive breastfeeding for infants from 0-6 months" and
In the Philippines, the executive department implemented certain measures
declares that "there is no substitute nor replacement for breastmilk":
recommended by WHO to address the outbreaks of SARS and Avian flu by
issuing Executive Order (E.O.) No. 201 on April 26, 2003 and E.O. No. 280 on MILK CODE RI
February 2, 2004, delegating to various departments broad powers to close down WHEREAS, in order to ensure that safe and adequate nutrition Se
schools/establishments, conduct health surveillance and monitoring, and ban for infants is provided, there is a need to protect and promote un
importation of poultry and agricultural products. breastfeeding and to inform the public about the proper use of reg
It must be emphasized that even under such an international emergency, the duty breastmilk substitutes and supplements and related products a.
of a state to implement the IHR Resolution was still considered not binding or through adequate, consistent and objective information and mo
enforceable, although said resolutions had great political influence. appropriate regulation of the marketing and distribution of the b.
As previously discussed, for an international rule to be considered as customary said substitutes, supplements and related products;
law, it must be established that such rule is being followed by states because they 3. The Milk Code only regulates and does not impose unreasonable
consider it obligatory to comply with such rules (opinio juris). Respondents have requirements for advertising and promotion; RIRR imposes an absolute
not presented any evidence to prove that the WHA Resolutions, although signed ban on such activities for breastmilk substitutes intended for infants
by most of the member states, were in fact enforced or practiced by at least a from 0-24 months old or beyond, and forbids the use of health and
majority of the member states; neither have respondents proven that any nutritional claims. Section 13 of the RIRR, which provides for a "total
compliance by member states with said WHA Resolutions was obligatory in effect" in the promotion of products within the scope of the Code, is
nature. vague:
Respondents failed to establish that the provisions of pertinent WHA Resolutions MILK CODE RI
are customary international law that may be deemed part of the law of the land.
SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers. – Se
Consequently, legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA
(a) No advertising, promotion or other marketing materials, un
Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA Resolutions cannot
whether written, audio or visual, for products within the scope reg
be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by
of this Code shall be printed, published, distributed, exhibited x x
executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature.
and broadcast unless such materials are duly authorized and f. A
Second, the Court will determine whether the DOH may implement the provisions
approved by an inter-agency committee created herein bre
of the WHA Resolutions by virtue of its powers and functions under the Revised
pursuant to the applicable standards provided for in this Code. pro
Administrative Code even in the absence of a domestic law.
Se
Section 3, Chapter 1, Title IX of the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 provides
sp
that the DOH shall define the national health policy and implement a national
bre
health plan within the framework of the government's general policies and plans,
up
and issue orders and regulations concerning the implementation of
ten
established health policies.
un
It is crucial to ascertain whether the absolute prohibition on advertising and other
ex
forms of promotion of breastmilk substitutes provided in some WHA Resolutions
we
has been adopted as part of the national health policy.
Se
Respondents submit that the national policy on infant and young child feeding is
sc
embodied in A.O. No. 2005-0014, dated May 23, 2005. Basically, the
ma
Administrative Order declared the following policy guidelines: (1) ideal
or
breastfeeding practices, such as early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive
ca
 should not directly or indirectly suggest that buying their an
product would produce better individuals, or resulting in greater ma
love, intelligence, ability, harmony or in any manner bring better SE
health to the baby or other such exaggerated and is
unsubstantiated claim. pro
Section 15. Content of Materials. - The following shall not be yo
included in advertising, promotional and marketing materials: up
a. Texts, pictures, illustrations or information which discourage as
or tend to undermine the benefits or superiority of sh
breastfeeding
7. The or Milkwhich
Code idealize
regulates the use of
the giving breastmilk RIRR absolutely
of donations;
substitutes and milk
prohibits it. supplements. In this connection, no
pictures of babies MILK and children
CODE together with their mothers, RIR
fathers, siblings, grandparents, other relatives or caregivers (or
SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers. – Se
yayas) shall be used in any advertisements for infant formula
(f) Nothing herein contained shall prevent donations from Do
and breastmilk supplements;
manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope of the
b. The term "humanized," "maternalized," "close to mother's
this Code upon request by or with the approval of the Ministry sh
milk" or similar words in describing breastmilk substitutes or
of Health. Se
milk supplements;
Co
c. Pictures or texts that idealize the use of infant and milk
an
formula.
Section 16. All health and nutrition claims for products within or
rep
the scope of the Code are absolutely prohibited. For this
co
purpose, any phrase or words that connotes to increase
de
emotional, intellectual abilities of the infant and young child and
other like8.phrases
The RIRR shallprovides for administrative sanctions not imposed by the
not be allowed.
Milk Code.
4. The RIRR imposes additional labeling requirements not found in the
Milk Code: MILK CODE RIR
MILK CODE RIRR Se
SECTION 10. Containers/Label. – Section 26. Content – Each container/label shall contain such ad
jur
(a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed to provide the message, in both Filipino and English languages, and which
Co
necessary information about the appropriate use of the message cannot be readily separated therefrom, relative the
a)
products, and in such a way as not to discourage following points:
b)
breastfeeding. (a) The words or phrase "Important Notice" or "Government
Th
(b) Each container shall have a clear, conspicuous and easily Warning" or their equivalent;
Pe
readable and understandable message in Pilipino or English (b) A statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
inc
printed on it, or on a label, which message can not readily (c) A statement that there is no substitute for breastmilk;
c)
become separated from it, and which shall include the following (d) A statement that the product shall be used only on the
Th
points: advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the
(P1
(i) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent; proper methods of use;
the
(ii) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding; (e) Instructions for appropriate prepara-tion, and a warning
pro
(iii) a statement that the product shall be used only on the against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation; and
Re
advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the (f) The health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of infant
d)
proper methods of use; and formula and other related products including information that
Hu
(iv) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning powdered infant formula may contain pathogenic
(P5
against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation. microorganisms and must be prepared and used appropriately.
ex
5. The Milk Code allows dissemination of information on infant formula pro
to health professionals; the RIRR totally prohibits such activity: Op
MILK CODE RIRR e)
SECTION 7. Health Care System. – Section 22. No manufacturer, distributor, or representatives of of
(b) No facility of the health care system shall be used for the products covered by the Code shall be allowed to conduct or off
purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within be involved in any activity on breastfeeding promotion, Lic
the scope of this Code. This Code does not, however, preclude education and production of Information, Education and the
the dissemination of information to health professionals as Communication (IEC) materials on breastfeeding, holding of or of
provided in Section 8(b). participating as speakers in classes or seminars for women Tra
SECTION 8. Health Workers. - and children activities and to avoid the use of these venues to f)
(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to market their brands or company names. (P2
health professionals regarding products within the scope of this SECTION 16. All health and nutrition claims for products within vio
Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual matters and the scope of the Code are absolutely prohibited. For this or
such information shall not imply or create a belief that bottle- purpose, any phrase or words that connotes to increase co
feeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding. It shall also emotional, intellectual abilities of the infant and young child and Fo
include the information specified in Section 5(b). other like phrases shall not be allowed. vio
6. The Milk Code permits milk manufacturers and distributors to extend co
assistance in research and continuing education of health be
professionals; RIRR absolutely forbids the same. ba
MILK CODE RIRR 9. The RIRR provides for repeal of existing laws to the contrary.
SECTION 8. Health Workers – The Court4.
Section shall resolve the
Declaration ofmerits of the–allegations of petitioner seriatim.
Principles
(e) Manufacturers and distributors of products within the scope1.ThePetitioner is mistaken
following are the in its claim that
underlying the Milkfrom
principles Code's
whichcoverage
the is limited only
of this Code may assist in the research, scholarships andtorevised children 0-12and
rules months old. Section
regulations 3 of the upon:
are premised Milk Code states:
SECTION and
continuing education, of health professionals, in accordance i. Milk companies, 3. Scope of the Code – The
their representatives, Codenot
should applies
form to the marketing,
with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of part of any policymaking body or entity in relation to products:
and practices related thereto, of the following the breastmilk
Health. advancementsubstitutes, including infant formula; other milk products, foods and
of breasfeeding.
SECTION beverages, including bottle-fed
22. No manufacturer, complementary
distributor, foods, when marketed
or representatives
of products covered by the Code shall be allowed to conduct modification, for
or otherwise represented to be suitable, with or without
use as ainpartial
or be involved or total on
any activity replacement of breastmilk;
breastfeeding promotion,feeding bottles and
educationteats.
andIt production
also applies of to their quality and
Information, availability,
Education andand to information
concerning
Communication (IEC)their use. on breastfeeding, holding of or
materials
Clearly, the coverage
participating as speakersof theinMilk Code or
classes is seminars
not dependent on the age of the child
for women
but on the kind of product being marketed to the public. The law treats infant
formula, bottle-fed complementary food, and breastmilk substitute as separate (1) To promulgate such rules and regulations as are
and distinct product categories. necessary or proper for the implementation of this Code and
Section 4(h) of the Milk Code defines infant formula as "a breastmilk substitute x the accomplishment of its purposes and objectives.
x x to satisfy the normal nutritional requirements of infants up to between four to xxxx
six months of age, and adapted to their physiological characteristics"; while under (4) To exercise such other powers and functions as may be
Section 4(b), bottle-fed complementary food refers to "any food, whether necessary for or incidental to the attainment of the purposes
manufactured or locally prepared, suitable as a complement to breastmilk or infant and objectives of this Code.
formula, when either becomes insufficient to satisfy the nutritional requirements SECTION 5. Information and Education –
of the infant." An infant under Section 4(e) is a person falling within the age bracket (a) The government shall ensure that objective and consistent
0-12 months. It is the nourishment of this group of infants or children aged 0-12 information is provided on infant feeding, for use by families and those
months that is sought to be promoted and protected by the Milk Code. involved in the field of infant nutrition. This responsibility shall cover the
But there is another target group. Breastmilk substitute is defined under Section planning, provision, design and dissemination of information, and the
4(a) as "any food being marketed or otherwise presented as a partial or total control thereof, on infant nutrition. (Emphasis supplied)
replacement for breastmilk, whether or not suitable for that purpose." This Further, DOH is authorized by the Milk Code to control the content of any
section conspicuously lacks reference to any particular age-group of information on breastmilk vis-à-vis breastmilk substitutes, supplement and related
children. Hence, the provision of the Milk Code cannot be considered products, in the following manner:
exclusive for children aged 0-12 months. In other words, breastmilk substitutes SECTION 5. x x x
may also be intended for young children more than 12 months of age. Therefore, (b) Informational and educational materials, whether written, audio, or
by regulating breastmilk substitutes, the Milk Code also intends to protect and visual, dealing with the feeding of infants and intended to reach
promote the nourishment of children more than 12 months old. pregnant women and mothers of infants, shall include clear information
Evidently, as long as what is being marketed falls within the scope of the Milk on all the following points: (1) the benefits and superiority of
Code as provided in Section 3, then it can be subject to regulation pursuant to breastfeeding; (2) maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and
said law, even if the product is to be used by children aged over 12 months. maintenance of breastfeeding; (3) the negative effect on breastfeeding
There is, therefore, nothing objectionable with Sections 242 and 5(ff)43 of the RIRR. of introducing partial bottlefeeding; (4) the difficulty of reversing the
2. It is also incorrect for petitioner to say that the RIRR, unlike the Milk Code, does decision not to breastfeed; and (5) where needed, the proper use of
not recognize that breastmilk substitutes may be a proper and possible substitute infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared.
for breastmilk. When such materials contain information about the use of infant
The entirety of the RIRR, not merely truncated portions thereof, must be formula, they shall include the social and financial implications of
considered and construed together. As held in De Luna v. Pascual,44 "[t]he its use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods or feeding
particular words, clauses and phrases in the Rule should not be studied as methods; and, in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or
detached and isolated expressions, but the whole and every part thereof must be improper use of infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes.
considered in fixing the meaning of any of its parts and in order to produce a Such materials shall not use any picture or text which may idealize
harmonious whole." the use of breastmilk substitutes.
Section 7 of the RIRR provides that "when medically indicated and only when SECTION 8. Health Workers –
necessary, the use of breastmilk substitutes is proper if based on complete xxxx
and updated information." Section 8 of the RIRR also states that information and (b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health
educational materials should include information on the proper use of infant professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code shall be
formula when the use thereof is needed. restricted to scientific and factual matters, and such information
Hence, the RIRR, just like the Milk Code, also recognizes that in certain shall not imply or create a belief that bottlefeeding is equivalent or
cases, the use of breastmilk substitutes may be proper. superior to breastfeeding. It shall also include the information
3. The Court shall ascertain the merits of allegations 345 and 446 together as they specified in Section 5(b).
are interlinked with each other. SECTION 10. Containers/Label –
To resolve the question of whether the labeling requirements and advertising (a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed to provide the necessary
regulations under the RIRR are valid, it is important to deal first with the nature, information about the appropriate use of the products, and in such a
purpose, and depth of the regulatory powers of the DOH, as defined in general way as not to discourage breastfeeding.
under the 1987 Administrative Code,47 and as delegated in particular under the xxxx
Milk Code. (d) The term "humanized," "maternalized" or similar terms shall not be
Health is a legitimate subject matter for regulation by the DOH (and certain other used. (Emphasis supplied)
administrative agencies) in exercise of police powers delegated to it. The sheer The DOH is also authorized to control the purpose of the information and to whom
span of jurisprudence on that matter precludes the need to further discuss it. .48 such information may be disseminated under Sections 6 through 9 of the Milk
However, health information, particularly advertising materials on apparently non- Code54 to ensure that the information that would reach pregnant women, mothers
toxic products like breastmilk substitutes and supplements, is a relatively new of infants, and health professionals and workers in the health care system is
area for regulation by the DOH.49 restricted to scientific and factual matters and shall not imply or create a belief
As early as the 1917 Revised Administrative Code of the Philippine Islands, 50 that bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding.
health information was already within the ambit of the regulatory powers of the It bears emphasis, however, that the DOH's power under the Milk Code to control
predecessor of DOH.51 Section 938 thereof charged it with the duty to protect the information regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes is not absolute
health of the people, and vested it with such powers as "(g) the dissemination of as the power to control does not encompass the power to absolutely prohibit the
hygienic information among the people and especially the inculcation of advertising, marketing, and promotion of breastmilk substitutes.
knowledge as to the proper care of infants and the methods of preventing and The following are the provisions of the Milk Code that unequivocally indicate that
combating dangerous communicable diseases." the control over information given to the DOH is not absolute and that absolute
Seventy years later, the 1987 Administrative Code tasked respondent DOH to prohibition is not contemplated by the Code:
carry out the state policy pronounced under Section 15, Article II of the 1987 a) Section 2 which requires adequate information and appropriate
Constitution, which is "to protect and promote the right to health of the people and marketing and distribution of breastmilk substitutes, to wit:
instill health consciousness among them."52 To that end, it was granted under SECTION 2. Aim of the Code – The aim of the Code is to
Section 3 of the Administrative Code the power to "(6) propagate health contribute to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for
information and educate the population on important health, medical and infants by the protection and promotion of breastfeeding and
environmental matters which have health implications."53 by ensuring the proper use of breastmilk substitutes and
When it comes to information regarding nutrition of infants and young children, breastmilk supplements when these are necessary, on the
however, the Milk Code specifically delegated to the Ministry of Health (hereinafter basis of adequate information and through appropriate
referred to as DOH) the power to ensure that there is adequate, consistent and marketing and distribution.
objective information on breastfeeding and use of breastmilk substitutes, b) Section 3 which specifically states that the Code applies to the
supplements and related products; and the power to control such information. marketing of and practices related to breastmilk substitutes, including
These are expressly provided for in Sections 12 and 5(a), to wit: infant formula, and to information concerning their use;
SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring – c) Section 5(a) which provides that the government shall ensure that
xxxx objective and consistent information is provided on infant feeding;
(b) The Ministry of Health shall be principally responsible for the d) Section 5(b) which provides that written, audio or visual informational
implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Code. For this and educational materials shall not use any picture or text which may
purpose, the Ministry of Health shall have the following powers and idealize the use of breastmilk substitutes and should include information
functions: on the health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of said product;
 e) Section 6(a) in relation to Section 12(a) which creates and empowers contamination with pathogenic microorganisms is in accordance with Section 5(b)
the IAC to review and examine advertising, promotion, and other of the Milk Code.
marketing materials; The authority of DOH to control information regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis
f) Section 8(b) which states that milk companies may provide breastmilk substitutes and supplements and related products cannot be
information to health professionals but such information should be questioned. It is its intervention into the area of advertising, promotion, and
restricted to factual and scientific matters and shall not imply or create marketing that is being assailed by petitioner.
a belief that bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding; and In furtherance of Section 6(a) of the Milk Code, to wit:
g) Section 10 which provides that containers or labels should not SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers. –
contain information that would discourage breastfeeding and idealize (a) No advertising, promotion or other marketing materials, whether
the use of infant formula. written, audio or visual, for products within the scope of this Code shall
It is in this context that the Court now examines the assailed provisions of the be printed, published, distributed, exhibited and broadcast unless such
RIRR regarding labeling and advertising. materials are duly authorized and approved by an inter-agency
Sections 1355 on "total effect" and 2656 of Rule VII of the RIRR contain some committee created herein pursuant to the applicable standards
labeling requirements, specifically: a) that there be a statement that there is no provided for in this Code.
substitute to breastmilk; and b) that there be a statement that powdered infant the Milk Code invested regulatory authority over advertising, promotional and
formula may contain pathogenic microorganisms and must be prepared and used marketing materials to an IAC, thus:
appropriately. Section 1657 of the RIRR prohibits all health and nutrition claims for SECTION 12. Implementation and Monitoring -
products within the scope of the Milk Code, such as claims of increased emotional (a) For purposes of Section 6(a) of this Code, an inter-agency
and intellectual abilities of the infant and young child. committee composed of the following members is hereby created:
These requirements and limitations are consistent with the provisions of Section
8 of the Milk Code, to wit: Minister of Health
SECTION 8. Health workers -
xxxx Minister of Trade and Industry
(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health
professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code shall be Minister of Justice
restricted to scientific and factual matters, and such information
shall not imply or create a belief that bottlefeeding is equivalent or Minister of Social Services and Development
superior to breastfeeding. It shall also include the information specified
in Section 5.58 (Emphasis supplied) The members may designate their duly authorized representative to
and Section 10(d)59 which bars the use on containers and labels of the terms every meeting of the Committee.
"humanized," "maternalized," or similar terms. The Committee shall have the following powers and functions:
These provisions of the Milk Code expressly forbid information that would imply (1) To review and examine all advertising. promotion or other
or create a belief that there is any milk product equivalent to breastmilk or which marketing materials, whether written, audio or visual, on
products within the scope of this Code;
is humanized or maternalized, as such information would be inconsistent with the
superiority of breastfeeding. (2) To approve or disapprove, delete objectionable portions
It may be argued that Section 8 of the Milk Code refers only to information given from and prohibit the printing, publication, distribution,
exhibition and broadcast of, all advertising promotion or other
to health workers regarding breastmilk substitutes, not to containers and labels
thereof. However, such restrictive application of Section 8(b) will result in the marketing materials, whether written, audio or visual, on
absurd situation in which milk companies and distributors are forbidden to claim products within the scope of this Code;
(3) To prescribe the internal and operational procedure for
to health workers that their products are substitutes or equivalents of breastmilk,
and yet be allowed to display on the containers and labels of their products the the exercise of its powers and functions as well as the
exact opposite message. That askewed interpretation of the Milk Code is precisely performance of its duties and responsibilities; and
(4) To promulgate such rules and regulations as are
what Section 5(a) thereof seeks to avoid by mandating that all information
necessary or proper for the implementation of Section
regarding breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes be consistent, at the same
6(a) of this Code. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
time giving the government control over planning, provision, design, and
However, Section 11 of the RIRR, to wit:
dissemination of information on infant feeding.
SECTION 11. Prohibition – No advertising, promotions, sponsorships,
Thus, Section 26(c) of the RIRR which requires containers and labels to state that
the product offered is not a substitute for breastmilk, is a reasonable means of or marketing materials and activities for breastmilk substitutes intended
for infants and young children up to twenty-four (24) months, shall be
enforcing Section 8(b) of the Milk Code and deterring circumvention of the
protection and promotion of breastfeeding as embodied in Section 260 of the Milk allowed, because they tend to convey or give subliminal messages or
Code. impressions that undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding or otherwise
exaggerate breastmilk substitutes and/or replacements, as well as
Section 26(f)61 of the RIRR is an equally reasonable labeling requirement. It
implements Section 5(b) of the Milk Code which reads: related products covered within the scope of this Code.
SECTION 5. x x x prohibits advertising, promotions, sponsorships or marketing materials and
activities for breastmilk substitutes in line with the RIRR’s declaration of principle
xxxx
(b) Informational and educational materials, whether written, audio, or under Section 4(f), to wit:
visual, dealing with the feeding of infants and intended to reach SECTION 4. Declaration of Principles –
xxxx
pregnant women and mothers of infants, shall include clear information
on all the following points: x x x (5) where needed, the proper use of (f) Advertising, promotions, or sponsorships of infant formula,
infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared. breastmilk substitutes and other related products are prohibited.
The DOH, through its co-respondents, evidently arrogated to itself not only the
When such materials contain information about the use of infant
formula, they shall include the social and financial implications of its regulatory authority given to the IAC but also imposed absolute prohibition on
use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods or feeding methods; advertising, promotion, and marketing.
Yet, oddly enough, Section 12 of the RIRR reiterated the requirement of the Milk
and, in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or improper
use of infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes. Such Code in Section 6 thereof for prior approval by IAC of all advertising, marketing
materials shall not use any picture or text which may idealize the use of and promotional materials prior to dissemination.
Even respondents, through the OSG, acknowledged the authority of IAC, and
breastmilk substitutes. (Emphasis supplied)
The label of a product contains information about said product intended for the repeatedly insisted, during the oral arguments on June 19, 2007, that the
buyers thereof. The buyers of breastmilk substitutes are mothers of infants, and prohibition under Section 11 is not actually operational, viz:
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA:
Section 26 of the RIRR merely adds a fair warning about the likelihood of
pathogenic microorganisms being present in infant formula and other related xxxx
products when these are prepared and used inappropriately. x x x Now, the crux of the matter that is being questioned by Petitioner
is whether or not there is an absolute prohibition on advertising making
Petitioner’s counsel has admitted during the hearing on June 19, 2007 that
formula milk is prone to contaminations and there is as yet no technology that AO 2006-12 unconstitutional. We maintained that what AO 2006-12
allows production of powdered infant formula that eliminates all forms of provides is not an absolute prohibition because Section 11 while it
states and it is entitled prohibition it states that no advertising,
contamination.62
Ineluctably, the requirement under Section 26(f) of the RIRR for the label to promotion, sponsorship or marketing materials and activities for breast
contain the message regarding health hazards including the possibility of milk substitutes intended for infants and young children up to 24 months
shall be allowed because this is the standard they tend to convey or
 give subliminal messages or impression undermine that breastmilk or breastfeeding; (2) maternal nutrition, and the preparation for and
breastfeeding x x x. maintenance of breastfeeding; (3) the negative effect on breastfeeding
We have to read Section 11 together with the other Sections because of introducing partial bottlefeeding; (4) the difficulty of reversing the
the other Section, Section 12, provides for the inter agency committee decision not to breastfeed; and (5) where needed, the proper use of
that is empowered to process and evaluate all the advertising and infant formula, whether manufactured industrially or home-prepared.
promotion materials. When such materials contain information about the use of infant
xxxx formula, they shall include the social and financial implications of its
What AO 2006-12, what it does, it does not prohibit the sale and use; the health hazards of inappropriate foods of feeding methods; and,
manufacture, it simply regulates the advertisement and the promotions in particular, the health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of
of breastfeeding milk substitutes. infant formula and other breastmilk substitutes. Such materials shall not
xxxx use any picture or text which may idealize the use of breastmilk
Now, the prohibition on advertising, Your Honor, must be taken together substitutes.
with the provision on the Inter-Agency Committee that processes and xxxx
evaluates because there may be some information dissemination that SECTION 8. Health Workers. –
are straight forward information dissemination. What the AO 2006 is xxxx
trying to prevent is any material that will undermine the practice of (b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to health
breastfeeding, Your Honor. professionals regarding products within the scope of this Code shall be
xxxx restricted to scientific and factual matters and such information shall not
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO: imply or create a belief that bottle feeding is equivalent or superior to
Madam Solicitor General, under the Milk Code, which body has breastfeeding. It shall also include the information specified in Section
authority or power to promulgate Rules and Regulations regarding the 5(b).
Advertising, Promotion and Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes? xxxx
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA: SECTION 10. Containers/Label –
Your Honor, please, it is provided that the Inter-Agency Committee, (a) Containers and/or labels shall be designed to provide the necessary
Your Honor. information about the appropriate use of the products, and in such a
xxxx way as not to discourage breastfeeding.
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SANTIAGO: (b) Each container shall have a clear, conspicuous and easily readable
x x x Don't you think that the Department of Health overstepped its rule and understandable message in Pilipino or English printed on it, or on
making authority when it totally banned advertising and promotion a label, which message can not readily become separated from it, and
under Section 11 prescribed the total effect rule as well as the content which shall include the following points:
of materials under Section 13 and 15 of the rules and regulations? (i) the words "Important Notice" or their equivalent;
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA: (ii) a statement of the superiority of breastfeeding;
Your Honor, please, first we would like to stress that there is no total (iii) a statement that the product shall be used only on the
absolute ban. Second, the Inter-Agency Committee is under the advice of a health worker as to the need for its use and the
Department of Health, Your Honor. proper methods of use; and
xxxx (iv) instructions for appropriate preparation, and a warning
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NAZARIO: against the health hazards of inappropriate preparation.
x x x Did I hear you correctly, Madam Solicitor, that there is no absolute Section 12(b) of the Milk Code designates the DOH as the principal implementing
ban on advertising of breastmilk substitutes in the Revised Rules? agency for the enforcement of the provisions of the Code. In relation to such
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA: responsibility of the DOH, Section 5(a) of the Milk Code states that:
Yes, your Honor. SECTION 5. Information and Education –
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NAZARIO: (a) The government shall ensure that objective and consistent
But, would you nevertheless agree that there is an absolute ban on information is provided on infant feeding, for use by families and those
advertising of breastmilk substitutes intended for children two (2) years involved in the field of infant nutrition. This responsibility shall cover the
old and younger? planning, provision, design and dissemination of information, and the
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA: control thereof, on infant nutrition. (Emphasis supplied)
It's not an absolute ban, Your Honor, because we have the Inter-Agency Thus, the DOH has the significant responsibility to translate into operational
Committee that can evaluate some advertising and promotional terms the standards set forth in Sections 5, 8, and 10 of the Milk Code, by
materials, subject to the standards that we have stated earlier, which which the IAC shall screen advertising, promotional, or other marketing
are- they should not undermine breastfeeding, Your Honor. materials.
xxxx It is pursuant to such responsibility that the DOH correctly provided for Section 13
x x x Section 11, while it is titled Prohibition, it must be taken in relation in the RIRR which reads as follows:
with the other Sections, particularly 12 and 13 and 15, Your Honor, SECTION 13. "Total Effect" - Promotion of products within the scope of
because it is recognized that the Inter-Agency Committee has that this Code must be objective and should not equate or make the product
power to evaluate promotional materials, Your Honor. appear to be as good or equal to breastmilk or breastfeeding in the
ASSOCIATE JUSTICE NAZARIO: advertising concept. It must not in any case undermine breastmilk or
So in short, will you please clarify there's no absolute ban on breastfeeding. The "total effect" should not directly or indirectly suggest
advertisement regarding milk substitute regarding infants two (2) years that buying their product would produce better individuals, or resulting
below? in greater love, intelligence, ability, harmony or in any manner bring
SOLICITOR GENERAL DEVANADERA: better health to the baby or other such exaggerated and
We can proudly say that the general rule is that there is a prohibition, unsubstantiated claim.
however, we take exceptions and standards have been set. One of Such standards bind the IAC in formulating its rules and regulations on
which is that, the Inter-Agency Committee can allow if the advertising advertising, promotion, and marketing. Through that single provision, the DOH
and promotions will not undermine breastmilk and breastfeeding, Your exercises control over the information content of advertising, promotional and
Honor.63 marketing materials on breastmilk vis-a-vis breastmilk substitutes, supplements
Sections 11 and 4(f) of the RIRR are clearly violative of the Milk Code. and other related products. It also sets a viable standard against which the IAC
However, although it is the IAC which is authorized to promulgate rules and may screen such materials before they are made public.
regulations for the approval or rejection of advertising, promotional, or other In Equi-Asia Placement, Inc. vs. Department of Foreign Affairs,64 the Court held:
marketing materials under Section 12(a) of the Milk Code, said provision must be x x x [T]his Court had, in the past, accepted as sufficient standards the
related to Section 6 thereof which in turn provides that the rules and regulations following: "public interest," "justice and equity," "public convenience and
must be "pursuant to the applicable standards provided for in this Code." Said welfare," and "simplicity, economy and welfare."65
standards are set forth in Sections 5(b), 8(b), and 10 of the Code, which, at the In this case, correct information as to infant feeding and nutrition is infused with
risk of being repetitious, and for easy reference, are quoted hereunder: public interest and welfare.
SECTION 5. Information and Education – 4. With regard to activities for dissemination of information to health professionals,
xxxx the Court also finds that there is no inconsistency between the provisions of the
(b) Informational and educational materials, whether written, audio, or Milk Code and the RIRR. Section 7(b)66 of the Milk Code, in relation to Section
visual, dealing with the feeding of infants and intended to reach 8(b)67 of the same Code, allows dissemination of information to health
pregnant women and mothers of infants, shall include clear information professionals but such information is restricted to scientific and factual
on all the following points: (1) the benefits and superiority of matters.
Contrary to petitioner's claim, Section 22 of the RIRR does not prohibit the giving In a more recent case, Perez v. LPG Refillers Association of the Philippines, Inc.,77
of information to health professionals on scientific and factual matters. the Court upheld the Department of Energy (DOE) Circular No. 2000-06-10
What it prohibits is the involvement of the manufacturer and distributor of the implementing Batas Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 33. The circular provided for fines for
products covered by the Code in activities for the promotion, education and the commission of prohibited acts. The Court found that nothing in the circular
production of Information, Education and Communication (IEC) materials contravened the law because the DOE was expressly authorized by B.P. Blg. 33
regarding breastfeeding that are intended for women and children. Said and R.A. No. 7638 to impose fines or penalties.
provision cannot be construed to encompass even the dissemination of In the present case, neither the Milk Code nor the Revised Administrative Code
information to health professionals, as restricted by the Milk Code. grants the DOH the authority to fix or impose administrative fines. Thus, without
5. Next, petitioner alleges that Section 8(e)68 of the Milk Code permits milk any express grant of power to fix or impose such fines, the DOH cannot provide
manufacturers and distributors to extend assistance in research and in the for those fines in the RIRR. In this regard, the DOH again exceeded its authority
continuing education of health professionals, while Sections 22 and 32 of the by providing for such fines or sanctions in Section 46 of the RIRR. Said provision
RIRR absolutely forbid the same. Petitioner also assails Section 4(i)69 of the RIRR is, therefore, null and void.
prohibiting milk manufacturers' and distributors' participation in any policymaking The DOH is not left without any means to enforce its rules and regulations. Section
body in relation to the advancement of breastfeeding. 12(b) (3) of the Milk Code authorizes the DOH to "cause the prosecution of the
Section 4(i) of the RIRR provides that milk companies and their representatives violators of this Code and other pertinent laws on products covered by this Code."
should not form part of any policymaking body or entity in relation to the Section 13 of the Milk Code provides for the penalties to be imposed on violators
advancement of breastfeeding. The Court finds nothing in said provisions which of the provision of the Milk Code or the rules and regulations issued pursuant to
contravenes the Milk Code. Note that under Section 12(b) of the Milk Code, it is it, to wit:
the DOH which shall be principally responsible for the implementation and SECTION 13. Sanctions –
enforcement of the provisions of said Code. It is entirely up to the DOH to decide (a) Any person who violates the provisions of this Code or the rules
which entities to call upon or allow to be part of policymaking bodies on and regulations issued pursuant to this Code shall, upon conviction,
breastfeeding. Therefore, the RIRR's prohibition on milk companies’ participation be punished by a penalty of two (2) months to one (1) year
in any policymaking body in relation to the advancement of breastfeeding is in imprisonment or a fine of not less than One Thousand Pesos
accord with the Milk Code. (P1,000.00) nor more than Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) or
Petitioner is also mistaken in arguing that Section 22 of the RIRR prohibits milk both. Should the offense be committed by a juridical person, the
companies from giving reasearch assistance and continuing education to health chairman of the Board of Directors, the president, general manager, or
professionals. Section 2270 of the RIRR does not pertain to research the partners and/or the persons directly responsible therefor, shall be
assistance to or the continuing education of health professionals; rather, it penalized.
deals with breastfeeding promotion and education for women and children. (b) Any license, permit or authority issued by any government agency
Nothing in Section 22 of the RIRR prohibits milk companies from giving assistance to any health worker, distributor, manufacturer, or marketing firm or
for research or continuing education to health professionals; hence, petitioner's personnel for the practice of their profession or occupation, or for the
argument against this particular provision must be struck down. pursuit of their business, may, upon recommendation of the Ministry of
It is Sections 971 and 1072 of the RIRR which govern research assistance. Said Health, be suspended or revoked in the event of repeated violations of
sections of the RIRR provide that research assistance for health workers and this Code, or of the rules and regulations issued pursuant to this Code.
researchers may be allowed upon approval of an ethics committee, and with (Emphasis supplied)
certain disclosure requirements imposed on the milk company and on the 8. Petitioner’s claim that Section 57 of the RIRR repeals existing laws that are
recipient of the research award. contrary to the RIRR is frivolous.
The Milk Code endows the DOH with the power to determine how such research Section 57 reads:
or educational assistance may be given by milk companies or under what SECTION 57. Repealing Clause - All orders, issuances, and rules and
conditions health workers may accept the assistance. Thus, Sections 9 and 10 of regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with these revised rules and
the RIRR imposing limitations on the kind of research done or extent of assistance implementing regulations are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
given by milk companies are completely in accord with the Milk Code. Section 57 of the RIRR does not provide for the repeal of laws but only orders,
Petitioner complains that Section 3273 of the RIRR prohibits milk companies from issuances and rules and regulations. Thus, said provision is valid as it is within
giving assistance, support, logistics or training to health workers. This provision is the DOH's rule-making power.
within the prerogative given to the DOH under Section 8(e)74 of the Milk Code, An administrative agency like respondent possesses quasi-legislative or rule-
which provides that manufacturers and distributors of breastmilk substitutes may making power or the power to make rules and regulations which results in
assist in researches, scholarships and the continuing education, of health delegated legislation that is within the confines of the granting statute and the
professionals in accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by the Constitution, and subject to the doctrine of non-delegability and separability of
Ministry of Health, now DOH. powers.78 Such express grant of rule-making power necessarily includes the
6. As to the RIRR's prohibition on donations, said provisions are also consistent power to amend, revise, alter, or repeal the same.79 This is to allow administrative
with the Milk Code. Section 6(f) of the Milk Code provides that donations may be agencies flexibility in formulating and adjusting the details and manner by which
made by manufacturers and distributors of breastmilk substitutes upon the they are to implement the provisions of a law,80 in order to make it more responsive
request or with the approval of the DOH. The law does not proscribe the refusal to the times. Hence, it is a standard provision in administrative rules that prior
of donations. The Milk Code leaves it purely to the discretion of the DOH whether issuances of administrative agencies that are inconsistent therewith are declared
to request or accept such donations. The DOH then appropriately exercised its repealed or modified.
discretion through Section 5175 of the RIRR which sets forth its policy not to In fine, only Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 are ultra vires, beyond the authority of the
request or approve donations from manufacturers and distributors of breastmilk DOH to promulgate and in contravention of the Milk Code and, therefore, null and
substitutes. void. The rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in consonance with the Milk Code.
It was within the discretion of the DOH when it provided in Section 52 of the RIRR Lastly, petitioner makes a "catch-all" allegation that:
that any donation from milk companies not covered by the Code should be x x x [T]he questioned RIRR sought to be implemented by the
coursed through the IAC which shall determine whether such donation should be Respondents is unnecessary and oppressive, and is offensive to
accepted or refused. As reasoned out by respondents, the DOH is not mandated the due process clause of the Constitution, insofar as the same is
by the Milk Code to accept donations. For that matter, no person or entity can be in restraint of trade and because a provision therein is inadequate to
forced to accept a donation. There is, therefore, no real inconsistency between provide the public with a comprehensible basis to determine whether or
the RIRR and the law because the Milk Code does not prohibit the DOH from not they have committed a violation.81 (Emphasis supplied)
refusing donations. Petitioner refers to Sections 4(f),82 4(i),83 5(w),84 11,85 22,86 32,87 46,88 and 5289 as
7. With regard to Section 46 of the RIRR providing for administrative sanctions the provisions that suppress the trade of milk and, thus, violate the due process
that are not found in the Milk Code, the Court upholds petitioner's objection clause of the Constitution.
thereto. The framers of the constitution were well aware that trade must be subjected to
Respondent's reliance on Civil Aeronautics Board v. Philippine Air Lines, Inc.76 is some form of regulation for the public good. Public interest must be upheld over
misplaced. The glaring difference in said case and the present case before the business interests.90 In Pest Management Association of the Philippines v.
Court is that, in the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority,91 it was held thus:
(CAA) was expressly granted by the law (R.A. No. 776) the power to impose x x x Furthermore, as held in Association of Philippine Coconut
fines and civil penalties, while the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was granted by Desiccators v. Philippine Coconut Authority, despite the fact that "our
the same law the power to review on appeal the order or decision of the CAA and present Constitution enshrines free enterprise as a policy, it
to determine whether to impose, remit, mitigate, increase or compromise such fine nonetheless reserves to the government the power to intervene
and civil penalties. Thus, the Court upheld the CAB's Resolution imposing whenever necessary to promote the general welfare." There can be
administrative fines. no question that the unregulated use or proliferation of pesticides would
be hazardous to our environment. Thus, in the aforecited case, the
 Court declared that "free enterprise does not call for removal of purpose, governments should seek, when necessary, the
‘protective regulations’." x x x It must be clearly explained and cooperation of WHO, UNICEF and other agencies of the
proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective United Nations system. National policies and measures,
regulation would result in the restraint of trade. [Emphasis and including laws and regulations, which are adopted to give
underscoring supplied] effect to the principles and aim of this Code should be publicly
In this case, petitioner failed to show that the proscription of milk manufacturers’ stated, and should apply on the same basis to all those
participation in any policymaking body (Section 4(i)), classes and seminars for involved in the manufacture and marketing of products within
women and children (Section 22); the giving of assistance, support and logistics the scope of this Code.
or training (Section 32); and the giving of donations (Section 52) would xxxx
3
unreasonably hamper the trade of breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner has not Petition, rollo, p. 12.
4
established that the proscribed activities are indispensable to the trade of G.R. No. 131719, May 25, 2004, 429 SCRA 81.
5
breastmilk substitutes. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the aforementioned Id. at 96-97.
6
provisions of the RIRR are unreasonable and oppressive for being in restraint of G.R. No. 135092, May 4, 2006, 489 SCRA 382.
7
trade. Id. at 396.
8
Petitioner also failed to convince the Court that Section 5(w) of the RIRR is Annex "G", Petitioner's Memorandum dated July 19, 2007.
9
unreasonable and oppressive. Said section provides for the definition of the term Annexes "H", "I", and "J" of Petitioner's Memorandum executed by
"milk company," to wit: Wyeth Philippines, Inc., Bristol Myers Squibb (Phil.), Inc., and Abbott
SECTION 5 x x x. (w) "Milk Company" shall refer to the owner, Laboratories, Inc., respectively.
10
manufacturer, distributor of infant formula, follow-up milk, milk formula, a) The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); b) the
milk supplement, breastmilk substitute or replacement, or by any other International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS); c) the
description of such nature, including their representatives who promote International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
or otherwise advance their commercial interests in marketing those (CSCR); d) the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
products; Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW); e) the Global Strategy for
On the other hand, Section 4 of the Milk Code provides: Infant and Young Child Nutrition (Global Strategy); and f) various
(d) "Distributor" means a person, corporation or any other entity in the resolutions adopted by the World Health Assembly.
11
public or private sector engaged in the business (whether directly or Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., Constitutional Structure and Powers of
indirectly) of marketing at the wholesale or retail level a product within Government (Notes and Cases) Part I ( 2005).
12
the scope of this Code. A "primary distributor" is a manufacturer's sales Id.
13
agent, representative, national distributor or broker. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., An Introduction to Public International Law,
xxxx 2002 Ed., p. 57.
14
(j) "Manufacturer" means a corporation or other entity in the public or According to Fr. Bernas, the Austrian Constitution (Art. 9) and the
private sector engaged in the business or function (whether directly or Constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany (Art. 25) also use the
indirectly or through an agent or and entity controlled by or under incorporation method.
15
contract with it) of manufacturing a products within the scope of this G.R. No. 139325, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 397.
16
Code. Id. at 421.
17
Notably, the definition in the RIRR merely merged together under the term "milk Merlin M. Magallona, Fundamentals of Public International Law, 2005
company" the entities defined separately under the Milk Code as "distributor" and Ed., p. 526.
18
"manufacturer." The RIRR also enumerated in Section 5(w) the products Id. at 525.
19
manufactured or distributed by an entity that would qualify it as a "milk company," Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region v. Olalia,
whereas in the Milk Code, what is used is the phrase "products within the scope G.R. No. 153675, April 19, 2007.
20
of this Code." Those are the only differences between the definitions given in the Tañada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 592 (1997).
21
Milk Code and the definition as re-stated in the RIRR. Louis Henkin, Richard C. Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans Smit,
Since all the regulatory provisions under the Milk Code apply equally to both International Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed., p. 96.
22
manufacturers and distributors, the Court sees no harm in the RIRR providing for Supra note 13, at 10-13.
23
just one term to encompass both entities. The definition of "milk company" in the Minucher v. Court of Appeals, 445 Phil. 250, 269 (2003).
24
RIRR and the definitions of "distributor" and "manufacturer" provided for under the Article 57. The various specialized agencies, established by
Milk Code are practically the same. intergovernmental agreement and having wide international
The Court is not convinced that the definition of "milk company" provided in the responsibilities, as defined in their basic instruments, in economic,
RIRR would bring about any change in the treatment or regulation of "distributors" social, cultural, educational, health, and related fields, shall be brought
and "manufacturers" of breastmilk substitutes, as defined under the Milk Code. into relationship with the United Nations in accordance with the
Except Sections 4(f), 11 and 46, the rest of the provisions of the RIRR are in provisions of Article 63.
consonance with the objective, purpose and intent of the Milk Code, constituting Such agencies thus brought into relationship with the United Nations
reasonable regulation of an industry which affects public health and welfare and, are hereinafter referred to as specialized agencies.
25
as such, the rest of the RIRR do not constitute illegal restraint of trade nor are Article 63. The Economic and Social Council may enter into
they violative of the due process clause of the Constitution. agreements with any of the agencies referred to in Article 57, defining
WHEREFORE, the petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. Sections 4(f), 11 and 46 the terms on which the agency concerned shall be brought into
of Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 dated May 12, 2006 are declared NULL relationship with the United Nations. Such agreements shall be subject
and VOID for being ultra vires. The Department of Health and respondents are to approval by the General Assembly.
PROHIBITED from implementing said provisions. It may coordinate the activities of the specialized agencies through
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on August 15, 2006 is LIFTED insofar consultation with and recommendations to such agencies and through
as the rest of the provisions of Administrative Order No. 2006-0012 is concerned. recommendations to the General Assembly and to the Members of the
SO ORDERED. United Nations.
26
Puno, (Chief Justice), Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Article 18. The functions of the Health Assembly shall be: (a) to
Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, Velasco, determine the policies of the Organization x x x. (Emphasis
Jr., Nachura, Reyes, JJ., concur. supplied)
27
Article 21. The Health Assembly shall have authority to adopt
Footnotes regulations concerning: x x x (e) advertising and labeling of biological,
1
Section 11, Rule 3, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure which provides: pharmaceutical and similar products moving in international commerce.
Section 11. Misjoinder and non-joinder of parties. - Neither (Emphasis supplied)
28
misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is ground for dismissal Article 23. The Health Assembly shall have authority to make
of an action. Parties may be dropped or added by order of recommendations to Members with respect to any matter within the
the court on motion of any party or on its own initiative at competence of the Organization. (Emphasis supplied)
29
any stage of the action and on such terms as are just. x x x See David Fidler, Developments Involving SARS, International Law,
(Emphasis supplied) and Infectious Disease Control at the Fifty-Sixth Meeting of the World
2
Article 11. Implementation and monitoring Health Assembly, June 2003, ASIL.
30
11.1 Governments should take action to give effect to the In Resolution No. 34.22 (May 21, 1981), the WHA, acting under
principles and aim of this Code, as appropriate to their social Article 23 of the WHO Constitution, adopted the ICBMS.
and legislative framework, including the adoption of national
legislation, regulations or other suitable measures. For this
 41
(a) In Resolution No. 35.26 (May 1982), the WHA urged Supra note 29.
member states to implement the ICBMS as a "minimum 42
Section 2. Purpose – These Revised Rules and Regulations are
requirement". hereby promulgated to ensure the provision of safe and adequate
(b) In Resolution No. 39.28 (May 16, 1986), the WHA nutrition for infants and young children by the promotion, protection and
requested the WHO Director General to direct the attention support of breastfeeding and by ensuring the proper use of breastmilk
of member states to the fact that any food or drink given substitutes, breastmilk supplements and related products when these
before complementary feeding is nutritionally required may are medically indicated and only when necessary, on the basis of
interfere with the initiation or maintenance of breastfeeding adequate information and through appropriate marketing and
and therefore should neither be promoted nor encouraged for distribution. (Underscoring supplied)
43
us by infants during this period. Section 5(ff). "Young Child" means a person from the age of more
(c) In Resolution No. 43.3 (May 14, 1990), the WHA urged than twelve (12) months up to the age of three (3) years (36 months).
member states to protect and promote breastfeeding as an (Underscoring supplied)
44
essential component of nutrition policies so as to enable G.R. No. 144218, July 14, 2006, 495 SCRA 42, 55.
45
infants to be exclusively breastfed during the first four to six See pp. 19-21.
46
months of life. See p. 21.
47
(d) In Resolution No. 45.34 (May 14, 1992), the WHA urged Executive Order No. 292, made effective on November 23, 1989 by
member states to implement the targets of the Innocenti Proclamation No. 495.
48
Declaration specifically, to give effect to the ICMBS. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 US 11 (1905); Beltran v. Secretary
(e) In Resolution No. 46.7 (May 10, 1993), the WHA urged of Health G.R. No. 133640, November 25, 2005, 476 SCRA 168, 196;
member states to strive to eliminate under-nutrition, St. Lukes’s Medical Center Employees Association- AFW v. National
malnutrition and nutritional deficiency among children. Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 162053, March 7, 2007;
(f) In Resolution No. 47.5 (May 9, 1994), the WHA urged Tablarin v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. L-78164, July 31, 1987, 152 SCRA 730,
member states to ensure that there are no donations of 741; Pollution Adjudication Board v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93891,
supplies of breastmilk substitutes and other products covered March 11, 1991, 195 SCRA 112, 123-124; Rivera v. Campbell, 34 Phil.
by the ICMBS in any part of the health care system. 348, 353-354 (1916); Lorenzo v. Director of Health, 50 Phil. 595, 597
(g) In Resolution No. 49.15 (May 25, 1996), the WHA urged (1927).
49
member states to ensure that complementary foods are not As early as People v. Pomar, 46 Phil. 440, 445 (1924), we already
marketed for or used in ways that undermine exclusive and noted that "advancing civilization is bringing within the scope of
sustained breastfeeding. police power of the state today things which were not thought of
(h) In Resolution No. 54.2 (May 2002), the WHA, noting that as being with in such power yesterday. The development of
"despite the fact that the International Code of Marketing of civilization, the rapidly increasing population, the growth of public
Breastmilk Substitutes and relevant subsequent World opinion, with [an increasing] desire on the part of the masses and of the
Health Assembly resolutions state that there should be no government to look after and care for the interests of the individuals of
advertising or other forms of promotion of products within its the state, have brought within the police power of the state many
scope, new modern communication methods including questions for regulation which formerly were not so considered."
50
electronic means, are currently increasingly being used to Act No. 2711, approved on March 10, 1917.
51
promote such products; and conscious of the need for the Known then as Public Health Service
52
Codex Alimentarius Commission to take the International Section 1, Chapter I, Title IX, Executive Order No. 292.
53
Code and subsequent relevant Health Assembly resolutions Id. at Section 3.
into consideration in dealing with health claims in the 54
SECTION 6. The General Public and Mothers –
development of food standards and guidelines x x x," urged (a) No advertising, promotion or other marketing materials,
member states to develop new approaches to protect, whether written, audio or visual, for products within the scope
promote and support exclusive breastfeeding for six months of this Code shall be printed, published, distributed, exhibited
as a global public health recommendation. and broadcast unless such materials are duly authorized and
(i) In Resolution No. 55.25 (May 15, 2002), the WHA approved by an inter-agency committee created herein
requested the Codex Alimentarius Commission to ensure pursuant to the applicable standards provided for in this
that labelling of processed foods for infants and young Code.
children be consistent with the WHO policy under the ICBMS. (b) Manufacturers and distributors shall not be permitted to
(j) In Resolution No. 58.32 (May 25, 2005), the WHA urged give, directly or indirectly, samples and supplies of products
member states to continue to protect and promote exclusive within the scope of this Code or gifts of any sort to any
breastfeeding for six months. member of the general public, including members of their
(k) In Resolution No. 59.21 (May 27, 2006), the WHA families, to hospitals and other health institutions, as well as
reiterated its support for the Gobal strategy for Infant and to personnel within the health care system, save as otherwise
Young Child Feeding. provided in this Code.
31
David Fidler, supra note 29. (c) There shall be no point-of-sale advertising, giving of
32
Article 38. 1. The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance samples or any other promotion devices to induce sales
with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: directly to the consumers at the retail level, such as special
a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing displays, discount coupons, premiums, special sales, bonus
rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b) international and tie-in sales for the products within the scope of this Code.
custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c) the This provision shall not restrict the establishment of pricing
general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d) subject to policies and practices intended to provide products at lower
the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the prices on a long-term basis.
most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary (d) Manufactures and distributors shall not distribute to
means for the determination of rules of law. pregnant women or mothers of infants any gifts or articles or
33
Supra note 29. utensils which may promote the use of breastmilk substitutes
34
Louis Henkin, et al., International Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed., or bottlefeeding, nor shall any other groups, institutions or
supra note 21, at 114-136. individuals distribute such gifts, utensils or products to the
35
Supra note 19. general public and mothers.
36
90 Phil. 70 (1951). (e) Marketing personnel shall be prohibited from advertising
37
Supra note 15. or promoting in any other manner the products covered by
38
G.R. No. 159938, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 405. this Code, either directly or indirectly, to pregnant women or
39
Edward Kwakwa, Some Comments on Rulemaking at the World with mother of infants, except as otherwise provided by this
Intellectual Property Organization, www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite; Code.
September 13, 2007, 12:33, citing the 1999 WIPO Resolution (f) Nothing herein contained shall prevent donations from
Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Well-Known Marks, 2000 manufacturers and distributors or products within the scope
WIPO Recommendation Concerning Trademark Licenses, and 2001 of this Code upon request by or with the approval of the
WIPO Recommendation Concerning Provisions on the Protection of Ministry of Health.
Marks and other Industrial Property Rights in Signs on the Internet. SECTION 7. Health Care System –
40
Id.
 (a) The Ministry of Health shall take appropriate measures to xxxx
encourage and promote breastfeeding. It shall provide (f) The health hazards of unnecessary or improper use of
objective and consistent information, training and advice to infant formula and other related products including
health workers on infant nutrition, and on their obligations information that powdered infant formula may contain
under this Code. pathogenic microorganisms and must be prepared and used
(b) No facility of the health care system shall be used for the appropriately.
62
purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within TSN of the hearing of June 19, 2007, pp. 114-120.
63
the scope of this Code. This Code does not, however, TSN of June 19, 2007 hearing, pp. 193-194, 198, 231, 237-240, 295-
preclude the dissemination of information to health 300.
64
professionals as provided in Section 8(b). G.R. No. 152214, September 19, 2006, 502 SCRA 295.
65
(c) Facilities of the health care system shall not be used for Id. at 314.
the display of products within the scope of this Code, or for 66
SECTION 7. Health Care System –
placards or posters concerning such products. xxxx
(d) The use by the health care system of "professional (b) No facility of the health care system shall be used for the
service" representatives, "mothercraft nurses" or similar purpose of promoting infant formula or other products within
personnel, provided or paid for by manufacturers or the scope of this Code. This Code does not, however,
distributors, shall not be permitted. preclude the dissemination of information to health
(e) In health education classes for mothers and the general professionals as provided in Section 8(b).
67
public, health workers and community workers shall SECTION 8. Health Workers. -
emphasize the hazards and risks of the improper use of xxxx
breastmilk substitutes particularly infant formula. Feeding (b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to
with infant formula shall be demonstrated only to mothers health professionals regarding products within the scope of
who may not be able to breastfeed for medical or other this Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual matters
legitimate reasons. and such information shall not imply or create a belief that
SECTION 8. Health Workers – bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding. It
(a) Health workers shall encourage and promote shall also include the information specified in Section 5(b).
68
breastfeeding and shall make themselves familiar with SECTION 8. Health Workers -
objectives and consistent information on maternal and infant xxxx
nutrition, and with their responsibilities under this Code. (e) Manufacturers and distributors of products within the
(b) Information provided by manufacturers and distributors to scope of this Code may assist in the research, scholarships
health professionals regarding products within the scope of and continuing education, of health professionals, in
this Code shall be restricted to scientific and factual matters accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by
and such information shall not imply or create a belief that the Ministry of Health.
bottlefeeding is equivalent or superior to breastfeeding. It 69
SECTION 4. Declaration of Principles – The following are the
shall also include the information specified in Section 5(b). underlying principles from which the revised rules and regulations are
(c) No financial or material inducements to promote products premised upon:
within the scope of this Code shall be offered by xxxx
manufacturers or distributors to health workers or members (i) Milk companies, and their representatives, should not form
of their families, nor shall these be accepted by the health part of any policymaking body or entity in relation to the
workers or members of their families, except as otherwise advancement of breastfeeding.
70
provided in Section 8(e). SECTION 22. No manufacturer, distributor, or representatives of
(d) Samples of infant formula or other products within the products covered by the Code shall be allowed to conduct or be
scope of this Code, or of equipment or utensils for their involved in any activity on breastfeeding promotion, education and
preparation or use, shall not be provided to health workers production of Information, Education and Communication (IEC)
except when necessary for the purpose of professional materials on breastfeeding, holding of or participating as speakers in
evaluation or research in accordance with the rules and classes or seminars for women and children activities and to avoid the
regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Health. No health use of these venues to market their brands or company names.
71
workers shall give samples of infant formula to pregnant SECTION 9. Research, Ethics Committee, Purpose - The DOH shall
women and mothers of infants or members of their families. ensure that research conducted for public policy purposes, relating to
(e) Manufacturers and distributors of products within the infant and young child feeding should, at all times, be free form any
scope of this Code may assist in the research, scholarships commercial influence/bias; accordingly, the health worker or researcher
and continuing education, of health professionals, in involved in such must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest
accordance with the rules and regulations promulgated by with the company/person funding the research. In any event, such
the Ministry of Health. research and its findings shall be subjected to independent peer review.
SECTION 9. Persons employed by Manufacturers and Distributors – x x x.
Personnel employed in marketing products within the scope of this 72
SECTION 10. Public Disclosure – For transparency purposes, a
Code shall not, as part of their job responsibilities, perform educational disclosure and/or disclaimer of the sponsoring company should be done
functions in relation to pregnant women or mothers of infants. by the company itself, health worker, researcher involved through
55
See p. 20. verbal declaration during the public presentation of the research and in
56
See p. 21. print upon publication.
57
SECTION 16. All health and nutrition claims for products within the 73
SECTION 32. Primary Responsibility of Health Workers – It is the
scope of the Code are absolutely prohibited. For this purpose, any primary responsibility of the health workers to promote, protect and
phrase or words that connotes to increase emotional, intellectual support breastfeeding and appropriate infant and young child feeding.
abilities of the infant and young child and other like phrases shall not be Part of this responsibility is to continuously update their knowledge and
allowed. skills on breastfeeding. No assistance, support, logistics or training from
58
See p. 30. milk companies shall be permitted.
59
SECTION 10. Containers/Label – 74
Supra note 68.
75
xxxx SECTION 51. Donations Within the Scope of This Code - Donations
(d) The term "humanized", "maternalized" or similar terms of products, materials, defined and covered under the Milk Code and
shall not be used. these implementing rules and regulations, shall be strictly prohibited.
60
SECTION 2. Aim of the Code – The aim of the Code is to contribute 76
159-A Phil. 142 (1975).
77
to the provision of safe and adequate nutrition for infants by the G.R. No. 159149, June 26, 2006, 492 SCRA 638.
78
protection and promotion of breastfeeding and by ensuring the proper Smart Communications, Inc. v. National Telecommunications
use of breastmilk substitutes and breastmilk supplements when these Commission, 456 Phil. 145, 155-156 (2003).
79
are necessary, on the basis of adequate information and through Yazaki Torres Manufacturing, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
appropriate marketing and distribution. 130584, June 27, 2006, 493 SCRA 86, 97.
61
SECTION 26. Content – Each container/label shall contain such 80
Supra note 78, at 156.
81
message, in both Filipino and English languages, and which message Petitioner's Memorandum.
cannot be readily separated therefrom, relative the following points:
82
SECTION 4. Declaration of Principles – The following are the
underlying principles from which the revised rules and regulations are
premised upon:
xxxx
(f) Advertising, promotions, or sponsorships of infant formula,
breastmilk substitutes and other related products are
prohibited.
83
SECTION 4. Declaration of Principles – x x x
(i) Milk companies, and their representatives, should not form
part of any policymaking body or entity in relation to the
advancement of breastfeeding.
84
SECTION 5. x x x x (w) "Milk Company" shall refer to the owner,
manufacturer, distributor, of infant formula, follow-up milk, milk formula,
milk supplement, breastmilk substitute or replacement, or by any other
description of such nature, including their representatives who promote
or otherwise advance their commercial interests in marketing those
products; x x x.
85
SECTION 11. Prohibition – No advertising, promotions,
sponsorships, or marketing materials and activities for breastmilk
substitutes intended for infants and young children up to twenty-four
(24) months, shall be allowed, because they tend to convey or give
subliminal messages or impressions that undermine breastmilk and
breastfeeding or otherwise exaggerate breastmilk substitutes and/or
replacements, as well as related products covered within the scope of
this Code.
86
Supra note 70.
87
Supra note 73.
88
SECTION 46. Administrative Sanctions. – The following
administrative sanctions shall be imposed upon any person, juridical or
natural, found to have violated the provisions of the Code and its
implementing Rules and Regulations:
(a) 1st violation – Warning;
(b) 2nd violation – Administrative fine of a minimum of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00)
Pesos, depending on the gravity and extent of the violation,
including the recall of the offending product;
(c) 3rd violation – Administrative Fine of a minimum of Sixty
Thousand (P60,000.00) to One Hundred Fifty Thousand
(P150,000.00) Pesos, depending on the gravity and extent of
the violation, and in addition thereto, the recall of the
offending product, and suspension of the Certificate of
Product Registration (CPR);
(d) 4th violation –Administrative Fine of a minimum of Two
Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) to Five Hundred
(P500,000.00) Thousand Pesos, depending on the gravity
and extent of the violation; and in addition thereto, the recall
of the product, revocation of the CPR, suspension of the
License to Operate (LTO) for one year;
(e) 5th and succeeding repeated violations – Administrative
Fine of One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos, the recall of the
offending product, cancellation of the CPR, revocation of the
License to Operate (LTO) of the company concerned,
including the blacklisting of the company to be furnished the
Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI);
(f) An additional penalty of Two Thou-sand Five Hundred
(P2,500.00) Pesos per day shall be made for every day the
violation continues after having received the order from the
IAC or other such appropriate body, notifying and penalizing
the company for the infraction.
For purposes of determining whether or not there is
"repeated" violation, each product violation belonging or
owned by a company, including those of their subsidiaries,
are deemed to be violations of the concerned milk company
and shall not be based on the specific violating product alone.
89
SECTION 52. Other Donations By Milk Companies Not Covered by
this Code - Donations of products, equipments, and the like, not
otherwise falling within the scope of this Code or these Rules, given by
milk companies and their agents, representatives, whether in kind or in
cash, may only be coursed through the Inter Agency Committee (IAC),
which shall determine whether such donation be accepted or otherwise.
90
Eastern Assurance & Surety Corporation v. Land Transportation
Franchising and Regulatory Board, 459 Phil. 395, 399 (2003).
91
G.R. No. 156041, February 21, 2007.
Republic of the Philippines (2) Cease and desist from receiving, accepting, processing,
SUPREME COURT renewing or approving new timber license agreements.
Manila and granting the plaintiffs ". . . such other reliefs just and equitable under the
EN BANC premises."5
The complaint starts off with the general averments that the Philippine archipelago
G.R. No. 101083 July 30, 1993 of 7,100 islands has a land area of thirty million (30,000,000) hectares and is
JUAN ANTONIO, ANNA ROSARIO and JOSE ALFONSO, all surnamed endowed with rich, lush and verdant rainforests in which varied, rare and unique
OPOSA, minors, and represented by their parents ANTONIO and RIZALINA species of flora and fauna may be found; these rainforests contain a genetic,
OPOSA, ROBERTA NICOLE SADIUA, minor, represented by her parents biological and chemical pool which is irreplaceable; they are also the habitat of
CALVIN and ROBERTA SADIUA, CARLO, AMANDA SALUD and PATRISHA, indigenous Philippine cultures which have existed, endured and flourished since
all surnamed FLORES, minors and represented by their parents ENRICO time immemorial; scientific evidence reveals that in order to maintain a balanced
and NIDA FLORES, GIANINA DITA R. FORTUN, minor, represented by her and healthful ecology, the country's land area should be utilized on the basis of a
parents SIGRID and DOLORES FORTUN, GEORGE II and MA. ratio of fifty-four per cent (54%) for forest cover and forty-six per cent (46%) for
CONCEPCION, all surnamed MISA, minors and represented by their parents agricultural, residential, industrial, commercial and other uses; the distortion and
GEORGE and MYRA MISA, BENJAMIN ALAN V. PESIGAN, minor, disturbance of this balance as a consequence of deforestation have resulted in a
represented by his parents ANTONIO and ALICE PESIGAN, JOVIE MARIE host of environmental tragedies, such as (a) water shortages resulting from drying
ALFARO, minor, represented by her parents JOSE and MARIA VIOLETA up of the water table, otherwise known as the "aquifer," as well as of rivers, brooks
ALFARO, MARIA CONCEPCION T. CASTRO, minor, represented by her and streams, (b) salinization of the water table as a result of the intrusion therein
parents FREDENIL and JANE CASTRO, JOHANNA DESAMPARADO, of salt water, incontrovertible examples of which may be found in the island of
minor, represented by her parents JOSE and ANGELA DESAMPRADO, Cebu and the Municipality of Bacoor, Cavite, (c) massive erosion and the
CARLO JOAQUIN T. NARVASA, minor, represented by his parents consequential loss of soil fertility and agricultural productivity, with the volume of
GREGORIO II and CRISTINE CHARITY NARVASA, MA. MARGARITA, JESUS soil eroded estimated at one billion (1,000,000,000) cubic meters per annum —
IGNACIO, MA. ANGELA and MARIE GABRIELLE, all surnamed SAENZ, approximately the size of the entire island of Catanduanes, (d) the endangering
minors, represented by their parents ROBERTO and AURORA SAENZ, and extinction of the country's unique, rare and varied flora and fauna, (e) the
KRISTINE, MARY ELLEN, MAY, GOLDA MARTHE and DAVID IAN, all disturbance and dislocation of cultural communities, including the disappearance
surnamed KING, minors, represented by their parents MARIO and HAYDEE of the Filipino's indigenous cultures, (f) the siltation of rivers and seabeds and
KING, DAVID, FRANCISCO and THERESE VICTORIA, all surnamed consequential destruction of corals and other aquatic life leading to a critical
ENDRIGA, minors, represented by their parents BALTAZAR and TERESITA reduction in marine resource productivity, (g) recurrent spells of drought as is
ENDRIGA, JOSE MA. and REGINA MA., all surnamed ABAYA, minors, presently experienced by the entire country, (h) increasing velocity of typhoon
represented by their parents ANTONIO and MARICA ABAYA, MARILIN, winds which result from the absence of windbreakers, (i) the floodings of lowlands
MARIO, JR. and MARIETTE, all surnamed CARDAMA, minors, represented and agricultural plains arising from the absence of the absorbent mechanism of
by their parents MARIO and LINA CARDAMA, CLARISSA, ANN MARIE, forests, (j) the siltation and shortening of the lifespan of multi-billion peso dams
NAGEL, and IMEE LYN, all surnamed OPOSA, minors and represented by constructed and operated for the purpose of supplying water for domestic uses,
their parents RICARDO and MARISSA OPOSA, PHILIP JOSEPH, STEPHEN irrigation and the generation of electric power, and (k) the reduction of the earth's
JOHN and ISAIAH JAMES, all surnamed QUIPIT, minors, represented by capacity to process carbon dioxide gases which has led to perplexing and
their parents JOSE MAX and VILMI QUIPIT, BUGHAW CIELO, CRISANTO, catastrophic climatic changes such as the phenomenon of global warming,
ANNA, DANIEL and FRANCISCO, all surnamed BIBAL, minors, represented otherwise known as the "greenhouse effect."
by their parents FRANCISCO, JR. and MILAGROS BIBAL, and THE Plaintiffs further assert that the adverse and detrimental consequences of
PHILIPPINE ECOLOGICAL NETWORK, INC., petitioners, continued and deforestation are so capable of unquestionable demonstration that
vs. the same may be submitted as a matter of judicial notice. This notwithstanding,
THE HONORABLE FULGENCIO S. FACTORAN, JR., in his capacity as the they expressed their intention to present expert witnesses as well as
Secretary of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and documentary, photographic and film evidence in the course of the trial.
THE HONORABLE ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, Presiding Judge of the RTC, As their cause of action, they specifically allege that:
Makati, Branch 66, respondents. CAUSE OF ACTION
Oposa Law Office for petitioners. 7. Plaintiffs replead by reference the foregoing allegations.
The Solicitor General for respondents. 8. Twenty-five (25) years ago, the Philippines had some
sixteen (16) million hectares of rainforests constituting
DAVIDE, JR., J.: roughly 53% of the country's land mass.
In a broader sense, this petition bears upon the right of Filipinos to a balanced 9. Satellite images taken in 1987 reveal that there remained
and healthful ecology which the petitioners dramatically associate with the twin no more than 1.2 million hectares of said rainforests or four
concepts of "inter-generational responsibility" and "inter-generational justice." per cent (4.0%) of the country's land area.
Specifically, it touches on the issue of whether the said petitioners have a cause 10. More recent surveys reveal that a mere 850,000 hectares
of action to "prevent the misappropriation or impairment" of Philippine rainforests of virgin old-growth rainforests are left, barely 2.8% of the
and "arrest the unabated hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems entire land mass of the Philippine archipelago and about 3.0
and continued rape of Mother Earth." million hectares of immature and uneconomical secondary
The controversy has its genesis in Civil Case No. 90-77 which was filed before growth forests.
Branch 66 (Makati, Metro Manila) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), National 11. Public records reveal that the defendant's, predecessors
Capital Judicial Region. The principal plaintiffs therein, now the principal have granted timber license agreements ('TLA's') to various
petitioners, are all minors duly represented and joined by their respective parents. corporations to cut the aggregate area of 3.89 million
Impleaded as an additional plaintiff is the Philippine Ecological Network, Inc. hectares for commercial logging purposes.
(PENI), a domestic, non-stock and non-profit corporation organized for the A copy of the TLA holders and the corresponding areas
purpose of, inter alia, engaging in concerted action geared for the protection of covered is hereto attached as Annex "A".
our environment and natural resources. The original defendant was the Honorable 12. At the present rate of deforestation, i.e. about 200,000
Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., then Secretary of the Department of Environment and hectares per annum or 25 hectares per hour — nighttime,
Natural Resources (DENR). His substitution in this petition by the new Secretary, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays included — the Philippines
the Honorable Angel C. Alcala, was subsequently ordered upon proper motion by will be bereft of forest resources after the end of this ensuing
the petitioners.1 The complaint2 was instituted as a taxpayers' class suit3 and decade, if not earlier.
alleges that the plaintiffs "are all citizens of the Republic of the Philippines, 13. The adverse effects, disastrous consequences, serious
taxpayers, and entitled to the full benefit, use and enjoyment of the natural injury and irreparable damage of this continued trend of
resource treasure that is the country's virgin tropical forests." The same was filed deforestation to the plaintiff minor's generation and to
for themselves and others who are equally concerned about the preservation of generations yet unborn are evident and incontrovertible. As
said resource but are "so numerous that it is impracticable to bring them all before a matter of fact, the environmental damages enumerated in
the Court." The minors further asseverate that they "represent their generation as paragraph 6 hereof are already being felt, experienced and
well as generations yet unborn."4 Consequently, it is prayed for that judgment be suffered by the generation of plaintiff adults.
rendered: 14. The continued allowance by defendant of TLA holders to
. . . ordering defendant, his agents, representatives and other cut and deforest the remaining forest stands will work great
persons acting in his behalf to — damage and irreparable injury to plaintiffs — especially
(1) Cancel all existing timber license agreements in the plaintiff minors and their successors — who may never see,
country;
 use, benefit from and enjoy this rare and unique natural environment based on Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code (Human Relations),
resource treasure. Section 4 of Executive Order (E.O.) No. 192 creating the DENR, Section 3 of
This act of defendant constitutes a misappropriation and/or Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1151 (Philippine Environmental Policy), Section
impairment of the natural resource property he holds in trust 16, Article II of the 1987 Constitution recognizing the right of the people to a
for the benefit of plaintiff minors and succeeding generations. balanced and healthful ecology, the concept of generational genocide in Criminal
15. Plaintiffs have a clear and constitutional right to a Law and the concept of man's inalienable right to self-preservation and self-
balanced and healthful ecology and are entitled to protection perpetuation embodied in natural law. Petitioners likewise rely on the
by the State in its capacity as the parens patriae. respondent's correlative obligation per Section 4 of E.O. No. 192, to safeguard the
16. Plaintiff have exhausted all administrative remedies with people's right to a healthful environment.
the defendant's office. On March 2, 1990, plaintiffs served It is further claimed that the issue of the respondent Secretary's alleged grave
upon defendant a final demand to cancel all logging permits abuse of discretion in granting Timber License Agreements (TLAs) to cover more
in the country. areas for logging than what is available involves a judicial question.
A copy of the plaintiffs' letter dated March 1, 1990 is hereto Anent the invocation by the respondent Judge of the Constitution's non-
attached as Annex "B". impairment clause, petitioners maintain that the same does not apply in this case
17. Defendant, however, fails and refuses to cancel the because TLAs are not contracts. They likewise submit that even if TLAs may be
existing TLA's to the continuing serious damage and extreme considered protected by the said clause, it is well settled that they may still be
prejudice of plaintiffs. revoked by the State when the public interest so requires.
18. The continued failure and refusal by defendant to cancel On the other hand, the respondents aver that the petitioners failed to allege in
the TLA's is an act violative of the rights of plaintiffs, their complaint a specific legal right violated by the respondent Secretary for which
especially plaintiff minors who may be left with a country that any relief is provided by law. They see nothing in the complaint but vague and
is desertified (sic), bare, barren and devoid of the wonderful nebulous allegations concerning an "environmental right" which supposedly
flora, fauna and indigenous cultures which the Philippines entitles the petitioners to the "protection by the state in its capacity as parens
had been abundantly blessed with. patriae." Such allegations, according to them, do not reveal a valid cause of
19. Defendant's refusal to cancel the aforementioned TLA's action. They then reiterate the theory that the question of whether logging should
is manifestly contrary to the public policy enunciated in the be permitted in the country is a political question which should be properly
Philippine Environmental Policy which, in pertinent part, addressed to the executive or legislative branches of Government. They therefore
states that it is the policy of the State — assert that the petitioners' resources is not to file an action to court, but to lobby
(a) to create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under before Congress for the passage of a bill that would ban logging totally.
which man and nature can thrive in productive and enjoyable As to the matter of the cancellation of the TLAs, respondents submit that the same
harmony with each other; cannot be done by the State without due process of law. Once issued, a TLA
(b) to fulfill the social, economic and other requirements of remains effective for a certain period of time — usually for twenty-five (25) years.
present and future generations of Filipinos and; During its effectivity, the same can neither be revised nor cancelled unless the
(c) to ensure the attainment of an environmental quality that holder has been found, after due notice and hearing, to have violated the terms
is conductive to a life of dignity and well-being. (P.D. 1151, 6 of the agreement or other forestry laws and regulations. Petitioners' proposition to
June 1977) have all the TLAs indiscriminately cancelled without the requisite hearing would
20. Furthermore, defendant's continued refusal to cancel the be violative of the requirements of due process.
aforementioned TLA's is contradictory to the Constitutional Before going any further, We must first focus on some procedural matters.
policy of the State to — Petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 90-777 as a class suit. The original defendant
a. effect "a more equitable distribution of opportunities, and the present respondents did not take issue with this matter. Nevertheless, We
income and wealth" and "make full and efficient use of natural hereby rule that the said civil case is indeed a class suit. The subject matter of the
resources (sic)." (Section 1, Article XII of the Constitution); complaint is of common and general interest not just to several, but to all citizens
b. "protect the nation's marine wealth." (Section 2, ibid); of the Philippines. Consequently, since the parties are so numerous, it, becomes
c. "conserve and promote the nation's cultural heritage and impracticable, if not totally impossible, to bring all of them before the court. We
resources (sic)" (Section 14, Article XIV, id.); likewise declare that the plaintiffs therein are numerous and representative
d. "protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced enough to ensure the full protection of all concerned interests. Hence, all the
and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony requisites for the filing of a valid class suit under Section 12, Rule 3 of the Revised
of nature." (Section 16, Article II, id.) Rules of Court are present both in the said civil case and in the instant petition,
21. Finally, defendant's act is contrary to the highest law of the latter being but an incident to the former.
humankind — the natural law — and violative of plaintiffs' This case, however, has a special and novel element. Petitioners minors assert
right to self-preservation and perpetuation. that they represent their generation as well as generations yet unborn. We find no
22. There is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves, for others of their generation and
law other than the instant action to arrest the unabated for the succeeding generations, file a class suit. Their personality to sue in behalf
hemorrhage of the country's vital life support systems and of the succeeding generations can only be based on the concept of
continued rape of Mother Earth. 6 intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced and healthful
On 22 June 1990, the original defendant, Secretary Factoran, Jr., filed a Motion ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded, considers
to Dismiss the complaint based on two (2) grounds, namely: (1) the plaintiffs have the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world in its
no cause of action against him and (2) the issue raised by the plaintiffs is a political entirety.9 Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the judicious
question which properly pertains to the legislative or executive branches of disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the country's
Government. In their 12 July 1990 Opposition to the Motion, the petitioners forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other natural
maintain that (1) the complaint shows a clear and unmistakable cause of action, resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
(2) the motion is dilatory and (3) the action presents a justiciable question as it equitably accessible to the present as well as future generations. 10 Needless to
involves the defendant's abuse of discretion. say, every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
On 18 July 1991, respondent Judge issued an order granting the aforementioned harmony for the full enjoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
motion to dismiss.7 In the said order, not only was the defendant's claim — that differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes,
the complaint states no cause of action against him and that it raises a political at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
question — sustained, the respondent Judge further ruled that the granting of the that right for the generations to come.
relief prayed for would result in the impairment of contracts which is prohibited by The locus standi of the petitioners having thus been addressed, We shall now
the fundamental law of the land. proceed to the merits of the petition.
Plaintiffs thus filed the instant special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the After a careful perusal of the complaint in question and a meticulous consideration
Revised Rules of Court and ask this Court to rescind and set aside the dismissal and evaluation of the issues raised and arguments adduced by the parties, We
order on the ground that the respondent Judge gravely abused his discretion in do not hesitate to find for the petitioners and rule against the respondent Judge's
dismissing the action. Again, the parents of the plaintiffs-minors not only represent challenged order for having been issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting
their children, but have also joined the latter in this case.8 to lack of jurisdiction. The pertinent portions of the said order reads as follows:
On 14 May 1992, We resolved to give due course to the petition and required the xxx xxx xxx
parties to submit their respective Memoranda after the Office of the Solicitor After a careful and circumspect evaluation of the Complaint,
General (OSG) filed a Comment in behalf of the respondents and the petitioners the Court cannot help but agree with the defendant. For
filed a reply thereto. although we believe that plaintiffs have but the noblest of all
Petitioners contend that the complaint clearly and unmistakably states a cause of intentions, it (sic) fell short of alleging, with sufficient
action as it contains sufficient allegations concerning their right to a sound definiteness, a specific legal right they are seeking to enforce
 and protect, or a specific legal wrong they are seeking to resources, 13 then President Corazon C. Aquino promulgated on 10 June 1987
prevent and redress (Sec. 1, Rule 2, RRC). Furthermore, the E.O. No. 192, 14 Section 4 of which expressly mandates that the Department of
Court notes that the Complaint is replete with vague Environment and Natural Resources "shall be the primary government agency
assumptions and vague conclusions based on unverified responsible for the conservation, management, development and proper use of
data. In fine, plaintiffs fail to state a cause of action in its the country's environment and natural resources, specifically forest and grazing
Complaint against the herein defendant. lands, mineral, resources, including those in reservation and watershed areas,
Furthermore, the Court firmly believes that the matter before and lands of the public domain, as well as the licensing and regulation of all natural
it, being impressed with political color and involving a matter resources as may be provided for by law in order to ensure equitable sharing of
of public policy, may not be taken cognizance of by this Court the benefits derived therefrom for the welfare of the present and future
without doing violence to the sacred principle of "Separation generations of Filipinos." Section 3 thereof makes the following statement of
of Powers" of the three (3) co-equal branches of the policy:
Government. Sec. 3. Declaration of Policy. — It is hereby declared the
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no policy of the State to ensure the sustainable use,
matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed development, management, renewal, and conservation of
for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license the country's forest, mineral, land, off-shore areas and other
agreements in the country and to cease and desist from natural resources, including the protection and enhancement
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new of the quality of the environment, and equitable access of the
timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would different segments of the population to the development and
amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the the use of the country's natural resources, not only for the
fundamental law. 11 present generation but for future generations as well. It is also
We do not agree with the trial court's conclusions that the plaintiffs failed to allege the policy of the state to recognize and apply a true value
with sufficient definiteness a specific legal right involved or a specific legal wrong system including social and environmental cost implications
committed, and that the complaint is replete with vague assumptions and relative to their utilization, development and conservation of
conclusions based on unverified data. A reading of the complaint itself belies our natural resources.
these conclusions. This policy declaration is substantially re-stated it Title XIV, Book IV of the
The complaint focuses on one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a Administrative Code of 1987,15 specifically in Section 1 thereof which reads:
balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our nation's Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy. — (1) The State shall ensure,
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law. Section 16, for the benefit of the Filipino people, the full exploration and
Article II of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides: development as well as the judicious disposition, utilization,
Sec. 16. The State shall protect and advance the right of the management, renewal and conservation of the country's
people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore
rhythm and harmony of nature. areas and other natural resources, consistent with the
This right unites with the right to health which is provided for necessity of maintaining a sound ecological balance and
in the preceding section of the same article: protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment and
Sec. 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to the objective of making the exploration, development and
health of the people and instill health consciousness among utilization of such natural resources equitably accessible to
them. the different segments of the present as well as future
While the right to a balanced and healthful ecology is to be found under the generations.
Declaration of Principles and State Policies and not under the Bill of Rights, it does (2) The State shall likewise recognize and apply a true value
not follow that it is less important than any of the civil and political rights system that takes into account social and environmental cost
enumerated in the latter. Such a right belongs to a different category of rights implications relative to the utilization, development and
altogether for it concerns nothing less than self-preservation and self-perpetuation conservation of our natural resources.
— aptly and fittingly stressed by the petitioners — the advancement of which may The above provision stresses "the necessity of maintaining a sound ecological
even be said to predate all governments and constitutions. As a matter of fact, balance and protecting and enhancing the quality of the environment." Section 2
these basic rights need not even be written in the Constitution for they are of the same Title, on the other hand, specifically speaks of the mandate of the
assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly DENR; however, it makes particular reference to the fact of the agency's being
mentioned in the fundamental charter, it is because of the well-founded fear of its subject to law and higher authority. Said section provides:
framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and to health Sec. 2. Mandate. — (1) The Department of Environment and
are mandated as state policies by the Constitution itself, thereby highlighting their Natural Resources shall be primarily responsible for the
continuing importance and imposing upon the state a solemn obligation to implementation of the foregoing policy.
preserve the first and protect and advance the second, the day would not be too (2) It shall, subject to law and higher authority, be in charge
far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation, but also for of carrying out the State's constitutional mandate to control
those to come — generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth and supervise the exploration, development, utilization, and
incapable of sustaining life. conservation of the country's natural resources.
The right to a balanced and healthful ecology carries with it the correlative duty to Both E.O. NO. 192 and the Administrative Code of 1987 have set the objectives
refrain from impairing the environment. During the debates on this right in one of which will serve as the bases for policy formulation, and have defined the powers
the plenary sessions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, the following and functions of the DENR.
exchange transpired between Commissioner Wilfrido Villacorta and It may, however, be recalled that even before the ratification of the 1987
Commissioner Adolfo Azcuna who sponsored the section in question: Constitution, specific statutes already paid special attention to the "environmental
MR. VILLACORTA: right" of the present and future generations. On 6 June 1977, P.D. No. 1151
Does this section mandate the State to (Philippine Environmental Policy) and P.D. No. 1152 (Philippine Environment
provide sanctions against all forms of Code) were issued. The former "declared a continuing policy of the State (a) to
pollution — air, water and noise create, develop, maintain and improve conditions under which man and nature
pollution? can thrive in productive and enjoyable harmony with each other, (b) to fulfill the
MR. AZCUNA: social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations of
Yes, Madam President. The right to Filipinos, and (c) to insure the attainment of an environmental quality that is
healthful (sic) environment necessarily conducive to a life of dignity and well-being." 16 As its goal, it speaks of the
carries with it the correlative duty of not "responsibilities of each generation as trustee and guardian of the environment
impairing the same and, therefore, for succeeding generations." 17 The latter statute, on the other hand, gave flesh
sanctions may be provided for to the said policy.
impairment of environmental balance. Thus, the right of the petitioners (and all those they represent) to a balanced and
12 healthful ecology is as clear as the DENR's duty — under its mandate and by
The said right implies, among many other things, the judicious management and virtue of its powers and functions under E.O. No. 192 and the Administrative Code
conservation of the country's forests. of 1987 — to protect and advance the said right.
Without such forests, the ecological or environmental balance would be A denial or violation of that right by the other who has the corelative duty or
irreversiby disrupted. obligation to respect or protect the same gives rise to a cause of action. Petitioners
Conformably with the enunciated right to a balanced and healthful ecology and maintain that the granting of the TLAs, which they claim was done with grave
the right to health, as well as the other related provisions of the Constitution abuse of discretion, violated their right to a balanced and healthful ecology; hence,
concerning the conservation, development and utilization of the country's natural
the full protection thereof requires that no further TLAs should be renewed or timber license agreements. For to do otherwise would
granted. amount to "impairment of contracts" abhored (sic) by the
A cause of action is defined as: fundamental law. 24
. . . an act or omission of one party in violation of the legal We are not persuaded at all; on the contrary, We are amazed, if not shocked, by
right or rights of the other; and its essential elements are legal such a sweeping pronouncement. In the first place, the respondent Secretary did
right of the plaintiff, correlative obligation of the defendant, not, for obvious reasons, even invoke in his motion to dismiss the non-impairment
and act or omission of the defendant in violation of said legal clause. If he had done so, he would have acted with utmost infidelity to the
right. 18 Government by providing undue and unwarranted benefits and advantages to the
It is settled in this jurisdiction that in a motion to dismiss based on the ground that timber license holders because he would have forever bound the Government to
the complaint fails to state a cause of action, 19 the question submitted to the strictly respect the said licenses according to their terms and conditions
court for resolution involves the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the complaint regardless of changes in policy and the demands of public interest and welfare.
itself. No other matter should be considered; furthermore, the truth of falsity of the He was aware that as correctly pointed out by the petitioners, into every timber
said allegations is beside the point for the truth thereof is deemed hypothetically license must be read Section 20 of the Forestry Reform Code (P.D. No. 705)
admitted. The only issue to be resolved in such a case is: admitting such alleged which provides:
facts to be true, may the court render a valid judgment in accordance with the . . . Provided, That when the national interest so requires, the
prayer in the complaint? 20 In Militante vs. Edrosolano, 21 this Court laid down President may amend, modify, replace or rescind any
the rule that the judiciary should "exercise the utmost care and circumspection in contract, concession, permit, licenses or any other form of
passing upon a motion to dismiss on the ground of the absence thereof [cause of privilege granted herein . . .
action] lest, by its failure to manifest a correct appreciation of the facts alleged and Needless to say, all licenses may thus be revoked or rescinded by
deemed hypothetically admitted, what the law grants or recognizes is effectively executive action. It is not a contract, property or a property right
nullified. If that happens, there is a blot on the legal order. The law itself stands in protested by the due process clause of the Constitution. In Tan vs.
disrepute." Director of Forestry, 25 this Court held:
After careful examination of the petitioners' complaint, We find the statements . . . A timber license is an instrument by which the State
under the introductory affirmative allegations, as well as the specific averments regulates the utilization and disposition of forest resources to
under the sub-heading CAUSE OF ACTION, to be adequate enough to show, the end that public welfare is promoted. A timber license is
prima facie, the claimed violation of their rights. On the basis thereof, they may not a contract within the purview of the due process clause;
thus be granted, wholly or partly, the reliefs prayed for. It bears stressing, it is only a license or privilege, which can be validly withdrawn
however, that insofar as the cancellation of the TLAs is concerned, there is the whenever dictated by public interest or public welfare as in
need to implead, as party defendants, the grantees thereof for they are this case.
indispensable parties. A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise
The foregoing considered, Civil Case No. 90-777 be said to raise a political would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the
question. Policy formulation or determination by the executive or legislative authority, federal, state, or municipal, granting it and the
branches of Government is not squarely put in issue. What is principally involved person to whom it is granted; neither is it property or a
is the enforcement of a right vis-a-vis policies already formulated and expressed property right, nor does it create a vested right; nor is it
in legislation. It must, nonetheless, be emphasized that the political question taxation (37 C.J. 168). Thus, this Court held that the granting
doctrine is no longer, the insurmountable obstacle to the exercise of judicial power of license does not create irrevocable rights, neither is it
or the impenetrable shield that protects executive and legislative actions from property or property rights (People vs. Ong Tin, 54 O.G.
judicial inquiry or review. The second paragraph of section 1, Article VIII of the 7576).
Constitution states that: We reiterated this pronouncement in Felipe Ysmael, Jr. & Co., Inc. vs. Deputy
Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to Executive Secretary: 26
settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally . . . Timber licenses, permits and license agreements are the
demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or principal instruments by which the State regulates the
not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to utilization and disposition of forest resources to the end that
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or public welfare is promoted. And it can hardly be gainsaid that
instrumentality of the Government. they merely evidence a privilege granted by the State to
Commenting on this provision in his book, Philippine Political Law, 22 Mr. Justice qualified entities, and do not vest in the latter a permanent or
Isagani A. Cruz, a distinguished member of this Court, says: irrevocable right to the particular concession area and the
The first part of the authority represents the traditional forest products therein. They may be validly amended,
concept of judicial power, involving the settlement of modified, replaced or rescinded by the Chief Executive when
conflicting rights as conferred as law. The second part of the national interests so require. Thus, they are not deemed
authority represents a broadening of judicial power to enable contracts within the purview of the due process of law clause
the courts of justice to review what was before forbidden [See Sections 3(ee) and 20 of Pres. Decree No. 705, as
territory, to wit, the discretion of the political departments of amended. Also, Tan v. Director of Forestry, G.R. No. L-
the government. 24548, October 27, 1983, 125 SCRA 302].
As worded, the new provision vests in the judiciary, and Since timber licenses are not contracts, the non-impairment clause, which reads:
particularly the Supreme Court, the power to rule upon even Sec. 10. No law impairing, the obligation of contracts shall be
the wisdom of the decisions of the executive and the passed. 27
legislature and to declare their acts invalid for lack or excess cannot be invoked.
of jurisdiction because tainted with grave abuse of discretion. In the second place, even if it is to be assumed that the same are contracts, the
The catch, of course, is the meaning of "grave abuse of instant case does not involve a law or even an executive issuance declaring the
discretion," which is a very elastic phrase that can expand or cancellation or modification of existing timber licenses. Hence, the non-
contract according to the disposition of the judiciary. impairment clause cannot as yet be invoked. Nevertheless, granting further that a
In Daza vs. Singson, 23 Mr. Justice Cruz, now speaking for this Court, noted: law has actually been passed mandating cancellations or modifications, the same
In the case now before us, the jurisdictional objection cannot still be stigmatized as a violation of the non-impairment clause. This is
becomes even less tenable and decisive. The reason is that, because by its very nature and purpose, such as law could have only been passed
even if we were to assume that the issue presented before in the exercise of the police power of the state for the purpose of advancing the
us was political in nature, we would still not be precluded from right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology, promoting their health and
revolving it under the expanded jurisdiction conferred upon enhancing the general welfare. In Abe vs. Foster Wheeler
us that now covers, in proper cases, even the political Corp. 28 this Court stated:
question. Article VII, Section 1, of the Constitution clearly The freedom of contract, under our system of government, is
provides: . . . not meant to be absolute. The same is understood to be
The last ground invoked by the trial court in dismissing the complaint is the non- subject to reasonable legislative regulation aimed at the
impairment of contracts clause found in the Constitution. The court a quo declared promotion of public health, moral, safety and welfare. In other
that: words, the constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of
The Court is likewise of the impression that it cannot, no obligations of contract is limited by the exercise of the police
matter how we stretch our jurisdiction, grant the reliefs prayed power of the State, in the interest of public health, safety,
for by the plaintiffs, i.e., to cancel all existing timber license moral and general welfare.
agreements in the country and to cease and desist from The reason for this is emphatically set forth in Nebia vs. New York, 29 quoted in
receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new Philippine American Life Insurance Co. vs. Auditor General,30 to wit:
 Under our form of government the use of property and the Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right
making of contracts are normally matters of private and not to health").
of public concern. The general rule is that both shall be free P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment
of governmental interference. But neither property rights nor Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific
contract rights are absolute; for government cannot exist if environment management policies" and "environment quality standards" (fourth
the citizen may at will use his property to the detriment of his "Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide range of topics:
fellows, or exercise his freedom of contract to work them (a) air quality management;
harm. Equally fundamental with the private right is that of the (b) water quality management;
public to regulate it in the common interest. (c) land use management;
In short, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power of the state. 31 (d) natural resources management and conservation
Finally, it is difficult to imagine, as the trial court did, how the non-impairment embracing:
clause could apply with respect to the prayer to enjoin the respondent Secretary (i) fisheries and aquatic resources;
from receiving, accepting, processing, renewing or approving new timber licenses (ii) wild life;
for, save in cases of renewal, no contract would have as of yet existed in the other (iii) forestry and soil conservation;
instances. Moreover, with respect to renewal, the holder is not entitled to it as a (iv) flood control and natural calamities;
matter of right. (v) energy development;
WHEREFORE, being impressed with merit, the instant Petition is hereby (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
GRANTED, and the challenged Order of respondent Judge of 18 July 1991 (vii) mineral resources
dismissing Civil Case No. 90-777 is hereby set aside. The petitioners may Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor
therefore amend their complaint to implead as defendants the holders or grantees the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the
of the questioned timber license agreements. Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which
No pronouncement as to costs. petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code
SO ORDERED. identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
Cruz, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado, Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of
and Quiason, JJ., concur. the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
Narvasa, C.J., Puno and Vitug, JJ., took no part. Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private
persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal
right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect
Separate Opinions saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-
executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The implications
FELICIANO, J., concurring of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are too
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more
this Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision specific legal right — a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of
are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may be violated by
management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so
the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief
to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying. prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law,
sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the
standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly regarded as existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have
a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting
must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to embrace It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a
everyone living in the country whether now or in the cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right
course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational
with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen therefore to be terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and
recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law
private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to
Whether such beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph
circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of Section 1. . . .
administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
for future determination in an appropriate case. settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
"one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a balanced and lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
"constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and
very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial
excessive violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting
comprehensive in scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully
and healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and
this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of
of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters special technical competence and experience and professional
by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to shown to exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative
rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn and executive departments — must be given a real and effective
farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and
the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground to implement them before the courts should intervene.
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose
statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should
10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if
P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be formulations of policy, as petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of
general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and
conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly (vi) conservation and utilization of surface and ground water
assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that (vii) mineral resources
they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should Two (2) points are worth making in this connection. Firstly, neither petitioners nor
allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners' the Court has identified the particular provision or provisions (if any) of the
specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public Philippine Environment Code which give rise to a specific legal right which
respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness petitioners are seeking to enforce. Secondly, the Philippine Environment Code
of the remedy or remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances identifies with notable care the particular government agency charged with the
which exist. formulation and implementation of guidelines and programs dealing with each of
I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment, the headings and sub-headings mentioned above. The Philippine Environment
including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country. Code does not, in other words, appear to contemplate action on the part of private
The doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today should, however, be persons who are beneficiaries of implementation of that Code.
subjected to closer examination. As a matter of logic, by finding petitioners' cause of action as anchored on a legal
right comprised in the constitutional statements above noted, the Court is in effect
saying that Section 15 (and Section 16) of Article II of the Constitution are self-
# Separate Opinions executing and judicially enforceable even in their present form. The implications
FELICIANO, J., concurring of this doctrine will have to be explored in future cases; those implications are too
I join in the result reached by my distinguished brother in the Court, Davide, Jr., large and far-reaching in nature even to be hinted at here.
J., in this case which, to my mind, is one of the most important cases decided by My suggestion is simply that petitioners must, before the trial court, show a more
this Court in the last few years. The seminal principles laid down in this decision specific legal right — a right cast in language of a significantly lower order of
are likely to influence profoundly the direction and course of the protection and generality than Article II (15) of the Constitution — that is or may be violated by
management of the environment, which of course embraces the utilization of all the actions, or failures to act, imputed to the public respondent by petitioners so
the natural resources in the territorial base of our polity. I have therefore sought that the trial court can validly render judgment granting all or part of the relief
to clarify, basically to myself, what the Court appears to be saying. prayed for. To my mind, the Court should be understood as simply saying that
The Court explicitly states that petitioners have the locus standi necessary to such a more specific legal right or rights may well exist in our corpus of law,
sustain the bringing and, maintenance of this suit (Decision, pp. 11-12). Locus considering the general policy principles found in the Constitution and the
standi is not a function of petitioners' claim that their suit is properly regarded as existence of the Philippine Environment Code, and that the trial court should have
a class suit. I understand locus standi to refer to the legal interest which a plaintiff given petitioners an effective opportunity so to demonstrate, instead of aborting
must have in the subject matter of the suit. Because of the very broadness of the the proceedings on a motion to dismiss.
concept of "class" here involved — membership in this "class" appears to embrace It seems to me important that the legal right which is an essential component of a
everyone living in the country whether now or in the cause of action be a specific, operable legal right, rather than a constitutional or
future — it appears to me that everyone who may be expected to benefit from the statutory policy, for at least two (2) reasons. One is that unless the legal right
course of action petitioners seek to require public respondents to take, is vested claimed to have been violated or disregarded is given specification in operational
with the necessary locus standi. The Court may be seen therefore to be terms, defendants may well be unable to defend themselves intelligently and
recognizing a beneficiaries' right of action in the field of environmental protection, effectively; in other words, there are due process dimensions to this matter.
as against both the public administrative agency directly concerned and the The second is a broader-gauge consideration — where a specific violation of law
private persons or entities operating in the field or sector of activity involved. or applicable regulation is not alleged or proved, petitioners can be expected to
Whether such beneficiaries' right of action may be found under any and all fall back on the expanded conception of judicial power in the second paragraph
circumstances, or whether some failure to act, in the first instance, on the part of of Section 1 of Article VIII of the Constitution which reads:
the governmental agency concerned must be shown ("prior exhaustion of Section 1. . . .
administrative remedies"), is not discussed in the decision and presumably is left Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to
for future determination in an appropriate case. settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally
The Court has also declared that the complaint has alleged and focused upon demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or
"one specific fundamental legal right — the right to a balanced and healthful not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
ecology" (Decision, p. 14). There is no question that "the right to a balanced and lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
healthful ecology" is "fundamental" and that, accordingly, it has been instrumentality of the Government. (Emphasis supplied)
"constitutionalized." But although it is fundamental in character, I suggest, with When substantive standards as general as "the right to a balanced and
very great respect, that it cannot be characterized as "specific," without doing healthy ecology" and "the right to health" are combined with remedial
excessive violence to language. It is in fact very difficult to fashion language more standards as broad ranging as "a grave abuse of discretion amounting
comprehensive in scope and generalized in character than a right to "a balanced to lack or excess of jurisdiction," the result will be, it is respectfully
and healthful ecology." The list of particular claims which can be subsumed under submitted, to propel courts into the uncharted ocean of social and
this rubic appears to be entirely open-ended: prevention and control of emission economic policy making. At least in respect of the vast area of
of toxic fumes and smoke from factories and motor vehicles; of discharge of oil, environmental protection and management, our courts have no claim to
chemical effluents, garbage and raw sewage into rivers, inland and coastal waters special technical competence and experience and professional
by vessels, oil rigs, factories, mines and whole communities; of dumping of qualification. Where no specific, operable norms and standards are
organic and inorganic wastes on open land, streets and thoroughfares; failure to shown to exist, then the policy making departments — the legislative
rehabilitate land after strip-mining or open-pit mining; kaingin or slash-and-burn and executive departments — must be given a real and effective
farming; destruction of fisheries, coral reefs and other living sea resources through opportunity to fashion and promulgate those norms and standards, and
the use of dynamite or cyanide and other chemicals; contamination of ground to implement them before the courts should intervene.
water resources; loss of certain species of fauna and flora; and so on. The other My learned brother Davide, Jr., J., rightly insists that the timber companies, whose
statements pointed out by the Court: Section 3, Executive Order No. 192 dated concession agreements or TLA's petitioners demand public respondents should
10 June 1987; Section 1, Title XIV, Book IV of the 1987 Administrative Code; and cancel, must be impleaded in the proceedings below. It might be asked that, if
P.D. No. 1151, dated 6 June 1977 — all appear to be formulations of policy, as petitioners' entitlement to the relief demanded is not dependent upon proof of
general and abstract as the constitutional statements of basic policy in Article II, breach by the timber companies of one or more of the specific terms and
Section 16 ("the right — to a balanced and healthful ecology") and 15 ("the right conditions of their concession agreements (and this, petitioners implicitly
to health"). assume), what will those companies litigate about? The answer I suggest is that
P.D. No. 1152, also dated 6 June 1977, entitled "The Philippine Environment they may seek to dispute the existence of the specific legal right petitioners should
Code," is, upon the other hand, a compendious collection of more "specific allege, as well as the reality of the claimed factual nexus between petitioners'
environment management policies" and "environment quality standards" (fourth specific legal rights and the claimed wrongful acts or failures to act of public
"Whereas" clause, Preamble) relating to an extremely wide range of topics: respondent administrative agency. They may also controvert the appropriateness
(a) air quality management; of the remedy or remedies demanded by petitioners, under all the circumstances
(b) water quality management; which exist.
(c) land use management; I vote to grant the Petition for Certiorari because the protection of the environment,
(d) natural resources management and conservation including the forest cover of our territory, is of extreme importance for the country.
embracing: The doctrines set out in the Court's decision issued today should, however, be
(i) fisheries and aquatic resources; subjected to closer examination.
(ii) wild life; # Footnotes
(iii) forestry and soil conservation; 1 Rollo, 164; 186.
(iv) flood control and natural calamities; 2 Id., 62-65, exclusive of annexes.
(v) energy development; 3 Under Section 12, Rule 3, Revised Rules of Court.
4 Rollo, 67.
5 Id., 74.
6 Rollo, 70-73.
7 Annex "B" of Petitions; Id., 43-44.
8 Paragraph 7, Petition, 6; Rollo, 20.
9 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged,
1986, 1508.
10 Title XIV (Environment and Natural Resources), Book IV
of the Administrative Code of 1987, E.O. No. 292.
11 Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, 43-44.
12 Record of the Constitutional Commission, vol. 4, 913.
13 For instance, the Preamble and Article XII on the National
Economy and Patrimony.
14 The Reorganization Act of the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources.
15 E.O. No. 292.
16 Section 1.
17 Section 2.
18 Ma-ao Sugar Central Co. vs. Barrios, 79 Phil. 666 [1947];
Community Investment and Finance Corp. vs. Garcia, 88
Phil. 215 [1951]; Remitere vs. Vda. de Yulo, 16 SCRA 251
[1966]; Caseñas vs. Rosales, 19 SCRA 462 [1967]; Virata vs.
Sandiganbayan, 202 SCRA 680 [1991]; Madrona vs. Rosal,
204 SCRA 1 [1991].
19 Section 1(q), Rule 16, Revised Rules of Court.
20 Adamos vs. J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. 25 SCRA 529
[1968]; Virata vs. Sandiganbayn, supra; Madrona vs. Rosal,
supra.
21 39 SCRA 473, 479 [1971].
22 1991 ed., 226-227.
23 180 SCRA 496, 501-502 [1989]. See also, Coseteng vs.
Mitra, 187 SCRA 377 [1990]; Gonzales vs. Macaraig, 191
SCRA 452 [1990]; Llamas vs. Orbos, 202 SCRA 844 [1991];
Bengzon vs. Senate Blue Ribbon Committee, 203 SCRA 767
[1991].
24 Rollo, 44.
25 125 SCRA 302, 325 [1983].
26 190 SCRA 673, 684 [1990].
27 Article III, 1987 Constitution.
28 110 Phil. 198, 203 [1960]; footnotes omitted.
29 291 U.S. 502, 523, 78 L. ed. 940, 947-949.
30 22 SCRA 135, 146-147 [1968].
31 Ongsiako vs. Gamboa, 86 Phil. 50 [1950]; Abe vs. Foster
Wheeler Corp. supra.; Phil. American Life Insurance Co. vs.
Auditor General, supra.; Alalayan vs. NPC, 24 SCRA
172[1968]; Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope Workers' Union, 59
SCRA 54 [1974]; Kabiling vs. National Housing Authority,
156 SCRA 623 [1987].
Republic of the Philippines Quality Management Section, Environmental Management Bureau, Department
SUPREME COURT of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), testifying for petitioners, stated
Manila that water samples collected from different beaches around the Manila Bay
EN BANC showed that the amount of fecal coliform content ranged from 50,000 to 80,000
G.R. Nos. 171947-48 December 18, 2008 most probable number (MPN)/ml when what DENR Administrative Order No. 34-
METROPOLITAN MANILA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF 90 prescribed as a safe level for bathing and other forms of contact recreational
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES, DEPARTMENT OF activities, or the "SB" level, is one not exceeding 200 MPN/100 ml. 4
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS,1 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Rebecca de Vera, for Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS)
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND and in behalf of other petitioners, testified about the MWSS’ efforts to reduce
HIGHWAYS, DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, PHILIPPINE pollution along the Manila Bay through the Manila Second Sewerage Project. For
COAST GUARD, PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE MARITIME GROUP, and its part, the Philippine Ports Authority (PPA) presented, as part of its evidence, its
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT, petitioners, memorandum circulars on the study being conducted on ship-generated waste
vs. treatment and disposal, and its Linis Dagat (Clean the Ocean) project for the
CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF MANILA BAY, represented and joined by cleaning of wastes accumulated or washed to shore.
DIVINA V. ILAS, SABINIANO ALBARRACIN, MANUEL SANTOS, JR., DINAH The RTC Ordered Petitioners to Clean Up and Rehabilitate Manila Bay
DELA PEÑA, PAUL DENNIS QUINTERO, MA. VICTORIA LLENOS, DONNA On September 13, 2002, the RTC rendered a Decision5 in favor of respondents.
CALOZA, FATIMA QUITAIN, VENICE SEGARRA, FRITZIE TANGKIA, SARAH The dispositive portion reads:
JOELLE LINTAG, HANNIBAL AUGUSTUS BOBIS, FELIMON SANTIAGUEL, WHEREFORE, finding merit in the complaint, judgment is hereby
and JAIME AGUSTIN R. OPOSA, respondents. rendered ordering the abovenamed defendant-government agencies,
DECISION jointly and solidarily, to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay and restore
VELASCO, JR., J.: its waters to SB classification to make it fit for swimming, skin-diving
The need to address environmental pollution, as a cause of climate change, has and other forms of contact recreation. To attain this, defendant-
of late gained the attention of the international community. Media have finally agencies, with defendant DENR as the lead agency, are directed, within
trained their sights on the ill effects of pollution, the destruction of forests and other six (6) months from receipt hereof, to act and perform their respective
critical habitats, oil spills, and the unabated improper disposal of garbage. And duties by devising a consolidated, coordinated and concerted scheme
rightly so, for the magnitude of environmental destruction is now on a scale few of action for the rehabilitation and restoration of the bay.
ever foresaw and the wound no longer simply heals by itself. 2 But amidst hard In particular:
evidence and clear signs of a climate crisis that need bold action, the voice of Defendant MWSS is directed to install, operate and maintain adequate
cynicism, naysayers, and procrastinators can still be heard. [sewerage] treatment facilities in strategic places under its jurisdiction
This case turns on government agencies and their officers who, by the nature of and increase their capacities.
their respective offices or by direct statutory command, are tasked to protect and Defendant LWUA, to see to it that the water districts under its wings,
preserve, at the first instance, our internal waters, rivers, shores, and seas provide, construct and operate sewage facilities for the proper disposal
polluted by human activities. To most of these agencies and their official of waste.
complement, the pollution menace does not seem to carry the high national Defendant DENR, which is the lead agency in cleaning up Manila Bay,
priority it deserves, if their track records are to be the norm. Their cavalier attitude to install, operate and maintain waste facilities to rid the bay of toxic and
towards solving, if not mitigating, the environmental pollution problem, is a sad hazardous substances.
commentary on bureaucratic efficiency and commitment. Defendant PPA, to prevent and also to treat the discharge not only of
At the core of the case is the Manila Bay, a place with a proud historic past, once ship-generated wastes but also of other solid and liquid wastes from
brimming with marine life and, for so many decades in the past, a spot for different docking vessels that contribute to the pollution of the bay.
contact recreation activities, but now a dirty and slowly dying expanse mainly Defendant MMDA, to establish, operate and maintain an adequate and
because of the abject official indifference of people and institutions that could have appropriate sanitary landfill and/or adequate solid waste and liquid
otherwise made a difference. disposal as well as other alternative garbage disposal system such as
This case started when, on January 29, 1999, respondents Concerned Residents re-use or recycling of wastes.
of Manila Bay filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Imus, Defendant DA, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources,
Cavite against several government agencies, among them the petitioners, for the to revitalize the marine life in Manila Bay and restock its waters with
cleanup, rehabilitation, and protection of the Manila Bay. Raffled to Branch 20 and indigenous fish and other aquatic animals.
docketed as Civil Case No. 1851-99 of the RTC, the complaint alleged that the Defendant DBM, to provide and set aside an adequate budget solely
water quality of the Manila Bay had fallen way below the allowable standards set for the purpose of cleaning up and rehabilitation of Manila Bay.
by law, specifically Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1152 or the Philippine Defendant DPWH, to remove and demolish structures and other
Environment Code. This environmental aberration, the complaint stated, nuisances that obstruct the free flow of waters to the bay. These
stemmed from: nuisances discharge solid and liquid wastes which eventually end up in
x x x [The] reckless, wholesale, accumulated and ongoing acts of Manila Bay. As the construction and engineering arm of the
omission or commission [of the defendants] resulting in the clear and government, DPWH is ordered to actively participate in removing
present danger to public health and in the depletion and contamination debris, such as carcass of sunken vessels, and other non-
of the marine life of Manila Bay, [for which reason] ALL defendants must biodegradable garbage in the bay.
be held jointly and/or solidarily liable and be collectively ordered to Defendant DOH, to closely supervise and monitor the operations of
clean up Manila Bay and to restore its water quality to class B waters fit septic and sludge companies and require them to have proper facilities
for swimming, skin-diving, and other forms of contact recreation.3 for the treatment and disposal of fecal sludge and sewage coming from
In their individual causes of action, respondents alleged that the continued neglect septic tanks.
of petitioners in abating the pollution of the Manila Bay constitutes a violation of, Defendant DECS, to inculcate in the minds and hearts of the people
among others: through education the importance of preserving and protecting the
(1) Respondents’ constitutional right to life, health, and a balanced environment.
ecology; Defendant Philippine Coast Guard and the PNP Maritime Group, to
(2) The Environment Code (PD 1152); protect at all costs the Manila Bay from all forms of illegal fishing.
(3) The Pollution Control Law (PD 984); No pronouncement as to damages and costs.
(4) The Water Code (PD 1067); SO ORDERED.
(5) The Sanitation Code (PD 856); The MWSS, Local Water Utilities Administration (LWUA), and PPA filed before
(6) The Illegal Disposal of Wastes Decree (PD 825); the Court of Appeals (CA) individual Notices of Appeal which were eventually
(7) The Marine Pollution Law (PD 979); consolidated and docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 76528.
(8) Executive Order No. 192; On the other hand, the DENR, Department of Public Works and Highways
(9) The Toxic and Hazardous Wastes Law (Republic Act No. 6969); (DPWH), Metropolitan Manila Development Authority (MMDA), Philippine Coast
(10) Civil Code provisions on nuisance and human relations; Guard (PCG), Philippine National Police (PNP) Maritime Group, and five other
(11) The Trust Doctrine and the Principle of Guardianship; and executive departments and agencies filed directly with this Court a petition for
(12) International Law review under Rule 45. The Court, in a Resolution of December 9, 2002, sent the
Inter alia, respondents, as plaintiffs a quo, prayed that petitioners be ordered to said petition to the CA for consolidation with the consolidated appeals of MWSS,
clean the Manila Bay and submit to the RTC a concerted concrete plan of action LWUA, and PPA, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 74944.
for the purpose. Petitioners, before the CA, were one in arguing in the main that the pertinent
The trial of the case started off with a hearing at the Manila Yacht Club followed provisions of the Environment Code (PD 1152) relate only to the cleaning of
by an ocular inspection of the Manila Bay. Renato T. Cruz, the Chief of the Water specific pollution incidents and do not cover cleaning in general. And apart from
raising concerns about the lack of funds appropriated for cleaning purposes, and sanitary waste disposal. It shall likewise include the establishment
petitioners also asserted that the cleaning of the Manila Bay is not a ministerial and operation of sanitary land fill and related facilities and the
act which can be compelled by mandamus. implementation of other alternative programs intended to reduce, reuse
The CA Sustained the RTC and recycle solid waste. (Emphasis added.)
By a Decision6 of September 28, 2005, the CA denied petitioners’ appeal and The MMDA is duty-bound to comply with Sec. 41 of the Ecological Solid Waste
affirmed the Decision of the RTC in toto, stressing that the trial court’s decision Management Act (RA 9003) which prescribes the minimum criteria for the
did not require petitioners to do tasks outside of their usual basic functions under establishment of sanitary landfills and Sec. 42 which provides the minimum
existing laws.7 operating requirements that each site operator shall maintain in the operation of
Petitioners are now before this Court praying for the allowance of their Rule 45 a sanitary landfill. Complementing Sec. 41 are Secs. 36 and 37 of RA 9003, 12
petition on the following ground and supporting arguments: enjoining the MMDA and local government units, among others, after the
THE [CA] DECIDED A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT effectivity of the law on February 15, 2001, from using and operating open dumps
HERETOFORE PASSED UPON BY THE HONORABLE COURT, I.E., for solid waste and disallowing, five years after such effectivity, the use of
IT AFFIRMED THE TRIAL COURT’S DECISION DECLARING THAT controlled dumps.
SECTION 20 OF [PD] 1152 REQUIRES CONCERNED The MMDA’s duty in the area of solid waste disposal, as may be noted, is set forth
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES TO REMOVE ALL POLLUTANTS not only in the Environment Code (PD 1152) and RA 9003, but in its charter as
SPILLED AND DISCHARGED IN THE WATER SUCH AS FECAL well. This duty of putting up a proper waste disposal system cannot be
COLIFORMS. characterized as discretionary, for, as earlier stated, discretion presupposes the
ARGUMENTS power or right given by law to public functionaries to act officially according to their
I judgment or conscience.13 A discretionary duty is one that "allows a person to
[SECTIONS] 17 AND 20 OF [PD] 1152 RELATE ONLY TO THE exercise judgment and choose to perform or not to perform." 14 Any suggestion
CLEANING OF SPECIFIC POLLUTION INCIDENTS AND [DO] NOT that the MMDA has the option whether or not to perform its solid waste disposal-
COVER CLEANING IN GENERAL related duties ought to be dismissed for want of legal basis.
II A perusal of other petitioners’ respective charters or like enabling statutes and
THE CLEANING OR REHABILITATION OF THE MANILA BAY IS NOT pertinent laws would yield this conclusion: these government agencies are
A MINISTERIAL ACT OF PETITIONERS THAT CAN BE COMPELLED enjoined, as a matter of statutory obligation, to perform certain functions relating
BY MANDAMUS. directly or indirectly to the cleanup, rehabilitation, protection, and preservation of
The issues before us are two-fold. First, do Sections 17 and 20 of PD 1152 under the Manila Bay. They are precluded from choosing not to perform these duties.
the headings, Upgrading of Water Quality and Clean-up Operations, envisage a Consider:
cleanup in general or are they limited only to the cleanup of specific pollution (1) The DENR, under Executive Order No. (EO) 192, 15 is the primary agency
incidents? And second, can petitioners be compelled by mandamus to clean up responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of
and rehabilitate the Manila Bay? the country’s environment and natural resources. Sec. 19 of the Philippine Clean
On August 12, 2008, the Court conducted and heard the parties on oral Water Act of 2004 (RA 9275), on the other hand, designates the DENR as the
arguments. primary government agency responsible for its enforcement and implementation,
Our Ruling more particularly over all aspects of water quality management. On water
We shall first dwell on the propriety of the issuance of mandamus under the pollution, the DENR, under the Act’s Sec. 19(k), exercises jurisdiction "over all
premises. aspects of water pollution, determine[s] its location, magnitude, extent, severity,
The Cleaning or Rehabilitation of Manila Bay causes and effects and other pertinent information on pollution, and [takes]
Can be Compelled by Mandamus measures, using available methods and technologies, to prevent and abate such
Generally, the writ of mandamus lies to require the execution of a ministerial duty.8 pollution."
A ministerial duty is one that "requires neither the exercise of official discretion nor The DENR, under RA 9275, is also tasked to prepare a National Water Quality
judgment."9 It connotes an act in which nothing is left to the discretion of the Status Report, an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework, and a 10-
person executing it. It is a "simple, definite duty arising under conditions admitted year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan which is nationwide in scope
or proved to exist and imposed by law."10 Mandamus is available to compel action, covering the Manila Bay and adjoining areas. Sec. 19 of RA 9275 provides:
when refused, on matters involving discretion, but not to direct the exercise of Sec. 19 Lead Agency.––The [DENR] shall be the primary government
judgment or discretion one way or the other. agency responsible for the implementation and enforcement of this Act
Petitioners maintain that the MMDA’s duty to take measures and maintain x x x unless otherwise provided herein. As such, it shall have the
adequate solid waste and liquid disposal systems necessarily involves policy following functions, powers and responsibilities:
evaluation and the exercise of judgment on the part of the agency concerned. a) Prepare a National Water Quality Status report within twenty-four
They argue that the MMDA, in carrying out its mandate, has to make decisions, (24) months from the effectivity of this Act: Provided, That the
including choosing where a landfill should be located by undertaking feasibility Department shall thereafter review or revise and publish annually, or as
studies and cost estimates, all of which entail the exercise of discretion. the need arises, said report;
Respondents, on the other hand, counter that the statutory command is clear and b) Prepare an Integrated Water Quality Management Framework within
that petitioners’ duty to comply with and act according to the clear mandate of the twelve (12) months following the completion of the status report;
law does not require the exercise of discretion. According to respondents, c) Prepare a ten (10) year Water Quality Management Area Action Plan
petitioners, the MMDA in particular, are without discretion, for example, to choose within 12 months following the completion of the framework for each
which bodies of water they are to clean up, or which discharge or spill they are to designated water management area. Such action plan shall be
contain. By the same token, respondents maintain that petitioners are bereft of reviewed by the water quality management area governing board every
discretion on whether or not to alleviate the problem of solid and liquid waste five (5) years or as need arises.
disposal; in other words, it is the MMDA’s ministerial duty to attend to such The DENR has prepared the status report for the period 2001 to 2005 and is in
services. the process of completing the preparation of the Integrated Water Quality
We agree with respondents. Management Framework.16 Within twelve (12) months thereafter, it has to submit
First off, we wish to state that petitioners’ obligation to perform their duties as a final Water Quality Management Area Action Plan.17 Again, like the MMDA, the
defined by law, on one hand, and how they are to carry out such duties, on the DENR should be made to accomplish the tasks assigned to it under RA 9275.
other, are two different concepts. While the implementation of the MMDA’s Parenthetically, during the oral arguments, the DENR Secretary manifested that
mandated tasks may entail a decision-making process, the enforcement of the the DENR, with the assistance of and in partnership with various government
law or the very act of doing what the law exacts to be done is ministerial in nature agencies and non-government organizations, has completed, as of December
and may be compelled by mandamus. We said so in Social Justice Society v. 2005, the final draft of a comprehensive action plan with estimated budget and
Atienza11 in which the Court directed the City of Manila to enforce, as a matter of time frame, denominated as Operation Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy,
ministerial duty, its Ordinance No. 8027 directing the three big local oil players to for the rehabilitation, restoration, and rehabilitation of the Manila Bay.
cease and desist from operating their business in the so-called "Pandacan The completion of the said action plan and even the implementation of some of
Terminals" within six months from the effectivity of the ordinance. But to illustrate its phases should more than ever prod the concerned agencies to fast track what
with respect to the instant case, the MMDA’s duty to put up an adequate and are assigned them under existing laws.
appropriate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal as well as other (2) The MWSS, under Sec. 3 of RA 6234,18 is vested with jurisdiction, supervision,
alternative garbage disposal systems is ministerial, its duty being a statutory and control over all waterworks and sewerage systems in the territory comprising
imposition. The MMDA’s duty in this regard is spelled out in Sec. 3(c) of Republic what is now the cities of Metro Manila and several towns of the provinces of Rizal
Act No. (RA) 7924 creating the MMDA. This section defines and delineates the and Cavite, and charged with the duty:
scope of the MMDA’s waste disposal services to include: (g) To construct, maintain, and operate such sanitary sewerages as
Solid waste disposal and management which include formulation and may be necessary for the proper sanitation and other uses of the cities
implementation of policies, standards, programs and projects for proper and towns comprising the System; x x x
(3) The LWUA under PD 198 has the power of supervision and control over local Code of 1998, in which both the PCG and PNP Maritime Group were authorized
water districts. It can prescribe the minimum standards and regulations for the to enforce said law and other fishery laws, rules, and regulations.25
operations of these districts and shall monitor and evaluate local water standards. (8) In accordance with Sec. 2 of EO 513, the PPA is mandated "to establish,
The LWUA can direct these districts to construct, operate, and furnish facilities develop, regulate, manage and operate a rationalized national port system in
and services for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewerage, waste, and support of trade and national development."26 Moreover, Sec. 6-c of EO 513
storm water. Additionally, under RA 9275, the LWUA, as attached agency of the states that the PPA has police authority within the ports administered by it as may
DPWH, is tasked with providing sewerage and sanitation facilities, inclusive of the be necessary to carry out its powers and functions and attain its purposes and
setting up of efficient and safe collection, treatment, and sewage disposal system objectives, without prejudice to the exercise of the functions of the Bureau of
in the different parts of the country.19 In relation to the instant petition, the LWUA Customs and other law enforcement bodies within the area. Such police authority
is mandated to provide sewerage and sanitation facilities in Laguna, Cavite, shall include the following:
Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to prevent pollution in the Manila Bay. xxxx
(4) The Department of Agriculture (DA), pursuant to the Administrative Code of b) To regulate the entry to, exit from, and movement within the port, of
1987 (EO 292),20 is designated as the agency tasked to promulgate and enforce persons and vehicles, as well as movement within the port of
all laws and issuances respecting the conservation and proper utilization of watercraft.27
agricultural and fishery resources. Furthermore, the DA, under the Philippine Lastly, as a member of the International Marine Organization and a signatory to
Fisheries Code of 1998 (RA 8550), is, in coordination with local government units the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, as
(LGUs) and other concerned sectors, in charge of establishing a monitoring, amended by MARPOL 73/78,28 the Philippines, through the PPA, must ensure the
control, and surveillance system to ensure that fisheries and aquatic resources in provision of adequate reception facilities at ports and terminals for the reception
Philippine waters are judiciously utilized and managed on a sustainable basis. 21 of sewage from the ships docking in Philippine ports. Thus, the PPA is tasked to
Likewise under RA 9275, the DA is charged with coordinating with the PCG and adopt such measures as are necessary to prevent the discharge and dumping of
DENR for the enforcement of water quality standards in marine waters. 22 More solid and liquid wastes and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay
specifically, its Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) under Sec. waters from vessels docked at ports and apprehend the violators. When the
22(c) of RA 9275 shall primarily be responsible for the prevention and control of vessels are not docked at ports but within Philippine territorial waters, it is the PCG
water pollution for the development, management, and conservation of the and PNP Maritime Group that have jurisdiction over said vessels.
fisheries and aquatic resources. (9) The MMDA, as earlier indicated, is duty-bound to put up and maintain
(5) The DPWH, as the engineering and construction arm of the national adequate sanitary landfill and solid waste and liquid disposal system as well as
government, is tasked under EO 29223 to provide integrated planning, design, and other alternative garbage disposal systems. It is primarily responsible for the
construction services for, among others, flood control and water resource implementation and enforcement of the provisions of RA 9003, which would
development systems in accordance with national development objectives and necessary include its penal provisions, within its area of jurisdiction. 29
approved government plans and specifications. Among the prohibited acts under Sec. 48, Chapter VI of RA 9003 that are
In Metro Manila, however, the MMDA is authorized by Sec. 3(d), RA 7924 to frequently violated are dumping of waste matters in public places, such as roads,
perform metro-wide services relating to "flood control and sewerage management canals or esteros, open burning of solid waste, squatting in open dumps and
which include the formulation and implementation of policies, standards, landfills, open dumping, burying of biodegradable or non- biodegradable materials
programs and projects for an integrated flood control, drainage and sewerage in flood-prone areas, establishment or operation of open dumps as enjoined in RA
system." 9003, and operation of waste management facilities without an environmental
On July 9, 2002, a Memorandum of Agreement was entered into between the compliance certificate.
DPWH and MMDA, whereby MMDA was made the agency primarily responsible Under Sec. 28 of the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992 (RA 7279),
for flood control in Metro Manila. For the rest of the country, DPWH shall remain eviction or demolition may be allowed "when persons or entities occupy danger
as the implementing agency for flood control services. The mandate of the MMDA areas such as esteros, railroad tracks, garbage dumps, riverbanks, shorelines,
and DPWH on flood control and drainage services shall include the removal of waterways, and other public places such as sidewalks, roads, parks and
structures, constructions, and encroachments built along rivers, waterways, and playgrounds." The MMDA, as lead agency, in coordination with the DPWH, LGUs,
esteros (drainages) in violation of RA 7279, PD 1067, and other pertinent laws. and concerned agencies, can dismantle and remove all structures, constructions,
(6) The PCG, in accordance with Sec. 5(p) of PD 601, or the Revised Coast Guard and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other pertinent laws
Law of 1974, and Sec. 6 of PD 979,24 or the Marine Pollution Decree of 1976, along the rivers, waterways, and esteros in Metro Manila. With respect to rivers,
shall have the primary responsibility of enforcing laws, rules, and regulations waterways, and esteros in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna that
governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Philippines. It shall discharge wastewater directly or eventually into the Manila Bay, the DILG shall
promulgate its own rules and regulations in accordance with the national rules and direct the concerned LGUs to implement the demolition and removal of such
policies set by the National Pollution Control Commission upon consultation with structures, constructions, and other encroachments built in violation of RA 7279
the latter for the effective implementation and enforcement of PD 979. It shall, and other applicable laws in coordination with the DPWH and concerned
under Sec. 4 of the law, apprehend violators who: agencies.
a. discharge, dump x x x harmful substances from or out of any ship, (10) The Department of Health (DOH), under Article 76 of PD 1067 (the Water
vessel, barge, or any other floating craft, or other man-made structures Code), is tasked to promulgate rules and regulations for the establishment of
at sea, by any method, means or manner, into or upon the territorial and waste disposal areas that affect the source of a water supply or a reservoir for
inland navigable waters of the Philippines; domestic or municipal use. And under Sec. 8 of RA 9275, the DOH, in coordination
b. throw, discharge or deposit, dump, or cause, suffer or procure to be with the DENR, DPWH, and other concerned agencies, shall formulate guidelines
thrown, discharged, or deposited either from or out of any ship, barge, and standards for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage and the
or other floating craft or vessel of any kind, or from the shore, wharf, establishment and operation of a centralized sewage treatment system. In areas
manufacturing establishment, or mill of any kind, any refuse matter of not considered as highly urbanized cities, septage or a mix sewerage-septage
any kind or description whatever other than that flowing from streets management system shall be employed.
and sewers and passing therefrom in a liquid state into tributary of any In accordance with Sec. 7230 of PD 856, the Code of Sanitation of the Philippines,
navigable water from which the same shall float or be washed into such and Sec. 5.1.131 of Chapter XVII of its implementing rules, the DOH is also ordered
navigable water; and to ensure the regulation and monitoring of the proper disposal of wastes by private
c. deposit x x x material of any kind in any place on the bank of any sludge companies through the strict enforcement of the requirement to obtain an
navigable water or on the bank of any tributary of any navigable water, environmental sanitation clearance of sludge collection treatment and disposal
where the same shall be liable to be washed into such navigable water, before these companies are issued their environmental sanitation permit.
either by ordinary or high tides, or by storms or floods, or otherwise, (11) The Department of Education (DepEd), under the Philippine Environment
whereby navigation shall or may be impeded or obstructed or increase Code (PD 1152), is mandated to integrate subjects on environmental education
the level of pollution of such water. in its school curricula at all levels.32 Under Sec. 118 of RA 8550, the DepEd, in
(7) When RA 6975 or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) collaboration with the DA, Commission on Higher Education, and Philippine
Act of 1990 was signed into law on December 13, 1990, the PNP Maritime Group Information Agency, shall launch and pursue a nationwide educational campaign
was tasked to "perform all police functions over the Philippine territorial waters to promote the development, management, conservation, and proper use of the
and rivers." Under Sec. 86, RA 6975, the police functions of the PCG shall be environment. Under the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act (RA 9003), on
taken over by the PNP when the latter acquires the capability to perform such the other hand, it is directed to strengthen the integration of environmental
functions. Since the PNP Maritime Group has not yet attained the capability to concerns in school curricula at all levels, with an emphasis on waste management
assume and perform the police functions of PCG over marine pollution, the PCG principles.33
and PNP Maritime Group shall coordinate with regard to the enforcement of laws, (12) The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) is tasked under Sec. 2,
rules, and regulations governing marine pollution within the territorial waters of the Title XVII of the Administrative Code of 1987 to ensure the efficient and sound
Philippines. This was made clear in Sec. 124, RA 8550 or the Philippine Fisheries utilization of government funds and revenues so as to effectively achieve the
country’s development objectives.34
One of the country’s development objectives is enshrined in RA 9275 or the of either intentional or accidental spillage of oil or other hazardous substances, as
Philippine Clean Water Act of 2004. This law stresses that the State shall pursue mentioned in Sec. 62(h).
a policy of economic growth in a manner consistent with the protection, As a counterpoint, respondents argue that petitioners erroneously read Sec. 62(g)
preservation, and revival of the quality of our fresh, brackish, and marine waters. as delimiting the application of Sec. 20 to the containment, removal, and cleanup
It also provides that it is the policy of the government, among others, to streamline operations for accidental spills only. Contrary to petitioners’ posture, respondents
processes and procedures in the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution assert that Sec. 62(g), in fact, even expanded the coverage of Sec. 20.
mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to promote environmental Respondents explain that without its Sec. 62(g), PD 1152 may have indeed
strategies and use of appropriate economic instruments and of control covered only pollution accumulating from the day-to-day operations of businesses
mechanisms for the protection of water resources; to formulate a holistic national around the Manila Bay and other sources of pollution that slowly accumulated in
program of water quality management that recognizes that issues related to this the bay. Respondents, however, emphasize that Sec. 62(g), far from being a
management cannot be separated from concerns about water sources and delimiting provision, in fact even enlarged the operational scope of Sec. 20, by
ecological protection, water supply, public health, and quality of life; and to provide including accidental spills as among the water pollution incidents contemplated in
a comprehensive management program for water pollution focusing on pollution Sec. 17 in relation to Sec. 20 of PD 1152.
prevention. To respondents, petitioners’ parochial view on environmental issues, coupled with
Thus, the DBM shall then endeavor to provide an adequate budget to attain the their narrow reading of their respective mandated roles, has contributed to the
noble objectives of RA 9275 in line with the country’s development objectives. worsening water quality of the Manila Bay. Assuming, respondents assert, that
All told, the aforementioned enabling laws and issuances are in themselves clear, petitioners are correct in saying that the cleanup coverage of Sec. 20 of PD 1152
categorical, and complete as to what are the obligations and mandate of each is constricted by the definition of the phrase "cleanup operations" embodied in
agency/petitioner under the law. We need not belabor the issue that their tasks Sec. 62(g), Sec. 17 is not hobbled by such limiting definition. As pointed out, the
include the cleanup of the Manila Bay. phrases "cleanup operations" and "accidental spills" do not appear in said Sec.
Now, as to the crux of the petition. Do Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code 17, not even in the chapter where said section is found.
encompass the cleanup of water pollution in general, not just specific pollution Respondents are correct. For one thing, said Sec. 17 does not in any way state
incidents? that the government agencies concerned ought to confine themselves to the
Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code containment, removal, and cleaning operations when a specific pollution incident
Include Cleaning in General occurs. On the contrary, Sec. 17 requires them to act even in the absence of a
The disputed sections are quoted as follows: specific pollution incident, as long as water quality "has deteriorated to a degree
Section 17. Upgrading of Water Quality.––Where the quality of water where its state will adversely affect its best usage." This section, to stress,
has deteriorated to a degree where its state will adversely affect its best commands concerned government agencies, when appropriate, "to take such
usage, the government agencies concerned shall take such measures measures as may be necessary to meet the prescribed water quality standards."
as may be necessary to upgrade the quality of such water to meet the In fine, the underlying duty to upgrade the quality of water is not conditional on the
prescribed water quality standards. occurrence of any pollution incident.
Section 20. Clean-up Operations.––It shall be the responsibility of the For another, a perusal of Sec. 20 of the Environment Code, as couched, indicates
polluter to contain, remove and clean-up water pollution incidents at his that it is properly applicable to a specific situation in which the pollution is caused
own expense. In case of his failure to do so, the government agencies by polluters who fail to clean up the mess they left behind. In such instance, the
concerned shall undertake containment, removal and clean-up concerned government agencies shall undertake the cleanup work for the
operations and expenses incurred in said operations shall be charged polluters’ account. Petitioners’ assertion, that they have to perform cleanup
against the persons and/or entities responsible for such pollution. operations in the Manila Bay only when there is a water pollution incident and the
When the Clean Water Act (RA 9275) took effect, its Sec. 16 on the subject, o, erring polluters do not undertake the containment, removal, and cleanup
amended the counterpart provision (Sec. 20) of the Environment Code (PD 1152). operations, is quite off mark. As earlier discussed, the complementary Sec. 17 of
Sec. 17 of PD 1152 continues, however, to be operational. the Environment Code comes into play and the specific duties of the agencies to
The amendatory Sec. 16 of RA 9275 reads: clean up come in even if there are no pollution incidents staring at them.
SEC. 16. Cleanup Operations.––Notwithstanding the provisions of Petitioners, thus, cannot plausibly invoke and hide behind Sec. 20 of PD 1152 or
Sections 15 and 26 hereof, any person who causes pollution in or Sec. 16 of RA 9275 on the pretext that their cleanup mandate depends on the
pollutes water bodies in excess of the applicable and prevailing happening of a specific pollution incident. In this regard, what the CA said with
standards shall be responsible to contain, remove and clean up any respect to the impasse over Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 is at once valid as it is
pollution incident at his own expense to the extent that the same water practical. The appellate court wrote: "PD 1152 aims to introduce a comprehensive
bodies have been rendered unfit for utilization and beneficial use: program of environmental protection and management. This is better served by
Provided, That in the event emergency cleanup operations are making Secs. 17 & 20 of general application rather than limiting them to specific
necessary and the polluter fails to immediately undertake the same, the pollution incidents."35
[DENR] in coordination with other government agencies concerned, Granting arguendo that petitioners’ position thus described vis-à-vis the
shall undertake containment, removal and cleanup operations. implementation of Sec. 20 is correct, they seem to have overlooked the fact that
Expenses incurred in said operations shall be reimbursed by the the pollution of the Manila Bay is of such magnitude and scope that it is well-nigh
persons found to have caused such pollution under proper impossible to draw the line between a specific and a general pollution incident.
administrative determination x x x. Reimbursements of the cost incurred And such impossibility extends to pinpointing with reasonable certainty who the
shall be made to the Water Quality Management Fund or to such other polluters are. We note that Sec. 20 of PD 1152 mentions "water pollution
funds where said disbursements were sourced. incidents" which may be caused by polluters in the waters of the Manila Bay itself
As may be noted, the amendment to Sec. 20 of the Environment Code is more or by polluters in adjoining lands and in water bodies or waterways that empty into
apparent than real since the amendment, insofar as it is relevant to this case, the bay. Sec. 16 of RA 9275, on the other hand, specifically adverts to "any person
merely consists in the designation of the DENR as lead agency in the cleanup who causes pollution in or pollutes water bodies," which may refer to an individual
operations. or an establishment that pollutes the land mass near the Manila Bay or the
Petitioners contend at every turn that Secs. 17 and 20 of the Environment Code waterways, such that the contaminants eventually end up in the bay. In this
concern themselves only with the matter of cleaning up in specific pollution situation, the water pollution incidents are so numerous and involve nameless and
incidents, as opposed to cleanup in general. They aver that the twin provisions faceless polluters that they can validly be categorized as beyond the specific
would have to be read alongside the succeeding Sec. 62(g) and (h), which defines pollution incident level.
the terms "cleanup operations" and "accidental spills," as follows: Not to be ignored of course is the reality that the government agencies concerned
g. Clean-up Operations [refer] to activities conducted in removing the are so undermanned that it would be almost impossible to apprehend the
pollutants discharged or spilled in water to restore it to pre-spill numerous polluters of the Manila Bay. It may perhaps not be amiss to say that the
condition. apprehension, if any, of the Manila Bay polluters has been few and far between.
h. Accidental Spills [refer] to spills of oil or other hazardous substances Hence, practically nobody has been required to contain, remove, or clean up a
in water that result from accidents such as collisions and groundings. given water pollution incident. In this kind of setting, it behooves the Government
Petitioners proffer the argument that Secs. 17 and 20 of PD 1152 merely direct to step in and undertake cleanup operations. Thus, Sec. 16 of RA 9275, previously
the government agencies concerned to undertake containment, removal, and Sec. 20 of PD 1152, covers for all intents and purposes a general cleanup
cleaning operations of a specific polluted portion or portions of the body of water situation.
concerned. They maintain that the application of said Sec. 20 is limited only to The cleanup and/or restoration of the Manila Bay is only an aspect and the initial
"water pollution incidents," which are situations that presuppose the occurrence stage of the long-term solution. The preservation of the water quality of the bay
of specific, isolated pollution events requiring the corresponding containment, after the rehabilitation process is as important as the cleaning phase. It is
removal, and cleaning operations. Pushing the point further, they argue that the imperative then that the wastes and contaminants found in the rivers, inland bays,
aforequoted Sec. 62(g) requires "cleanup operations" to restore the body of water and other bodies of water be stopped from reaching the Manila Bay. Otherwise,
to pre-spill condition, which means that there must have been a specific incident any cleanup effort would just be a futile, cosmetic exercise, for, in no time at all,
the Manila Bay water quality would again deteriorate below the ideal minimum RA 9003 took effect on February 15, 2001 and the adverted grace period of five
standards set by PD 1152, RA 9275, and other relevant laws. It thus behooves (5) years which ended on February 21, 2006 has come and gone, but no single
the Court to put the heads of the petitioner-department-agencies and the bureaus sanitary landfill which strictly complies with the prescribed standards under RA
and offices under them on continuing notice about, and to enjoin them to perform, 9003 has yet been set up.
their mandates and duties towards cleaning up the Manila Bay and preserving the In addition, there are rampant and repeated violations of Sec. 48 of RA 9003, like
quality of its water to the ideal level. Under what other judicial discipline describes littering, dumping of waste matters in roads, canals, esteros, and other public
as "continuing mandamus,"36 the Court may, under extraordinary circumstances, places, operation of open dumps, open burning of solid waste, and the like. Some
issue directives with the end in view of ensuring that its decision would not be set sludge companies which do not have proper disposal facilities simply discharge
to naught by administrative inaction or indifference. In India, the doctrine of sludge into the Metro Manila sewerage system that ends up in the Manila Bay.
continuing mandamus was used to enforce directives of the court to clean up the Equally unabated are violations of Sec. 27 of RA 9275, which enjoins the pollution
length of the Ganges River from industrial and municipal pollution. 37 of water bodies, groundwater pollution, disposal of infectious wastes from vessels,
The Court can take judicial notice of the presence of shanties and other and unauthorized transport or dumping into sea waters of sewage or solid waste
unauthorized structures which do not have septic tanks along the Pasig-Marikina- and of Secs. 4 and 102 of RA 8550 which proscribes the introduction by human
San Juan Rivers, the National Capital Region (NCR) (Parañaque-Zapote, Las or machine of substances to the aquatic environment including "dumping/disposal
Piñas) Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycuayan- of waste and other marine litters, discharge of petroleum or residual products of
Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) petroleum of carbonaceous materials/substances [and other] radioactive, noxious
River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and connecting waterways, river or harmful liquid, gaseous or solid substances, from any water, land or air
banks, and esteros which discharge their waters, with all the accompanying filth, transport or other human-made structure."
dirt, and garbage, into the major rivers and eventually the Manila Bay. If there is In the light of the ongoing environmental degradation, the Court wishes to
one factor responsible for the pollution of the major river systems and the Manila emphasize the extreme necessity for all concerned executive departments and
Bay, these unauthorized structures would be on top of the list. And if the issue of agencies to immediately act and discharge their respective official duties and
illegal or unauthorized structures is not seriously addressed with sustained obligations. Indeed, time is of the essence; hence, there is a need to set timetables
resolve, then practically all efforts to cleanse these important bodies of water for the performance and completion of the tasks, some of them as defined for
would be for naught. The DENR Secretary said as much.38 them by law and the nature of their respective offices and mandates.
Giving urgent dimension to the necessity of removing these illegal structures is The importance of the Manila Bay as a sea resource, playground, and as a
Art. 51 of PD 1067 or the Water Code,39 which prohibits the building of structures historical landmark cannot be over-emphasized. It is not yet too late in the day to
within a given length along banks of rivers and other waterways. Art. 51 reads: restore the Manila Bay to its former splendor and bring back the plants and sea
The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and life that once thrived in its blue waters. But the tasks ahead, daunting as they may
lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) be, could only be accomplished if those mandated, with the help and cooperation
meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and of all civic-minded individuals, would put their minds to these tasks and take
forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the responsibility. This means that the State, through petitioners, has to take the lead
easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, in the preservation and protection of the Manila Bay.
floatage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay The era of delays, procrastination, and ad hoc measures is over. Petitioners must
in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, transcend their limitations, real or imaginary, and buckle down to work before the
floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind. problem at hand becomes unmanageable. Thus, we must reiterate that different
(Emphasis added.) government agencies and instrumentalities cannot shirk from their mandates; they
Judicial notice may likewise be taken of factories and other industrial must perform their basic functions in cleaning up and rehabilitating the Manila
establishments standing along or near the banks of the Pasig River, other major Bay. We are disturbed by petitioners’ hiding behind two untenable claims: (1) that
rivers, and connecting waterways. But while they may not be treated as there ought to be a specific pollution incident before they are required to act; and
unauthorized constructions, some of these establishments undoubtedly contribute (2) that the cleanup of the bay is a discretionary duty.
to the pollution of the Pasig River and waterways. The DILG and the concerned RA 9003 is a sweeping piece of legislation enacted to radically transform and
LGUs, have, accordingly, the duty to see to it that non-complying industrial improve waste management. It implements Sec. 16, Art. II of the 1987
establishments set up, within a reasonable period, the necessary waste water Constitution, which explicitly provides that the State shall protect and advance the
treatment facilities and infrastructure to prevent their industrial discharge, right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm
including their sewage waters, from flowing into the Pasig River, other major and harmony of nature.
rivers, and connecting waterways. After such period, non-complying So it was that in Oposa v. Factoran, Jr. the Court stated that the right to a balanced
establishments shall be shut down or asked to transfer their operations. and healthful ecology need not even be written in the Constitution for it is
At this juncture, and if only to dramatize the urgency of the need for petitioners- assumed, like other civil and political rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, to
agencies to comply with their statutory tasks, we cite the Asian Development exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of transcendental importance
Bank-commissioned study on the garbage problem in Metro Manila, the results of with intergenerational implications.41 Even assuming the absence of a categorical
which are embodied in the The Garbage Book. As there reported, the garbage legal provision specifically prodding petitioners to clean up the bay, they and the
crisis in the metropolitan area is as alarming as it is shocking. Some highlights of men and women representing them cannot escape their obligation to future
the report: generations of Filipinos to keep the waters of the Manila Bay clean and clear as
1. As early as 2003, three land-filled dumpsites in Metro Manila - the humanly as possible. Anything less would be a betrayal of the trust reposed in
Payatas, Catmon and Rodriquez dumpsites - generate an alarming them.
quantity of lead and leachate or liquid run-off. Leachate are toxic liquids WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The September 28, 2005 Decision of the
that flow along the surface and seep into the earth and poison the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 76528 and SP No. 74944 and the September 13, 2002
surface and groundwater that are used for drinking, aquatic life, and the Decision of the RTC in Civil Case No. 1851-99 are AFFIRMED but with
environment. MODIFICATIONS in view of subsequent developments or supervening events in
2. The high level of fecal coliform confirms the presence of a large the case. The fallo of the RTC Decision shall now read:
amount of human waste in the dump sites and surrounding areas, which WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the abovenamed
is presumably generated by households that lack alternatives to defendant-government agencies to clean up, rehabilitate, and preserve
sanitation. To say that Manila Bay needs rehabilitation is an Manila Bay, and restore and maintain its waters to SB level (Class B
understatement. sea waters per Water Classification Tables under DENR Administrative
3. Most of the deadly leachate, lead and other dangerous contaminants Order No. 34 [1990]) to make them fit for swimming, skin-diving, and
and possibly strains of pathogens seeps untreated into ground water other forms of contact recreation.
and runs into the Marikina and Pasig River systems and Manila Bay.40 In particular:
Given the above perspective, sufficient sanitary landfills should now more than (1) Pursuant to Sec. 4 of EO 192, assigning the DENR as the primary agency
ever be established as prescribed by the Ecological Solid Waste Management Act responsible for the conservation, management, development, and proper use of
(RA 9003). Particular note should be taken of the blatant violations by some LGUs the country’s environment and natural resources, and Sec. 19 of RA 9275,
and possibly the MMDA of Sec. 37, reproduced below: designating the DENR as the primary government agency responsible for its
Sec. 37. Prohibition against the Use of Open Dumps for Solid Waste.– enforcement and implementation, the DENR is directed to fully implement its
–No open dumps shall be established and operated, nor any practice Operational Plan for the Manila Bay Coastal Strategy for the rehabilitation,
or disposal of solid waste by any person, including LGUs which restoration, and conservation of the Manila Bay at the earliest possible time. It is
[constitute] the use of open dumps for solid waste, be allowed after the ordered to call regular coordination meetings with concerned government
effectivity of this Act: Provided, further that no controlled dumps shall departments and agencies to ensure the successful implementation of the
be allowed (5) years following the effectivity of this Act. (Emphasis aforesaid plan of action in accordance with its indicated completion schedules.
added.) (2) Pursuant to Title XII (Local Government) of the Administrative Code of 1987
and Sec. 25 of the Local Government Code of 1991,42 the DILG, in exercising the
President’s power of general supervision and its duty to promulgate guidelines in maintaining a balanced and healthful ecosystem in the Manila Bay and the entire
establishing waste management programs under Sec. 43 of the Philippine Philippine archipelago.
Environment Code (PD 1152), shall direct all LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, (11) The DBM shall consider incorporating an adequate budget in the General
Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Pampanga, and Bataan to inspect all factories, Appropriations Act of 2010 and succeeding years to cover the expenses relating
commercial establishments, and private homes along the banks of the major river to the cleanup, restoration, and preservation of the water quality of the Manila
systems in their respective areas of jurisdiction, such as but not limited to the Bay, in line with the country’s development objective to attain economic growth in
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) a manner consistent with the protection, preservation, and revival of our marine
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, the Meycauayan- waters.
Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) (12) The heads of petitioners-agencies MMDA, DENR, DepEd, DOH, DA, DPWH,
River, the Laguna De Bay, and other minor rivers and waterways that eventually DBM, PCG, PNP Maritime Group, DILG, and also of MWSS, LWUA, and PPA, in
discharge water into the Manila Bay; and the lands abutting the bay, to determine line with the principle of "continuing mandamus," shall, from finality of this
whether they have wastewater treatment facilities or hygienic septic tanks as Decision, each submit to the Court a quarterly progressive report of the activities
prescribed by existing laws, ordinances, and rules and regulations. If none be undertaken in accordance with this Decision.
found, these LGUs shall be ordered to require non-complying establishments and No costs.
homes to set up said facilities or septic tanks within a reasonable time to prevent SO ORDERED.
industrial wastes, sewage water, and human wastes from flowing into these rivers, PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
waterways, esteros, and the Manila Bay, under pain of closure or imposition of Associate Justice
fines and other sanctions.
(3) As mandated by Sec. 8 of RA 9275,43 the MWSS is directed to provide, install, WE CONCUR:
operate, and maintain the necessary adequate waste water treatment facilities in
REYNATO S.
Metro Manila, Rizal, and Cavite where needed at the earliest possible time.
(4) Pursuant to RA 9275,44 the LWUA, through the local water Chief districts
Justice and in
coordination with the DENR, is ordered to provide, install, operate, and maintain
sewerage and sanitation facilities and the efficient and safe LEONARDO
collection, treatment, A. QUISUMBING CONSUELO YNAR
AssociatePampanga,
and disposal of sewage in the provinces of Laguna, Cavite, Bulacan, Justice Associate Justice
and Bataan where needed at the earliest possible time.
(5) Pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 8550,45 the DA, through the ANTONIO
BFAR, is ordered to T. CARPIO MA. ALICIA AUST
Associate
improve and restore the marine life of the Manila Bay. It is also directedJustice
to assist Associate Justice
the LGUs in Metro Manila, Rizal, Cavite, Laguna, Bulacan, Pampanga, and
Bataan in developing, using recognized methods, the fisheries RENATOand aquatic C. CORONA CONCHITA CARPIO
resources in the Manila Bay. Associate Justice Associate Justice
(6) The PCG, pursuant to Secs. 4 and 6 of PD 979, and the PNP Maritime Group,
in accordance with Sec. 124 of RA 8550, in coordination with each other, shall
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA DANTE O.
apprehend violators of PD 979, RA 8550, and other existing Associate
laws and regulations
Justice Associate Justice
designed to prevent marine pollution in the Manila Bay.
(7) Pursuant to Secs. 2 and 6-c of EO 51346 and the International
MINITA Convention for V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B.
the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, the PPA is ordered to immediately
Associate adopt
Justice Associate Justice
such measures to prevent the discharge and dumping of solid and liquid wastes
and other ship-generated wastes into the Manila Bay waters RUBENfrom vessels docked T. REYES TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE
at ports and apprehend the violators. Associate Justice Associate Justice
(8) The MMDA, as the lead agency and implementor of programs and projects for
flood control projects and drainage services in Metro Manila, in coordination with
ARTURO D.
the DPWH, DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, Housing and Urban
Development Coordinating Council (HUDCC), and other Associate Justice
agencies, shall
dismantle and remove all structures, constructions, and other encroachments
established or built in violation of RA 7279, and other applicable laws along the CERTIFICATION
Pasig-Marikina-San Juan Rivers, the NCR (Parañaque-Zapote, Las Piñas) Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that
Rivers, the Navotas-Malabon-Tullahan-Tenejeros Rivers, and connecting the conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the
waterways and esteros in Metro Manila. The DPWH, as the principal implementor case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
of programs and projects for flood control services in the rest of the country more REYNATO S. PUNO
particularly in Bulacan, Bataan, Pampanga, Cavite, and Laguna, in coordination Chief Justice
with the DILG, affected LGUs, PNP Maritime Group, HUDCC, and other
concerned government agencies, shall remove and demolish all structures, Footnotes
constructions, and other encroachments built in breach of RA 7279 and other 1
Now the Department of Education (DepEd).
applicable laws along the Meycauayan-Marilao-Obando (Bulacan) Rivers, the 2
Gore, An Inconvenient Truth 161.
Talisay (Bataan) River, the Imus (Cavite) River, the Laguna De Bay, and other 3
Rollo, p. 74.
rivers, connecting waterways, and esteros that discharge wastewater into the 4
Id. at 53.
Manila Bay. 5
Id. at 109-123. Penned by Executive Judge Lucenito N. Tagle (now
In addition, the MMDA is ordered to establish, operate, and maintain a sanitary retired Court of Appeals Justice).
landfill, as prescribed by RA 9003, within a period of one (1) year from finality of 6
Id. at 47-58. Penned by Associate Justice Eliezer R. De Los Santos
this Decision. On matters within its territorial jurisdiction and in connection with and concurred in by Associate Justices Eugenio S. Labitoria and Jose
the discharge of its duties on the maintenance of sanitary landfills and like C. Reyes, Jr.
undertakings, it is also ordered to cause the apprehension and filing of the 7
Id. at 52.
appropriate criminal cases against violators of the respective penal provisions of 8
Angchangco, Jr. v. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 122728, February 13,
RA 9003,47 Sec. 27 of RA 9275 (the Clean Water Act), and other existing laws on 1997, 268 SCRA 301, 306.
pollution. 9
Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004).
(9) The DOH shall, as directed by Art. 76 of PD 1067 and Sec. 8 of RA 9275, 10
Lamb v. Phipps, 22 Phil. 456, 490 (1912).
within one (1) year from finality of this Decision, determine if all licensed septic 11
G.R. No. 156052, March 7, 2007, 517 SCRA 657, as subsequently
and sludge companies have the proper facilities for the treatment and disposal of reiterated on February 13, 2008.
fecal sludge and sewage coming from septic tanks. The DOH shall give the 12
RA 9003 was approved on January 26, 2001.
companies, if found to be non-complying, a reasonable time within which to set 13
2 Feria Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated.
up the necessary facilities under pain of cancellation of its environmental 14
Black’s Law Dictionary (8th ed., 2004).
sanitation clearance. 15
"Providing for the Reorganization of the [DENR], Renaming it as the
(10) Pursuant to Sec. 53 of PD 1152,48 Sec. 118 of RA 8550, and Sec. 56 of RA Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and for Other
9003,49 the DepEd shall integrate lessons on pollution prevention, waste Purposes."
management, environmental protection, and like subjects in the school curricula 16
Per DENR Secretary Jose Atienza, the DENR is preparing an EO for
of all levels to inculcate in the minds and hearts of students and, through them, the purpose. TSN of oral arguments, p. 118.
their parents and friends, the importance of their duty toward achieving and
17
Per information from the Water Quality Management Section, e) To enforce rules and regulations promulgated by the
Environmental Management Bureau, DENR, as validated by the DENR Authority pursuant to law.
28
Secretary during the oral arguments. TSN, pp. 119-120. "International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from
18
"An Act Creating the [MWSS] and Dissolving the National Ships, 1973 as modified by the Protocol of 1978 Relating Thereto."
29
Waterworks and Sewerage Authority [NAWASA]; and for Other Sec. 10. Role of LGUs in Solid Waste Management.––Pursuant to
Purposes." the relevant provisions of RA No. 7160, otherwise known as the Local
19
Sec. 22. Linkage Mechanism.––The [DENR] and its concerned Government Code, the LGUs shall be primarily responsible for the
attached agencies x x x shall coordinate and enter into agreement with implementation and enforcement of the provisions of this Act within their
other government agencies, industrial sector and other concerned respective jurisdictions.
30
sectors in the furtherance of the objectives of this Act. The following Sec. 72. Scope of Supervision of the Department.––The approval of
agencies shall perform tile functions specified hereunder: the Secretary or his duly authorized representative is required in the
xxxx following matters:
b) DPWH through its attached agencies, such as the MWSS, xxxx
LWUA, and including other urban water utilities for the (g) Method of disposal of sludge from septic tanks or other
provision or sewerage and sanitation facilities and the treatment plants.
31
efficient and safe collection, treatment and disposal of Sec. 5.1.1.a. It shall be unlawful for any person, entity or firm to
sewage within their area of jurisdiction. discharge untreated effluent of septic tanks and/or sewage treatment
20
Book IV, Title IV, Sec. 2. plants to bodies of water without obtaining approval from the Secretary
21
Sec. 14. Monitoring Control and Surveillance of the Philippine of Health or his duly authorized representatives.
32
Waters.––A monitoring, control and surveillance system shall be Sec. 53. Environmental Education.––The [DepEd] shall integrate
established by the [DA] in coordination with LGUs and other agencies subjects on environmental education in its school curricula at all levels.
concerned to ensure that the fisheries and aquatic resources in the It shall also endeavor to conduct special community education
Philippine waters are judiciously and wisely utilized and managed on a emphasizing the relationship of man and nature as well as
sustainable basis x x x. environmental sanitation and practices.
22 33
Sec. 22. Linkage Mechanism.––x x x x Sec. 56. Environmental Education in the Formal and Nonformal
a) Philippine Coast Guard in coordination with DA and DENR Sectors.––The national government, through the [DepEd] and in
shall enforce for the enforcement of water quality standards coordination with concerned government agencies, NGOs and private
in marine waters x x x specifically from offshore sources; institutions, shall strengthen the integration of environmental concerns
xxxx in school curricula at all levels, with particular emphasis on the theory
c) DA, shall coordinate with the DENR, in the formulation of and practice of waste management principles like waste minimization,
guidelines x x x for the prevention, control and abatement of specifically resource conservation and recovery, segregation at source,
pollution from agricultural and aquaculture activities x x x reduction, recycling, re-use, and composing, in order to promote
Provided, further, That the x x x BFAR of the DA shall be environmental awareness and action among the citizenry.
34
primarily responsible for the prevention and control of water Title XVII, Sec. 1. Declaration of Policy.––The national budget shall
pollution for the development, management and be formulated and implemented as an instrument of national
conservation of the fisheries and aquatic resources. development, reflective of national objectives and plans; supportive of
23
Book IV, Title V, Sec. 2. Mandate.––The [DPWH] shall be the State’s and consistent with the socio-economic development plans and
engineering arm and is tasked to carry out the policy enumerated above oriented towards the achievement of explicit objectives and expected
[i.e., the planning, design, construction, and maintenance of results, to ensure that the utilization of funds and operations of
infrastructure facilities, especially x x x flood control and water government entities are conducted effectively; formulated within the
resources development systems]. context of a regionalized governmental structure and within the totality
Sec. 3. Powers and Functions.––The Department, in order to of revenues and other receipts, expenditures and borrowings of all
carry out its mandate, shall: levels of government and of government-owned or controlled
xxxx corporations; and prepared within the context of the national long-term
(2) Develop and implement effective codes, standards, and plans and budget programs of the Government.
35
reasonable guidelines to ensure the safety of all public and Rollo, p. 76.
36
private structures in the country and assure efficiency and Vineet Narain v. Union of India, 1 SCC 226 (1998).
37
proper quality in the construction of public works; M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, 4 SC 463 (1987).
38
(3) Ascertain that all public works plans and project TSN, p. 121.
39
implementation designs are consistent with current Repealed Art. 638 of the Civil Code. See E.L. Pineda, Property 399
standards and guidelines; (1999).
40
xxxx Asian Development Bank, The Garbage Book 44-45 (November
(8) Provide an integrated planning for x x x flood control and 2006).
41
water resource and water resource development systems x x G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792, 805.
42
x. Sec. 25. National Supervision over Local Government Units.––(a)
24
Sec. 6. Enforcement and Implementation.–The [PCG] shall have the Consistent with the basic policy on local autonomy, the President shall
primary responsibility of enforcing the laws, rules and regulations exercise general supervision over local government units to ensure that
governing marine pollution. However, it shall be the joint responsibility their acts are within the scope of their prescribed powers and functions.
43
of the [PCG] and the National Pollution Control Commission to Sec. 8. Domestic Sewage Collection, Treatment and Disposal.––
coordinate and cooperate with each other in the enforcement of the Within five (5) years following the effectivity of this Act, the Agency
provisions of this decree and its implementing rules and regulations, vested to provide water supply and sewerage facilities and/or
and may call upon any other government office, instrumentality or concessionaires in Metro Manila and other highly urbanized cities
agency to extend every assistance in this respect. (HUCs) as defined in [RA] 7160, in coordination with LGUs, shall be
25
Sec. 124. Persons and Deputies Authorized to Enforce this Code x x required to connect the existing sewage line found in all subdivisions,
x.–The law enforcements of the [DA], the Philippine Navy, [PCG, PNP], condominiums, commercial centers, hotels, sports and recreational
PNP-Maritime Command x x x are hereby authorized to enforce this facilities, hospitals, market places, public buildings, industrial complex
Code and other fishery laws x x x. and other similar establishments including households to available
26
<http://www.ppa.com.ph> (visited November 20, 2008). sewerage system. Provided, That the said connection shall be subject
27
EO 513, "Reorganizing the Philippine Ports Authority," Sec. 2 to sewerage services charge/fees in accordance with existing laws,
provides further: rules or regulations unless the sources had already utilized their own
Section 6 is hereby amended by adding a new paragraph to read as sewerage system: Provided, further, That all sources of sewage and
follows: septage shall comply with the requirements herein.
44
Sec. 6-c. Police Authority.–x x x Such police authority shall Supra note 19.
45
include the following: Sec. 65. Functions of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
xxxx Resources.––As a line bureau, the BFAR shall have the following
c) To maintain peace and order inside the port, in functions:
coordination with local police authorities; xxxx
xxxx
 q. assist the LGUs in developing their technical capability in
the development, management, regulation, conservation,
and protection of fishery resources;
xxxx
s. perform such other related function which shall promote
the development, conservation, management, protection and
utilization of fisheries and aquatic resources.
46
Supra notes 26 & 27.
47
Among the prohibited and penalized acts under Sec. 48 of RA 9003
are: (1) littering and dumping of waste matters in public places; (2) open
burning of solid wastes; (3) squatting in open dumps and landfills; (4)
transporting and dumping in bulk of collected domestic, industrial,
commercial and institutional wastes in areas other than centers and
facilities prescribed under the Act; (5) construction or operation of waste
management facilities without an Environmental Compliance
Certificate; and (6) construction or operation of landfills or any waste
disposal facility on any aquifer, groundwater reservoir or watershed
area.
48
Supra note 32.
49
Supra note 33.
 Management; HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health;
Republic of the Philippines HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education and HON.
SUPREME COURT MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
Baguio City Government, Respondents.
EN BANC x---------------------------------x
G.R. No. 204819 April 8, 2014 G.R. No. 205003
JAMES M. IMBONG and LOVELY-ANN C. IMBONG, for themselves and in EXPEDITO A. BUGARIN, JR., Petitioner,
behalf of their minor children, LUCIA CARLOS IMBONG and BERNADETTE vs.
CARLOS IMBONG and MAGNIFICAT CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER, INC., OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Petitioners, HON. SENATE PRESIDENT, HON. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
vs. REPRESENTATIVES and HON. SOLICITOR GENERAL, Respondents.
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. x---------------------------------x
ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE G.R. No. 205043
T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, EDUARDO B. OLAGUER and THE CATHOLIC XYBRSPACE APOSTOLATE
Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioners,
MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local vs.
Government, Respondents. DOH SECRETARY ENRIQUE T. ONA, FDA DIRECTOR SUZETTE H. LAZO,
x---------------------------------x DBM SECRETARY FLORENCIO B. ABAD, DILG SECRETARY MANUELA.
G.R. No. 204934 ROXAS II, DECS SECRETARY ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Respondents.
ALLIANCE FOR THE FAMILY FOUNDATION PHILIPPINES, INC. [ALFI], x---------------------------------x
represented by its President, Maria Concepcion S. Noche, Spouses G.R. No. 205138
Reynaldo S. Luistro & Rosie B . Luistro, Jose S. Sandejas & Elenita S.A. PHILIPPINE ALLIANCE OF XSEMINARIANS, INC. (PAX), herein represented
Sandejas, Arturo M. Gorrez & Marietta C. Gorrez, Salvador S. Mante, Jr. & by its National President, Atty. Ricardo M . Ribo, and in his own behalf, Atty.
Hazeleen L. Mante, Rolando M. Bautista & Maria Felisa S. Bautista, Desiderio Lino E.A. Dumas, Romeo B. Almonte, Osmundo C. Orlanes, Arsenio Z.
Racho & Traquilina Racho, F emand Antonio A. Tansingco & Carol Anne C. Menor, Samuel J. Yap, Jaime F. Mateo, Rolly Siguan, Dante E. Magdangal,
Tansingco for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Therese Michael Eugenio O. Plana, Bienvenido C. Miguel, Jr., Landrito M. Diokno and
Antonette C. Tansingco, Lorenzo Jose C. Tansingco, Miguel F emando C. Baldomero Falcone, Petitioners,
Tangsingco, Carlo Josemaria C. Tansingco & Juan Paolo C. Tansingco, vs.
Spouses Mariano V. Araneta & Eileen Z. Araneta for themselves and on HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B.
behalf of their minor children, Ramon Carlos Z. Araneta & Maya Angelica Z. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE
Araneta, Spouses Renato C. Castor & Mildred C. Castor for themselves and T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO,
on behalf of their minor children, Renz Jeffrey C. Castor, Joseph Ramil C. Secretary, Department of Education, HON. MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary,
Castor, John Paul C. Castor & Raphael C. Castor, Spouses Alexander R. Department of Interior and Local Government, HON. CORAZON J. SOLIMAN,
Racho & Zara Z. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor children Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Development, HON. ARSENIO
Margarita Racho, Mikaela Racho, Martin Racho, Mari Racho & Manolo BALISACAN, Director-General, National Economic and Development
Racho, Spouses Alfred R. Racho & Francine V. Racho for themselves and Authority, HON. SUZETTE H. LAZO, Director-General, Food and Drugs
on behalf of their minor children Michael Racho, Mariana Racho, Rafael Administration, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, Philippine Health Insurance
Racho, Maxi Racho, Chessie Racho & Laura Racho, Spouses David R. Corporation, and THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Philippine
Racho & Armilyn A. Racho for themselves and on behalf of their minor child Commission on Women, Respondents.
Gabriel Racho, Mindy M. Juatas and on behalf of her minor children Elijah x---------------------------------x
Gerald Juatas and Elian Gabriel Juatas, Salvacion M. Monteiro, Emily R. G.R. No. 205478
Laws, Joseph R . Laws & Katrina R. Laws, Petitioners, REYNALDO J. ECHAVEZ, M.D., JACQUELINE H. KING, M.D., CYNTHIA T.
vs. DOMINGO, M.D., AND JOSEPHINE MILLADO-LUMITAO, M.D., collectively
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T. known as Doctors For Life, and ANTHONY PEREZ, MICHAEL ANTHONY G.
ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, MAPA, CARLOS ANTONIO PALAD, WILFREDO JOSE, CLAIRE NAVARRO,
Department of Education, Culture and Sports, HON. CORAZON SOLIMAN, ANNA COSIO, and GABRIEL DY LIACCO collectively known as Filipinos For
Secretary, Department of Social Welfare and Development, HON. MANUELA. Life, Petitioners,
ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, HON. vs.
FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B.
HON. ARSENIO M. BALISACAN, Socio-Economic Planning Secretary and ABAD, Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management; HON.
NEDA Director-General, THE PHILIPPINE COMMISSION ON WOMEN, ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary of the Department of Health; HON. ARMIN A.
represented by its Chairperson, Remedios lgnacio-Rikken, THE PHILIPPINE LUISTRO, Secretary of the Department of Education; and HON. MANUELA.
HEALTH INSURANCE CORPORATION, represented by its President ROXAS II, Secretary of the Department of Interior and Local Government,
Eduardo Banzon, THE LEAGUE OF PROVINCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
represented by its President Alfonso Umali, THE LEAGUE OF CITIES OF x---------------------------------x
THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President Oscar Rodriguez, and THE G.R. No. 205491
LEAGUE OF MUNICIPALITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. TATAD AND MARIA FENNY C. TATAD & ALA F.
President Donato Marcos, Respondents. PAGUIA, for themselves, their Posterity, and the rest of Filipino posterity,
x---------------------------------x Petitioners,
G.R. No. 204957 vs.
TASK FORCE FOR FAMILY AND LIFE VISAYAS, INC. and VALERIANO S. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT of the Republic of the Philippines, Respondent.
AVILA, Petitioners, x---------------------------------x
vs. G.R. No. 205720
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary; HON. FLORENCIO B. PRO-LIFE PHILIPPINES FOUNDATION, Inc., represented by Loma Melegrito,
ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management; HON. ENRIQUE as Executive Director, and in her personal capacity, JOSELYN B. BASILIO,
T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Education; and HON. MANUELA. ROXAS ROBERT Z. CORTES, ARIEL A. CRISOSTOMO, JEREMY I. GATDULA,
II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, Respondents. CRISTINA A. MONTES, RAUL ANTONIO A. NIDOY, WINSTON CONRAD B.
x---------------------------------x PADOJINOG, RUFINO L. POLICARPIO III, Petitioners,
G.R. No. 204988 vs.
SERVE LIFE CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, INC., represented by Dr. Nestor B. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF
Lumicao, M.D., as President and in his personal capacity, ROSEVALE REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary,
FOUNDATION INC., represented by Dr. Rodrigo M. Alenton, M.D., as member HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
of the school board and in his personal capacity, ROSEMARIE R. ALENTON, Management, HON. ENRIQUE T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health,
IMELDA G. IBARRA, CPA, LOVENIAP. NACES, Phd., ANTHONY G. NAGAC, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, Secretary, Department of Education and HON.
EARL ANTHONY C. GAMBE and MARLON I. YAP, Petitioners, MANUEL A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local
vs. Government, Respondents.
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HOUSE OF x---------------------------------x
REPRESENTATIVES, HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 206355
HON. FLORENCIO B. ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and
MILLENNIUM SAINT FOUNDATION, INC., ATTY. RAMON PEDROSA, ATTY. the iuris controversy, as presented in fourteen (14) petitions and two (2) petitions-
CITA BORROMEO-GARCIA, STELLAACEDERA, ATTY. BERTENI in-intervention, to wit:
CATALUNA CAUSING, Petitioners, (1) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,5 filed by spouses Attys.
vs. James M. Imbong and Lovely Ann C. Imbong, in their personal
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, capacities as citizens, lawyers and taxpayers and on behalf of their
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Respondents. minor children; and the Magnificat Child Leaming Center, Inc., a
x---------------------------------x domestic, privately-owned educational institution (Jmbong);
G.R. No. 207111 (2) Petition for Prohibition,6 filed by the Alliance for the Family
JOHN WALTER B. JUAT, MARY M. IMBONG, ANTHONY VICTORIO B. Foundation Philippines, Inc., through its president, Atty. Maria
LUMICAO, JOSEPH MARTIN Q. VERDEJO, ANTONIA EMMA R. ROXAS and Concepcion S. Noche7 and several others8 in their personal capacities
LOTA LAT-GUERRERO, Petitioners, as citizens and on behalf of the generations unborn (ALFI);
vs. (3) Petition for Certiorari,9 filed by the Task Force for Family and Life
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO Visayas, Inc., and Valeriano S. Avila, in their capacities as citizens and
ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE taxpayers (Task Force Family);
T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, (4) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,10 filed by Serve Life Cagayan
Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. MANUEL De Oro City, Inc.,11 Rosevale Foundation, Inc.,12 a domestic, privately-
A. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, owned educational institution, and several others,13 in their capacities
Respondents. as citizens (Serve Life);
x---------------------------------x (5) Petition,14 filed by Expedito A. Bugarin, Jr. in his capacity as a
G.R. No. 207172 citizen (Bugarin);
COUPLES FOR CHRIST FOUNDATION, INC., SPOUSES JUAN CARLOS (6) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,15 filed by Eduardo Olaguer
ARTADI SARMIENTO AND FRANCESCA ISABELLE BESINGA-SARMIENTO, and the Catholic Xybrspace Apostolate of the Philippines,16 in their
AND SPOUSES LUIS FRANCIS A. RODRIGO, JR. and DEBORAH MARIE capacities as a citizens and taxpayers (Olaguer);
VERONICA N. RODRIGO, Petitioners, (7) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,17 filed by the Philippine
vs. Alliance of Xseminarians Inc.,18 and several others19 in their
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. FLORENCIO B. capacities as citizens and taxpayers (PAX);
ABAD, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, HON. ENRIQUE (8) Petition,20 filed by Reynaldo J. Echavez, M.D. and several
T. ONA, Secretary, Department of Health, HON. ARMIN A. LUISTRO, others,21 in their capacities as citizens and taxpayers (Echavez);
Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and HON. (9) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,22 filed by spouses Francisco
MANUELA. ROXAS II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local and Maria Fenny C. Tatad and Atty. Alan F. Paguia, in their capacities
Government, Respondents. as citizens, taxpayers and on behalf of those yet unborn. Atty. Alan F.
x---------------------------------x Paguia is also proceeding in his capacity as a member of the Bar
G.R. No. 207563 (Tatad);
ALMARIM CENTI TILLAH and ABDULHUSSEIN M. KASHIM, Petitioners, (10) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,23 filed by Pro-Life
vs. Philippines Foundation Inc.24 and several others,25 in their capacities
HON. PAQUITO N. OCHOA, JR., Executive Secretary, HON. ENRIQUE T. as citizens and taxpayers and on behalf of its associates who are
ONA, Secretary of the Department of Health, and HON. ARMIN A. members of the Bar (Pro-Life);
LUISTRO,Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management, (11) Petition for Prohibition,26 filed by Millennium Saint Foundation,
Respondents. Inc.,27 Attys. Ramon Pedrosa, Cita Borromeo-Garcia, Stella Acedera,
DECISION and Berteni Catalufia Causing, in their capacities as citizens, taxpayers
MENDOZA, J.: and members of the Bar (MSF);
Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our (12) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,28 filed by John Walter B.
fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status, Juat and several others,29 in their capacities as citizens (Juat) ;
well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of (13) Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition,30 filed by Couples for Christ
conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his Foundation, Inc. and several others,31 in their capacities as citizens
beliefs , and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of (CFC);
others and with the common good."1 (14) Petition for Prohibition32 filed by Almarim Centi Tillah and
To this day, poverty is still a major stumbling block to the nation's emergence as Abdulhussein M. Kashim in their capacities as citizens and taxpayers
a developed country, leaving our people beleaguered in a state of hunger, (Tillah); and
illiteracy and unemployment. While governmental policies have been geared (15) Petition-In-Intervention,33 filed by Atty. Samson S. Alcantara in his
towards the revitalization of the economy, the bludgeoning dearth in social capacity as a citizen and a taxpayer (Alcantara); and
services remains to be a problem that concerns not only the poor, but every (16) Petition-In-Intervention,34 filed by Buhay Hayaang Yumabong (B
member of society. The government continues to tread on a trying path to the UHAY) , an accredited political party.
realization of its very purpose, that is, the general welfare of the Filipino people A perusal of the foregoing petitions shows that the petitioners are assailing the
and the development of the country as a whole. The legislative branch, as the constitutionality of RH Law on the following GROUNDS:
main facet of a representative government, endeavors to enact laws and policies • The RH Law violates the right to life of the unborn. According to the
that aim to remedy looming societal woes, while the executive is closed set to fully petitioners, notwithstanding its declared policy against abortion, the
implement these measures and bring concrete and substantial solutions within implementation of the RH Law would authorize the purchase of
the reach of Juan dela Cruz. Seemingly distant is the judicial branch, oftentimes hormonal contraceptives, intra-uterine devices and injectables which
regarded as an inert governmental body that merely casts its watchful eyes on are abortives, in violation of Section 12, Article II of the Constitution
clashing stakeholders until it is called upon to adjudicate. Passive, yet reflexive which guarantees protection of both the life of the mother and the life of
when called into action, the Judiciary then willingly embarks on its solemn duty to the unborn from conception.35
interpret legislation vis-a-vis the most vital and enduring principle that holds • The RH Law violates the right to health and the right to protection
Philippine society together - the supremacy of the Philippine Constitution. against hazardous products. The petitioners posit that the RH Law
Nothing has polarized the nation more in recent years than the issues of provides universal access to contraceptives which are hazardous to
population growth control, abortion and contraception. As in every democratic one's health, as it causes cancer and other health problems.36
society, diametrically opposed views on the subjects and their perceived • The RH Law violates the right to religious freedom. The petitioners
consequences freely circulate in various media. From television debates2 to contend that the RH Law violates the constitutional guarantee
sticker campaigns,3 from rallies by socio-political activists to mass gatherings respecting religion as it authorizes the use of public funds for the
organized by members of the clergy4 - the clash between the seemingly procurement of contraceptives. For the petitioners, the use of public
antithetical ideologies of the religious conservatives and progressive liberals has funds for purposes that are believed to be contrary to their beliefs is
caused a deep division in every level of the society. Despite calls to withhold included in the constitutional mandate ensuring religious freedom.37
support thereto, however, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10354, otherwise known as the It is also contended that the RH Law threatens conscientious objectors of criminal
Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012 (RH Law), was prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of punishment, as it compels medical
enacted by Congress on December 21, 2012. practitioners 1] to refer patients who seek advice on reproductive health programs
Shortly after the President placed his imprimatur on the said law, challengers from to other doctors; and 2] to provide full and correct information on reproductive
various sectors of society came knocking on the doors of the Court, beckoning it health programs and service, although it is against their religious beliefs and
to wield the sword that strikes down constitutional disobedience. Aware of the convictions.38
profound and lasting impact that its decision may produce, the Court now faces
In this connection, Section 5 .23 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of filed their respective Comments-in-Intervention in conjunction with several others.
the RH Law (RH-IRR),39 provides that skilled health professionals who are public On June 4, 2013, Senator Pia Juliana S. Cayetano was also granted leave to
officers such as, but not limited to, Provincial, City, or Municipal Health Officers, intervene.61
medical officers, medical specialists, rural health physicians, hospital staff nurses, The respondents, aside from traversing the substantive arguments of the
public health nurses, or rural health midwives, who are specifically charged with petitioners, pray for the dismissal of the petitions for the principal reasons that 1]
the duty to implement these Rules, cannot be considered as conscientious there is no actual case or controversy and, therefore, the issues are not yet ripe
objectors.40 for judicial determination.; 2] some petitioners lack standing to question the RH
It is also argued that the RH Law providing for the formulation of mandatory sex Law; and 3] the petitions are essentially petitions for declaratory relief over which
education in schools should not be allowed as it is an affront to their religious the Court has no original jurisdiction.
beliefs.41 Meanwhile, on March 15, 2013, the RH-IRR for the enforcement of the assailed
While the petit10ners recognize that the guarantee of religious freedom is not legislation took effect.
absolute, they argue that the RH Law fails to satisfy the "clear and present danger On March 19, 2013, after considering the issues and arguments raised, the Court
test" and the "compelling state interest test" to justify the regulation of the right to issued the Status Quo Ante Order (SQAO), enjoining the effects and
free exercise of religion and the right to free speech.42 implementation of the assailed legislation for a period of one hundred and twenty
• The RH Law violates the constitutional provision on involuntary (120) days, or until July 17, 2013.62
servitude. According to the petitioners, the RH Law subjects medical On May 30, 2013, the Court held a preliminary conference with the counsels of
practitioners to involuntary servitude because, to be accredited under the parties to determine and/or identify the pertinent issues raised by the parties
the PhilHealth program, they are compelled to provide forty-eight (48) and the sequence by which these issues were to be discussed in the oral
hours of pro bona services for indigent women, under threat of criminal arguments. On July 9 and 23, 2013, and on August 6, 13, and 27, 2013, the cases
prosecution, imprisonment and other forms of punishment.43 were heard on oral argument. On July 16, 2013, the SQAO was ordered extended
The petitioners explain that since a majority of patients are covered by PhilHealth, until further orders of the Court.63
a medical practitioner would effectively be forced to render reproductive health Thereafter, the Court directed the parties to submit their respective memoranda
services since the lack of PhilHealth accreditation would mean that the majority of within sixty (60) days and, at the same time posed several questions for their
the public would no longer be able to avail of the practitioners services.44 clarification on some contentions of the parties.64
• The RH Law violates the right to equal protection of the law. It is The Status Quo Ante
claimed that the RH Law discriminates against the poor as it makes (Population, Contraceptive and Reproductive Health Laws
them the primary target of the government program that promotes Prior to the RH Law
contraceptive use. The petitioners argue that, rather than promoting Long before the incipience of the RH Law, the country has allowed the sale,
reproductive health among the poor, the RH Law seeks to introduce dispensation and distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices. As far back as
contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number of the poor.45 June 18, 1966, the country enacted R.A. No. 4729 entitled "An Act to Regu,late
• The RH Law is "void-for-vagueness" in violation of the due process the Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices."
clause of the Constitution. In imposing the penalty of imprisonment Although contraceptive drugs and devices were allowed, they could not be sold,
and/or fine for "any violation," it is vague because it does not define the dispensed or distributed "unless such sale, dispensation and distribution is by a
type of conduct to be treated as "violation" of the RH Law.46 duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of
In this connection, it is claimed that "Section 7 of the RH Law violates the right to a qualified medical practitioner."65
due process by removing from them (the people) the right to manage their own In addition, R.A. No. 5921,66 approved on June 21, 1969, contained provisions
affairs and to decide what kind of health facility they shall be and what kind of relative to "dispensing of abortifacients or anti-conceptional substances and
services they shall offer."47 It ignores the management prerogative inherent in devices." Under Section 37 thereof, it was provided that "no drug or chemical
corporations for employers to conduct their affairs in accordance with their own product or device capable of provoking abortion or preventing conception as
discretion and judgment. classified by the Food and Drug Administration shall be delivered or sold to any
• The RH Law violates the right to free speech. To compel a person to person without a proper prescription by a duly licensed physician."
explain a full range of family planning methods is plainly to curtail his On December 11, 1967, the Philippines, adhering to the UN Declaration on
right to expound only his own preferred way of family planning. The Population, which recognized that the population problem should be considered
petitioners note that although exemption is granted to institutions owned as the principal element for long-term economic development, enacted measures
and operated by religious groups, they are still forced to refer their that promoted male vasectomy and tubal ligation to mitigate population growth.67
patients to another healthcare facility willing to perform the service or Among these measures included R.A. No. 6365, approved on August 16, 1971,
procedure.48 entitled "An Act Establishing a National Policy on Population, Creating the
• The RH Law intrudes into the zone of privacy of one's family protected Commission on Population and for Other Purposes. " The law envisioned that
by the Constitution. It is contended that the RH Law providing for "family planning will be made part of a broad educational program; safe and
mandatory reproductive health education intrudes upon their effective means will be provided to couples desiring to space or limit family size;
constitutional right to raise their children in accordance with their mortality and morbidity rates will be further reduced."
beliefs.49 To further strengthen R.A. No. 6365, then President Ferdinand E . Marcos issued
It is claimed that, by giving absolute authority to the person who will undergo Presidential Decree. (P.D.) No. 79,68 dated December 8, 1972, which, among
reproductive health procedure, the RH Law forsakes any real dialogue between others, made "family planning a part of a broad educational program," provided
the spouses and impedes the right of spouses to mutually decide on matters "family planning services as a part of over-all health care," and made "available
pertaining to the overall well-being of their family. In the same breath, it is also all acceptable methods of contraception, except abortion, to all Filipino citizens
claimed that the parents of a child who has suffered a miscarriage are deprived desirous of spacing, limiting or preventing pregnancies."
of parental authority to determine whether their child should use contraceptives.50 Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives and family planning
• The RH Law violates the constitutional principle of non-delegation of methods evolved from being a component of demographic management, to one
legislative authority. The petitioners question the delegation by centered on the promotion of public health, particularly, reproductive health.69
Congress to the FDA of the power to determine whether a product is Under that policy, the country gave priority to one's right to freely choose the
non-abortifacient and to be included in the Emergency Drugs List method of family planning to be adopted, in conformity with its adherence to the
(EDL).51 commitments made in the International Conference on Population and
• The RH Law violates the one subject/one bill rule provision under Development.70 Thus, on August 14, 2009, the country enacted R.A. No. 9710 or
Section 26( 1 ), Article VI of the Constitution.52 "The Magna Carta for Women, " which, among others, mandated the State to
• The RH Law violates Natural Law.53 provide for comprehensive health services and programs for women, including
• The RH Law violates the principle of Autonomy of Local Government family planning and sex education.71
Units (LGUs) and the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao The RH Law
{ARMM). It is contended that the RH Law, providing for reproductive Despite the foregoing legislative measures, the population of the country kept on
health measures at the local government level and the ARMM, infringes galloping at an uncontrollable pace. From a paltry number of just over 27 million
upon the powers devolved to LGUs and the ARMM under the Local Filipinos in 1960, the population of the country reached over 76 million in the year
Government Code and R.A . No. 9054.54 2000 and over 92 million in 2010.72 The executive and the legislative, thus, felt
Various parties also sought and were granted leave to file their respective that the measures were still not adequate. To rein in the problem, the RH Law
comments-in-intervention in defense of the constitutionality of the RH Law. Aside was enacted to provide Filipinos, especially the poor and the marginalized, access
from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) which commented on the petitions and information to the full range of modem family planning methods, and to ensure
in behalf of the respondents,55 Congressman Edcel C. Lagman,56 former officials that its objective to provide for the peoples' right to reproductive health be
of the Department of Health Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. achieved. To make it more effective, the RH Law made it mandatory for health
Alberto G. Romualdez,57 the Filipino Catholic Voices for Reproductive Health providers to provide information on the full range of modem family planning
(C4RH),58 Ana Theresa "Risa" Hontiveros,59 and Atty. Joan De Venecia60 also methods, supplies and services, and for schools to provide reproductive health
education. To put teeth to it, the RH Law criminalizes certain acts of refusals to one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.84
carry out its mandates. The Constitution has truly blocked out with deft strokes and in bold lines, the
Stated differently, the RH Law is an enhancement measure to fortify and make allotment of powers among the three branches of government.85
effective the current laws on contraception, women's health and population In its relationship with its co-equals, the Judiciary recognizes the doctrine of
control. separation of powers which imposes upon the courts proper restraint, born of the
Prayer of the Petitioners - Maintain the Status Quo nature of their functions and of their respect for the other branches of government,
The petitioners are one in praying that the entire RH Law be declared in striking down the acts of the Executive or the Legislature as unconstitutional.
unconstitutional. Petitioner ALFI, in particular, argues that the government Verily, the policy is a harmonious blend of courtesy and caution.86
sponsored contraception program, the very essence of the RH Law, violates the It has also long been observed, however, that in times of social disquietude or
right to health of women and the sanctity of life, which the State is mandated to political instability, the great landmarks of the Constitution are apt to be forgotten
protect and promote. Thus, ALFI prays that "the status quo ante - the situation or marred, if not entirely obliterated.87 In order to address this, the Constitution
prior to the passage of the RH Law - must be maintained."73 It explains: impresses upon the Court to respect the acts performed by a co-equal branch
x x x. The instant Petition does not question contraception and contraceptives per done within its sphere of competence and authority, but at the same time, allows
se. As provided under Republic Act No. 5921 and Republic Act No. 4729, the sale it to cross the line of separation - but only at a very limited and specific point - to
and distribution of contraceptives are prohibited unless dispensed by a determine whether the acts of the executive and the legislative branches are null
prescription duly licensed by a physician. What the Petitioners find deplorable and because they were undertaken with grave abuse of discretion.88 Thus, while the
repugnant under the RH Law is the role that the State and its agencies - the entire Court may not pass upon questions of wisdom, justice or expediency of the RH
bureaucracy, from the cabinet secretaries down to the barangay officials in the Law, it may do so where an attendant unconstitutionality or grave abuse of
remotest areas of the country - is made to play in the implementation of the discretion results.89 The Court must demonstrate its unflinching commitment to
contraception program to the fullest extent possible using taxpayers' money. The protect those cherished rights and principles embodied in the Constitution.
State then will be the funder and provider of all forms of family planning methods In this connection, it bears adding that while the scope of judicial power of review
and the implementer of the program by ensuring the widespread dissemination may be limited, the Constitution makes no distinction as to the kind of legislation
of, and universal access to, a full range of family planning methods, devices and that may be subject to judicial scrutiny, be it in the form of social legislation or
supplies.74 otherwise. The reason is simple and goes back to the earlier point. The Court may
ISSUES pass upon the constitutionality of acts of the legislative and the executive
After a scrutiny of the various arguments and contentions of the parties, the Court branches, since its duty is not to review their collective wisdom but, rather, to make
has synthesized and refined them to the following principal issues: sure that they have acted in consonance with their respective authorities and
I. PROCEDURAL: Whether the Court may exercise its power of judicial review rights as mandated of them by the Constitution. If after said review, the Court finds
over the controversy. no constitutional violations of any sort, then, it has no more authority of proscribing
1] Power of Judicial Review the actions under review.90 This is in line with Article VIII, Section 1 of the
2] Actual Case or Controversy Constitution which expressly provides:
3] Facial Challenge Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such
4] Locus Standi lower courts as may be established by law.
5] Declaratory Relief Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual
6] One Subject/One Title Rule controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and
II. SUBSTANTIVE: Whether the RH law is unconstitutional: to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting
1] Right to Life to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the
2] Right to Health Government. [Emphases supplied]
3] Freedom of Religion and the Right to Free Speech As far back as Tanada v. Angara,91 the Court has unequivocally declared that
4] The Family certiorari, prohibition and mandamus are appropriate remedies to raise
5] Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom constitutional issues and to review and/or prohibit/nullify, when proper, acts of
6] Due Process legislative and executive officials, as there is no other plain, speedy or adequate
7] Equal Protection remedy in the ordinary course of law. This ruling was later on applied in Macalintal
8] Involuntary Servitude v. COMELEC,92 Aldaba v. COMELEC,93 Magallona v. Ermita,94 and countless
9] Delegation of Authority to the FDA others. In Tanada, the Court wrote:
10] Autonomy of Local Govemments/ARMM In seeking to nullify an act of the Philippine Senate on the ground that it
DISCUSSION contravenes the Constitution, the petition no doubt raises a justiciable
Before delving into the constitutionality of the RH Law and its implementing rules, controversy. Where an action of the legislative branch is seriously alleged to have
it behooves the Court to resolve some procedural impediments. infringed the Constitution, it becomes not only the right but in fact the duty of the
I. PROCEDURAL ISSUE: Whether the Court can exercise its power of judicial judiciary to settle the dispute. "The question thus posed is judicial rather than
review over the controversy. political. The duty (to adjudicate) remains to assure that the supremacy of the
The Power of Judicial Review Constitution is upheld. " Once a "controversy as to the application or interpretation
In its attempt to persuade the Court to stay its judicial hand, the OSG asserts that of constitutional provision is raised before this Court (as in the instant case), it
it should submit to the legislative and political wisdom of Congress and respect becomes a legal issue which the Court is bound by constitutional mandate to
the compromises made in the crafting of the RH Law, it being "a product of a decide. [Emphasis supplied]
majoritarian democratic process"75 and "characterized by an inordinate amount In the scholarly estimation of former Supreme Court Justice Florentino Feliciano,
of transparency."76 The OSG posits that the authority of the Court to review social "judicial review is essential for the maintenance and enforcement of the separation
legislation like the RH Law by certiorari is "weak," since the Constitution vests the of powers and the balancing of powers among the three great departments of
discretion to implement the constitutional policies and positive norms with the government through the definition and maintenance of the boundaries of authority
political departments, in particular, with Congress.77 It further asserts that in view and control between them. To him, judicial review is the chief, indeed the only,
of the Court's ruling in Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,78 the medium of participation - or instrument of intervention - of the judiciary in that
remedies of certiorari and prohibition utilized by the petitioners are improper to balancing operation.95
assail the validity of the acts of the legislature.79 Lest it be misunderstood, it bears emphasizing that the Court does not have the
Moreover, the OSG submits that as an "as applied challenge," it cannot prosper unbridled authority to rule on just any and every claim of constitutional violation.
considering that the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied to the Jurisprudence is replete with the rule that the power of judicial review is limited by
petitioners, and that the government has yet to distribute reproductive health four exacting requisites, viz : (a) there must be an actual case or controversy; (b)
devices that are abortive. It claims that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on its the petitioners must possess locus standi; (c) the question of constitutionality must
face" as it is not a speech-regulating measure.80 be raised at the earliest opportunity; and (d) the issue of constitutionality must be
In many cases involving the determination of the constitutionality of the actions of the lis mota of the case.96
the Executive and the Legislature, it is often sought that the Court temper its Actual Case or Controversy
exercise of judicial power and accord due respect to the wisdom of its co-equal Proponents of the RH Law submit that the subj ect petitions do not present any
branch on the basis of the principle of separation of powers. To be clear, the actual case or controversy because the RH Law has yet to be implemented.97
separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government, They claim that the questions raised by the petitions are not yet concrete and ripe
which obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our for adjudication since no one has been charged with violating any of its provisions
Constitution. Each department of the government has exclusive cognizance of and that there is no showing that any of the petitioners' rights has been adversely
matters within its jurisdiction and is supreme within its own sphere.81 affected by its operation.98 In short, it is contended that judicial review of the RH
Thus, the 1987 Constitution provides that: (a) the legislative power shall be vested Law is premature.
in the Congress of the Philippines;82 (b) the executive power shall be vested in An actual case or controversy means an existing case or controversy that is
the President of the Philippines;83 and (c) the judicial power shall be vested in appropriate or ripe for determination, not conjectural or anticipatory, lest the
decision of the court would amount to an advisory opinion.99 The rule is that them,111 and the government has yet to distribute reproductive health devices
courts do not sit to adjudicate mere academic questions to satisfy scholarly that are abortive.112
interest, however intellectually challenging. The controversy must be justiciable- The petitioners, for their part, invariably invoke the "transcendental importance"
definite and concrete, touching on the legal relations of parties having adverse doctrine and their status as citizens and taxpayers in establishing the requisite
legal interests. In other words, the pleadings must show an active antagonistic locus standi.
assertion of a legal right, on the one hand, and a denial thereof, on the other; that Locus standi or legal standing is defined as a personal and substantial interest in
is, it must concern a real, tangible and not merely a theoretical question or issue. a case such that the party has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result of
There ought to be an actual and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief the challenged governmental act.113 It requires a personal stake in the outcome
through a decree conclusive in nature, as distinguished from an opinion advising of the controversy as to assure the concrete adverseness which sharpens the
what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.100 presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of
Corollary to the requirement of an actual case or controversy is the requirement difficult constitutional questions.114
of ripeness.101 A question is ripe for adjudication when the act being challenged In relation to locus standi, the "as applied challenge" embodies the rule that one
has had a direct adverse effect on the individual challenging it. For a case to be can challenge the constitutionality of a statute only if he asserts a violation of his
considered ripe for adjudication, it is a prerequisite that something has then been own rights. The rule prohibits one from challenging the constitutionality of the
accomplished or performed by either branch before a court may come into the statute grounded on a violation of the rights of third persons not before the court.
picture, and the petitioner must allege the existence of an immediate or threatened This rule is also known as the prohibition against third-party standing.115
injury to himself as a result of the challenged action. He must show that he has Transcendental Importance
sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result Notwithstanding, the Court leans on the doctrine that "the rule on standing is a
of the act complained of102 matter of procedure, hence, can be relaxed for non-traditional plaintiffs like
In The Province of North Cotabato v. The Government of the Republic of the ordinary citizens, taxpayers, and legislators when the public interest so requires,
Philippines,103 where the constitutionality of an unimplemented Memorandum of such as when the matter is of transcendental importance, of overreaching
Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) was put in question, it was argued significance to society, or of paramount public interest."116
that the Court has no authority to pass upon the issues raised as there was yet In Coconut Oil Refiners Association, Inc. v. Torres,117 the Court held that in cases
no concrete act performed that could possibly violate the petitioners' and the of paramount importance where serious constitutional questions are involved, the
intervenors' rights. Citing precedents, the Court ruled that the fact of the law or act standing requirement may be relaxed and a suit may be allowed to prosper even
in question being not yet effective does not negate ripeness. Concrete acts under where there is no direct injury to the party claiming the right of judicial review. In
a law are not necessary to render the controversy ripe. Even a singular violation the first Emergency Powers Cases,118 ordinary citizens and taxpayers were
of the Constitution and/or the law is enough to awaken judicial duty. allowed to question the constitutionality of several executive orders although they
In this case, the Court is of the view that an actual case or controversy exists and had only an indirect and general interest shared in common with the public.
that the same is ripe for judicial determination. Considering that the RH Law and With these said, even if the constitutionality of the RH Law may not be assailed
its implementing rules have already taken effect and that budgetary measures to through an "as-applied challenge, still, the Court has time and again acted liberally
carry out the law have already been passed, it is evident that the subject petitions on the locus s tandi requirement. It has accorded certain individuals standing to
present a justiciable controversy. As stated earlier, when an action of the sue, not otherwise directly injured or with material interest affected by a
legislative branch is seriously alleged to have infringed the Constitution, it not only Government act, provided a constitutional issue of transcendental importance is
becomes a right, but also a duty of the Judiciary to settle the dispute.104 invoked. The rule on locus standi is, after all, a procedural technicality which the
Moreover, the petitioners have shown that the case is so because medical Court has, on more than one occasion, waived or relaxed, thus allowing non-
practitioners or medical providers are in danger of being criminally prosecuted traditional plaintiffs, such as concerned citizens, taxpayers, voters or legislators,
under the RH Law for vague violations thereof, particularly public health officers to sue in the public interest, albeit they may not have been directly injured by the
who are threatened to be dismissed from the service with forfeiture of retirement operation of a law or any other government act. As held in Jaworski v.
and other benefits. They must, at least, be heard on the matter NOW. PAGCOR:119
Facial Challenge Granting arguendo that the present action cannot be properly treated as a petition
The OSG also assails the propriety of the facial challenge lodged by the subject for prohibition, the transcendental importance of the issues involved in this case
petitions, contending that the RH Law cannot be challenged "on its face" as it is warrants that we set aside the technical defects and take primary jurisdiction over
not a speech regulating measure.105 the petition at bar. One cannot deny that the issues raised herein have potentially
The Court is not persuaded. pervasive influence on the social and moral well being of this nation, specially the
In United States (US) constitutional law, a facial challenge, also known as a First youth; hence, their proper and just determination is an imperative need. This is in
Amendment Challenge, is one that is launched to assail the validity of statutes accordance with the well-entrenched principle that rules of procedure are not
concerning not only protected speech, but also all other rights in the First inflexible tools designed to hinder or delay, but to facilitate and promote the
Amendment.106 These include religious freedom, freedom of the press, and the administration of justice. Their strict and rigid application, which would result in
right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a technicalities that tend to frustrate, rather than promote substantial justice, must
redress of grievances.107 After all, the fundamental right to religious freedom, always be eschewed. (Emphasis supplied)
freedom of the press and peaceful assembly are but component rights of the right In view of the seriousness, novelty and weight as precedents, not only to the
to one's freedom of expression, as they are modes which one's thoughts are public, but also to the bench and bar, the issues raised must be resolved for the
externalized. guidance of all. After all, the RH Law drastically affects the constitutional
In this jurisdiction, the application of doctrines originating from the U.S. has been provisions on the right to life and health, the freedom of religion and expression
generally maintained, albeit with some modifications. While this Court has and other constitutional rights. Mindful of all these and the fact that the issues of
withheld the application of facial challenges to strictly penal statues,108 it has contraception and reproductive health have already caused deep division among
expanded its scope to cover statutes not only regulating free speech, but also a broad spectrum of society, the Court entertains no doubt that the petitions raise
those involving religious freedom, and other fundamental rights.109 The issues of transcendental importance warranting immediate court adjudication.
underlying reason for this modification is simple. For unlike its counterpart in the More importantly, considering that it is the right to life of the mother and the unborn
U.S., this Court, under its expanded jurisdiction, is mandated by the Fundamental which is primarily at issue, the Court need not wait for a life to be taken away
Law not only to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally before taking action.
demandable and enforceable, but also to determine whether or not there has been The Court cannot, and should not, exercise judicial restraint at this time when
a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part rights enshrined in the Constitution are being imperilled to be violated. To do so,
of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.110 Verily, the framers of Our when the life of either the mother or her child is at stake, would lead to irreparable
Constitution envisioned a proactive Judiciary, ever vigilant with its duty to maintain consequences.
the supremacy of the Constitution. Declaratory Relief
Consequently, considering that the foregoing petitions have seriously alleged that The respondents also assail the petitions because they are essentially petitions
the constitutional human rights to life, speech and religion and other fundamental for declaratory relief over which the Court has no original jurisdiction.120 Suffice
rights mentioned above have been violated by the assailed legislation, the Court it to state that most of the petitions are praying for injunctive reliefs and so the
has authority to take cognizance of these kindred petitions and to determine if the Court would just consider them as petitions for prohibition under Rule 65, over
RH Law can indeed pass constitutional scrutiny. To dismiss these petitions on the which it has original jurisdiction. Where the case has far-reaching implications and
simple expedient that there exist no actual case or controversy, would diminish prays for injunctive reliefs, the Court may consider them as petitions for prohibition
this Court as a reactive branch of government, acting only when the Fundamental under Rule 65.121
Law has been transgressed, to the detriment of the Filipino people. One Subject-One Title
Locus Standi The petitioners also question the constitutionality of the RH Law, claiming that it
The OSG also attacks the legal personality of the petitioners to file their respective violates Section 26(1 ), Article VI of the Constitution,122 prescribing the one
petitions. It contends that the "as applied challenge" lodged by the petitioners subject-one title rule. According to them, being one for reproductive health with
cannot prosper as the assailed law has yet to be enforced and applied against responsible parenthood, the assailed legislation violates the constitutional
standards of due process by concealing its true intent - to act as a population research shows that contraceptives use results in abortion as they operate to kill
control measure.123 the fertilized ovum which already has life.131
To belittle the challenge, the respondents insist that the RH Law is not a birth or As it opposes the initiation of life, which is a fundamental human good, the
population control measure,124 and that the concepts of "responsible petitioners assert that the State sanction of contraceptive use contravenes natural
parenthood" and "reproductive health" are both interrelated as they are law and is an affront to the dignity of man.132
inseparable.125 Finally, it is contended that since Section 9 of the RH Law requires the Food and
Despite efforts to push the RH Law as a reproductive health law, the Court sees Drug Administration (FDA) to certify that the product or supply is not to be used
it as principally a population control measure. The corpus of the RH Law is geared as an abortifacient, the assailed legislation effectively confirms that abortifacients
towards the reduction of the country's population. While it claims to save lives and are not prohibited. Also considering that the FDA is not the agency that will
keep our women and children healthy, it also promotes pregnancy-preventing actually supervise or administer the use of these products and supplies to
products. As stated earlier, the RH Law emphasizes the need to provide Filipinos, prospective patients, there is no way it can truthfully make a certification that it
especially the poor and the marginalized, with access to information on the full shall not be used for abortifacient purposes.133
range of modem family planning products and methods. These family planning Position of the Respondents
methods, natural or modem, however, are clearly geared towards the prevention For their part, the defenders of the RH Law point out that the intent of the Framers
of pregnancy. of the Constitution was simply the prohibition of abortion. They contend that the
For said reason, the manifest underlying objective of the RH Law is to reduce the RH Law does not violate the Constitution since the said law emphasizes that only
number of births in the country. "non-abortifacient" reproductive health care services, methods, devices products
It cannot be denied that the measure also seeks to provide pre-natal and post- and supplies shall be made accessible to the public.134
natal care as well. A large portion of the law, however, covers the dissemination According to the OSG, Congress has made a legislative determination that
of information and provisions on access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, contraceptives are not abortifacients by enacting the RH Law. As the RH Law was
effective, legal, affordable, and quality reproductive health care services, enacted with due consideration to various studies and consultations with the
methods, devices, and supplies, which are all intended to prevent pregnancy. World Health Organization (WHO) and other experts in the medical field, it is
The Court, thus, agrees with the petitioners' contention that the whole idea of asserted that the Court afford deference and respect to such a determination and
contraception pervades the entire RH Law. It is, in fact, the central idea of the RH pass judgment only when a particular drug or device is later on determined as an
Law.126 Indeed, remove the provisions that refer to contraception or are related abortive.135
to it and the RH Law loses its very foundation.127 As earlier explained, "the other For his part, respondent Lagman argues that the constitutional protection of one's
positive provisions such as skilled birth attendance, maternal care including pre- right to life is not violated considering that various studies of the WHO show that
and post-natal services, prevention and management of reproductive tract life begins from the implantation of the fertilized ovum. Consequently, he argues
infections including HIV/AIDS are already provided for in the Magna Carta for that the RH Law is constitutional since the law specifically provides that only
Women."128 contraceptives that do not prevent the implantation of the fertilized ovum are
Be that as it may, the RH Law does not violate the one subject/one bill rule. In allowed.136
Benjamin E. Cawaling, Jr. v. The Commission on Elections and Rep. Francis The Court's Position
Joseph G Escudero, it was written: It is a universally accepted principle that every human being enjoys the right to
It is well-settled that the "one title-one subject" rule does not require the Congress life.137
to employ in the title of the enactment language of such precision as to mirror, Even if not formally established, the right to life, being grounded on natural law, is
fully index or catalogue all the contents and the minute details therein. The rule is inherent and, therefore, not a creation of, or dependent upon a particular law,
sufficiently complied with if the title is comprehensive enough as to include the custom, or belief. It precedes and transcends any authority or the laws of men.
general object which the statute seeks to effect, and where, as here, the persons In this jurisdiction, the right to life is given more than ample protection. Section 1,
interested are informed of the nature, scope and consequences of the proposed Article III of the Constitution provides:
law and its operation. Moreover, this Court has invariably adopted a liberal rather Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
than technical construction of the rule "so as not to cripple or impede legislation." process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
[Emphases supplied] As expounded earlier, the use of contraceptives and family planning methods in
In this case, a textual analysis of the various provisions of the law shows that both the Philippines is not of recent vintage. From the enactment of R.A. No. 4729,
"reproductive health" and "responsible parenthood" are interrelated and germane entitled "An Act To Regulate The Sale, Dispensation, and/or Distribution of
to the overriding objective to control the population growth. As expressed in the Contraceptive Drugs and Devices "on June 18, 1966, prescribing rules on
first paragraph of Section 2 of the RH Law: contraceptive drugs and devices which prevent fertilization,138 to the promotion
SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. - The State recognizes and guarantees the human of male vasectomy and tubal ligation,139 and the ratification of numerous
rights of all persons including their right to equality and nondiscrimination of these international agreements, the country has long recognized the need to promote
rights, the right to sustainable human development, the right to health which population control through the use of contraceptives in order to achieve long-term
includes reproductive health, the right to education and information, and the right economic development. Through the years, however, the use of contraceptives
to choose and make decisions for themselves in accordance with their religious and other family planning methods evolved from being a component of
convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs, and the demands of responsible parenthood. demographic management, to one centered on the promotion of public health,
The one subject/one title rule expresses the principle that the title of a law must particularly, reproductive health.140
not be "so uncertain that the average person reading it would not be informed of This has resulted in the enactment of various measures promoting women's rights
the purpose of the enactment or put on inquiry as to its contents, or which is and health and the overall promotion of the family's well-being. Thus, aside from
misleading, either in referring to or indicating one subject where another or R.A. No. 4729, R.A. No. 6365 or "The Population Act of the Philippines" and R.A.
different one is really embraced in the act, or in omitting any expression or No. 9710, otherwise known as the "The Magna Carta of Women" were legislated.
indication of the real subject or scope of the act."129 Notwithstanding this paradigm shift, the Philippine national population program
Considering the close intimacy between "reproductive health" and "responsible has always been grounded two cornerstone principles: "principle of no-abortion"
parenthood" which bears to the attainment of the goal of achieving "sustainable and the "principle of non-coercion."141 As will be discussed later, these principles
human development" as stated under its terms, the Court finds no reason to are not merely grounded on administrative policy, but rather, originates from the
believe that Congress intentionally sought to deceive the public as to the contents constitutional protection expressly provided to afford protection to life and
of the assailed legislation. guarantee religious freedom.
II - SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES: When Life Begins*
1-The Right to Life Majority of the Members of the Court are of the position that the question of when
Position of the Petitioners life begins is a scientific and medical issue that should not be decided, at this
The petitioners assail the RH Law because it violates the right to life and health stage, without proper hearing and evidence. During the deliberation, however, it
of the unborn child under Section 12, Article II of the Constitution. The assailed was agreed upon that the individual members of the Court could express their
legislation allowing access to abortifacients/abortives effectively sanctions own views on this matter.
abortion.130 In this regard, the ponente, is of the strong view that life begins at fertilization.
According to the petitioners, despite its express terms prohibiting abortion, In answering the question of when life begins, focus should be made on the
Section 4(a) of the RH Law considers contraceptives that prevent the fertilized particular phrase of Section 12 which reads:
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb as an abortifacient; thus, Section 12. The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
sanctioning contraceptives that take effect after fertilization and prior to strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally
implantation, contrary to the intent of the Framers of the Constitution to afford protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The
protection to the fertilized ovum which already has life. natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic
They argue that even if Section 9 of the RH Law allows only "non-abortifacient" efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the
hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices, injectables and other safe, legal, Government.
non-abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies, medical
Textually, the Constitution affords protection to the unborn from conception. This The second question: Is it human? Genetics gives an equally categorical "yes."
is undisputable because before conception, there is no unborn to speak of. For At the moment of conception, the nuclei of the ovum and the sperm rupture. As
said reason, it is no surprise that the Constitution is mute as to any proscription this happens 23 chromosomes from the ovum combine with 23 chromosomes of
prior to conception or when life begins. The problem has arisen because, the sperm to form a total of 46 chromosomes. A chromosome count of 46 is found
amazingly, there are quarters who have conveniently disregarded the scientific only - and I repeat, only in human cells. Therefore, the fertilized ovum is human.
fact that conception is reckoned from fertilization. They are waving the view that Since these questions have been answered affirmatively, we must conclude that
life begins at implantation. Hence, the issue of when life begins. if the fertilized ovum is both alive and human, then, as night follows day, it must
In a nutshell, those opposing the RH Law contend that conception is synonymous be human life. Its nature is human.151
with "fertilization" of the female ovum by the male sperm.142 On the other side of Why the Constitution used the phrase "from the moment of conception" and not
the spectrum are those who assert that conception refers to the "implantation" of "from the moment of fertilization" was not because of doubt when human life
the fertilized ovum in the uterus.143 begins, but rather, because:
Plain and Legal Meaning Mr. Tingson: x x x x the phrase from the moment of conception" was described by
It is a canon in statutory construction that the words of the Constitution should be us here before with the scientific phrase "fertilized ovum" may be beyond the
interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning. As held in the recent case of comprehension of some people; we want to use the simpler phrase "from the
Chavez v. Judicial Bar Council:144 moment of conception."152
One of the primary and basic rules in statutory construction is that where the Thus, in order to ensure that the fertilized ovum is given ample protection under
words of a statute are clear, plain, and free from ambiguity, it must be given its the Constitution, it was discussed:
literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation. It is a well-settled Rev. Rigos: Yes, we think that the word "unborn" is sufficient for the purpose of
principle of constitutional construction that the language employed in the writing a Constitution, without specifying "from the moment of conception."
Constitution must be given their ordinary meaning except where technical terms Mr. Davide: I would not subscribe to that particular view because according to the
are employed. As much as possible, the words of the Constitution should be Commissioner's own admission, he would leave it to Congress to define when life
understood in the sense they have in common use. What it says according to the begins. So, Congress can define life to begin from six months after fertilization;
text of the provision to be construed compels acceptance and negates the power and that would really be very, very, dangerous. It is now determined by science
of the courts to alter it, based on the postulate that the framers and the people that life begins from the moment of conception. There can be no doubt about it.
mean what they say. Verba legis non est recedendum - from the words of a statute So we should not give any doubt to Congress, too.153
there should be no departure. Upon further inquiry, it was asked:
The raison d' etre for the rule is essentially two-fold: First, because it is assumed Mr. Gascon: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a question on that point.
that the words in which constitutional provisions are couched express the Actually, that is one of the questions I was going to raise during the period of
objective sought to be attained; and second, because the Constitution is not interpellations but it has been expressed already. The provision, as proposed right
primarily a lawyer's document but essentially that of the people, in whose now states:
consciousness it should ever be present as an important condition for the rule of The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from
law to prevail. the moment of conception.
In conformity with the above principle, the traditional meaning of the word When it speaks of "from the moment of conception," does this mean when the egg
"conception" which, as described and defined by all reliable and reputable meets the sperm?
sources, means that life begins at fertilization. Mr. Villegas: Yes, the ovum is fertilized by the sperm.
Webster's Third New International Dictionary describes it as the act of becoming Mr. Gascon: Therefore that does not leave to Congress the right to determine
pregnant, formation of a viable zygote; the fertilization that results in a new entity whether certain contraceptives that we know today are abortifacient or not
capable of developing into a being like its parents.145 because it is a fact that some of the so-called contraceptives deter the rooting of
Black's Law Dictionary gives legal meaning to the term "conception" as the the ovum in the uterus. If fertilization has already occurred, the next process is for
fecundation of the female ovum by the male spermatozoon resulting in human life the fertilized ovum to travel towards the uterus and to take root. What happens
capable of survival and maturation under normal conditions.146 with some contraceptives is that they stop the opportunity for the fertilized ovum
Even in jurisprudence, an unborn child has already a legal personality. In to reach the uterus. Therefore, if we take the provision as it is proposed, these so
Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation v. Hon. Accredited Voluntary called contraceptives should be banned.
Arbitrator Allan S. Montano,147 it was written: Mr. Villegas: Yes, if that physical fact is established, then that is what is called
Life is not synonymous with civil personality. One need not acquire civil abortifacient and, therefore, would be unconstitutional and should be banned
personality first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb already under this provision.
has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from Mr. Gascon: Yes. So my point is that I do not think it is up to Congress to state
conception, that the State must protect equally with the life of the mother. If the whether or not these certain contraceptives are abortifacient. Scientifically and
unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being based on the provision as it is now proposed, they are already considered
delivered, qualifies as death. [Emphases in the original] abortifacient.154
In Gonzales v. Carhart,148 Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the US Supreme From the deliberations above-quoted, it is apparent that the Framers of the
Court, said that the State "has respect for human life at all stages in the Constitution emphasized that the State shall provide equal protection to both the
pregnancy" and "a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting mother and the unborn child from the earliest opportunity of life, that is, upon
fetal life." Invariably, in the decision, the fetus was referred to, or cited, as a baby fertilization or upon the union of the male sperm and the female ovum. It is also
or a child.149 apparent is that the Framers of the Constitution intended that to prohibit Congress
Intent of the Framers from enacting measures that would allow it determine when life begins.
Records of the Constitutional Convention also shed light on the intention of the Equally apparent, however, is that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend
Framers regarding the term "conception" used in Section 12, Article II of the to ban all contraceptives for being unconstitutional. In fact, Commissioner
Constitution. From their deliberations, it clearly refers to the moment of Bernardo Villegas, spearheading the need to have a constitutional provision on
"fertilization." The records reflect the following: the right to life, recognized that the determination of whether a contraceptive
Rev. Rigos: In Section 9, page 3, there is a sentence which reads: device is an abortifacient is a question of fact which should be left to the courts to
"The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn decide on based on established evidence.155
from the moment of conception." From the discussions above, contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum
When is the moment of conception? should be deemed an abortive and thus prohibited. Conversely, contraceptives
xxx that actually prevent the union of the male sperm and the female ovum, and those
Mr. Villegas: As I explained in the sponsorship speech, it is when the ovum is that similarly take action prior to fertilization should be deemed non-abortive, and
fertilized by the sperm that there is human life. x x x.150 thus, constitutionally permissible.
xxx As emphasized by the Framers of the Constitution:
As to why conception is reckoned from fertilization and, as such, the beginning of xxx xxx xxx
human life, it was explained: Mr. Gascon: xx xx. As I mentioned in my speech on the US bases, I am pro-life,
Mr. Villegas: I propose to review this issue in a biological manner. The first to the point that I would like not only to protect the life of the unborn, but also the
question that needs to be answered is: Is the fertilized ovum alive? Biologically lives of the millions of people in the world by fighting for a nuclear-free world. I
categorically says yes, the fertilized ovum is alive. First of all, like all living would just like to be assured of the legal and pragmatic implications of the term
organisms, it takes in nutrients which it processes by itself. It begins doing this "protection of the life of the unborn from the moment of conception." I raised some
upon fertilization. Secondly, as it takes in these nutrients, it grows from within. of these implications this afternoon when I interjected in the interpellation of
Thirdly, it multiplies itself at a geometric rate in the continuous process of cell Commissioner Regalado. I would like to ask that question again for a categorical
division. All these processes are vital signs of life. Therefore, there is no question answer.
that biologically the fertilized ovum has life. I mentioned that if we institutionalize the term "the life of the unborn from the
moment of conception" we are also actually saying "no," not "maybe," to certain
contraceptives which are already being encouraged at this point in time. Is that "moment of conception." This conclusion is objective, consistent with the factual
the sense of the committee or does it disagree with me? evidence, and independent of any specific ethical, moral, political, or religious
Mr. Azcuna: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, because contraceptives would be view of human life or of human embryos.164
preventive. There is no unborn yet. That is yet unshaped. Conclusion: The Moment of Conception is Reckoned from
Mr. Gascon: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, but I was speaking more about some Fertilization
contraceptives, such as the intra-uterine device which actually stops the egg In all, whether it be taken from a plain meaning, or understood under medical
which has already been fertilized from taking route to the uterus. So if we say parlance, and more importantly, following the intention of the Framers of the
"from the moment of conception," what really occurs is that some of these Constitution, the undeniable conclusion is that a zygote is a human organism and
contraceptives will have to be unconstitutionalized. that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well-defined
Mr. Azcuna: Yes, to the extent that it is after the fertilization. moment of conception, that is, upon fertilization.
Mr. Gascon: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.156 For the above reasons, the Court cannot subscribe to the theory advocated by
The fact that not all contraceptives are prohibited by the 1987 Constitution is even Hon. Lagman that life begins at implantation.165 According to him, "fertilization
admitted by petitioners during the oral arguments. There it was conceded that and conception are two distinct and successive stages in the reproductive
tubal ligation, vasectomy, even condoms are not classified as abortifacients.157 process. They are not identical and synonymous."166 Citing a letter of the WHO,
Atty. Noche: he wrote that "medical authorities confirm that the implantation of the fertilized
Before the union of the eggs, egg and the sperm, there is no life yet. ovum is the commencement of conception and it is only after implantation that
Justice Bersamin: pregnancy can be medically detected."167
There is no life. This theory of implantation as the beginning of life is devoid of any legal or
Atty. Noche: scientific mooring. It does not pertain to the beginning of life but to the viability of
So, there is no life to be protected. the fetus. The fertilized ovum/zygote is not an inanimate object - it is a living
Justice Bersamin: human being complete with DNA and 46 chromosomes.168 Implantation has
To be protected. been conceptualized only for convenience by those who had population control in
Atty. Noche: mind. To adopt it would constitute textual infidelity not only to the RH Law but also
Under Section 12, yes. to the Constitution.
Justice Bersamin: Not surprisingly, even the OSG does not support this position.
So you have no objection to condoms? If such theory would be accepted, it would unnervingly legitimize the utilization of
Atty. Noche: any drug or device that would prevent the implantation of the fetus at the uterine
Not under Section 12, Article II. wall. It would be provocative and further aggravate religious-based divisiveness.
Justice Bersamin: It would legally permit what the Constitution proscribes - abortion and
Even if there is already information that condoms sometimes have porosity? abortifacients.
Atty. Noche: The RH Law and Abortion
Well, yes, Your Honor, there are scientific findings to that effect, Your Honor, but The clear and unequivocal intent of the Framers of the 1987 Constitution in
I am discussing here Section 12, Article II, Your Honor, yes. protecting the life of the unborn from conception was to prevent the Legislature
Justice Bersamin: from enacting a measure legalizing abortion. It was so clear that even the Court
Alright. cannot interpret it otherwise. This intent of the Framers was captured in the record
Atty. Noche: of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. Commissioner
And it's not, I have to admit it's not an abortifacient, Your Honor.158 Bernardo Villegas, the principal proponent of the protection of the unborn from
Medical Meaning conception, explained:
That conception begins at fertilization is not bereft of medical foundation. Mosby The intention .. .is to make sure that there would be no pro-abortion laws ever
s Medical, Nursing, and Allied Health Dictionary defines conception as "the passed by Congress or any pro-abortion decision passed by the Supreme
beginning of pregnancy usually taken to be the instant a spermatozoon enters an Court.169
ovum and forms a viable zygote."159 A reading of the RH Law would show that it is in line with this intent and actually
It describes fertilization as "the union of male and female gametes to form a zygote proscribes abortion. While the Court has opted not to make any determination, at
from which the embryo develops."160 this stage, when life begins, it finds that the RH Law itself clearly mandates that
The Textbook of Obstetrics (Physiological & Pathological Obstetrics),161 used by protection be afforded from the moment of fertilization. As pointed out by Justice
medical schools in the Philippines, also concludes that human life (human person) Carpio, the RH Law is replete with provisions that embody the policy of the law to
begins at the moment of fertilization with the union of the egg and the sperm protect to the fertilized ovum and that it should be afforded safe travel to the uterus
resulting in the formation of a new individual, with a unique genetic composition for implantation.170
that dictates all developmental stages that ensue. Moreover, the RH Law recognizes that abortion is a crime under Article 256 of the
Similarly, recent medical research on the matter also reveals that: "Human Revised Penal Code, which penalizes the destruction or expulsion of the fertilized
development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells ovum. Thus:
during a process known as fertilization (conception). Fertilization is a sequence of 1] xx x.
events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary Section 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms
oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the shall be defined as follows:
sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This xxx.
fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or (q) Reproductive health care refers to the access to a full range of methods,
primordium, of a human being."162 facilities, services and supplies that contribute to reproductive health and well-
The authors of Human Embryology & Teratology163 mirror the same position. being by addressing reproductive health-related problems. It also includes sexual
They wrote: "Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical health, the purpose of which is the enhancement of life and personal relations.
landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct The elements of reproductive health care include the following:
human organism is thereby formed.... The combination of 23 chromosomes xxx.
present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the (3) Proscription of abortion and management of abortion complications;
diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now xxx.
exists as a genetic unity." 2] xx x.
In support of the RH Bill, The Philippine Medical Association came out with a Section 4. x x x.
"Paper on the Reproductive Health Bill (Responsible Parenthood Bill)" and therein (s) Reproductive health rights refers to the rights of individuals and couples, to
concluded that: decide freely and responsibly whether or not to have children; the number,
CONCLUSION spacing and timing of their children; to make other decisions concerning
The PMA throws its full weight in supporting the RH Bill at the same time that PMA reproduction, free of discrimination, coercion and violence; to have the information
maintains its strong position that fertilization is sacred because it is at this stage and means to do so; and to attain the highest standard of sexual health and
that conception, and thus human life, begins. Human lives are sacred from the reproductive health: Provided, however, That reproductive health rights do not
moment of conception, and that destroying those new lives is never licit, no matter include abortion, and access to abortifacients.
what the purported good outcome would be. In terms of biology and human 3] xx x.
embryology, a human being begins immediately at fertilization and after that, there SEC. 29. Repealing Clause. - Except for prevailing laws against abortion, any law,
is no point along the continuous line of human embryogenesis where only a presidential decree or issuance, executive order, letter of instruction,
"potential" human being can be posited. Any philosophical, legal, or political administrative order, rule or regulation contrary to or is inconsistent with the
conclusion cannot escape this objective scientific fact. provisions of this Act including Republic Act No. 7392, otherwise known as the
The scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a zygote is a human organism Midwifery Act, is hereby repealed, modified or amended accordingly.
and that the life of a new human being commences at a scientifically well defined The RH Law and Abortifacients
In carrying out its declared policy, the RH Law is consistent in prohibiting j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and scientifically proven
abortifacients. To be clear, Section 4(a) of the RH Law defines an abortifacient modern family planning method, device, or health product, whether natural or
as: artificial, that prevents pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum
Section 4. Definition of Terms - x x x x or prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the mother's womb in doses
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the of its approved indication as determined by the Food and Drug Administration
destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized (FDA).
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the The above-mentioned section of the RH-IRR allows "contraceptives" and
FDA. recognizes as "abortifacient" only those that primarily induce abortion or the
As stated above, the RH Law mandates that protection must be afforded from the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized
moment of fertilization. By using the word " or," the RH Law prohibits not only ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb.172
drugs or devices that prevent implantation, but also those that induce abortion and This cannot be done.
those that induce the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb. Thus, an In this regard, the observations of Justice Brion and Justice Del Castillo are well
abortifacient is any drug or device that either: taken. As they pointed out, with the insertion of the word "primarily," Section
(a) Induces abortion; or 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR173 must be struck down for being ultra vires.
(b) Induces the destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb; or Evidently, with the addition of the word "primarily," in Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the
(c) Prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the RH-IRR is indeed ultra vires. It contravenes Section 4(a) of the RH Law and
mother's womb, upon determination of the FDA. should, therefore, be declared invalid. There is danger that the insertion of the
Contrary to the assertions made by the petitioners, the Court finds that the RH qualifier "primarily" will pave the way for the approval of contraceptives which may
Law, consistent with the Constitution, recognizes that the fertilized ovum already harm or destroy the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of
has life and that the State has a bounden duty to protect it. The conclusion Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution. With such qualification in the RH-IRR, it
becomes clear because the RH Law, first, prohibits any drug or device that appears to insinuate that a contraceptive will only be considered as an
induces abortion (first kind), which, as discussed exhaustively above, refers to "abortifacient" if its sole known effect is abortion or, as pertinent here, the
that which induces the killing or the destruction of the fertilized ovum, and, second, prevention of the implantation of the fertilized ovum.
prohibits any drug or device the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted in the For the same reason, this definition of "contraceptive" would permit the approval
mother's womb (third kind). of contraceptives which are actually abortifacients because of their fail-safe
By expressly declaring that any drug or device that prevents the fertilized ovum to mechanism.174
reach and be implanted in the mother's womb is an abortifacient (third kind), the Also, as discussed earlier, Section 9 calls for the certification by the FDA that
RH Law does not intend to mean at all that life only begins only at implantation, these contraceptives cannot act as abortive. With this, together with the definition
as Hon. Lagman suggests. It also does not declare either that protection will only of an abortifacient under Section 4 (a) of the RH Law and its declared policy
be given upon implantation, as the petitioners likewise suggest. Rather, it against abortion, the undeniable conclusion is that contraceptives to be included
recognizes that: one, there is a need to protect the fertilized ovum which already in the PNDFS and the EDL will not only be those contraceptives that do not have
has life, and two, the fertilized ovum must be protected the moment it becomes the primary action of causing abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the
existent - all the way until it reaches and implants in the mother's womb. After all, mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized ovum to reach and be implanted
if life is only recognized and afforded protection from the moment the fertilized in the mother's womb, but also those that do not have the secondary action of
ovum implants - there is nothing to prevent any drug or device from killing or acting the same way.
destroying the fertilized ovum prior to implantation. Indeed, consistent with the constitutional policy prohibiting abortion, and in line
From the foregoing, the Court finds that inasmuch as it affords protection to the with the principle that laws should be construed in a manner that its
fertilized ovum, the RH Law does not sanction abortion. To repeat, it is the Court's constitutionality is sustained, the RH Law and its implementing rules must be
position that life begins at fertilization, not at implantation. When a fertilized ovum consistent with each other in prohibiting abortion. Thus, the word " primarily" in
is implanted in the uterine wall , its viability is sustained but that instance of Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR should be declared void. To uphold the
implantation is not the point of beginning of life. It started earlier. And as defined validity of Section 3.0l(a) and G) of the RH-IRR and prohibit only those
by the RH Law, any drug or device that induces abortion, that is, which kills or contraceptives that have the primary effect of being an abortive would effectively
destroys the fertilized ovum or prevents the fertilized ovum to reach and be "open the floodgates to the approval of contraceptives which may harm or destroy
implanted in the mother's womb, is an abortifacient. the life of the unborn from conception/fertilization in violation of Article II, Section
Proviso Under Section 9 of the RH Law 12 of the Constitution."175
This notwithstanding, the Court finds that the proviso under Section 9 of the law To repeat and emphasize, in all cases, the "principle of no abortion" embodied in
that "any product or supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a the constitutional protection of life must be upheld.
certification from the FDA that said product and supply is made available on the 2-The Right to Health
condition that it is not to be used as an abortifacient" as empty as it is absurd. The The petitioners claim that the RH Law violates the right to health because it
FDA, with all its expertise, cannot fully attest that a drug or device will not all be requires the inclusion of hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices,
used as an abortifacient, since the agency cannot be present in every instance injectables and family products and supplies in the National Drug Formulary and
when the contraceptive product or supply will be used.171 the inclusion of the same in the regular purchase of essential medicines and
Pursuant to its declared policy of providing access only to safe, legal and non- supplies of all national hospitals.176 Citing various studies on the matter, the
abortifacient contraceptives, however, the Court finds that the proviso of Section petitioners posit that the risk of developing breast and cervical cancer is greatly
9, as worded, should bend to the legislative intent and mean that "any product or increased in women who use oral contraceptives as compared to women who
supply included or to be included in the EDL must have a certification from the never use them. They point out that the risk is decreased when the use of
FDA that said product and supply is made available on the condition that it cannot contraceptives is discontinued. Further, it is contended that the use of combined
be used as abortifacient." Such a construction is consistent with the proviso under oral contraceptive pills is associated with a threefold increased risk of venous
the second paragraph of the same section that provides: thromboembolism, a twofold increased risk of ischematic stroke, and an
Provided, further, That the foregoing offices shall not purchase or acquire by any indeterminate effect on risk of myocardial infarction.177 Given the definition of
means emergency contraceptive pills, postcoital pills, abortifacients that will be "reproductive health" and "sexual health" under Sections 4(p)178 and (w)179 of
used for such purpose and their other forms or equivalent. the RH Law, the petitioners assert that the assailed legislation only seeks to
Abortifacients under the RH-IRR ensure that women have pleasurable and satisfying sex lives.180
At this juncture, the Court agrees with ALFI that the authors of the RH-IRR gravely The OSG, however, points out that Section 15, Article II of the Constitution is not
abused their office when they redefined the meaning of abortifacient. The RH Law self-executory, it being a mere statement of the administration's principle and
defines "abortifacient" as follows: policy. Even if it were self-executory, the OSG posits that medical authorities
SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the following terms shall refute the claim that contraceptive pose a danger to the health of women.181
be defined as follows: The Court's Position
(a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that induces abortion or the A component to the right to life is the constitutional right to health. In this regard,
destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized the Constitution is replete with provisions protecting and promoting the right to
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the health. Section 15, Article II of the Constitution provides:
FDA. Section 15. The State shall protect and promote the right to health of the people
Section 3.0l (a) of the IRR, however, redefines "abortifacient" as: and instill health consciousness among them.
Section 3.01 For purposes of these Rules, the terms shall be defined as follows: A portion of Article XIII also specifically provides for the States' duty to provide for
a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily induces abortion or the the health of the people, viz:
destruction of a fetus inside the mother's womb or the prevention of the fertilized HEALTH
ovum to reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon determination of the Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). [Emphasis supplied] health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and
Again in Section 3.0lG) of the RH-IRR, "contraceptive," is redefined, viz: other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and compounded, dispensed, sold or resold, or otherwise be made available to the
children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers. consuming public except through a prescription drugstore or hospital pharmacy,
Section 12. The State shall establish and maintain an effective food and drug duly established in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
regulatory system and undertake appropriate health, manpower development, 112. With all of the foregoing safeguards, as provided for in the RH Law and other
and research, responsive to the country's health needs and problems. relevant statutes, the pretension of the petitioners that the RH Law will lead to the
Section 13. The State shall establish a special agency for disabled person for their unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives, whether harmful or not, is completely
rehabilitation, self-development, and self-reliance, and their integration into the unwarranted and baseless.186 [Emphases in the Original. Underlining supplied.]
mainstream of society. In Re: Section 10 of the RH Law:
Finally, Section 9, Article XVI provides: The foregoing safeguards should be read in connection with Section 10 of the RH
Section 9. The State shall protect consumers from trade malpractices and from Law which provides:
substandard or hazardous products. SEC. 10. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies. - The DOH
Contrary to the respondent's notion, however, these provisions are self-executing. shall procure, distribute to LGUs and monitor the usage of family planning
Unless the provisions clearly express the contrary, the provisions of the supplies for the whole country. The DOH shall coordinate with all appropriate local
Constitution should be considered self-executory. There is no need for legislation government bodies to plan and implement this procurement and distribution
to implement these self-executing provisions.182 In Manila Prince Hotel v. program. The supply and budget allotments shall be based on, among others, the
GSIS,183 it was stated: current levels and projections of the following:
x x x Hence, unless it is expressly provided that a legislative act is necessary to (a) Number of women of reproductive age and couples who want to
enforce a constitutional mandate, the presumption now is that all provisions of the space or limit their children;
constitution are self-executing. If the constitutional provisions are treated as (b) Contraceptive prevalence rate, by type of method used; and
requiring legislation instead of self-executing, the legislature would have the (c) Cost of family planning supplies.
power to ignore and practically nullify the mandate of the fundamental law. This Provided, That LGUs may implement its own procurement, distribution and
can be cataclysmic. That is why the prevailing view is, as it has always been, that monitoring program consistent with the overall provisions of this Act and the
– guidelines of the DOH.
... in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather Thus, in the distribution by the DOH of contraceptive drugs and devices, it must
than non-self-executing. . . . Unless the contrary is clearly intended, the provisions consider the provisions of R.A. No. 4729, which is still in effect, and ensure that
of the Constitution should be considered self-executing, as a contrary rule would the contraceptives that it will procure shall be from a duly licensed drug store or
give the legislature discretion to determine when, or whether, they shall be pharmaceutical company and that the actual dispensation of these contraceptive
effective. These provisions would be subordinated to the will of the lawmaking drugs and devices will done following a prescription of a qualified medical
body, which could make them entirely meaningless by simply refusing to pass the practitioner. The distribution of contraceptive drugs and devices must not be
needed implementing statute. (Emphases supplied) indiscriminately done. The public health must be protected by all possible means.
This notwithstanding, it bears mentioning that the petitioners, particularly ALFI, do As pointed out by Justice De Castro, a heavy responsibility and burden are
not question contraception and contraceptives per se.184 In fact, ALFI prays that assumed by the government in supplying contraceptive drugs and devices, for it
the status quo - under R.A. No. 5921 and R.A. No. 4729, the sale and distribution may be held accountable for any injury, illness or loss of life resulting from or
of contraceptives are not prohibited when they are dispensed by a prescription of incidental to their use.187
a duly licensed by a physician - be maintained.185 At any rate, it bears pointing out that not a single contraceptive has yet been
The legislative intent in the enactment of the RH Law in this regard is to leave submitted to the FDA pursuant to the RH Law. It behooves the Court to await its
intact the provisions of R.A. No. 4729. There is no intention at all to do away with determination which drugs or devices are declared by the FDA as safe, it being
it. It is still a good law and its requirements are still in to be complied with. Thus, the agency tasked to ensure that food and medicines available to the public are
the Court agrees with the observation of respondent Lagman that the effectivity safe for public consumption. Consequently, the Court finds that, at this point, the
of the RH Law will not lead to the unmitigated proliferation of contraceptives since attack on the RH Law on this ground is premature. Indeed, the various kinds of
the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs and devices will still contraceptives must first be measured up to the constitutional yardstick as
require the prescription of a licensed physician. With R.A. No. 4729 in place, there expounded herein, to be determined as the case presents itself.
exists adequate safeguards to ensure the public that only contraceptives that are At this point, the Court is of the strong view that Congress cannot legislate that
safe are made available to the public. As aptly explained by respondent Lagman: hormonal contraceptives and intra-uterine devices are safe and non-abortifacient.
D. Contraceptives cannot be The first sentence of Section 9 that ordains their inclusion by the National Drug
dispensed and used without Formulary in the EDL by using the mandatory "shall" is to be construed as
prescription operative only after they have been tested, evaluated, and approved by the FDA.
108. As an added protection to voluntary users of contraceptives, the same cannot The FDA, not Congress, has the expertise to determine whether a particular
be dispensed and used without prescription. hormonal contraceptive or intrauterine device is safe and non-abortifacient. The
109. Republic Act No. 4729 or "An Act to Regulate the Sale, Dispensation, and/ provision of the third sentence concerning the requirements for the inclusion or
or Distribution of Contraceptive Drugs and Devices" and Republic Act No. 5921 removal of a particular family planning supply from the EDL supports this
or "An Act Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy and Setting Standards of construction.
Pharmaceutical Education in the Philippines and for Other Purposes" are not Stated differently, the provision in Section 9 covering the inclusion of hormonal
repealed by the RH Law and the provisions of said Acts are not inconsistent with contraceptives, intra-uterine devices, injectables, and other safe, legal, non-
the RH Law. abortifacient and effective family planning products and supplies by the National
110. Consequently, the sale, distribution and dispensation of contraceptive drugs Drug Formulary in the EDL is not mandatory. There must first be a determination
and devices are particularly governed by RA No. 4729 which provides in full: by the FDA that they are in fact safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective family
"Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership, or corporation, to sell, planning products and supplies. There can be no predetermination by Congress
dispense or otherwise distribute whether for or without consideration, any that the gamut of contraceptives are "safe, legal, non-abortifacient and effective"
contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale, dispensation or distribution is by without the proper scientific examination.
a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and with the prescription 3 -Freedom of Religion
of a qualified medical practitioner. and the Right to Free Speech
"Sec. 2 . For the purpose of this Act: Position of the Petitioners:
"(a) "Contraceptive drug" is any medicine, drug, chemical, or portion 1. On Contraception
which is used exclusively for the purpose of preventing fertilization of While contraceptives and procedures like vasectomy and tubal ligation are not
the female ovum: and covered by the constitutional proscription, there are those who, because of their
"(b) "Contraceptive device" is any instrument, device, material, or agent religious education and background, sincerely believe that contraceptives,
introduced into the female reproductive system for the primary purpose whether abortifacient or not, are evil. Some of these are medical practitioners who
of preventing conception. essentially claim that their beliefs prohibit not only the use of contraceptives but
"Sec. 3 Any person, partnership, or corporation, violating the provisions of this Act also the willing participation and cooperation in all things dealing with
shall be punished with a fine of not more than five hundred pesos or an contraceptive use. Petitioner PAX explained that "contraception is gravely
imprisonment of not less than six months or more than one year or both in the opposed to marital chastity, it is contrary to the good of the transmission of life,
discretion of the Court. and to the reciprocal self-giving of the spouses; it harms true love and denies the
"This Act shall take effect upon its approval. sovereign rule of God in the transmission of Human life."188
"Approved: June 18, 1966" The petitioners question the State-sponsored procurement of contraceptives,
111. Of the same import, but in a general manner, Section 25 of RA No. 5921 arguing that the expenditure of their taxes on contraceptives violates the
provides: guarantee of religious freedom since contraceptives contravene their religious
"Section 25. Sale of medicine, pharmaceuticals, drugs and devices. No medicine, beliefs.189
pharmaceutical, or drug of whatever nature and kind or device shall be
2. On Religious Accommodation and accommodation to the right to freely exercise one's religion without unnecessarily
The Duty to Refer infringing on the rights of others.202
Petitioners Imbong and Luat note that while the RH Law attempts to address Whatever burden is placed on the petitioner's religious freedom is minimal as the
religious sentiments by making provisions for a conscientious objector, the duty to refer is limited in duration, location and impact.203
constitutional guarantee is nonetheless violated because the law also imposes Regarding mandatory family planning seminars under Section 15 , the
upon the conscientious objector the duty to refer the patient seeking reproductive respondents claim that it is a reasonable regulation providing an opportunity for
health services to another medical practitioner who would be able to provide for would-be couples to have access to information regarding parenthood, family
the patient's needs. For the petitioners, this amounts to requiring the planning, breastfeeding and infant nutrition. It is argued that those who object to
conscientious objector to cooperate with the very thing he refuses to do without any information received on account of their attendance in the required seminars
violating his/her religious beliefs.190 are not compelled to accept information given to them. They are completely free
They further argue that even if the conscientious objector's duty to refer is to reject any information they do not agree with and retain the freedom to decide
recognized, the recognition is unduly limited, because although it allows a on matters of family life without intervention of the State.204
conscientious objector in Section 23 (a)(3) the option to refer a patient seeking For their part, respondents De Venecia et al., dispute the notion that natural family
reproductive health services and information - no escape is afforded the planning is the only method acceptable to Catholics and the Catholic hierarchy.
conscientious objector in Section 23 (a)(l) and (2), i.e. against a patient seeking Citing various studies and surveys on the matter, they highlight the changing
reproductive health procedures. They claim that the right of other individuals to stand of the Catholic Church on contraception throughout the years and note the
conscientiously object, such as: a) those working in public health facilities referred general acceptance of the benefits of contraceptives by its followers in planning
to in Section 7; b) public officers involved in the implementation of the law referred their families.
to in Section 23(b ); and c) teachers in public schools referred to in Section 14 of The Church and The State
the RH Law, are also not recognize.191 At the outset, it cannot be denied that we all live in a heterogeneous society. It is
Petitioner Echavez and the other medical practitioners meanwhile, contend that made up of people of diverse ethnic, cultural and religious beliefs and
the requirement to refer the matter to another health care service provider is still backgrounds. History has shown us that our government, in law and in practice,
considered a compulsion on those objecting healthcare service providers. They has allowed these various religious, cultural, social and racial groups to thrive in
add that compelling them to do the act against their will violates the Doctrine of a single society together. It has embraced minority groups and is tolerant towards
Benevolent Neutrality. Sections 9, 14 and 1 7 of the law are too secular that they all - the religious people of different sects and the non-believers. The undisputed
tend to disregard the religion of Filipinos. Authorizing the use of contraceptives fact is that our people generally believe in a deity, whatever they conceived Him
with abortive effects, mandatory sex education, mandatory pro-bono reproductive to be, and to whom they call for guidance and enlightenment in crafting our
health services to indigents encroach upon the religious freedom of those upon fundamental law. Thus, the preamble of the present Constitution reads:
whom they are required.192 We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to
Petitioner CFC also argues that the requirement for a conscientious objector to build a just and humane society, and establish a Government that shall embody
refer the person seeking reproductive health care services to another provider our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our
infringes on one's freedom of religion as it forces the objector to become an patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of
unwilling participant in the commission of a serious sin under Catholic teachings. independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice,
While the right to act on one's belief may be regulated by the State, the acts freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
prohibited by the RH Law are passive acts which produce neither harm nor injury The Filipino people in "imploring the aid of Almighty God " manifested their
to the public.193 spirituality innate in our nature and consciousness as a people, shaped by
Petitioner CFC adds that the RH Law does not show compelling state interest to tradition and historical experience. As this is embodied in the preamble, it means
justify regulation of religious freedom because it mentions no emergency, risk or that the State recognizes with respect the influence of religion in so far as it instills
threat that endangers state interests. It does not explain how the rights of the into the mind the purest principles of morality.205 Moreover, in recognition of the
people (to equality, non-discrimination of rights, sustainable human development, contributions of religion to society, the 1935, 1973 and 1987 constitutions contain
health, education, information, choice and to make decisions according to benevolent and accommodating provisions towards religions such as tax
religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs and the demands of responsible exemption of church property, salary of religious officers in government
parenthood) are being threatened or are not being met as to justify the impairment institutions, and optional religious instructions in public schools.
of religious freedom.194 The Framers, however, felt the need to put up a strong barrier so that the State
Finally, the petitioners also question Section 15 of the RH Law requiring would-be would not encroach into the affairs of the church, and vice-versa. The principle of
couples to attend family planning and responsible parenthood seminars and to separation of Church and State was, thus, enshrined in Article II, Section 6 of the
obtain a certificate of compliance. They claim that the provision forces individuals 1987 Constitution, viz:
to participate in the implementation of the RH Law even if it contravenes their Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
religious beliefs.195 As the assailed law dangles the threat of penalty of fine Verily, the principle of separation of Church and State is based on mutual
and/or imprisonment in case of non-compliance with its provisions, the petitioners respect.1âwphi1 Generally, the State cannot meddle in the internal affairs of the
claim that the RH Law forcing them to provide, support and facilitate access and church, much less question its faith and dogmas or dictate upon it. It cannot favor
information to contraception against their beliefs must be struck down as it runs one religion and discriminate against another. On the other hand, the church
afoul to the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. cannot impose its beliefs and convictions on the State and the rest of the citizenry.
The Respondents' Positions It cannot demand that the nation follow its beliefs, even if it sincerely believes that
The respondents, on the other hand, contend that the RH Law does not provide they are good for the country.
that a specific mode or type of contraceptives be used, be it natural or artificial. It Consistent with the principle that not any one religion should ever be preferred
neither imposes nor sanctions any religion or belief.196 They point out that the over another, the Constitution in the above-cited provision utilizes the term
RH Law only seeks to serve the public interest by providing accessible, effective "church" in its generic sense, which refers to a temple, a mosque, an iglesia, or
and quality reproductive health services to ensure maternal and child health, in any other house of God which metaphorically symbolizes a religious organization.
line with the State's duty to bring to reality the social justice health guarantees of Thus, the "Church" means the religious congregations collectively.
the Constitution,197 and that what the law only prohibits are those acts or Balancing the benefits that religion affords and the need to provide an ample
practices, which deprive others of their right to reproductive health.198 They barrier to protect the State from the pursuit of its secular objectives, the
assert that the assailed law only seeks to guarantee informed choice, which is an Constitution lays down the following mandate in Article III, Section 5 and Article
assurance that no one will be compelled to violate his religion against his free VI, Section 29 (2), of the 1987 Constitution:
will.199 Section. 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
The respondents add that by asserting that only natural family planning should be prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
allowed, the petitioners are effectively going against the constitutional right to profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
religious freedom, the same right they invoked to assail the constitutionality of the allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
RH Law.200 In other words, by seeking the declaration that the RH Law is rights.
unconstitutional, the petitioners are asking that the Court recognize only the Section 29.
Catholic Church's sanctioned natural family planning methods and impose this on xxx.
the entire citizenry.201 No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed,
With respect to the duty to refer, the respondents insist that the same does not directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church,
violate the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, it being a carefully denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion, or of any priest,
balanced compromise between the interests of the religious objector, on one preacher, minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such
hand, who is allowed to keep silent but is required to refer -and that of the citizen priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any
who needs access to information and who has the right to expect that the health penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
care professional in front of her will act professionally. For the respondents, the In short, the constitutional assurance of religious freedom provides two
concession given by the State under Section 7 and 23(a)(3) is sufficient guarantees: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.
The establishment clause "principally prohibits the State from sponsoring any Victoriano case mentioned the "immediate and grave danger" test as well as the
religion or favoring any religion as against other religions. It mandates a strict doctrine that a law of general applicability may burden religious exercise provided
neutrality in affairs among religious groups."206 Essentially, it prohibits the the law is the least restrictive means to accomplish the goal of the law. The case
establishment of a state religion and the use of public resources for the support also used, albeit inappropriately, the "compelling state interest" test. After
or prohibition of a religion. Victoriano , German went back to the Gerona rule. Ebralinag then employed the
On the other hand, the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the "grave and immediate danger" test and overruled the Gerona test. The fairly
inviolability of the human conscience.207 Under this part of religious freedom recent case of Iglesia ni Cristo went back to the " clear and present danger" test
guarantee, the State is prohibited from unduly interfering with the outside in the maiden case of A merican Bible Society. Not surprisingly, all the cases
manifestations of one's belief and faith.208 Explaining the concept of religious which employed the "clear and present danger" or "grave and immediate danger"
freedom, the Court, in Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union209 wrote: test involved, in one form or another, religious speech as this test is often used in
The constitutional provisions not only prohibits legislation for the support of any cases on freedom of expression. On the other hand, the Gerona and German
religious tenets or the modes of worship of any sect, thus forestalling compulsion cases set the rule that religious freedom will not prevail over established
by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship (U.S. institutions of society and law. Gerona, however, which was the authority cited by
Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 88 L. ed. 1148, 1153), but also assures the free exercise of German has been overruled by Ebralinag which employed the "grave and
one's chosen form of religion within limits of utmost amplitude. It has been said immediate danger" test . Victoriano was the only case that employed the
that the religion clauses of the Constitution are all designed to protect the broadest "compelling state interest" test, but as explained previously, the use of the test
possible liberty of conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience was inappropriate to the facts of the case.
directs, to profess his beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent The case at bar does not involve speech as in A merican Bible Society, Ebralinag
with the liberty of others and with the common good. Any legislation whose effect and Iglesia ni Cristo where the "clear and present danger" and "grave and
or purpose is to impede the observance of one or all religions, or to discriminate immediate danger" tests were appropriate as speech has easily discernible or
invidiously between the religions, is invalid, even though the burden may be immediate effects. The Gerona and German doctrine, aside from having been
characterized as being only indirect. (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 10 L.ed.2d overruled, is not congruent with the benevolent neutrality approach, thus not
965, 83 S. Ct. 1970) But if the state regulates conduct by enacting, within its appropriate in this jurisdiction. Similar to Victoriano, the present case involves
power, a general law which has for its purpose and effect to advance the state's purely conduct arising from religious belief. The "compelling state interest" test is
secular goals, the statute is valid despite its indirect burden on religious proper where conduct is involved for the whole gamut of human conduct has
observance, unless the state can accomplish its purpose without imposing such different effects on the state's interests: some effects may be immediate and
burden. (Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599, 6 Led. 2d. 563, 81 S. Ct. 144; short-term while others delayed and far-reaching. A test that would protect the
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 444-5 and 449). interests of the state in preventing a substantive evil, whether immediate or
As expounded in Escritor, delayed, is therefore necessary. However, not any interest of the state would
The establishment and free exercise clauses were not designed to serve suffice to prevail over the right to religious freedom as this is a fundamental right
contradictory purposes. They have a single goal-to promote freedom of individual that enjoys a preferred position in the hierarchy of rights - "the most inalienable
religious beliefs and practices. In simplest terms, the free exercise clause prohibits and sacred of all human rights", in the words of Jefferson. This right is sacred for
government from inhibiting religious beliefs with penalties for religious beliefs and an invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to a higher sovereignty.
practice, while the establishment clause prohibits government from inhibiting The entire constitutional order of limited government is premised upon an
religious belief with rewards for religious beliefs and practices. In other words, the acknowledgment of such higher sovereignty, thus the Filipinos implore the "aid of
two religion clauses were intended to deny government the power to use either Almighty God in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
the carrot or the stick to influence individual religious beliefs and practices.210 government." As held in Sherbert, only the gravest abuses, endangering
Corollary to the guarantee of free exercise of one's religion is the principle that the paramount interests can limit this fundamental right. A mere balancing of interests
guarantee of religious freedom is comprised of two parts: the freedom to believe, which balances a right with just a colorable state interest is therefore not
and the freedom to act on one's belief. The first part is absolute. As explained in appropriate. Instead, only a compelling interest of the state can prevail over the
Gerona v. Secretary of Education:211 fundamental right to religious liberty. The test requires the state to carry a heavy
The realm of belief and creed is infinite and limitless bounded only by one's burden, a compelling one, for to do otherwise would allow the state to batter
imagination and thought. So is the freedom of belief, including religious belief, religion, especially the less powerful ones until they are destroyed. In determining
limitless and without bounds. One may believe in most anything, however strange, which shall prevail between the state's interest and religious liberty,
bizarre and unreasonable the same may appear to others, even heretical when reasonableness shall be the guide. The "compelling state interest" serves the
weighed in the scales of orthodoxy or doctrinal standards. But between the purpose of revering religious liberty while at the same time affording protection to
freedom of belief and the exercise of said belief, there is quite a stretch of road to the paramount interests of the state. This was the test used in Sherbert which
travel.212 involved conduct, i.e. refusal to work on Saturdays. In the end, the "compelling
The second part however, is limited and subject to the awesome power of the state interest" test, by upholding the paramount interests of the state, seeks to
State and can be enjoyed only with proper regard to the rights of others. It is protect the very state, without which, religious liberty will not be preserved.
"subject to regulation where the belief is translated into external acts that affect [Emphases in the original. Underlining supplied.]
the public welfare."213 The Court's Position
Legislative Acts and the In the case at bench, it is not within the province of the Court to determine whether
Free Exercise Clause the use of contraceptives or one's participation in the support of modem
Thus, in case of conflict between the free exercise clause and the State, the Court reproductive health measures is moral from a religious standpoint or whether the
adheres to the doctrine of benevolent neutrality. This has been clearly decided by same is right or wrong according to one's dogma or belief. For the Court has
the Court in Estrada v. Escritor, (Escritor)214 where it was stated "that benevolent declared that matters dealing with "faith, practice, doctrine, form of worship,
neutrality-accommodation, whether mandatory or permissive, is the spirit, intent ecclesiastical law, custom and rule of a church ... are unquestionably
and framework underlying the Philippine Constitution."215 In the same case, it ecclesiastical matters which are outside the province of the civil courts."220 The
was further explained that" jurisdiction of the Court extends only to public and secular morality. Whatever
The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with respect to these governmental pronouncement the Court makes in the case at bench should be understood only
actions, accommodation of religion may be allowed, not to promote the in this realm where it has authority. Stated otherwise, while the Court stands
government's favored form of religion, but to allow individuals and groups to without authority to rule on ecclesiastical matters, as vanguard of the Constitution,
exercise their religion without hindrance. "The purpose of accommodation is to it does have authority to determine whether the RH Law contravenes the
remove a burden on, or facilitate the exercise of, a person's or institution's guarantee of religious freedom.
religion."216 "What is sought under the theory of accommodation is not a At first blush, it appears that the RH Law recognizes and respects religion and
declaration of unconstitutionality of a facially neutral law, but an exemption from religious beliefs and convictions. It is replete with assurances the no one can be
its application or its 'burdensome effect,' whether by the legislature or the compelled to violate the tenets of his religion or defy his religious convictions
courts."217 against his free will. Provisions in the RH Law respecting religious freedom are
In ascertaining the limits of the exercise of religious freedom, the compelling state the following:
interest test is proper.218 Underlying the compelling state interest test is the 1. The State recognizes and guarantees the human rights of all persons including
notion that free exercise is a fundamental right and that laws burdening it should their right to equality and nondiscrimination of these rights, the right to sustainable
be subject to strict scrutiny.219 In Escritor, it was written: human development, the right to health which includes reproductive health, the
Philippine jurisprudence articulates several tests to determine these limits. right to education and information, and the right to choose and make decisions for
Beginning with the first case on the Free Exercise Clause, American Bible Society, themselves in accordance with their religious convictions, ethics, cultural beliefs,
the Court mentioned the "clear and present danger" test but did not employ it. and the demands of responsible parenthood. [Section 2, Declaration of Policy]
Nevertheless, this test continued to be cited in subsequent cases on religious 2 . The State recognizes marriage as an inviolable social institution and the
liberty. The Gerona case then pronounced that the test of permissibility of religious foundation of the family which in turn is the foundation of the nation. Pursuant
freedom is whether it violates the established institutions of society and law. The thereto, the State shall defend:
(a) The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious The Court is of the view that the obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates
convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood." [Section 2, Declaration the religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector. Once the medical
of Policy] practitioner, against his will, refers a patient seeking information on modem
3. The State shall promote and provide information and access, without bias, to reproductive health products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience
all methods of family planning, including effective natural and modern methods is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to perform an act against his
which have been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and effective in beliefs. As Commissioner Joaquin A. Bernas (Commissioner Bernas) has written,
accordance with scientific and evidence-based medical research standards such "at the basis of the free exercise clause is the respect for the inviolability of the
as those registered and approved by the FDA for the poor and marginalized as human conscience.222
identified through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of identifying Though it has been said that the act of referral is an opt-out clause, it is, however,
marginalization: Provided, That the State shall also provide funding support to a false compromise because it makes pro-life health providers complicit in the
promote modern natural methods of family planning, especially the Billings performance of an act that they find morally repugnant or offensive. They cannot,
Ovulation Method, consistent with the needs of acceptors and their religious in conscience, do indirectly what they cannot do directly. One may not be the
convictions. [Section 3(e), Declaration of Policy] principal, but he is equally guilty if he abets the offensive act by indirect
4. The State shall promote programs that: (1) enable individuals and couples to participation.
have the number of children they desire with due consideration to the health, Moreover, the guarantee of religious freedom is necessarily intertwined with the
particularly of women, and the resources available and affordable to them and in right to free speech, it being an externalization of one's thought and conscience.
accordance with existing laws, public morals and their religious convictions. This in turn includes the right to be silent. With the constitutional guarantee of
[Section 3CDJ religious freedom follows the protection that should be afforded to individuals in
5. The State shall respect individuals' preferences and choice of family planning communicating their beliefs to others as well as the protection for simply being
methods that are in accordance with their religious convictions and cultural beliefs, silent. The Bill of Rights guarantees the liberty of the individual to utter what is in
taking into consideration the State's obligations under various human rights his mind and the liberty not to utter what is not in his mind.223 While the RH Law
instruments. [Section 3(h)] seeks to provide freedom of choice through informed consent, freedom of choice
6. Active participation by nongovernment organizations (NGOs) , women's and guarantees the liberty of the religious conscience and prohibits any degree of
people's organizations, civil society, faith-based organizations, the religious sector compulsion or burden, whether direct or indirect, in the practice of one's
and communities is crucial to ensure that reproductive health and population and religion.224
development policies, plans, and programs will address the priority needs of In case of conflict between the religious beliefs and moral convictions of
women, the poor, and the marginalized. [Section 3(i)] individuals, on one hand, and the interest of the State, on the other, to provide
7. Responsible parenthood refers to the will and ability of a parent to respond to access and information on reproductive health products, services, procedures and
the needs and aspirations of the family and children. It is likewise a shared methods to enable the people to determine the timing, number and spacing of the
responsibility between parents to determine and achieve the desired number of birth of their children, the Court is of the strong view that the religious freedom of
children, spacing and timing of their children according to their own family life health providers, whether public or private, should be accorded primacy.
aspirations, taking into account psychological preparedness, health status, Accordingly, a conscientious objector should be exempt from compliance with the
sociocultural and economic concerns consistent with their religious convictions. mandates of the RH Law. If he would be compelled to act contrary to his religious
[Section 4(v)] (Emphases supplied) belief and conviction, it would be violative of "the principle of non-coercion"
While the Constitution prohibits abortion, laws were enacted allowing the use of enshrined in the constitutional right to free exercise of religion.
contraceptives. To some medical practitioners, however, the whole idea of using Interestingly, on April 24, 2013, Scotland's Inner House of the Court of Session,
contraceptives is an anathema. Consistent with the principle of benevolent found in the case of Doogan and Wood v. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health
neutrality, their beliefs should be respected. Board,225 that the midwives claiming to be conscientious objectors under the
The Establishment Clause provisions of Scotland's Abortion Act of 1967, could not be required to delegate,
and Contraceptives supervise or support staff on their labor ward who were involved in abortions.226
In the same breath that the establishment clause restricts what the government The Inner House stated "that if 'participation' were defined according to whether
can do with religion, it also limits what religious sects can or cannot do with the the person was taking part 'directly' or ' indirectly' this would actually mean more
government. They can neither cause the government to adopt their particular complexity and uncertainty."227
doctrines as policy for everyone, nor can they not cause the government to restrict While the said case did not cover the act of referral, the applicable principle was
other groups. To do so, in simple terms, would cause the State to adhere to a the same - they could not be forced to assist abortions if it would be against their
particular religion and, thus, establishing a state religion. conscience or will.
Consequently, the petitioners are misguided in their supposition that the State Institutional Health Providers
cannot enhance its population control program through the RH Law simply The same holds true with respect to non-maternity specialty hospitals and
because the promotion of contraceptive use is contrary to their religious beliefs. hospitals owned and operated by a religious group and health care service
Indeed, the State is not precluded to pursue its legitimate secular objectives providers. Considering that Section 24 of the RH Law penalizes such institutions
without being dictated upon by the policies of any one religion. One cannot refuse should they fail or refuse to comply with their duty to refer under Section 7 and
to pay his taxes simply because it will cloud his conscience. The demarcation line Section 23(a)(3), the Court deems that it must be struck down for being violative
between Church and State demands that one render unto Caesar the things that of the freedom of religion. The same applies to Section 23(a)(l) and (a)(2) in
are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.221 relation to Section 24, considering that in the dissemination of information
The Free Exercise Clause and the Duty to Refer regarding programs and services and in the performance of reproductive health
While the RH Law, in espousing state policy to promote reproductive health procedures, the religious freedom of health care service providers should be
manifestly respects diverse religious beliefs in line with the Non-Establishment respected.
Clause, the same conclusion cannot be reached with respect to Sections 7, 23 In the case of Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the
and 24 thereof. The said provisions commonly mandate that a hospital or a Executive Secretary228 it was stressed:
medical practitioner to immediately refer a person seeking health care and Freedom of religion was accorded preferred status by the framers of our
services under the law to another accessible healthcare provider despite their fundamental law. And this Court has consistently affirmed this preferred status,
conscientious objections based on religious or ethical beliefs. well aware that it is "designed to protect the broadest possible liberty of
In a situation where the free exercise of religion is allegedly burdened by conscience, to allow each man to believe as his conscience directs, to profess his
government legislation or practice, the compelling state interest test in line with beliefs, and to live as he believes he ought to live, consistent with the liberty of
the Court's espousal of the Doctrine of Benevolent Neutrality in Escritor, finds others and with the common good."10
application. In this case, the conscientious objector's claim to religious freedom The Court is not oblivious to the view that penalties provided by law endeavour to
would warrant an exemption from obligations under the RH Law, unless the ensure compliance. Without set consequences for either an active violation or
government succeeds in demonstrating a more compelling state interest in the mere inaction, a law tends to be toothless and ineffectual. Nonetheless, when
accomplishment of an important secular objective. Necessarily so, the plea of what is bartered for an effective implementation of a law is a constitutionally-
conscientious objectors for exemption from the RH Law deserves no less than protected right the Court firmly chooses to stamp its disapproval. The punishment
strict scrutiny. of a healthcare service provider, who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient to
In applying the test, the first inquiry is whether a conscientious objector's right to another, or who declines to perform reproductive health procedure on a patient
religious freedom has been burdened. As in Escritor, there is no doubt that an because incompatible religious beliefs, is a clear inhibition of a constitutional
intense tug-of-war plagues a conscientious objector. One side coaxes him into guarantee which the Court cannot allow.
obedience to the law and the abandonment of his religious beliefs, while the other The Implementing Rules and Regulation (RH-IRR)
entices him to a clean conscience yet under the pain of penalty. The scenario is The last paragraph of Section 5.24 of the RH-IRR reads:
an illustration of the predicament of medical practitioners whose religious beliefs Provided, That skilled health professional such as provincial, city or municipal
are incongruent with what the RH Law promotes. health officers, chiefs of hospital, head nurses, supervising midwives, among
others, who by virtue of their office are specifically charged with the duty to
implement the provisions of the RPRH Act and these Rules, cannot be considered Resultantly, the Court finds no compelling state interest which would limit the free
as conscientious objectors. exercise clause of the conscientious objectors, however few in number. Only the
This is discriminatory and violative of the equal protection clause. The prevention of an immediate and grave danger to the security and welfare of the
conscientious objection clause should be equally protective of the religious belief community can justify the infringement of religious freedom. If the government
of public health officers. There is no perceptible distinction why they should not fails to show the seriousness and immediacy of the threat, State intrusion is
be considered exempt from the mandates of the law. The protection accorded to constitutionally unacceptable.232
other conscientious objectors should equally apply to all medical practitioners Freedom of religion means more than just the freedom to believe. It also means
without distinction whether they belong to the public or private sector. After all, the the freedom to act or not to act according to what one believes. And this freedom
freedom to believe is intrinsic in every individual and the protective robe that is violated when one is compelled to act against one's belief or is prevented from
guarantees its free exercise is not taken off even if one acquires employment in acting according to one's belief.233
the government. Apparently, in these cases, there is no immediate danger to the life or health of
It should be stressed that intellectual liberty occupies a place inferior to none in an individual in the perceived scenario of the subject provisions. After all, a couple
the hierarchy of human values. The mind must be free to think what it wills, who plans the timing, number and spacing of the birth of their children refers to a
whether in the secular or religious sphere, to give expression to its beliefs by oral future event that is contingent on whether or not the mother decides to adopt or
discourse or through the media and, thus, seek other candid views in occasions use the information, product, method or supply given to her or whether she even
or gatherings or in more permanent aggrupation. Embraced in such concept then decides to become pregnant at all. On the other hand, the burden placed upon
are freedom of religion, freedom of speech, of the press, assembly and petition, those who object to contraceptive use is immediate and occurs the moment a
and freedom of association.229 patient seeks consultation on reproductive health matters.
The discriminatory provision is void not only because no such exception is stated Moreover, granting that a compelling interest exists to justify the infringement of
in the RH Law itself but also because it is violative of the equal protection clause the conscientious objector's religious freedom, the respondents have failed to
in the Constitution. Quoting respondent Lagman, if there is any conflict between demonstrate "the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests" which could
the RH-IRR and the RH Law, the law must prevail. limit or override a person's fundamental right to religious freedom. Also, the
Justice Mendoza: respondents have not presented any government effort exerted to show that the
I'll go to another point. The RH law .. .in your Comment- in-Intervention on page means it takes to achieve its legitimate state objective is the least intrusive
52, you mentioned RH Law is replete with provisions in upholding the freedom of means.234 Other than the assertion that the act of referring would only be
religion and respecting religious convictions. Earlier, you affirmed this with momentary, considering that the act of referral by a conscientious objector is the
qualifications. Now, you have read, I presumed you have read the IRR- very action being contested as violative of religious freedom, it behooves the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of the RH Bill? respondents to demonstrate that no other means can be undertaken by the State
Congressman Lagman: to achieve its objective without violating the rights of the conscientious objector.
Yes, Your Honor, I have read but I have to admit, it's a long IRR and I have not The health concerns of women may still be addressed by other practitioners who
thoroughly dissected the nuances of the provisions. may perform reproductive health-related procedures with open willingness and
Justice Mendoza: motivation. Suffice it to say, a person who is forced to perform an act in utter
I will read to you one provision. It's Section 5.24. This I cannot find in the RH Law. reluctance deserves the protection of the Court as the last vanguard of
But in the IRR it says: " .... skilled health professionals such as provincial, city or constitutional freedoms.
municipal health officers, chief of hospitals, head nurses, supervising midwives, At any rate, there are other secular steps already taken by the Legislature to
among others, who by virtue of their office are specifically charged with the duty ensure that the right to health is protected. Considering other legislations as they
to implement the provisions of the RPRH Act and these Rules, cannot be stand now, R.A . No. 4 729 or the Contraceptive Act, R.A. No. 6365 or "The
considered as conscientious objectors." Do you agree with this? Population Act of the Philippines" and R.A. No. 9710, otherwise known as "The
Congressman Lagman: Magna Carta of Women," amply cater to the needs of women in relation to health
I will have to go over again the provisions, Your Honor. services and programs. The pertinent provision of Magna Carta on
Justice Mendoza: comprehensive health services and programs for women, in fact, reads:
In other words, public health officers in contrast to the private practitioners who Section 17. Women's Right to Health. - (a) Comprehensive Health Services. - The
can be conscientious objectors, skilled health professionals cannot be considered State shall, at all times, provide for a comprehensive, culture-sensitive, and
conscientious objectors. Do you agree with this? Is this not against the gender-responsive health services and programs covering all stages of a
constitutional right to the religious belief? woman's life cycle and which addresses the major causes of women's mortality
Congressman Lagman: and morbidity: Provided, That in the provision for comprehensive health services,
Your Honor, if there is any conflict between the IRR and the law, the law must due respect shall be accorded to women's religious convictions, the rights of the
prevail.230 spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions, and the
Compelling State Interest demands of responsible parenthood, and the right of women to protection from
The foregoing discussion then begets the question on whether the respondents, hazardous drugs, devices, interventions, and substances.
in defense of the subject provisions, were able to: 1] demonstrate a more Access to the following services shall be ensured:
compelling state interest to restrain conscientious objectors in their choice of (1) Maternal care to include pre- and post-natal services to
services to render; and 2] discharge the burden of proof that the obligatory address pregnancy and infant health and nutrition;
character of the law is the least intrusive means to achieve the objectives of the (2) Promotion of breastfeeding;
law. (3) Responsible, ethical, legal, safe, and effective methods of
Unfortunately, a deep scrutiny of the respondents' submissions proved to be in family planning;
vain. The OSG was curiously silent in the establishment of a more compelling (4) Family and State collaboration in youth sexuality
state interest that would rationalize the curbing of a conscientious objector's right education and health services without prejudice to the
not to adhere to an action contrary to his religious convictions. During the oral primary right and duty of parents to educate their children;
arguments, the OSG maintained the same silence and evasion. The Transcripts (5) Prevention and management of reproductive tract
of the Stenographic Notes disclose the following: infections, including sexually transmitted diseases, HIV, and
Justice De Castro: AIDS;
Let's go back to the duty of the conscientious objector to refer. .. (6) Prevention and management of reproductive tract
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: cancers like breast and cervical cancers, and other
Yes, Justice. gynecological conditions and disorders;
Justice De Castro: (7) Prevention of abortion and management of pregnancy-
... which you are discussing awhile ago with Justice Abad. What is the compelling related complications;
State interest in imposing this duty to refer to a conscientious objector which (8) In cases of violence against women and children, women
refuses to do so because of his religious belief? and children victims and survivors shall be provided with
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: comprehensive health services that include psychosocial,
Ahh, Your Honor, .. therapeutic, medical, and legal interventions and assistance
Justice De Castro: towards healing, recovery, and empowerment;
What is the compelling State interest to impose this burden? (9) Prevention and management of infertility and sexual
Senior State Solicitor Hilbay: dysfunction pursuant to ethical norms and medical
In the first place, Your Honor, I don't believe that the standard is a compelling standards;
State interest, this is an ordinary health legislation involving professionals. This is (10) Care of the elderly women beyond their child-bearing
not a free speech matter or a pure free exercise matter. This is a regulation by the years; and
State of the relationship between medical doctors and their patients.231 (11) Management, treatment, and intervention of mental
health problems of women and girls. In addition, healthy
 lifestyle activities are encouraged and promoted through It argues that it cultivates disunity and fosters animosity in the family rather than
programs and projects as strategies in the prevention of promote its solidarity and total development.240
diseases. The Court cannot but agree.
(b) Comprehensive Health Information and Education. - The State shall provide The 1987 Constitution is replete with provisions strengthening the family as it is
women in all sectors with appropriate, timely, complete, and accurate information the basic social institution. In fact, one article, Article XV, is devoted entirely to the
and education on all the above-stated aspects of women's health in government family.
education and training programs, with due regard to the following: ARTICLE XV
(1) The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the THE FAMILY
rearing of the youth and the development of moral character Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation.
and the right of children to be brought up in an atmosphere Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total
of morality and rectitude for the enrichment and development.
strengthening of character; Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the
(2) The formation of a person's sexuality that affirms human family and shall be protected by the State.
dignity; and Section 3. The State shall defend:
(3) Ethical, legal, safe, and effective family planning methods The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious
including fertility awareness. convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood;
As an afterthought, Asst. Solicitor General Hilbay eventually replied that the The right of children to assistance, including proper care and nutrition, and special
compelling state interest was "Fifteen maternal deaths per day, hundreds of protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty, exploitation and other
thousands of unintended pregnancies, lives changed, x x x."235 He, however, conditions prejudicial to their development;
failed to substantiate this point by concrete facts and figures from reputable The right of the family to a family living wage and income; and
sources. The right of families or family assoc1at1ons to participate in the planning and
The undisputed fact, however, is that the World Health Organization reported that implementation of policies and programs that affect them.
the Filipino maternal mortality rate dropped to 48 percent from 1990 to 2008, 236 In this case, the RH Law, in its not-so-hidden desire to control population growth,
although there was still no RH Law at that time. Despite such revelation, the contains provisions which tend to wreck the family as a solid social institution. It
proponents still insist that such number of maternal deaths constitute a compelling bars the husband and/or the father from participating in the decision making
state interest. process regarding their common future progeny. It likewise deprives the parents
Granting that there are still deficiencies and flaws in the delivery of social of their authority over their minor daughter simply because she is already a parent
healthcare programs for Filipino women, they could not be solved by a measure or had suffered a miscarriage.
that puts an unwarrantable stranglehold on religious beliefs in exchange for blind The Family and Spousal Consent
conformity. Section 23(a) (2) (i) of the RH Law states:
Exception: Life Threatening Cases The following acts are prohibited:
All this notwithstanding, the Court properly recognizes a valid exception set forth (a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: ...
in the law. While generally healthcare service providers cannot be forced to render (2) refuse to perform legal and medically-safe reproductive health procedures on
reproductive health care procedures if doing it would contravene their religious any person of legal age on the ground of lack of consent or authorization of the
beliefs, an exception must be made in life-threatening cases that require the following persons in the following instances:
performance of emergency procedures. In these situations, the right to life of the (i) Spousal consent in case of married persons: provided, That in case of
mother should be given preference, considering that a referral by a medical disagreement, the decision of the one undergoing the procedures shall prevail.
practitioner would amount to a denial of service, resulting to unnecessarily placing [Emphasis supplied]
the life of a mother in grave danger. Thus, during the oral arguments, Atty. Liban, The above provision refers to reproductive health procedures like tubal litigation
representing CFC, manifested: "the forced referral clause that we are objecting and vasectomy which, by their very nature, should require mutual consent and
on grounds of violation of freedom of religion does not contemplate an decision between the husband and the wife as they affect issues intimately related
emergency."237 to the founding of a family. Section 3, Art. XV of the Constitution espouses that
In a conflict situation between the life of the mother and the life of a child, the the State shall defend the "right of the spouses to found a family." One person
doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives. If, however, it is cannot found a family. The right, therefore, is shared by both spouses. In the same
impossible, the resulting death to one should not be deliberate. Atty. Noche Section 3, their right "to participate in the planning and implementation of policies
explained: and programs that affect them " is equally recognized.
Principle of Double-Effect. - May we please remind the principal author of the RH The RH Law cannot be allowed to infringe upon this mutual decision-making. By
Bill in the House of Representatives of the principle of double-effect wherein giving absolute authority to the spouse who would undergo a procedure, and
intentional harm on the life of either the mother of the child is never justified to barring the other spouse from participating in the decision would drive a wedge
bring about a "good" effect. In a conflict situation between the life of the child and between the husband and wife, possibly result in bitter animosity, and endanger
the life of the mother, the doctor is morally obliged always to try to save both lives. the marriage and the family, all for the sake of reducing the population. This would
However, he can act in favor of one (not necessarily the mother) when it is be a marked departure from the policy of the State to protect marriage as an
medically impossible to save both, provided that no direct harm is intended to the inviolable social institution.241
other. If the above principles are observed, the loss of the child's life or the Decision-making involving a reproductive health procedure is a private matter
mother's life is not intentional and, therefore, unavoidable. Hence, the doctor which belongs to the couple, not just one of them. Any decision they would reach
would not be guilty of abortion or murder. The mother is never pitted against the would affect their future as a family because the size of the family or the number
child because both their lives are equally valuable.238 of their children significantly matters. The decision whether or not to undergo the
Accordingly, if it is necessary to save the life of a mother, procedures endangering procedure belongs exclusively to, and shared by, both spouses as one cohesive
the life of the child may be resorted to even if is against the religious sentiments unit as they chart their own destiny. It is a constitutionally guaranteed private right.
of the medical practitioner. As quoted above, whatever burden imposed upon a Unless it prejudices the State, which has not shown any compelling interest, the
medical practitioner in this case would have been more than justified considering State should see to it that they chart their destiny together as one family.
the life he would be able to save. As highlighted by Justice Leonardo-De Castro, Section 19( c) of R.A. No. 9710,
Family Planning Seminars otherwise known as the "Magna Carta for Women," provides that women shall
Anent the requirement imposed under Section 15239 as a condition for the have equal rights in all matters relating to marriage and family relations, including
issuance of a marriage license, the Court finds the same to be a reasonable the joint decision on the number and spacing of their children. Indeed, responsible
exercise of police power by the government. A cursory reading of the assailed parenthood, as Section 3(v) of the RH Law states, is a shared responsibility
provision bares that the religious freedom of the petitioners is not at all violated. between parents. Section 23(a)(2)(i) of the RH Law should not be allowed to
All the law requires is for would-be spouses to attend a seminar on parenthood, betray the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the family by giving to
family planning breastfeeding and infant nutrition. It does not even mandate the only one spouse the absolute authority to decide whether to undergo reproductive
type of family planning methods to be included in the seminar, whether they be health procedure.242
natural or artificial. As correctly noted by the OSG, those who receive any The right to chart their own destiny together falls within the protected zone of
information during their attendance in the required seminars are not compelled to marital privacy and such state intervention would encroach into the zones of
accept the information given to them, are completely free to reject the information spousal privacy guaranteed by the Constitution. In our jurisdiction, the right to
they find unacceptable, and retain the freedom to decide on matters of family life privacy was first recognized in Marje v. Mutuc,243 where the Court, speaking
without the intervention of the State. through Chief Justice Fernando, held that "the right to privacy as such is accorded
4-The Family and the Right to Privacy recognition independently of its identification with liberty; in itself, it is fully
Petitioner CFC assails the RH Law because Section 23(a) (2) (i) thereof violates deserving of constitutional protection."244 Marje adopted the ruling of the US
the provisions of the Constitution by intruding into marital privacy and autonomy. Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut,245 where Justice William O. Douglas
wrote:
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -older than our political In this connection, the second sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii)249 should be
parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or struck down. By effectively limiting the requirement of parental consent to "only in
for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an elective surgical procedures," it denies the parents their right of parental authority
association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not in cases where what is involved are "non-surgical procedures." Save for the two
political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an exceptions discussed above, and in the case of an abused child as provided in
association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions. the first sentence of Section 23(a)(2)(ii), the parents should not be deprived of
Ironically, Griswold invalidated a Connecticut statute which made the use of their constitutional right of parental authority. To deny them of this right would be
contraceptives a criminal offense on the ground of its amounting to an an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the family.
unconstitutional invasion of the right to privacy of married persons. Nevertheless, 5 - Academic Freedom
it recognized the zone of privacy rightfully enjoyed by couples. Justice Douglas in It is asserted that Section 14 of the RH Law, in relation to Section 24 thereof,
Grisworld wrote that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, mandating the teaching of Age-and Development-Appropriate Reproductive
formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and Health Education under threat of fine and/or imprisonment violates the principle
substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy."246 of academic freedom . According to the petitioners, these provisions effectively
At any rate, in case of conflict between the couple, the courts will decide. force educational institutions to teach reproductive health education even if they
The Family and Parental Consent believe that the same is not suitable to be taught to their students.250 Citing
Equally deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases where the minor, various studies conducted in the United States and statistical data gathered in the
who will be undergoing a procedure, is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. country, the petitioners aver that the prevalence of contraceptives has led to an
Section 7 of the RH law provides: increase of out-of-wedlock births; divorce and breakdown of families; the
SEC. 7. Access to Family Planning. – x x x. acceptance of abortion and euthanasia; the "feminization of poverty"; the aging of
No person shall be denied information and access to family planning services, society; and promotion of promiscuity among the youth.251
whether natural or artificial: Provided, That minors will not be allowed access to At this point, suffice it to state that any attack on the validity of Section 14 of the
modern methods of family planning without written consent from their parents or RH Law is premature because the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
guardian/s except when the minor is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. has yet to formulate a curriculum on age-appropriate reproductive health
There can be no other interpretation of this provision except that when a minor is education. One can only speculate on the content, manner and medium of
already a parent or has had a miscarriage, the parents are excluded from the instruction that will be used to educate the adolescents and whether they will
decision making process of the minor with regard to family planning. Even if she contradict the religious beliefs of the petitioners and validate their apprehensions.
is not yet emancipated, the parental authority is already cut off just because there Thus, considering the premature nature of this particular issue, the Court declines
is a need to tame population growth. to rule on its constitutionality or validity.
It is precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, care, At any rate, Section 12, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the natural
advice, and guidance of her own parents. The State cannot replace her natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency
mother and father when it comes to providing her needs and comfort. To say that and development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family. It does not promote unity Like the 1973 Constitution and the 1935 Constitution, the 1987 Constitution
in the family. It is an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen affirms the State recognition of the invaluable role of parents in preparing the
the family as an inviolable social institution. youth to become productive members of society. Notably, it places more
More alarmingly, it disregards and disobeys the constitutional mandate that "the importance on the role of parents in the development of their children by
natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic recognizing that said role shall be "primary," that is, that the right of parents in
efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the upbringing the youth is superior to that of the State.252
Government."247 In this regard, Commissioner Bernas wrote: It is also the inherent right of the State to act as parens patriae to aid parents in
The 1987 provision has added the adjective "primary" to modify the right of the moral development of the youth. Indeed, the Constitution makes mention of
parents. It imports the assertion that the right of parents is superior to that of the the importance of developing the youth and their important role in nation
State.248 [Emphases supplied] building.253 Considering that Section 14 provides not only for the age-
To insist on a rule that interferes with the right of parents to exercise parental appropriate-reproductive health education, but also for values formation; the
control over their minor-child or the right of the spouses to mutually decide on development of knowledge and skills in self-protection against discrimination;
matters which very well affect the very purpose of marriage, that is, the sexual abuse and violence against women and children and other forms of gender
establishment of conjugal and family life, would result in the violation of one's based violence and teen pregnancy; physical, social and emotional changes in
privacy with respect to his family. It would be dismissive of the unique and adolescents; women's rights and children's rights; responsible teenage behavior;
strongly-held Filipino tradition of maintaining close family ties and violative of the gender and development; and responsible parenthood, and that Rule 10, Section
recognition that the State affords couples entering into the special contract of 11.01 of the RH-IRR and Section 4(t) of the RH Law itself provides for the teaching
marriage to as one unit in forming the foundation of the family and society. of responsible teenage behavior, gender sensitivity and physical and emotional
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role of parents changes among adolescents - the Court finds that the legal mandate provided
in the care and custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is already a under the assailed provision supplements, rather than supplants, the rights and
parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a compelling state interest can justify a duties of the parents in the moral development of their children.
state substitution of their parental authority. Furthermore, as Section 14 also mandates that the mandatory reproductive health
First Exception: Access to Information education program shall be developed in conjunction with parent-teacher-
Whether with respect to the minor referred to under the exception provided in the community associations, school officials and other interest groups, it could very
second paragraph of Section 7 or with respect to the consenting spouse under well be said that it will be in line with the religious beliefs of the petitioners. By
Section 23(a)(2)(i), a distinction must be made. There must be a differentiation imposing such a condition, it becomes apparent that the petitioners' contention
between access to information about family planning services, on one hand, and that Section 14 violates Article XV, Section 3(1) of the Constitution is without
access to the reproductive health procedures and modern family planning merit.254
methods themselves, on the other. Insofar as access to information is concerned, While the Court notes the possibility that educators might raise their objection to
the Court finds no constitutional objection to the acquisition of information by the their participation in the reproductive health education program provided under
minor referred to under the exception in the second paragraph of Section 7 that Section 14 of the RH Law on the ground that the same violates their religious
would enable her to take proper care of her own body and that of her unborn child. beliefs, the Court reserves its judgment should an actual case be filed before it.
After all, Section 12, Article II of the Constitution mandates the State to protect 6 - Due Process
both the life of the mother as that of the unborn child. Considering that information The petitioners contend that the RH Law suffers from vagueness and, thus
to enable a person to make informed decisions is essential in the protection and violates the due process clause of the Constitution. According to them, Section
maintenance of ones' health, access to such information with respect to 23 (a)(l) mentions a "private health service provider" among those who may be
reproductive health must be allowed. In this situation, the fear that parents might held punishable but does not define who is a "private health care service provider."
be deprived of their parental control is unfounded because they are not prohibited They argue that confusion further results since Section 7 only makes reference to
to exercise parental guidance and control over their minor child and assist her in a "private health care institution."
deciding whether to accept or reject the information received. The petitioners also point out that Section 7 of the assailed legislation exempts
Second Exception: Life Threatening Cases hospitals operated by religious groups from rendering reproductive health service
As in the case of the conscientious objector, an exception must be made in life- and modern family planning methods. It is unclear, however, if these institutions
threatening cases that require the performance of emergency procedures. In such are also exempt from giving reproductive health information under Section
cases, the life of the minor who has already suffered a miscarriage and that of the 23(a)(l), or from rendering reproductive health procedures under Section 23(a)(2).
spouse should not be put at grave risk simply for lack of consent. It should be Finally, it is averred that the RH Law punishes the withholding, restricting and
emphasized that no person should be denied the appropriate medical care providing of incorrect information, but at the same time fails to define "incorrect
urgently needed to preserve the primordial right, that is, the right to life. information."
The arguments fail to persuade.
A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible One of the basic principles on which this government was founded is that of the
standards that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning equality of right which is embodied in Section 1, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: The equal protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due process, as
(1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties every unfair discrimination offends the requirements of justice and fair play. It has
targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers been embodied in a separate clause, however, to provide for a more specific
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing guaranty against any form of undue favoritism or hostility from the government.
of the Government muscle.255 Moreover, in determining whether the words used Arbitrariness in general may be challenged on the basis of the due process clause.
in a statute are vague, words must not only be taken in accordance with their plain But if the particular act assailed partakes of an unwarranted partiality or prejudice,
meaning alone, but also in relation to other parts of the statute. It is a rule that the sharper weapon to cut it down is the equal protection clause.
every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference to the context, that is, "According to a long line of decisions, equal protection simply requires that all
every part of it must be construed together with the other parts and kept persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment.256 conferred and responsibilities imposed." It "requires public bodies and inst itutions
As correctly noted by the OSG, in determining the definition of "private health care to treat similarly situated individuals in a similar manner." "The purpose of the
service provider," reference must be made to Section 4(n) of the RH Law which equal protection clause is to secure every person within a state's jurisdiction
defines a "public health service provider," viz: against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the
(n) Public health care service provider refers to: (1) public health care institution, express terms of a statue or by its improper execution through the state's duly
which is duly licensed and accredited and devoted primarily to the maintenance constituted authorities." "In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law
and operation of facilities for health promotion, disease prevention, diagnosis, requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between
treatment and care of individuals suffering from illness, disease, injury, disability individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental
or deformity, or in need of obstetrical or other medical and nursing care; (2) public objective."
health care professional, who is a doctor of medicine, a nurse or a midvvife; (3) The equal protection clause is aimed at all official state actions, not just those of
public health worker engaged in the delivery of health care services; or (4) the legislature. Its inhibitions cover all the departments of the government
barangay health worker who has undergone training programs under any including the political and executive departments, and extend to all actions of a
accredited government and NGO and who voluntarily renders primarily health state denying equal protection of the laws, through whatever agency or whatever
care services in the community after having been accredited to function as such guise is taken.
by the local health board in accordance with the guidelines promulgated by the It, however, does not require the universal application of the laws to all persons
Department of Health (DOH) . or things without distinction. What it simply requires is equality among equals as
Further, the use of the term "private health care institution" in Section 7 of the law, determined according to a valid classification. Indeed, the equal protection clause
instead of "private health care service provider," should not be a cause of permits classification. Such classification, however, to be valid must pass the test
confusion for the obvious reason that they are used synonymously. of reasonableness. The test has four requisites: (1) The classification rests on
The Court need not belabor the issue of whether the right to be exempt from being substantial distinctions; (2) It is germane to the purpose of the law; (3) It is not
obligated to render reproductive health service and modem family planning limited to existing conditions only; and (4) It applies equally to all members of the
methods, includes exemption from being obligated to give reproductive health same class. "Superficial differences do not make for a valid classification."
information and to render reproductive health procedures. Clearly, subject to the For a classification to meet the requirements of constitutionality, it must include or
qualifications and exemptions earlier discussed, the right to be exempt from being embrace all persons who naturally belong to the class. "The classification will be
obligated to render reproductive health service and modem family planning regarded as invalid if all the members of the class are not similarly treated, both
methods, necessarily includes exemption from being obligated to give as to rights conferred and obligations imposed. It is not necessary that the
reproductive health information and to render reproductive health procedures. The classification be made with absolute symmetry, in the sense that the members of
terms "service" and "methods" are broad enough to include the providing of the class should possess the same characteristics in equal degree. Substantial
information and the rendering of medical procedures. similarity will suffice; and as long as this is achieved, all those covered by the
The same can be said with respect to the contention that the RH Law punishes classification are to be treated equally. The mere fact that an individual belonging
health care service providers who intentionally withhold, restrict and provide to a class differs from the other members, as long as that class is substantially
incorrect information regarding reproductive health programs and services. For distinguishable from all others, does not justify the non-application of the law to
ready reference, the assailed provision is hereby quoted as follows: him."
SEC. 23. Prohibited Acts. - The following acts are prohibited: The classification must not be based on existing circumstances only, or so
(a) Any health care service provider, whether public or private, who shall: constituted as to preclude addition to the number included in the class. It must be
(1) Knowingly withhold information or restrict the dissemination thereof, and/ or of such a nature as to embrace all those who may thereafter be in similar
intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on circumstances and conditions. It must not leave out or "underinclude" those that
reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full should otherwise fall into a certain classification. [Emphases supplied; citations
range of legal, medically-safe, non-abortifacient and effective family planning excluded]
methods; To provide that the poor are to be given priority in the government's reproductive
From its plain meaning, the word "incorrect" here denotes failing to agree with a health care program is not a violation of the equal protection clause. In fact, it is
copy or model or with established rules; inaccurate, faulty; failing to agree with the pursuant to Section 11, Article XIII of the Constitution which recognizes the distinct
requirements of duty, morality or propriety; and failing to coincide with the truth. necessity to address the needs of the underprivileged by providing that they be
257 On the other hand, the word "knowingly" means with awareness or given priority in addressing the health development of the people. Thus:
deliberateness that is intentional.258 Used together in relation to Section 23(a)(l), Section 11. The State shall adopt an integrated and comprehensive approach to
they connote a sense of malice and ill motive to mislead or misrepresent the public health development which shall endeavor to make essential goods, health and
as to the nature and effect of programs and services on reproductive health. Public other social services available to all the people at affordable cost. There shall be
health and safety demand that health care service providers give their honest and priority for the needs of the underprivileged, sick, elderly, disabled, women, and
correct medical information in accordance with what is acceptable in medical children. The State shall endeavor to provide free medical care to paupers.
practice. While health care service providers are not barred from expressing their It should be noted that Section 7 of the RH Law prioritizes poor and marginalized
own personal opinions regarding the programs and services on reproductive couples who are suffering from fertility issues and desire to have children. There
health, their right must be tempered with the need to provide public health and is, therefore, no merit to the contention that the RH Law only seeks to target the
safety. The public deserves no less. poor to reduce their number. While the RH Law admits the use of contraceptives,
7-Egual Protection it does not, as elucidated above, sanction abortion. As Section 3(1) explains, the
The petitioners also claim that the RH Law violates the equal protection clause "promotion and/or stabilization of the population growth rate is incidental to the
under the Constitution as it discriminates against the poor because it makes them advancement of reproductive health."
the primary target of the government program that promotes contraceptive use . Moreover, the RH Law does not prescribe the number of children a couple may
They argue that, rather than promoting reproductive health among the poor, the have and does not impose conditions upon couples who intend to have children.
RH Law introduces contraceptives that would effectively reduce the number of the While the petitioners surmise that the assailed law seeks to charge couples with
poor. Their bases are the various provisions in the RH Law dealing with the poor, the duty to have children only if they would raise them in a truly humane way, a
especially those mentioned in the guiding principles259 and definition of terms260 deeper look into its provisions shows that what the law seeks to do is to simply
of the law. provide priority to the poor in the implementation of government programs to
They add that the exclusion of private educational institutions from the mandatory promote basic reproductive health care.
reproductive health education program imposed by the RH Law renders it With respect to the exclusion of private educational institutions from the
unconstitutional. mandatory reproductive health education program under Section 14, suffice it to
In Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission,261 the Court had the occasion to state that the mere fact that the children of those who are less fortunate attend
expound on the concept of equal protection. Thus: public educational institutions does not amount to substantial distinction sufficient
to annul the assailed provision. On the other hand, substantial distinction rests
between public educational institutions and private educational institutions, "(h) To conduct appropriate tests on all applicable health products prior
particularly because there is a need to recognize the academic freedom of private to the issuance of appropriate authorizations to ensure safety, efficacy,
educational institutions especially with respect to religious instruction and to purity, and quality;
consider their sensitivity towards the teaching of reproductive health education. "(i) To require all manufacturers, traders, distributors, importers,
8-Involuntary Servitude exporters, wholesalers, retailers, consumers, and non-consumer users
The petitioners also aver that the RH Law is constitutionally infirm as it violates of health products to report to the FDA any incident that reasonably
the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude. They posit that Section indicates that said product has caused or contributed to the death,
17 of the assailed legislation requiring private and non-government health care serious illness or serious injury to a consumer, a patient, or any person;
service providers to render forty-eight (48) hours of pro bono reproductive health "(j) To issue cease and desist orders motu propio or upon verified
services, actually amounts to involuntary servitude because it requires medical complaint for health products, whether or not registered with the FDA
practitioners to perform acts against their will.262 Provided, That for registered health products, the cease and desist
The OSG counters that the rendition of pro bono services envisioned in Section order is valid for thirty (30) days and may be extended for sixty ( 60)
17 can hardly be considered as forced labor analogous to slavery, as reproductive days only after due process has been observed;
health care service providers have the discretion as to the manner and time of "(k) After due process, to order the ban, recall, and/or withdrawal of any
giving pro bono services. Moreover, the OSG points out that the imposition is health product found to have caused death, serious illness or serious
within the powers of the government, the accreditation of medical practitioners injury to a consumer or patient, or is found to be imminently injurious,
with PhilHealth being a privilege and not a right. unsafe, dangerous, or grossly deceptive, and to require all concerned
The point of the OSG is well-taken. to implement the risk management plan which is a requirement for the
It should first be mentioned that the practice of medicine is undeniably imbued issuance of the appropriate authorization;
with public interest that it is both a power and a duty of the State to control and x x x.
regulate it in order to protect and promote the public welfare. Like the legal As can be gleaned from the above, the functions, powers and duties of the FDA
profession, the practice of medicine is not a right but a privileged burdened with are specific to enable the agency to carry out the mandates of the law. Being the
conditions as it directly involves the very lives of the people. A fortiori, this power country's premiere and sole agency that ensures the safety of food and medicines
includes the power of Congress263 to prescribe the qualifications for the practice available to the public, the FDA was equipped with the necessary powers and
of professions or trades which affect the public welfare, the public health, the functions to make it effective. Pursuant to the principle of necessary implication,
public morals, and the public safety; and to regulate or control such professions the mandate by Congress to the FDA to ensure public health and safety by
or trades, even to the point of revoking such right altogether.264 permitting only food and medicines that are safe includes "service" and "methods."
Moreover, as some petitioners put it, the notion of involuntary servitude connotes From the declared policy of the RH Law, it is clear that Congress intended that
the presence of force, threats, intimidation or other similar means of coercion and the public be given only those medicines that are proven medically safe, legal,
compulsion.265 A reading of the assailed provision, however, reveals that it only non-abortifacient, and effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based
encourages private and non- government reproductive healthcare service medical research standards. The philosophy behind the permitted delegation was
providers to render pro bono service. Other than non-accreditation with explained in Echagaray v. Secretary of Justice,267 as follows:
PhilHealth, no penalty is imposed should they choose to do otherwise. Private and The reason is the increasing complexity of the task of the government and the
non-government reproductive healthcare service providers also enjoy the liberty growing inability of the legislature to cope directly with the many problems
to choose which kind of health service they wish to provide, when, where and how demanding its attention. The growth of society has ramified its activities and
to provide it or whether to provide it all. Clearly, therefore, no compulsion, force or created peculiar and sophisticated problems that the legislature cannot be
threat is made upon them to render pro bono service against their will. While the expected reasonably to comprehend. Specialization even in legislation has
rendering of such service was made a prerequisite to accreditation with become necessary. To many of the problems attendant upon present day
PhilHealth, the Court does not consider the same to be an unreasonable burden, undertakings, the legislature may not have the competence, let alone the interest
but rather, a necessary incentive imposed by Congress in the furtherance of a and the time, to provide the required direct and efficacious, not to say specific
perceived legitimate state interest. solutions.
Consistent with what the Court had earlier discussed, however, it should be 10- Autonomy of Local Governments and the Autonomous Region
emphasized that conscientious objectors are exempt from this provision as long of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM)
as their religious beliefs and convictions do not allow them to render reproductive As for the autonomy of local governments, the petitioners claim that the RH Law
health service, pro bona or otherwise. infringes upon the powers devolved to local government units (LGUs) under
9-Delegation of Authority to the FDA Section 17 of the Local Government Code. Said Section 17 vested upon the LGUs
The petitioners likewise question the delegation by Congress to the FDA of the the duties and functions pertaining to the delivery of basic services and facilities,
power to determine whether or not a supply or product is to be included in the as follows:
Essential Drugs List (EDL).266 SECTION 17. Basic Services and Facilities. –
The Court finds nothing wrong with the delegation. The FDA does not only have (a) Local government units shall endeavor to be self-reliant and shall
the power but also the competency to evaluate, register and cover health services continue exercising the powers and discharging the duties and
and methods. It is the only government entity empowered to render such services functions currently vested upon them. They shall also discharge the
and highly proficient to do so. It should be understood that health services and functions and responsibilities of national agencies and offices devolved
methods fall under the gamut of terms that are associated with what is ordinarily to them pursuant to this Code. Local government units shall likewise
understood as "health products." exercise such other powers and discharge such other functions and
In this connection, Section 4 of R.A. No. 3 720, as amended by R.A. No. 9711 responsibilities as are necessary, appropriate, or incidental to efficient
reads: and effective provision of the basic services and facilities enumerated
SEC. 4. To carry out the provisions of this Act, there is hereby created an office herein.
to be called the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the Department of Health (b) Such basic services and facilities include, but are not limited to, x x
(DOH). Said Administration shall be under the Office of the Secretary and shall x.
have the following functions, powers and duties: While the aforementioned provision charges the LGUs to take on the
"(a) To administer the effective implementation of this Act and of the functions and responsibilities that have already been devolved upon
rules and regulations issued pursuant to the same; them from the national agencies on the aspect of providing for basic
"(b) To assume primary jurisdiction in the collection of samples of health services and facilities in their respective jurisdictions, paragraph (c) of
products; the same provision provides a categorical exception of cases involving
"(c) To analyze and inspect health products in connection with the nationally-funded projects, facilities, programs and services.268 Thus:
implementation of this Act; (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (b) hereof, public
"(d) To establish analytical data to serve as basis for the preparation of works and infrastructure projects and other facilities, programs and
health products standards, and to recommend standards of identity, services funded by the National Government under the annual General
purity, safety, efficacy, quality and fill of container; Appropriations Act, other special laws, pertinent executive orders, and
"(e) To issue certificates of compliance with technical requirements to those wholly or partially funded from foreign sources, are not covered
serve as basis for the issuance of appropriate authorization and spot- under this Section, except in those cases where the local government
check for compliance with regulations regarding operation of unit concerned is duly designated as the implementing agency for such
manufacturers, importers, exporters, distributors, wholesalers, drug projects, facilities, programs and services. [Emphases supplied]
outlets, and other establishments and facilities of health products, as The essence of this express reservation of power by the national government is
determined by the FDA; that, unless an LGU is particularly designated as the implementing agency, it has
"x x x no power over a program for which funding has been provided by the national
government under the annual general appropriations act, even if the program
involves the delivery of basic services within the jurisdiction of the LGU.269 A
complete relinquishment of central government powers on the matter of providing workers represent a significant human capital which could have helped them
basic facilities and services cannot be implied as the Local Government Code invigorate, innovate and fuel their economy. These countries are now trying to
itself weighs against it.270 reverse their programs, but they are still struggling. For one, Singapore, even with
In this case, a reading of the RH Law clearly shows that whether it pertains to the incentives, is failing.
establishment of health care facilities,271 the hiring of skilled health And in this country, the economy is being propped up by remittances from our
professionals,272 or the training of barangay health workers,273 it will be the Overseas Filipino Workers. This is because we have an ample supply of young
national government that will provide for the funding of its implementation. Local able-bodied workers. What would happen if the country would be weighed down
autonomy is not absolute. The national government still has the say when it comes by an ageing population and the fewer younger generation would not be able to
to national priority programs which the local government is called upon to support them? This would be the situation when our total fertility rate would go
implement like the RH Law. down below the replacement level of two (2) children per woman.280
Moreover, from the use of the word "endeavor," the LG Us are merely encouraged Indeed, at the present, the country has a population problem, but the State should
to provide these services. There is nothing in the wording of the law which can be not use coercive measures (like the penal provisions of the RH Law against
construed as making the availability of these services mandatory for the LGUs. conscientious objectors) to solve it. Nonetheless, the policy of the Court is non-
For said reason, it cannot be said that the RH Law amounts to an undue interference in the wisdom of a law.
encroachment by the national government upon the autonomy enjoyed by the x x x. But this Court cannot go beyond what the legislature has laid down. Its duty
local governments. is to say what the law is as enacted by the lawmaking body. That is not the same
The ARMM as saying what the law should be or what is the correct rule in a given set of
The fact that the RH Law does not intrude in the autonomy of local governments circumstances. It is not the province of the judiciary to look into the wisdom of the
can be equally applied to the ARMM. The RH Law does not infringe upon its law nor to question the policies adopted by the legislative branch. Nor is it the
autonomy. Moreover, Article III, Sections 6, 10 and 11 of R.A. No. 9054, or the business of this Tribunal to remedy every unjust situation that may arise from the
organic act of the ARMM, alluded to by petitioner Tillah to justify the exemption of application of a particular law. It is for the legislature to enact remedial legislation
the operation of the RH Law in the autonomous region, refer to the policy if that would be necessary in the premises. But as always, with apt judicial caution
statements for the guidance of the regional government. These provisions relied and cold neutrality, the Court must carry out the delicate function of interpreting
upon by the petitioners simply delineate the powers that may be exercised by the the law, guided by the Constitution and existing legislation and mindful of settled
regional government, which can, in no manner, be characterized as an abdication jurisprudence. The Court's function is therefore limited, and accordingly, must
by the State of its power to enact legislation that would benefit the general welfare. confine itself to the judicial task of saying what the law is, as enacted by the
After all, despite the veritable autonomy granted the ARMM, the Constitution and lawmaking body.281
the supporting jurisprudence, as they now stand, reject the notion of imperium et Be that as it may, it bears reiterating that the RH Law is a mere compilation and
imperio in the relationship between the national and the regional governments.274 enhancement of the prior existing contraceptive and reproductive health laws, but
Except for the express and implied limitations imposed on it by the Constitution, with coercive measures. Even if the Court decrees the RH Law as entirely
Congress cannot be restricted to exercise its inherent and plenary power to unconstitutional, there will still be the Population Act (R.A. No. 6365), the
legislate on all subjects which extends to all matters of general concern or Contraceptive Act (R.A. No. 4729) and the reproductive health for women or The
common interest.275 Magna Carta of Women (R.A. No. 9710), sans the coercive provisions of the
11 - Natural Law assailed legislation. All the same, the principle of "no-abortion" and "non-coercion"
With respect to the argument that the RH Law violates natural law,276 suffice it in the adoption of any family planning method should be maintained.
to say that the Court does not duly recognize it as a legal basis for upholding or WHEREFORE, the petitions are PARTIALLY GRANTED. Accordingly, the Court
invalidating a law. Our only guidepost is the Constitution. While every law enacted declares R.A. No. 10354 as NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL except with respect to
by man emanated from what is perceived as natural law, the Court is not obliged the following provisions which are declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL:
to see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance is in conformity to it. To begin 1) Section 7 and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR insofar as
with, it is not enacted by an acceptable legitimate body. Moreover, natural laws they: a) require private health facilities and non-maternity specialty
are mere thoughts and notions on inherent rights espoused by theorists, hospitals and hospitals owned and operated by a religious group to
philosophers and theologists. The jurists of the philosophical school are interested refer patients, not in an emergency or life-threatening case, as defined
in the law as an abstraction, rather than in the actual law of the past or present.277 under Republic Act No. 8344, to another health facility which is
Unless, a natural right has been transformed into a written law, it cannot serve as conveniently accessible; and b) allow minor-parents or minors who
a basis to strike down a law. In Republic v. Sandiganbayan,278 the very case have suffered a miscarriage access to modem methods of family
cited by the petitioners, it was explained that the Court is not duty-bound to planning without written consent from their parents or guardian/s;
examine every law or action and whether it conforms with both the Constitution 2) Section 23(a)(l) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
and natural law. Rather, natural law is to be used sparingly only in the most particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare
peculiar of circumstances involving rights inherent to man where no law is service provider who fails and or refuses to disseminate information
applicable.279 regarding programs and services on reproductive health regardless of
At any rate, as earlier expounded, the RH Law does not sanction the taking away his or her religious beliefs.
of life. It does not allow abortion in any shape or form. It only seeks to enhance 3) Section 23(a)(2)(i) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
the population control program of the government by providing information and insofar as they allow a married individual, not in an emergency or life-
making non-abortifacient contraceptives more readily available to the public, threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No. 8344, to undergo
especially to the poor. reproductive health procedures without the consent of the spouse;
Facts and Fallacies 4) Section 23(a)(2)(ii) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR
and the Wisdom of the Law insofar as they limit the requirement of parental consent only to elective
In general, the Court does not find the RH Law as unconstitutional insofar as it surgical procedures.
seeks to provide access to medically-safe, non-abortifacient, effective, legal, 5) Section 23(a)(3) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
affordable, and quality reproductive healthcare services, methods, devices, and particularly Section 5.24 thereof, insofar as they punish any healthcare
supplies. As earlier pointed out, however, the religious freedom of some sectors service provider who fails and/or refuses to refer a patient not in an
of society cannot be trampled upon in pursuit of what the law hopes to achieve. emergency or life-threatening case, as defined under Republic Act No.
After all, the Constitutional safeguard to religious freedom is a recognition that 8344, to another health care service provider within the same facility or
man stands accountable to an authority higher than the State. one which is conveniently accessible regardless of his or her religious
In conformity with the principle of separation of Church and State, one religious beliefs;
group cannot be allowed to impose its beliefs on the rest of the society. Philippine 6) Section 23(b) and the corresponding provision in the RH-IRR,
modem society leaves enough room for diversity and pluralism. As such, particularly Section 5 .24 thereof, insofar as they punish any public
everyone should be tolerant and open-minded so that peace and harmony may officer who refuses to support reproductive health programs or shall do
continue to reign as we exist alongside each other. any act that hinders the full implementation of a reproductive health
As healthful as the intention of the RH Law may be, the idea does not escape the program, regardless of his or her religious beliefs;
Court that what it seeks to address is the problem of rising poverty and 7) Section 17 and the corresponding prov1s10n in the RH-IRR
unemployment in the country. Let it be said that the cause of these perennial regarding the rendering of pro bona reproductive health service in so
issues is not the large population but the unequal distribution of wealth. Even if far as they affect the conscientious objector in securing PhilHealth
population growth is controlled, poverty will remain as long as the country's wealth accreditation; and
remains in the hands of the very few. 8) Section 3.0l(a) and Section 3.01 G) of the RH-IRR, which added the
At any rate, population control may not be beneficial for the country in the long qualifier "primarily" in defining abortifacients and contraceptives, as
run. The European and Asian countries, which embarked on such a program they are ultra vires and, therefore, null and void for contravening
generations ago , are now burdened with ageing populations. The number of their Section 4(a) of the RH Law and violating Section 12, Article II of the
young workers is dwindling with adverse effects on their economy. These young Constitution.
The Status Quo Ante Order issued by the Court on March 19, 2013 as extended 8 Spouses Reynaldo S. Luistro & Rosie B. Luistro, Jose S. Sandejas &
by its Order, dated July 16, 2013 , is hereby LIFTED, insofar as the provisions of Elenita S.A. Sandejas, Arturo M. Gorrez & Marietta C . Gorrez, Salvador
R.A. No. 10354 which have been herein declared as constitutional. S. Mante, Jr. & Hazeleen L. Mante, Rolando M. Bautista & Maria Felisa
SO ORDERED. S. Bautista, Desiderio Racho & Traquilina Racho, Femand Antonio A.
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA Tansingco & Carol Anne C. Tansingco for themselves and on behalf of
Associate Justice their minor children, Therese Antonette C. Tansingco, Lorenzo Jose C.
WE CONCUR: Tansingco, Miguel Fernando C . Tangsingco, Carlo Josemaria C.
Tingnan ang aking opinyong Tansingco & Juan Paolo C. Tansingco, Spouses Mariano V. Araneta &
Sumasang-ayon at Sumasalungat Eileen Z. Araneta for themselves and on behalf of their minor children,
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Ramon Carlos Z. Araneta & Maya Angelica Z. Araneta, Spouses
Chief Justice Renato C. Castor & Mildred C. Castor for themselves and on behalf of
their minor children, Renz Jeffrey C. Castor, Joseph Ramil C. Castor,
See Concurring Opinion PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, John Paul C. Castor & Raphae l C. Castor, Spouses Alexander R.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO JR. Racho & Zara Z. Racho for themselves a nd on behalf of their minor chi
Associate Justice Associate Justice ldren Margarita Racho, Mikaela Racho, Martin Racho, Mari Racho &
Manolo Racho, Spouses Alfred R. Racho & Franc ine Y. Racho for
themse lves and on behalf of their minor children Michael Racho,
With Separate concurring Mariana Racho, Rafael Racho, Maxi Racho, C hessie Racho & Laura
See: Separate Concurring
opinion Racho, Spouses David R. Racho & Armilyn A. Racho for themselves
Opinion
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE and on behalf of the ir minor child Gabrie l Racho, Mindy M. Juatas and
ARTURO D. BRION
CASTRO on behalf of her minor children Elijah General Juatas and Elian Gabriel
Associate Justice
Associate Justice Juatas, Salvacion M. Monteiro, Emily R. Laws, Joseph R. Laws &
Katrina R. Laws
9 With Prayer for Injunction; docketed a s G.R. No. 204957.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
10 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ
Associate Justice Associate Justice
of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 204988; rollo (G.R. No.
204988), pp. 5-3 5.
See Concurring and dissenting See Concurring Opinion 11 Through and together with its president Nestor B. Lumicao, M.D.
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD 12 Through and together with its representative/ member of the school
Associate Justice Associate Justice board Dr. Rodrigo M. Alenton, M.D.
13 Rosemarie R. Alenton, Imelda G. Ibarra, Cpa, Lovenia P. Naces,
Phd. , Anthony G. Nagac, Earl Anthony C. Gambe And, Marlon I. Yap.
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ 14 Docketed as G.R. No. 205003; Petition is entitled "Petition (To
Associate Justice Associate Justice Declare As Unconstitutional Republic Act No. 10354)." The petition fails
to provide any description as to nature of the suit under the Rules of
Court; rollo (G.R. No. 205003), pp. 3-40.
See Concurring and Dissenting 15 With prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order;
See concurring and dissenting Opinion docketed as G.R. No. 205043 ; rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 3-16.
BIENVENIDO L. REYES ESTELA M. PERLAS- 16 Through its vice president and co-founder, Eduardo B.Olaguer.
Associate Justice BERNABE 17 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ
Associate Justice of Prel iminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 205 138; rollo (G.R.
No. 205138), pp. 3-50.
See Separate dissent 18 Through and together with its president Atty. Ricardo M. Ribo.
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN 19 Atty. Lino E.A. Dumas, Romeo B. Almonte, Osmundo C. Orlanes,
Associate Justice Arsenio Z. Menor, Samuel J. Yap, Jaime F. Mateo, Rolly Siguan, Dante
CERTIFICATION E. Magdangal, Michael Eugenio 0. Plana, Bienvenido C. Miguel, Jr.,
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I hereby certify that the Landrito M. Diokno And Baldomero Falcone.
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the 20 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court. of Pre lim inary Injunction; The petition fails to provide any description
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO as to nature of the suit under the Rules of Court; docketed as G.R. No.
Chief Justice 205478; rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 3-26.
21 Jacqueline H. King, M.D., Cynthia T. Domingo, M.D., Josephine
Footnotes Millado-Lumitao, M.D., Anthony Perez, Michael Anthony G. Mapa,
1 Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines, Inc. v. Office of the Carlos Antonio Palad, Wilfredo Jose, Claire Navarro, Anna Cosio,
Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 153888, July 9, 2003; 405 SCRA 497, Gabrie l Dy Liacco
504. 22 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ
2 See <http://wn.com/pro-rh_ bill_vs_anti-rh_ bi ll>, last visited on of Prelim inary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 20549 1; rollo (G.R.
November 5, 20 13; See also <http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/04/ No. 20549 1), pp. 3-13.
19/ I O/h ontiveros-tatad-debate-rh-bill>, last vi sited on November 5, 23 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ
201 3. of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 205720; rollo (G.R. No.
3 See <http ://news info .inqu irer.net/inquirerheadlines/nation/view/ 205720), pp. 3-90.
20110321-326743/Stickers-spread-anti-RH-bill-message>, last visited 24 Through and together with its executive director, Loma Melegrito.
on November 5, 2 01 3; See also <http 25 Joselyn B. Basilio, Robert z. Cortes, Ariel A. Crisostomo, Jeremy I.
://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/ 218169/news/nation/carlos- Gatdula, Cri stina A. Montes, Raul Antonio A. N idoy, Winston Conrad
celdran-distributes-pro-rh-stickers-in-quiapo>, last visited on November B. Padojinog, Rufino L. Policarpio III.
5, 201 3. 26 Docketed as G.R. No. 206355, rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 3-32.
4 See <http ://newsinfo. inquirer.net/241 737/massive-church-rally-set- 27 Through and together with its co-petitioners, Attys. Ramon Pedrosa,
against-rh-bill>, last visited November 5, 201 3; See also Cita Borromeo-Garcia, Stella Acedera, and Berteni Cataluna Causing .
<http://www.splendorofthechurch.eom.ph/201 3/04/29/fi lipino- 28 With prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R.
catholics-flex-muscles-in-poll-clout/>, last visited November 5, 2013. No. 207 111 ; rollo (G.R. No. 207111 ), pp. 3-51.
5 With Prayer for the issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/ Writ 29 Mary M. lmbong, Anthony Victorio B. Lumicao, Joseph Martin Q.
of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 2048 19; rollo (G.R. No. Verdejo, Antonio Emma R. Roxas and Lota Lat-Guerrero.
204819), pp. 3-32. 30 With prayer for a Writ of Pre liminary Injunction; docketed as G.R.
6 With Prayer for the Urgent Issuance of a Temporary Restraining No. 207 172; rollo (G.R. No. 207 172), pp. 3-56.
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction; docketed as G.R. No. 31 Spouses Juan Carlos Artadi Sarmiento and Francesca Isabelle
204934; rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 3-76. Besinga-Sarmiento, and Spouses Luis Francis A. Rodrigo, Jr. and
7 Also proceeding in her personal capacity a citizen and as a member Deborah Marie Veronica N. Rodrigo.
of the Bar. 32 Docketed as G.R. No. 2 07563; rollo (G.R. No. 2 07563), pp. 3-1 5.
33 Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 138-1 55.
34 Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 124 8-1 260. 47 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, ro//o (G.R.
35 Petition, lmbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 20481 9), pp. 8-1 O; Petit No. 207172), pp. 32-34.
ion, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, rol!o (G.R. 48 Petition, l mbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), pp. 2623-2626;
No. 20493 4), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. Petition, Alcantara, pp.5-9; rollo, (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 142- 148;
v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-1 5; Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, Petition, Serve life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No.
rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11 ; Petition, Philippine Alliance of 204988), pp. 20-21; Petition, Bugarin v. Office of the President, rollo (G.
XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rol!o (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 8-36; R. No. 205003), pp. 14- 16; Petit ion, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc.
Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. N o. 205478), pp. 10-1 3; v. Office of the President, rollo (G. R. No. 206355), p. 16; Petition,
Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, Couples for Christ Foundation, In c. v. Ochoa, ro//o (G. R. No. 207 172),
rollo (G.R. No . 20635 5), pp . 11-15 ; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. pp. 16-20.
No. 207111 ), pp. 17- 18; Petition, Buhay Party-list (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, 49 Petition, Imbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No. 2 0481 9), pp. 14- 19;
rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1255- 1256. Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, rollo
36 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 42-44; Petition, Task Force for the Family and
rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 26-28; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 21-25; Petition,
City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G. R. No. 204988), pp. 15-1 6; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, rollo (G.R.
Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. N o. 205478), pp. 13- 14; Petition, Pro- No. 206355), pp. 23-25; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v.
Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 23 -28.
30-35. 50 Jo int Memorandum, Jmbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No . 204819), pp.
37 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, 257 1-2574; Petition, Olaguer v. Ona, rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 11-
rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, Philippine Alliance of 1 2; Petition, Tatad v. Office of the President, rollo (G. R. No. 205491),
XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 39-44; pp. 7-8; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.
Petition, Tatad v. Office of the President, rol/o (G. R. No. 205491), pp. R. No. 207172), pp. 28-32.
8-9; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. 51 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa,
No. 205720), pp . 59-67; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 28-33; Petition, Philippine Alliance of
Office of the President, rollo (G.R. No. 2 06355), pp. 25-26. XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No. 205138), pp. 37-38.
38 Petition, lmbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 I 9), pp. 20-22; 52 Section 26. ( I) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only
Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, rollo one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof; Task Force for
(G.R. No. 204934), pp. 34-38; Petition, Task Force for the Family and the Family and l ife Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp.
Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, 6-1 O; Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No. 205478), pp. 9-10.
Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 6-7; Petition, Pro-Life 53 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R.
Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205720), pp. 56- No. 205720), pp. 14-30.
75; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, 54 Memorandum, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 894-
rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 16-22; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. 900; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R.
No. 207 111), pp.28-33 ; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. No. 207172), pp. 45-48; Petition, Tillah v. Executive Secretary, rollo
Ochoa, ro/lo (G.R. No. 207 172), pp. 12- 16. (G.R. No. 207563) pp. 6-12.
39 Section 5.23 Skilled Health Professional as a Conscientious 55 Rollo (G .. R. No. 204819), pp. 362-480.
Objector. ln order to be considered a conscientious objector, a skilled 56 Rollo (G .. R. No. 204819), pp. 195-353.
health professional shall comply with the following requirements: 57 Rollo (G .. R. No. 204819), pp. 487-528.
a) Submission to the DOH of an affidavit stating the modem 58 Rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 871-1007.
family planning methods that he or she refuses to provide and 59 Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp.1 306-1334; rollo, (G.R. No. 204934),
his or her reasons for objection; pp. 98-132.
b) Posting of a notice at the entrance of the clinic or place of 60 Rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 736-780.
practice, in a prominent location and using a clear/legible 61 In her Motion for Leave to Intervene, Senator Pilar Ju liana S.
font, enumerating the reproductive health services he or she Cayetano manifested that she was adopting as her own the arguments
refuses to provide; and c) Other requirements as determined raised by respondents Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral, Jamie Galvez-Tan, and
by the DOH. xxx. Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez in their Petition for Intervention; See rollo
Provided, That skilled health professionals who are pub lic (G..R. No. 20481 9), pp. 173 1-1 783. After being directed by the Court
officers such as, but not limited to, Provincial, City, or to file their respective memoranda, intervenors Dr. Esperanza I. Cabral,
Municipal Health Officers, medical officers, medical Jamie Galvez-Tan, and Dr. Alberto G. Romualdez manjfested on
specialists, rural health physicians, hospital staff nurses, November 18, 201 3, that they were adopting the arguments raised by
public health nurses, or rural health midwives, who are Congressman Lagman in his Joint Memorandum; See rollo (G..R. No.
specifically charged with the duty to implement these Rules 20481 9), pp. 3061-3070. On November 26, 201 3, Senator Pilar
cannot be considered as conscientious objectors. xx x Juliana S. Cayetano file d her separate Memorandum ; see, rollo (G.
(Emphases Ours) .R. No. 204819), pp. 3032-3059.
40 Joint Memorandum, lmbong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 62 Resolution dated March 15, 201 3.
26 17-26 19. 63 Resolution, dated July 16, 201 3.
41 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, 64 In its Resolution, dated August 27, 201 3, the Court required the
ro/lo (G.R. No. 204934), p. 40; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. parties to also include the following in their respective memoranda:
No. 205478), pp.6-7; Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, In c. v. 1. What is the relation of the first portion of Section 7 on
Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205720), p. 81. Access to Family Planning to the theory that R.A. No. I 0354
42 Petition, Pro-l ife Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. is an anti-poor program that seeks to reduce the population
No. 205720), pp. 63-64; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. of the poor?
Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 207172), pp. 20-23. 2. How is the second paragraph of the same section related
43 Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, In c. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. to the proposition that R.A. No. 10354 encourages sex
No . 204988), pp. 16-48 ; Petition , Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 2 among minors?
05478), pp. 7-9. 3. In relation to Section 23 on Prohibited Acts, where in the
44 Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. law can you find the definition of the term ' health care service
No. 204988), pp. 16-48; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. provider' ? Is the definition of a ' public health care service
205478), pp. 7-9. provider ' found in Section 4, paragraph (n) of the law
45 Petition, Task Force for the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, sufficient for the Court to understand the meaning of a 'private
rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 30-3 1; Memorandum, Echavez v. Ochoa, health care service provider' or should the Court refer to the
rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 1247- 1250; Petition, Millennium Saint Implementing Rules and Regulations which refer to 'health
Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, rollo (G.R. No. 2063 55), pp. care providers'?
25; Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. 4. With respect to ' health care providers' under the
No. 207 172 ), pp. 43-45. Implementing Rules and Regulations, does it make a
46 Joint Memorandum, Im bong v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), pp. difference that they are called ' health care providers' and not
2626-2637; Petition, Alcantara, pp. 9-1 3; rollo, (G.R. No. 204934), pp. ' health care service providers'? Does the fact that there is a
146- 150; Petition, Pro-l ife Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo missing word indicate that there is a difference or that the
(G.R. No. 205720), pp. 78-81. tautology being proposed actually refers to different objects?
 If in the affirmative, is there enough basis to say that the law 66 Entitled "An Act Regulating the Practice of Pharmacy and Setting
is a criminal statute that has sufficient definitions for purposes Standards of Pharmaceutical Education in the Philippines."
of punitive action? 67 See http://www.pop.org/content/coercive-population-ploys-in-ph
5. In relation to Section 23(a)(l), how will the State be able to ilippines-1428, last visited October 17, 2013.
locate the programs and services on which the health care 68 Entitled "Revising the Population Act of Nineteen Hundred And
service provider has the duty to give information? If the Seventy-One."
terminology of ' health care service provider ' includes ' 69 <http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202009-03%20-
private health care service provider', which includes private %20Promoting%20Reproductive%20Health.pdf->, last visited October
hospitals and private doctors, is the State duty-bound to 17, 2013.
consequently provide these providers with information on the 70 Held in Cairo, Egypt from September 5- 13, 1994.
programs and services that these providers should give 71 Section 17, R.A. 97 10.
information on? 72 See <www. nscb.gov.ph/secstat/d)pop.asp>; last accessed
6. As regards programs, is there a duty on the part of the February 2 0, 2014.
State to provide a way by which private health care service 73 Alliance /or the Family Foundation, Inc. (A LFI) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R.
providers can have access to information on reproductive No. 204934), p. 1408.
health care programs as defined in Section 4, paragraph (r)? 74 Id.
What is the implication of the fact that the law requires even 75 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 204819), p. 376.
private parties with the duty to provide information on 76 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 20481 9), p. 377.
government programs on the criminal liability of private health 77 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 20481 9), p. 378.
care service providers? 78 G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 20 10, 632 SCRA 146, 166.
7. As regards services, what is the distinction between 79 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 20481 9), p. 385, 387-
'information' and 'services' considering that 'services' in 388.
different portions of the statute include providing of 80 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), pp .3 81-
information? 384.
8. What are the specific elements of every sub-group of crime 81 Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 158 ( 1936).
in Section 23 and what are the legal bases for the 82 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. I.
determination of each element? 83 Constitution, Art. Vll , Sec. I.
9. Are there existing provisions in other statutes relevant to 84 Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 1.
the legal definitions found in R.A. No. 10354? 85 Supra note 81.
10. Why is there an exemption for the religious or 86 See Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc., et al. v.
conscientious objector in paragraph (3) of Section 23 and not Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 256 Phil. 777, 799 (1989).
in paragraphs ( 1) and (2)? What is the distinction between 87 Francisco, Jr. v. Th e House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261 ,
paragraph (3) and paragraphs ( 1) and (2)? November I 0, 2003, citing Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil.
11 . Section 23(a)(3) penalizes refusal to extend quality 139, 158 (1936).
health care services and information 'on account of the 88 Garcia v. Executive Secretary, 602 Phil. 64, 77-78 (2009).
person's marital status, gender, age, religious convictions, 89 Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G. R. No. 19627 I, October 18, 20
personal circumstances, or nature of work.' What if the I I, 659 SCRA 270, 326-327.
refusal is not on account of one's marital status, gender, age, 90 Biraogo v. The Philippine Truth Commission, G. R. No. I 92935 &
religious convictions, personal circumstances, or nature of G.R. No. 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 7 8, I 77.
work, or what if the refuser simply does not state the reason 91 Tañada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 575 (I997).
for the refusal? Will there still be a criminal liability under 92 453 Phil. 586 (2003).
Section 23(a)(3)? 93 G.R. No. 188078, 25 January 2010, 611 SCRA137.
12. Still on Section (23 )(a)(3) on referring a person to another 94 G.R No. 187 167, July 16, 2011 , 655 SCRA 476.
facility or provider, is this the same or analogous to referral of 95 Francisco v. House of Representatives, 460 Phil. 83 0, 882-883
a person to seek second opinion? What is the medical (2003), citing Florentino P. Feliciano, The Application of Law: Some
standard for the provision of a second opinion? In referring to Recurring Aspects Of The Process Of Judicial Review And Decision
another professional or service provider for a second opinion, Making, 37 A MJJUR 17, 24 (1 992).
is it the patient who is not comfortable with the opinion given 96 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, G. R. No . 192935,
by the first doctor that triggers the duty or option to refer? December 7, 20 10, 637 SCRA 78, 148 ; Southern Hemisphere
How is it different with the situation in Section 23(a)(3) when Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552,
it is the doctor who is not comfortable about giving an October 5, 20 10, 632 SCRA 146, 166-1 67; Senate of the Philippines
opinion? Is the difference legally material? v. Ermita, 522 Phil. I, 27 (2006); Francisco v. House of Representatives,
13. How does Section 23, paragraph (c) relate to Article 134 460 Phil. 83 0, 892 (2003).
the Labor Code which requires employers to provide family 97 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo, (G.R. No. 2 04819), pp. 375-
planning services? 376.
14. Section 24 provides that in case the offender is a juridical 98 Comment-In-Intervention, Hontiveros, et al., rollo, (G.R. No.
person, the penalties in the statute shall be imposed on the 204934), pp. 106- 109; Comment-In-Intervention, Cabral et al., rollo,
president or any responsible officer. For each offense in (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 500-501.
Section 23, how will the corporate officer be made 99 Republic Telecommunications Holding, Inc. v. Santiago, 556 Phil.
responsible if there is no actual participation by the hospital 83, 9 1-92 (2007).
board directors or officers of such action? Does Section 24 in 100 Jriformation Technology Foundation of the Philipp ines v.
relation to Section 23 require corporate action? What is the Commission on Elections , 499 Phil. 281, 304-305 (2005).
situation being contemplated in the second paragraph of 101 Lawyers Against Monopoly And Poverty (LAMP) v. Th e Secretary
Section 24 before there can be accountability for criminal of Budget and Management, G. R. No. 164987, April 24, 201 2, 670
violations? SCRA 373 , 383.
15. Section 7 provides that access of minors to information 102 The Province Of North Cotabato v. The Government of the
and family planning services must be with the written consent Republic of the Philippines, 589 Phil. 387, 481 (2008).
of parents or guardians. Is the re a penalty in the law for those 103 Id. at 483 .
who will make these information and services (e.g. , 104 Tañada v. Angara, 338 Phil. 546, 574 ( 1997).
contraceptives) available to minors without the parent's 105 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 204819), p. 381.
consent? How does this relate to Section 14 which requires 106 See United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 ( 1987).
the Department of Education to formulate a curriculum which 107 The First Amendment of the US Constitution reads: Congress shall
'shall be used by public schools' and ' may be adopted by make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
private schools'? Is there a penalty for teaching sex free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
education without the parents' or guardians' written consent? press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
Correlatively, is there a penalty for private schools which do the government for a redress of grievances.
not teach sex education as formulated by the DepEd 108 Romualdez v. Commission on Elections, 576 Phi l. 357 (2008);
considering the use of the word ' may'? Romualdez v. Hon. Sandiganbayan, 479 Phil. 265 (2004 ); Estrada v.
65 Section I , R.A. No. 4729 Sandiganbayan, 421 Phi I. 290 (200 I).
109 Resolution, Romualdez v. Commission on Elect ions, 594 Phil. 305, 141 <http://www.pop.org/content/ coercive-population-p loys-in-ph ii
3 16 (2008). ippines-1428>
110 Constitution, Article VIII , Section 1. During the deliberation, it was agreed that the individual members of
111 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 2048 19), pp. 375- the Court ca n express their own views on this matter.
376. 142 Petition, Alliance/or the Family Foundation, Inc. (AL FI) v. Ochoa,
112 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 2048 19), p. 384. rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp . 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De
113 Anak Mindanao Party-list Group v. Th e Executive Secretary, 558 Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No. 2 04988), pp. 13- 15; Petition,
Phil. 338, 350 (2007). Olaguer v. Ona, rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11 ; Petition, Philippine
114 Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil. 618, 633 Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205 138), pp.
(2000), citing Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 ( 1962). 8-36 ; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 10-13 ;
115 Dissenting Opinion, J. Carpio; Romualdez v. Commission on Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President,
Elections, 576 Phil. 357, 406 (2008). rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R.
116 Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board and No. 207 111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Party/isl (BUHAY) v. Ochoa,
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, 591 Phil. 393, 404 (2008); Tatad rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), pp. 1255-1256.
v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321 (1997); De Guia 143 Comment-ln-lntervention, Lag man, rollo, (G. R. No. 204819), pp.
v. COMELEC, G .R . No. 104 71 2, May 6, I 992, 208 SCRA 420, 422. 225-342.
117 503 Phil. 42, 53 (2005). 144 G.R. No. 202242, July 17, 201 2, 676 SCRA 579.
118 84 Phil. 368, 373 (1949). 145 Webster's Third International Dictionary, 1993 Edition, p. 469.
119 464 Phil. 375, 385 (2004). 146 Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 262.
120 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 388- 147 G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009, 618 Phil. 634 (2009).
389. 148 Gonzales v. Carhart (Nos. 05-380 and 05-1382), No. 05- 380, 413
121 The Province Of North Cotabato v. The Government of the F. 3d 791 ; 05- 1382, 435 F. 3d 1163,
Republic of the Philippines, supra note 102; Ortega v. Quezon City 149 http: //www.law.comell.edu/supct/html/05-380.ZO.html, last visited
Government, 506 Phil. 373, 380 (2005); and Gonzales v. Comelec, 137 February 15, 2014.
Phil. 471 (1969). 150 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
122 Section 26. (I) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace 16, 1986, p. 668.
only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. 151 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
123 Petition, Task Force for the Family and life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, 12, 1986, p. 596.
rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 6-10; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo 152 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
(G.R. No. 205478), pp. 9-10. 12, 1986, p. 669.
124 Joint Memorandum, Lagman, rollo, (G.R. No. 204819) pp. 212-214. 153 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
125 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819, pp.389-393. 19, 1986, p. 800.
126 ALFI Memorandum, rollo (G. .R. N o. 204934), p. 1396. 154 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
127 ALFI Memorandum, rollo (G. .R. No. 204934), p. 1396. 17, 1986, p. 711 .
128 ALFI Memorandum, rollo (G. .R. No. 204934), p. 1396. 155 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4, September
129 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2002 Edition, pp. 15 7-1 58; citing 82 17, 1986, p. 711.
CJS 365. 156 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume 4 , September
130 Petition, lmbong v. Ochoa, rol/o (G. R. No. 2048 19), pp. 8-10; 17, 1986, p. 745 .
Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, rollo 157 TSN, July 9, 2013 , pp. 23-24.
(G.R. No. 204934), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro 158 Id.
City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-1 5; Petition, 159 4th Edition, p. 375
Olaguer v. Ona, ro/lo (G. R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11 ; Petition, Philippine 160 Id, p. 609
Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, ro/lo (G.R. No . 2051 38), 161 Sumpaico, Gutierrez, Luna, Pareja, Ramos and Baja-Panlilio, 2"d
pp. 8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 2 05478), pp. 10- Edition, (2002), pp. 76-77.
13; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, 162 Moore, Persaud, Torchia, The Developing Human: Clinically
rollo (G. R. No. 206355), pp. 11-15; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. Oriented Embryo logy, International Edition, 9th Edition (2013), pp. 1-
No. 207111 ), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Partylist (BU HAY) v. Ochoa, 5, 13.
rollo (G. R. No. 2048 19), pp. 1255 -1256. 163 O'Rahilly, Ronan and Muller, Fabiola, Huma n Embryo logy &
131 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, inc. (ALFI) v. Ochoa, Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29, cited at:
rollo (G. R. No. 204934), pp. 15-25; Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De http://www.princeton.edu/-prolife/articles/embryoguotes2.html, last
Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.R. No. 204988), pp. 13-1 5; Petition, visited February 15, 2014.
Olaguer v. Ona, rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 10-11; Petition, Philippine 164 From https://www.philippinemedicalassociation
Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. .org/downloads/circular-forms/ Position-Paper-on-the-Republic-Health-
8-36; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No . 205478), pp. 10-13; Bill-%28Responsible-Parenthood-Bill%29.pdf. last visited March 26,
Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. Office of the President, 2014.
rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. 11-1 5; Petition, Juat v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. 165 Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, rol/o, (G.R. No. 204819), pp.
No. 207111), pp. 17-18; Petition, Buhay Partylist (BUHAY) v. Ochoa, 225-342.
rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 1255-1256. 166 Id.
132 Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. 167 Id.
No. 205720), pp. 14-30. 168 See <http://americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/
133 Memorandum, Alcantara, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2133; Reply, fetaldevelopment I .htm>, last visited April 7, 2014.
Olaguer v. Ona, rollo (G.R. No. 205043), pp. 339-340. 169 Joint Memorandum of the House of Representatives and
134 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo, (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 393- Respondent- Intervenor Rep. Edee I C. Lagman), Section 40, Rollo,
396; Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, rollo, (G.R. No. 204819), pp. G.R. No. 2048 19, p. 2343.
230-233; Comment-In-Intervention, C4RH, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), pp. 170 Concurring Opinion (Justice Carpio), p. 3.
1091-11 92; Hontiveros, rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 111-1 16; 171 See TSN, July 9, 2013, p. 100.
Memorandum, Cayetano,, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 3038-3041. 172 Separate Opinion (Justice Del Castillo), pp. 17-19; Separate
135 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo, (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 396- Opinion (Justice Brion), p. 25.
410. 173 Section 3.01 For purposes ofthese Rules, the terms shall be defin
136 Comment-In-Intervention, Lagman, rollo, (G.R. No. 204819), pp. ed as fo llows:
225-342. a) Abortifacient refers to any drug or device that primarily
137 Article 3, Universal Declaration of Human Rights. induces abortion or the destruction of a fetus inside the
138 See Republic Act No. 4729, dated June 18, 1966. mother's womb or the prevention of the fertil ized ovum to
139 See http://www.pop.org/content/coerci ve-population-ploys- in- reach and be implanted in the mother's womb upon
philippines- 1428 , last visited October 17, 2013. determination of the Food and Drug Admini stration (F DA) .
140 <http://www.senate.gov.ph/publications/PB%202009-03%20- xxxx
%20Promoting%20Reproductive%20 Health.pdt>, last visited October j) Contraceptive refers to any safe, legal, effective and
17, 2013. scientifically proven modern fam ily planning method, device,
or health product, whether natural or artificial, that prevents
 pregnancy but does not primarily destroy a fertilized ovum or 203 Memorandum, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p . 2679.
prevent a fertilized ovum from being implanted in the 204 Memorandum, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2679.
mother's womb in doses of its approved indication as 205 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 2000 ed ., p. 179, citing Justice
determined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) . Laurel in Engel v. Vitale, 370 US 421.
174 Separate Opinion (Justice Del Castillo), pp. 17-19; Separate 206 Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. I 007
Opinion (Justice Brion), p. 25 . 207 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 Ed. , p. 330
175 Separate Opinion (Justice Del Castillo), p. 19 . 208 Gorospe, Constitutional Law, Vol. I, p. I 066
176 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (A LFI} v. Ochoa, 209 59 SC RA 54 (1974).
rollo (G. R. No. 204934), pp. 26-28; Petition, Serve l ife Cagayan De 210 Escritor v. Estrada, A.M. No. P-02-1651 , June 22, 2006, 525 Phil.
Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rolfo, (G. R. No . 204988), pp. 15-16; Petition, 110, 140- 141 (2006).
Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 13- 14; Petition, Pro- 211 106 Phil. 2 (1959).
life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rolfo (G.R. No. 205 720), pp. 212 Gerona v. Secretary of Education, 106 Phil. 2, 9- 10 ( 1959).
30-35. 213 Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools, 219 SCRA 25 6 (
177 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, rollo, (G.R. No . 1993 ), March 1, 1993.
204934), pp. 1419-1445. 214 525 Phil. 110 (2006).
178 Section 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the 215 Id. at 137.
following terms shall be defined as follows: 216 Id. at 148.
xxxx 217 Id . at 149.
(p) Reproductive Health (RH) refers to the state of complete 218 Id. at 175.
physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the 219 Id. at 168- 169.
absence of disease or infirmity, in all matters relating to the 220 Estrada v. Escritor, 455 Phil. 4 11 , 560 (2003).
reproductive system and to its functions and processes. This 221 Cruz, Constitutional Law, 2000 edition, pp. 178-1 79.
implies that people are able to have a responsible, safe, 222 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 Ed. , p. 330.
consensual and satisfying sex life, that they have the 223 Separate Opinion, Cruz, Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
capability to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when , Schools, 219 SCRA 25 6 ( 1993 ), March 1, 1993.
and how often to do so. This further implies that women and 224 Estrada v. Escritor, supra note 220, at 537.
men attain equal relationships in matters related to sexual 225 20 130 CSIH 36.
relations and reproduction. 226 http://www. skepticink.com/tippling/201 3/05/0 5/conscientious-
179 Section 4. Definition of Terms . - For the purpose of this Act, the objection-to-abortion -cathoIic-midwives-win-appeal/; last visited
following terms shall be defined as follows: February 22, 2014
xxxx 227 http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/20 13/05/03/conscientious-
(w) Sexual health refers to a state of physical, mental and objection-to-abortion-catholic-midwives-win-appeal; last visited
social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive February 22 , 2014
and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual 228 453 Phil. 440 (2003).
relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable 229 Fernando on the Philippine Constitution, 1974 ed. , p. 565; See
and safe sexual experiences, free from coercion, Dissenting Opinion Makasiar, Garcia v. The Faculty Admission
discrimination and violence. Committee G. R. No. L-40779, November 28, 1975.
180 Me morandum, Alcantara, rollo, (G.R. No. 204934)p. 2136; 230 TSN , August 13, 201 3, pp. 52-54.
Memorandum , PAX, rollo (G.R. No. 205 138), pp. 2154-2155. 231 TSN, August27, 201 3, pp. 71-72
181 Consolidated Comment, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 415- 232 Islamic Da'wah Council of the Philippines v. Office of the Executive
416. Secretary of the Office of the President of the Philippines, supra note
182 Gamboa v. Finance Secretary, G.R. No. 176579, June 28, 2011 , 228 at 450.
6 52 SCRA 690, 738-739. 233 http://fatherbemasblogs. blogspot.com/2011 _02_0 !_archive.html
183 335 Phil. 82 ( 1997). ; last vi sited February 15, 2014.
184 Memorandum , Alliance for the Family Foundation, In c. (ALFI) v. 234 Estrada v. Escritor, supra note 210.
Ochoa, rol/o (G.R. No. 204934), p. 1408. 235 TSN , Aug ust 27 , 201 3, p. 130.
185 Id. 236 http ://www. lifenews.com/2011 /09/01 /philippines-sees-matemal-
186 Memorandum, Lagman, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp. 2359-2361. mortalitv-decline-without-abortion; last visited March 9, 2014
187 Separate Opinion (Justice Leonardo-De Castro) p. 54. [Researchers from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation of the
188 Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo University of Washington in Seattle examined maternal mortality rates
(G. R. No. 205138), pp. 40-41. in 181 countries and found the rate (the number of women's deaths per
189 Petition, Task Force/or the Family and Life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, 100,000) dropped by 81 percent in the Philippines between .1980 and
rollo (G.R. No. 204957), pp. 26-27; Petition, Philippine Alliance of XSem 2008. The decrease comes as the largely Catholic nation has resister
inarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp. 39-44; Petition, efforts to legalize abortions, even though the United Nations and pro-
Tatadv. Office of the President, rollo (G.R. No. 205491), pp. 8-9; abortion groups claim women will supposedly die in illegal abortions
Petition, Pro-Life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. and increase the maternal mortality rate if abortion is prohibited.
205720), pp . 59-67; Petition, Millennium Saint Foundation, Inc. v. The 2010 study, published in Lancet, shows the Philippines
Office of the President, rollo (G.R. No. 2063 55), pp. 25-26. outpaced first-world nations like Germany, Russia and Israel
190 Joint Memorandum, lmbong/Luat, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2615. - where abortions are legal - in cutting maternal mortality
191 Joint Memorandum, Imbong/Luat, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), pp . rates.
2616-2621. Meanwhile, the National Statistical Coordination Board in the
192 Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (GR. No. 205478), pp. 6-7. Philippines, according to Spero Forum, has shown the same
193 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. results. From 1990-2010, the daily maternal mortality rate
No. 207172), pp. 20-23. dropped 21 percent, its figures indicated. The World Health
194 Petition, Coup les for Christ Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. Organization also found that the Filipino maternal mortality
No. 207 I 72), pp. 20-23. rate dropped 48 percent from 1990 to 2008.
195 Petition, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (A LFI) v. Ochoa, 237 TSN, July 23, 2013 , p. 23.
rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 35-37.; Petition, Millennium Saint 238 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. {ALFI) v.
Foundation, In c. v. Office of the President, rollo (G.R. No. 206355), pp. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 204934), p. 1407.
17- 18. 239 SEC. 15. Certificate of Compliance. - No marriage license shall be
196 Memorandum, Cayetano, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 3050; issued by the Local Civil Registrar unless the applicants present a
Comment-in-Lntervention, Cabral, rollo (G.R. No. 2 04819), p. 5 11. Certificate of Compliance issued for free by the local Family Planning
197 Memorandum, OSG, rollo (G. R. No. 204819), p. 2677. Office certifying that they had duly received adequate instructions and
198 Memorandum, Cayetano, rollo (G.R. No. 2048 19), p. 3050. information on responsible parenthood, family planning, breastfeeding
199 Joint Memorandum Lagman, rol!o (G.R. No. 2048 19), p. 2361. and infant nutrition.
200 Memorandum . C4RH, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2189; 240 Petition, Couples for Christ Foundation, In c. v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R.
Memorandum, Cayetano, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 3050-305 1. No. 207 172), p. 29.
201 Memorandum, Cayetano, rollo (G.R. No. 204 819), p. 3050 . 241 80 CONST. Art XV, §2 .
202 Memorandum, OSG, rollo (G.R. No. 204819), p. 2677. 242 Separate Opinion (Justice Leonardo-De Castro), p. 42-43.
243 130 Phil. 415 (1968). (g) The provision of reproductive health care, information and
244 Id . at 436. supplies giving priority to poor beneficiaries as identified
245 81 Griswold v. Connecticut,3 81U.S. 479, June7, 1965. through the NHTS-PR and other government measures of
246 Id. identifying marginalization must be the primary responsibility
247 Section 12, Article II , 1987 Constitution. of the national government consistent with its obligation to
248 Bernas, The 1987 Constitution, 2009 Ed., p . 85. respect, protect and promote the right to health and the right
249 (ii) Parental consent or that of the person exercising parental to life;
authority in the case of abused minors, where the parent or the person xxxx
exercising parental authority is the respondent, accused or convicted (i) Active participation by nongovernment organizations
perpetrator as certified by the proper prosecutorial office of the court. In (NGOs), women's and people's organizations, civil society,
the case of minors, the written consent of parents or legal guardian or, faith-based organizations, the religious sector and
in their absence, persons exercising parental authority or next-of-kin communities is crucial to ensure that reproductive health and
shall be required only in elective surgical procedures and in no case population and development policies, plans, and programs
shall consent be required in emergency or serious cases as defined in will address the priority needs of women, the poor, and the
Republic Act No. 8344. marginalized;
250 Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205478), pp. 15- 16. xxxx
251 Memorandum, Alliance for the Family Foundation, Inc. (ALFI) v. (l) There shall be no demographic or population targets and
Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No. 204934), pp. 1453- 1496. the mitigation, promotion and/or stabilization of the
252 Records, 1986 Constitutional Convention, Volume IV, pp. 401-402 population growth rate is incidental to the advancement of
. reproductive health ;
253 Article II , Section 13, 1987 Constitution. xxxx
254 Petition, Task Force for the Family and life Visayas, Inc. v. Ochoa, (n) The resources of the country must be made to serve the
rollo (G. R. No. 204957), pp. 24-25. entire population, espec ially the poor, and allocations thereof
255 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism must be adequate and effective: Provided, That the life of the
Council, G.R. No. 178552, October 5, 2010; People v. Nazario, No. L- unborn is protected;
44 143, August 3 1, 1988, 165 SCRA 186, 195. (o) Development is a multi-faceted process that calls for the
256 Philippine International Trading Corporation v. COA, G.R. No. 1835 harmonization and integration of policies, plans, programs
17, June 22, 2010, 621 SC RA 461, 469. and projects that seek to uplift the quality of life of the people,
257 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993 Edition, p. 1145 more particularly the poor, the needy and the marginalized;
. 260 SEC. 4. Definition of Terms. - For the purpose of this Act, the
258 Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1993 Edition, p. following terms shall be defined as follows:
1252. xxxx
259 SEC. 3. Guiding Principles for Implementation. - Th is Act declares (r) Reproductive health care program refers to the systematic
the following as guiding principles: and integrated provision of reproductive health care to all
xxxx citizens prioritizing women, the poor, marginalized and those
(d) The provision of ethical and medically safe, legal, invulnerable or crisis situations.
accessible, affordable, non-abortifacient, effective and xxxx
quality reproductive health care services and supplies is (aa) Sustainable human development refers to bringing
essential in the promotion of people's right to health, people, particularly the poor and vulnerable, to the center of
especially those of women, the poor, and the marginalized, development process, the central purpose of which is the
and shall be incorporated as a component of basic health creation of an enabling environment in which all can enjoy
care; long, healthy and productive lives, done in the manner that
(e) The State shall promote and provide information and promotes their rights and protects the life opportunities of
access, without bias, to all methods of family planning, future generation s and the natural ecosystem on which all
including effective natural and modem methods which have life depends.
been proven medically safe, legal, non-abortifacient, and 261 Biraogo v. Th e Philippine Truth Commission, supra note 90.
effective in accordance with scientific and evidence-based 262 Petition, Serve Life Cagayan De Oro City, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo, (G.
medical research standards such as those registered and R. No. 204988), pp. 16-48; Petition, Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. No.
approved by the FDA for the poor and marginalized as 205478), pp. 7-9.
identified through the NHTS-PR and other government 263 Except the practice of law which is under the supervision of the
measures of identifying marginalization: Provided, That the Supreme Court.
State shall also provide fun ding support to promote modern 264 United States v. Jesus, 3 1 Phil. 218, 230 (1915).
natural methods of family planning, especially the Billings 265 Petition , Echavez v. Ochoa, rollo (G. R. N o. 205478), p. 8.
Ovulation Method, consistent with the needs of acceptors 266 With reference to Section 2 , 3(E), 4(L), 9 and I 9(C) of the RH La
and the irreligious convictions; w; Petition, ALFI, rollo (G.R. No. 204934), pp. 28-33; Petition, Philippine
(f) The State shall promote programs that: (I) enable Alliance of XSeminarians (PAX) v. Ochoa, rollo (G.R. No. 205138), pp.
individuals and couples to have the number of children they 37-38.
desire with due consideration to the health, particularly of 267 358 Phil. 410 (1998) .
women, and the resources available and affordable to them 268 Pimentel, Jr. v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 195770, July 17, 201
and in accordance with existing laws, public morals and their 2, 676 SCRA 551, 559.
religious convictions: Provided, That no one shall be 269 Id . at 559-560.
deprived, for economic reasons, of the rights to have 270 Id. at 561.
children; (2) achieve equitable allocation and utilization of 271 See Section 6, R.A. No. 10354.
resources; (3) ensure effective partnership among national 272 See Section 5, R.A . No. 10354.
government, local government units (LGUs) and the private 273 See Section 16, R.A . No. 1354.
sector in the design, implementation, coordination, 274 Kida v. Senate of the Philippines, G.R. No. 196271, October 18,
integration, monitoring and evaluation of people-centered 2011, 659 SCRA 270, 306.
programs to enhance the quality of life and environmental 275 Id. at 305.
protection; (4) conduct studies to analyze demographic 276 Petition, Pro-life Philippines Foundation, Inc. v. Ochoa, rollo (GR.
trends including demographic dividends from sound N o. 205 720), pp. 14-30.
population policies towards sustainable human development 277 Gettel , Political Science, Revised Edition, p. 180.
in keeping with the principles of gender equality, protection of 278 454 Phil. 504 (2003).
mothers and children, born and unborn and the promotion 279 Separate Opinion, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Republic v.
and protection of women's reproductive rights and health ; Sandiganbayan, 454 Phi l. 504 (2003).
and (5) conduct scientific studies to determine the safety and 280 https://www.cia.gov/ library/ publications/the-world-
efficacy of alternative medicines and methods for factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html ; last visited March 21, 2014
reproductive health care development; 281 St. Josephs College v. St. Josephs College Workers' Association
xxxx (Samahan), 489 Phil. 559, 572-573 (2005) ; and Cebu Institute of
Technology v. Opie, G.R. No. L-58870, 18 December 1987, 156 SCRA
629.
Republic of the Philippines the reconveyance of the lots in question; (3) specific performance of the
SUPREME COURT agreement to sell between it and the owners of the lots; and (4) damages.
Manila On June 8, 1990, petitioner and Msgr. Cirilos separately moved to dismiss the
EN BANC complaint — petitioner for lack of jurisdiction based on sovereign immunity from
suit, and Msgr. Cirilos for being an improper party. An opposition to the motion
G.R. No. 101949 December 1, 1994 was filed by private respondent.
THE HOLY SEE, petitioner, On June 20, 1991, the trial court issued an order denying, among others,
vs. petitioner's motion to dismiss after finding that petitioner "shed off [its] sovereign
THE HON. ERIBERTO U. ROSARIO, JR., as Presiding Judge of the Regional immunity by entering into the business contract in question" (Rollo, pp. 20-21).
Trial Court of Makati, Branch 61 and STARBRIGHT SALES ENTERPRISES, On July 12, 1991, petitioner moved for reconsideration of the order. On August
INC., respondents. 30, 1991, petitioner filed a "Motion for a Hearing for the Sole Purpose of
Padilla Law Office for petitioner. Establishing Factual Allegation for claim of Immunity as a Jurisdictional Defense."
Siguion Reyna, Montecillo & Ongsiako for private respondent. So as to facilitate the determination of its defense of sovereign immunity,
petitioner prayed that a hearing be conducted to allow it to establish certain facts
QUIASON, J.: upon which the said defense is based. Private respondent opposed this motion
This is a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court to as well as the motion for reconsideration.
reverse and set aside the Orders dated June 20, 1991 and September 19, 1991 On October 1, 1991, the trial court issued an order deferring the resolution on the
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila in Civil Case No. 90- motion for reconsideration until after trial on the merits and directing petitioner to
183. file its answer (Rollo, p. 22).
The Order dated June 20, 1991 denied the motion of petitioner to dismiss the Petitioner forthwith elevated the matter to us. In its petition, petitioner invokes the
complaint in Civil Case No. 90-183, while the Order dated September 19, 1991 privilege of sovereign immunity only on its own behalf and on behalf of its official
denied the motion for reconsideration of the June 20,1991 Order. representative, the Papal Nuncio.
Petitioner is the Holy See who exercises sovereignty over the Vatican City in On December 9, 1991, a Motion for Intervention was filed before us by the
Rome, Italy, and is represented in the Philippines by the Papal Nuncio. Department of Foreign Affairs, claiming that it has a legal interest in the outcome
Private respondent, Starbright Sales Enterprises, Inc., is a domestic corporation of the case as regards the diplomatic immunity of petitioner, and that it "adopts by
engaged in the real estate business. reference, the allegations contained in the petition of the Holy See insofar as they
This petition arose from a controversy over a parcel of land consisting of 6,000 refer to arguments relative to its claim of sovereign immunity from suit" (Rollo, p.
square meters (Lot 5-A, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 390440) located in the 87).
Municipality of Parañaque, Metro Manila and registered in the name of petitioner. Private respondent opposed the intervention of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Said Lot 5-A is contiguous to Lots 5-B and 5-D which are covered by Transfer In compliance with the resolution of this Court, both parties and the Department
Certificates of Title Nos. 271108 and 265388 respectively and registered in the of Foreign Affairs submitted their respective memoranda.
name of the Philippine Realty Corporation (PRC). II
The three lots were sold to Ramon Licup, through Msgr. Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., A preliminary matter to be threshed out is the procedural issue of whether the
acting as agent to the sellers. Later, Licup assigned his rights to the sale to private petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court can be availed
respondent. of to question the order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss. The general rule is
In view of the refusal of the squatters to vacate the lots sold to private respondent, that an order denying a motion to dismiss is not reviewable by the appellate courts,
a dispute arose as to who of the parties has the responsibility of evicting and the remedy of the movant being to file his answer and to proceed with the hearing
clearing the land of squatters. Complicating the relations of the parties was the before the trial court. But the general rule admits of exceptions, and one of these
sale by petitioner of Lot 5-A to Tropicana Properties and Development is when it is very clear in the records that the trial court has no alternative but to
Corporation (Tropicana). dismiss the complaint (Philippine National Bank v. Florendo, 206 SCRA 582
I [1992]; Zagada v. Civil Service Commission, 216 SCRA 114 [1992]. In such a
On January 23, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint with the Regional Trial case, it would be a sheer waste of time and energy to require the parties to
Court, Branch 61, Makati, Metro Manila for annulment of the sale of the three undergo the rigors of a trial.
parcels of land, and specific performance and damages against petitioner, The other procedural question raised by private respondent is the personality or
represented by the Papal Nuncio, and three other defendants: namely, Msgr. legal interest of the Department of Foreign Affairs to intervene in the case in behalf
Domingo A. Cirilos, Jr., the PRC and Tropicana (Civil Case No. of the Holy See (Rollo, pp. 186-190).
90-183). In Public International Law, when a state or international agency wishes to plead
The complaint alleged that: (1) on April 17, 1988, Msgr. Cirilos, Jr., on behalf of sovereign or diplomatic immunity in a foreign court, it requests the Foreign Office
petitioner and the PRC, agreed to sell to Ramon Licup Lots 5-A, 5-B and 5-D at of the state where it is sued to convey to the court that said defendant is entitled
the price of P1,240.00 per square meters; (2) the agreement to sell was made on to immunity.
the condition that earnest money of P100,000.00 be paid by Licup to the sellers, In the United States, the procedure followed is the process of "suggestion," where
and that the sellers clear the said lots of squatters who were then occupying the the foreign state or the international organization sued in an American court
same; (3) Licup paid the earnest money to Msgr. Cirilos; (4) in the same month, requests the Secretary of State to make a determination as to whether it is entitled
Licup assigned his rights over the property to private respondent and informed the to immunity. If the Secretary of State finds that the defendant is immune from suit,
sellers of the said assignment; (5) thereafter, private respondent demanded from he, in turn, asks the Attorney General to submit to the court a "suggestion" that
Msgr. Cirilos that the sellers fulfill their undertaking and clear the property of the defendant is entitled to immunity. In England, a similar procedure is followed,
squatters; however, Msgr. Cirilos informed private respondent of the squatters' only the Foreign Office issues a certification to that effect instead of submitting a
refusal to vacate the lots, proposing instead either that private respondent "suggestion" (O'Connell, I International Law 130 [1965]; Note: Immunity from Suit
undertake the eviction or that the earnest money be returned to the latter; (6) of Foreign Sovereign Instrumentalities and Obligations, 50 Yale Law Journal 1088
private respondent counterproposed that if it would undertake the eviction of the [1941]).
squatters, the purchase price of the lots should be reduced from P1,240.00 to In the Philippines, the practice is for the foreign government or the international
P1,150.00 per square meter; (7) Msgr. Cirilos returned the earnest money of organization to first secure an executive endorsement of its claim of sovereign or
P100,000.00 and wrote private respondent giving it seven days from receipt of the diplomatic immunity. But how the Philippine Foreign Office conveys its
letter to pay the original purchase price in cash; (8) private respondent sent the endorsement to the courts varies. In International Catholic Migration Commission
earnest money back to the sellers, but later discovered that on March 30, 1989, v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 (1990), the Secretary of Foreign Affairs just sent a letter
petitioner and the PRC, without notice to private respondent, sold the lots to directly to the Secretary of Labor and Employment, informing the latter that the
Tropicana, as evidenced by two separate Deeds of Sale, one over Lot 5-A, and respondent-employer could not be sued because it enjoyed diplomatic immunity.
another over Lots 5-B and 5-D; and that the sellers' transfer certificate of title over In World Health Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 (1972), the Secretary of
the lots were cancelled, transferred and registered in the name of Tropicana; (9) Foreign Affairs sent the trial court a telegram to that effect. In Baer v. Tizon, 57
Tropicana induced petitioner and the PRC to sell the lots to it and thus enriched SCRA 1 (1974), the U.S. Embassy asked the Secretary of Foreign Affairs to
itself at the expense of private respondent; (10) private respondent demanded the request the Solicitor General to make, in behalf of the Commander of the United
rescission of the sale to Tropicana and the reconveyance of the lots, to no avail; States Naval Base at Olongapo City, Zambales, a "suggestion" to respondent
and (11) private respondent is willing and able to comply with the terms of the Judge. The Solicitor General embodied the "suggestion" in a Manifestation and
contract to sell and has actually made plans to develop the lots into a townhouse Memorandum as amicus curiae.
project, but in view of the sellers' breach, it lost profits of not less than In the case at bench, the Department of Foreign Affairs, through the Office of
P30,000.000.00. Legal Affairs moved with this Court to be allowed to intervene on the side of
Private respondent thus prayed for: (1) the annulment of the Deeds of Sale petitioner. The Court allowed the said Department to file its memorandum in
between petitioner and the PRC on the one hand, and Tropicana on the other; (2) support of petitioner's claim of sovereign immunity.
In some cases, the defense of sovereign immunity was submitted directly to the "commercial character of the activity shall be determined by reference to the
local courts by the respondents through their private counsels (Raquiza v. nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by
Bradford, 75 Phil. 50 [1945]; Miquiabas v. Philippine-Ryukyus Command, 80 Phil. reference to its purpose." The Canadian Parliament enacted in 1982 an Act to
262 [1948]; United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990] and Provide For State Immunity in Canadian Courts. The Act defines a "commercial
companion cases). In cases where the foreign states bypass the Foreign Office, activity" as any particular transaction, act or conduct or any regular course of
the courts can inquire into the facts and make their own determination as to the conduct that by reason of its nature, is of a "commercial character."
nature of the acts and transactions involved. The restrictive theory, which is intended to be a solution to the host of problems
III involving the issue of sovereign immunity, has created problems of its own. Legal
The burden of the petition is that respondent trial court has no jurisdiction over treatises and the decisions in countries which follow the restrictive theory have
petitioner, being a foreign state enjoying sovereign immunity. On the other hand, difficulty in characterizing whether a contract of a sovereign state with a private
private respondent insists that the doctrine of non-suability is not anymore party is an act jure gestionis or an act jure imperii.
absolute and that petitioner has divested itself of such a cloak when, of its own The restrictive theory came about because of the entry of sovereign states into
free will, it entered into a commercial transaction for the sale of a parcel of land purely commercial activities remotely connected with the discharge of
located in the Philippines. governmental functions. This is particularly true with respect to the Communist
A. The Holy See states which took control of nationalized business activities and international
Before we determine the issue of petitioner's non-suability, a brief look into its trading.
status as a sovereign state is in order. This Court has considered the following transactions by a foreign state with private
Before the annexation of the Papal States by Italy in 1870, the Pope was the parties as acts jure imperii: (1) the lease by a foreign government of apartment
monarch and he, as the Holy See, was considered a subject of International Law. buildings for use of its military officers (Syquia v. Lopez, 84 Phil. 312 [1949]; (2)
With the loss of the Papal States and the limitation of the territory under the Holy the conduct of public bidding for the repair of a wharf at a United States Naval
See to an area of 108.7 acres, the position of the Holy See in International Law Station (United States of America v. Ruiz, supra.); and (3) the change of
became controversial (Salonga and Yap, Public International Law 36-37 [1992]). employment status of base employees (Sanders v. Veridiano, 162 SCRA 88
In 1929, Italy and the Holy See entered into the Lateran Treaty, where Italy [1988]).
recognized the exclusive dominion and sovereign jurisdiction of the Holy See over On the other hand, this Court has considered the following transactions by a
the Vatican City. It also recognized the right of the Holy See to receive foreign foreign state with private parties as acts jure gestionis: (1) the hiring of a cook in
diplomats, to send its own diplomats to foreign countries, and to enter into treaties the recreation center, consisting of three restaurants, a cafeteria, a bakery, a
according to International Law (Garcia, Questions and Problems In International store, and a coffee and pastry shop at the John Hay Air Station in Baguio City, to
Law, Public and Private 81 [1948]). cater to American servicemen and the general public (United States of America
The Lateran Treaty established the statehood of the Vatican City "for the purpose v. Rodrigo, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]); and (2) the bidding for the operation of barber
of assuring to the Holy See absolute and visible independence and of shops in Clark Air Base in Angeles City (United States of America v. Guinto, 182
guaranteeing to it indisputable sovereignty also in the field of international SCRA 644 [1990]). The operation of the restaurants and other facilities open to
relations" (O'Connell, I International Law 311 [1965]). the general public is undoubtedly for profit as a commercial and not a
In view of the wordings of the Lateran Treaty, it is difficult to determine whether governmental activity. By entering into the employment contract with the cook in
the statehood is vested in the Holy See or in the Vatican City. Some writers even the discharge of its proprietary function, the United States government impliedly
suggested that the treaty created two international persons — the Holy See and divested itself of its sovereign immunity from suit.
Vatican City (Salonga and Yap, supra, 37). In the absence of legislation defining what activities and transactions shall be
The Vatican City fits into none of the established categories of states, and the considered "commercial" and as constituting acts jure gestionis, we have to come
attribution to it of "sovereignty" must be made in a sense different from that in out with our own guidelines, tentative they may be.
which it is applied to other states (Fenwick, International Law 124-125 [1948]; Certainly, the mere entering into a contract by a foreign state with a private party
Cruz, International Law 37 [1991]). In a community of national states, the Vatican cannot be the ultimate test. Such an act can only be the start of the inquiry. The
City represents an entity organized not for political but for ecclesiastical purposes logical question is whether the foreign state is engaged in the activity in the regular
and international objects. Despite its size and object, the Vatican City has an course of business. If the foreign state is not engaged regularly in a business or
independent government of its own, with the Pope, who is also head of the Roman trade, the particular act or transaction must then be tested by its nature. If the act
Catholic Church, as the Holy See or Head of State, in conformity with its traditions, is in pursuit of a sovereign activity, or an incident thereof, then it is an act jure
and the demands of its mission in the world. Indeed, the world-wide interests and imperii, especially when it is not undertaken for gain or profit.
activities of the Vatican City are such as to make it in a sense an "international As held in United States of America v. Guinto, (supra):
state" (Fenwick, supra., 125; Kelsen, Principles of International Law 160 [1956]). There is no question that the United States of America, like
One authority wrote that the recognition of the Vatican City as a state has any other state, will be deemed to have impliedly waived its
significant implication — that it is possible for any entity pursuing objects non-suability if it has entered into a contract in its proprietary
essentially different from those pursued by states to be invested with international or private capacity. It is only when the contract involves its
personality (Kunz, The Status of the Holy See in International Law, 46 The sovereign or governmental capacity that no such waiver may
American Journal of International Law 308 [1952]). be implied.
Inasmuch as the Pope prefers to conduct foreign relations and enter into In the case at bench, if petitioner has bought and sold lands in the ordinary course
transactions as the Holy See and not in the name of the Vatican City, one can of a real estate business, surely the said transaction can be categorized as an act
conclude that in the Pope's own view, it is the Holy See that is the international jure gestionis. However, petitioner has denied that the acquisition and subsequent
person. disposal of Lot 5-A were made for profit but claimed that it acquired said property
The Republic of the Philippines has accorded the Holy See the status of a foreign for the site of its mission or the Apostolic Nunciature in the Philippines. Private
sovereign. The Holy See, through its Ambassador, the Papal Nuncio, has had respondent failed to dispute said claim.
diplomatic representations with the Philippine government since 1957 (Rollo, p. Lot 5-A was acquired by petitioner as a donation from the Archdiocese of Manila.
87). This appears to be the universal practice in international relations. The donation was made not for commercial purpose, but for the use of petitioner
B. Sovereign Immunity to construct thereon the official place of residence of the Papal Nuncio. The right
As expressed in Section 2 of Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have adopted of a foreign sovereign to acquire property, real or personal, in a receiving state,
the generally accepted principles of International Law. Even without this necessary for the creation and maintenance of its diplomatic mission, is
affirmation, such principles of International Law are deemed incorporated as part recognized in the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (Arts. 20-22).
of the law of the land as a condition and consequence of our admission in the This treaty was concurred in by the Philippine Senate and entered into force in
society of nations (United States of America v. Guinto, 182 SCRA 644 [1990]). the Philippines on November 15, 1965.
There are two conflicting concepts of sovereign immunity, each widely held and In Article 31(a) of the Convention, a diplomatic envoy is granted immunity from
firmly established. According to the classical or absolute theory, a sovereign the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the receiving state over any real action
cannot, without its consent, be made a respondent in the courts of another relating to private immovable property situated in the territory of the receiving state
sovereign. According to the newer or restrictive theory, the immunity of the which the envoy holds on behalf of the sending state for the purposes of the
sovereign is recognized only with regard to public acts or acts jure imperii of a mission. If this immunity is provided for a diplomatic envoy, with all the more
state, but not with regard to private acts or acts jure gestionis reason should immunity be recognized as regards the sovereign itself, which in
(United States of America v. Ruiz, 136 SCRA 487 [1987]; Coquia and Defensor- this case is the Holy See.
Santiago, Public International Law 194 [1984]). The decision to transfer the property and the subsequent disposal thereof are
Some states passed legislation to serve as guidelines for the executive or judicial likewise clothed with a governmental character. Petitioner did not sell Lot
determination when an act may be considered as jure gestionis. The United 5-A for profit or gain. It merely wanted to dispose off the same because the
States passed the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, which defines a squatters living thereon made it almost impossible for petitioner to use it for the
commercial activity as "either a regular course of commercial conduct or a purpose of the donation. The fact that squatters have occupied and are still
particular commercial transaction or act." Furthermore, the law declared that the
occupying the lot, and that they stubbornly refuse to leave the premises, has been
admitted by private respondent in its complaint (Rollo, pp. 26, 27).
The issue of petitioner's non-suability can be determined by the trial court without
going to trial in the light of the pleadings, particularly the admission of private
respondent. Besides, the privilege of sovereign immunity in this case was
sufficiently established by the Memorandum and Certification of the Department
of Foreign Affairs. As the department tasked with the conduct of the Philippines'
foreign relations (Administrative Code of 1987, Book IV, Title I, Sec. 3), the
Department of Foreign Affairs has formally intervened in this case and officially
certified that the Embassy of the Holy See is a duly accredited diplomatic mission
to the Republic of the Philippines exempt from local jurisdiction and entitled to all
the rights, privileges and immunities of a diplomatic mission or embassy in this
country (Rollo, pp. 156-157). The determination of the executive arm of
government that a state or instrumentality is entitled to sovereign or diplomatic
immunity is a political question that is conclusive upon the courts (International
Catholic Migration Commission v. Calleja, 190 SCRA 130 [1990]). Where the plea
of immunity is recognized and affirmed by the executive branch, it is the duty of
the courts to accept this claim so as not to embarrass the executive arm of the
government in conducting the country's foreign relations (World Health
Organization v. Aquino, 48 SCRA 242 [1972]). As in International Catholic
Migration Commission and in World Health Organization, we abide by the
certification of the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Ordinarily, the procedure would be to remand the case and order the trial court to
conduct a hearing to establish the facts alleged by petitioner in its motion. In view
of said certification, such procedure would however be pointless and unduly
circuitous (Ortigas & Co. Ltd. Partnership v. Judge Tirso Velasco, G.R. No.
109645, July 25, 1994).
IV
Private respondent is not left without any legal remedy for the redress of its
grievances. Under both Public International Law and Transnational Law, a person
who feels aggrieved by the acts of a foreign sovereign can ask his own
government to espouse his cause through diplomatic channels.
Private respondent can ask the Philippine government, through the Foreign
Office, to espouse its claims against the Holy See. Its first task is to persuade the
Philippine government to take up with the Holy See the validity of its claims. Of
course, the Foreign Office shall first make a determination of the impact of its
espousal on the relations between the Philippine government and the Holy See
(Young, Remedies of Private Claimants Against Foreign States, Selected
Readings on Protection by Law of Private Foreign Investments 905, 919 [1964]).
Once the Philippine government decides to espouse the claim, the latter ceases
to be a private cause.
According to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the forerunner of the
International Court of Justice:
By taking up the case of one of its subjects and by reporting
to diplomatic action or international judicial proceedings on
his behalf, a State is in reality asserting its own rights — its
right to ensure, in the person of its subjects, respect for the
rules of international law (The Mavrommatis Palestine
Concessions, 1 Hudson, World Court Reports 293, 302
[1924]).
WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is GRANTED and the complaint in Civil
Case No. 90-183 against petitioner is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug,
Kapunan and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Padilla, J., took no part.
Feliciano, J., is on leave.
Republic of the Philippines On January 15, 2013, the USS Guardian departed Subic Bay for its next port of
SUPREME COURT call in Makassar, Indonesia. On January 17, 2013 at 2:20 a.m. while transiting the
Manila Sulu Sea, the ship ran aground on the northwest side of South Shoal of the
EN BANC Tubbataha Reefs, about 80 miles east-southeast of Palawan. No cine was injured
G.R. No. 206510 September 16, 2014 in the incident, and there have been no reports of leaking fuel or oil.
MOST REV. PEDRO D. ARIGO, Vicar Apostolic of Puerto Princesa D.D.; On January 20, 2013, U.S. 7th Fleet Commander, Vice Admiral Scott Swift,
MOST REV. DEOGRACIAS S. INIGUEZ, JR., Bishop-Emeritus of Caloocan, expressed regret for the incident in a press statement.5 Likewise, US Ambassador
FRANCES Q. QUIMPO, CLEMENTE G. BAUTISTA, JR., Kalikasan-PNE, to the Philippines Harry K. Thomas, Jr., in a meeting at the Department of Foreign
MARIA CAROLINA P. ARAULLO, RENATO M. REYES, JR., Bagong Affairs (DFA) on February 4, "reiterated his regrets over the grounding incident
Alyansang Makabayan, HON. NERI JAVIER COLMENARES, Bayan Muna and assured Foreign Affairs Secretazy Albert F. del Rosario that the United States
Partylist, ROLAND G. SIMBULAN, PH.D., Junk VF A Movement, TERESITA will provide appropriate compensation for damage to the reef caused by the
R. PEREZ, PH.D., HON. RAYMOND V. PALATINO, Kabataan Party-list, ship."6 By March 30, 2013, the US Navy-led salvage team had finished removing
PETER SJ. GONZALES, Pamalakaya, GIOVANNI A. TAPANG, PH. D., Agham, the last piece of the grounded ship from the coral reef.
ELMER C. LABOG, Kilusang Mayo Uno, JOAN MAY E. SALVADOR, Gabriela, On April 1 7, 2013, the above-named petitioners on their behalf and in
JOSE ENRIQUE A. AFRICA, THERESA A. CONCEPCION, MARY JOAN A. representation of their respective sector/organization and others, including minors
GUAN, NESTOR T. BAGUINON, PH.D., A. EDSEL F. TUPAZ, Petitioners, or generations yet unborn, filed the present petition agairtst Scott H. Swift in his
vs. capacity as Commander of the US 7th Fleet, Mark A. Rice in his capacity as
SCOTT H. SWIFT in his capacity as Commander of the US. 7th Fleet, MARK Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian and Lt. Gen. Terry G. Robling, US
A. RICE in his capacity as Commanding Officer of the USS Guardian, Marine Corps Forces, Pacific and Balikatan 2013 Exercises Co-Director ("US
PRESIDENT BENIGNO S. AQUINO III in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief respondents"); President Benigno S. Aquino III in his capacity as Commander-in-
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, HON. ALBERT F. DEL ROSARIO, Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), DF A Secretary Albert F. Del
Secretary, pepartment of Foreign Affair.s, HON. PAQUITO OCHOA, JR., Rosario, Executive Secretary Paquito Ochoa, Jr., Secretary Voltaire T. Gazmin
Executiv~.:Secretary, Office of the President, . HON. VOLTAIRE T. GAZMIN, (Department of National Defense), Secretary Jesus P. Paje (Department of
Secretary, Department of National Defense, HON. RAMON JESUS P. P AJE, Environment and Natural Resources), Vice-Admiral Jose Luis M. Alano
Secretary, Department of Environment and Natural Resoz!rces, VICE (Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command, AFP), Admiral Rodolfo D. Isorena
ADMIRAL JOSE LUIS M. ALANO, Philippine Navy Flag Officer in Command, (Philippine Coast Guard Commandant), Commodore Enrico Efren Evangelista
Armed Forces of the Philippines, ADMIRAL RODOLFO D. ISO RENA, (Philippine Coast Guard-Palawan), and Major General Virgilio 0. Domingo (AFP
Commandant, Philippine Coast Guard, COMMODORE ENRICO EFREN Commandant), collectively the "Philippine respondents."
EVANGELISTA, Philippine Coast Guard Palawan, MAJOR GEN. VIRGILIO 0. The Petition
DOMINGO, Commandant of Armed Forces of the Philippines Command and Petitioners claim that the grounding, salvaging and post-salvaging operations of
LT. GEN. TERRY G. ROBLING, US Marine Corps Forces. Pacific and the USS Guardian cause and continue to cause environmental damage of such
Balikatan 2013 Exercise Co-Director, Respondents. magnitude as to affect the provinces of Palawan, Antique, Aklan, Guimaras, Iloilo,
DECISION Negros Occidental, Negros Oriental, Zamboanga del Norte, Basilan, Sulu, and
VILLARAMA, JR, J.: Tawi-Tawi, which events violate their constitutional rights to a balanced and
Before us is a petition for the issuance of a Writ of Kalikasan with prayer for the healthful ecology. They also seek a directive from this Court for the institution of
issuance of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) under Rule 7 of civil, administrative and criminal suits for acts committed in violation of
A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, otherwise known as the Rules of Procedure for environmental laws and regulations in connection with the grounding incident.
Environmental Cases (Rules), involving violations of environmental laws and Specifically, petitioners cite the following violations committed by US respondents
regulations in relation to the grounding of the US military ship USS Guardian over under R.A. No. 10067: unauthorized entry (Section 19); non-payment of
the Tubbataha Reefs. conservation fees (Section 21 ); obstruction of law enforcement officer (Section
Factual Background 30); damages to the reef (Section 20); and destroying and disturbing resources
The name "Tubbataha" came from the Samal (seafaring people of southern (Section 26[g]). Furthermore, petitioners assail certain provisions of the Visiting
Philippines) language which means "long reef exposed at low tide." Tubbataha is Forces Agreement (VFA) which they want this Court to nullify for being
composed of two huge coral atolls - the north atoll and the south atoll - and the unconstitutional.
Jessie Beazley Reef, a smaller coral structure about 20 kilometers north of the The numerous reliefs sought in this case are set forth in the final prayer of the
atolls. The reefs of Tubbataha and Jessie Beazley are considered part of petition, to wit: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Petitioners respectfully
Cagayancillo, a remote island municipality of Palawan.1 pray that the Honorable Court: 1. Immediately issue upon the filing of this petition
In 1988, Tubbataha was declared a National Marine Park by virtue of a Temporary Environmental Protection Order (TEPO) and/or a Writ of Kalikasan,
Proclamation No. 306 issued by President Corazon C. Aquino on August 11, which shall, in particular,
1988. Located in the middle of Central Sulu Sea, 150 kilometers southeast of a. Order Respondents and any person acting on their behalf, to cease
Puerto Princesa City, Tubbataha lies at the heart of the Coral Triangle, the global and desist all operations over the Guardian grounding incident;
center of marine biodiversity. b. Initially demarcating the metes and bounds of the damaged area as
In 1993, Tubbataha was inscribed by the United Nations Educational Scientific well as an additional buffer zone;
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) as a World Heritage Site. It was recognized c. Order Respondents to stop all port calls and war games under
as one of the Philippines' oldest ecosystems, containing excellent examples of 'Balikatan' because of the absence of clear guidelines, duties, and
pristine reefs and a high diversity of marine life. The 97,030-hectare protected liability schemes for breaches of those duties, and require Respondents
marine park is also an important habitat for internationally threatened and to assume responsibility for prior and future environmental damage in
endangered marine species. UNESCO cited Tubbataha's outstanding universal general, and environmental damage under the Visiting Forces
value as an important and significant natural habitat for in situ conservation of Agreement in particular.
biological diversity; an example representing significant on-going ecological and d. Temporarily define and describe allowable activities of ecotourism,
biological processes; and an area of exceptional natural beauty and aesthetic diving, recreation, and limited commercial activities by fisherfolk and
importance.2 indigenous communities near or around the TRNP but away from the
On April 6, 2010, Congress passed Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10067,3 otherwise damaged site and an additional buffer zone;
known as the "Tubbataha Reefs Natural Park (TRNP) Act of 2009" "to ensure the 2. After summary hearing, issue a Resolution extending the TEPO until
protection and conservation of the globally significant economic, biological, further orders of the Court;
sociocultural, educational and scientific values of the Tubbataha Reefs into 3. After due proceedings, render a Decision which shall include, without
perpetuity for the enjoyment of present and future generations." Under the "no- limitation:
take" policy, entry into the waters of TRNP is strictly regulated and many human a. Order Respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, following the
activities are prohibited and penalized or fined, including fishing, gathering, dispositive portion of Nicolas v. Romulo, "to forthwith negotiate with the
destroying and disturbing the resources within the TRNP. The law likewise United States representatives for the appropriate agreement on
created the Tubbataha Protected Area Management Board (TPAMB) which shall [environmental guidelines and environmental accountability] under
be the sole policy-making and permit-granting body of the TRNP. Philippine authorities as provided in Art. V[] of the VFA ... "
The USS Guardian is an Avenger-class mine countermeasures ship of the US b. Direct Respondents and appropriate agencies to commence
Navy. In December 2012, the US Embassy in the Philippines requested diplomatic administrative, civil, and criminal proceedings against erring officers
clearance for the said vessel "to enter and exit the territorial waters of the and individuals to the full extent of the law, and to make such
Philippines and to arrive at the port of Subic Bay for the purpose of routine ship proceedings public;
replenishment, maintenance, and crew liberty."4 On January 6, 2013, the ship left c. Declare that Philippine authorities may exercise primary and
Sasebo, Japan for Subic Bay, arriving on January 13, 2013 after a brief stop for exclusive criminal jurisdiction over erring U.S. personnel under the
fuel in Okinawa, Japan.1âwphi1 circumstances of this case;
 d. Require Respondents to pay just and reasonable compensation in declared that the right to a balanced and healthful ecology need not be written in
the settlement of all meritorious claims for damages caused to the the Constitution for it is assumed, like other civil and polittcal rights guaranteed in
Tubbataha Reef on terms and conditions no less severe than those the Bill of Rights, to exist from the inception of mankind and it is an issue of
applicable to other States, and damages for personal injury or death, if transcendental importance with intergenerational implications.1âwphi1 Such right
such had been the case; carries with it the correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.14
e. Direct Respondents to cooperate in providing for the attendance of On the novel element in the class suit filed by the petitioners minors in Oposa, this
witnesses and in the collection and production of evidence, including Court ruled that not only do ordinary citizens have legal standing to sue for the
seizure and delivery of objects connected with the offenses related to enforcement of environmental rights, they can do so in representation of their own
the grounding of the Guardian; and future generations. Thus:
f. Require the authorities of the Philippines and the United States to Petitioners minors assert that they represent their generation as well as
notify each other of the disposition of all cases, wherever heard, related generations yet unborn. We find no difficulty in ruling that they can, for themselves,
to the grounding of the Guardian; for others of their generation and for the succeeding generations, file a class suit.
g. Restrain Respondents from proceeding with any purported Their personality to sue in behalf of the succeeding generations can only be based
restoration, repair, salvage or post salvage plan or plans, including on the concept of intergenerational responsibility insofar as the right to a balanced
cleanup plans covering the damaged area of the Tubbataha Reef and healthful ecology is concerned. Such a right, as hereinafter expounded,
absent a just settlement approved by the Honorable Court; considers the "rhythm and harmony of nature." Nature means the created world
h. Require Respondents to engage in stakeholder and LOU in its entirety. Such rhythm and harmony indispensably include, inter alia, the
consultations in accordance with the Local Government Code and R.A. judicious disposition, utilization, management, renewal and conservation of the
10067; country's forest, mineral, land, waters, fisheries, wildlife, off-shore areas and other
i. Require Respondent US officials and their representatives to place a natural resources to the end that their exploration, development and utilization be
deposit to the TRNP Trust Fund defined under Section 17 of RA 10067 equitably accessible to the present a:: well as future generations. Needless to say,
as a bona .fide gesture towards full reparations; every generation has a responsibility to the next to preserve that rhythm and
j. Direct Respondents to undertake measures to rehabilitate the areas harmony for the full 1:njoyment of a balanced and healthful ecology. Put a little
affected by the grounding of the Guardian in light of Respondents' differently, the minors' assertion of their right to a sound environment constitutes,
experience in the Port Royale grounding in 2009, among other similar at the same time, the performance of their obligation to ensure the protection of
grounding incidents; that right for the generations to come.15 (Emphasis supplied.)
k. Require Respondents to regularly publish on a quarterly basis and in The liberalization of standing first enunciated in Oposa, insofar as it refers to
the name of transparency and accountability such environmental minors and generations yet unborn, is now enshrined in the Rules which allows
damage assessment, valuation, and valuation methods, in all stages of the filing of a citizen suit in environmental cases. The provision on citizen suits in
negotiation; the Rules "collapses the traditional rule on personal and direct interest, on the
l. Convene a multisectoral technical working group to provide scientific principle that humans are stewards of nature."16
and technical support to the TPAMB; Having settled the issue of locus standi, we shall address the more fundamental
m. Order the Department of Foreign Affairs, Department of National question of whether this Court has jurisdiction over the US respondents who did
Defense, and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources not submit any pleading or manifestation in this case.
to review the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Mutual Defense Treaty The immunity of the State from suit, known also as the doctrine of sovereign
to consider whether their provisions allow for the exercise of erga immunity or non-suability of the State,17 is expressly provided in Article XVI of the
omnes rights to a balanced and healthful ecology and for damages 1987 Constitution which states:
which follow from any violation of those rights; Section 3. The State may not be sued without its consent.
n. Narrowly tailor the provisions of the Visiting Forces Agreement for In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,18 we discussed the principle of state
purposes of protecting the damaged areas of TRNP; immunity from suit, as follows:
o. Declare the grant of immunity found in Article V ("Criminal The rule that a state may not be sued without its consent, now · expressed in
Jurisdiction") and Article VI of the Visiting Forces Agreement Article XVI, Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution, is one of the generally accepted
unconstitutional for violating equal protection and/or for violating the principles of international law that we have adopted as part of the law of our land
preemptory norm of nondiscrimination incorporated as part of the law under Article II, Section 2. x x x.
of the land under Section 2, Article II, of the Philippine Constitution; Even without such affirmation, we would still be bound by the generally accepted
p. Allow for continuing discovery measures; principles of international law under the doctrine of incorporation. Under this
q. Supervise marine wildlife rehabilitation in the Tubbataha Reefs in all doctrine, as accepted by the majority of states, such principles are deemed
other respects; and incorporated in the law of every civilized state as a condition and consequence of
4. Provide just and equitable environmental rehabilitation measures its membership in the society of nations. Upon its admission to such society, the
and such other reliefs as are just and equitable under the premises.7 state is automatically obligated to comply with these principles in its relations with
(Underscoring supplied.) other states.
Since only the Philippine respondents filed their comment8 to the petition, As applied to the local state, the doctrine of state immunity is based on the
petitioners also filed a motion for early resolution and motion to proceed ex parte justification given by Justice Holmes that ''there can be no legal right against the
against the US respondents.9 authority which makes the law on which the right depends." [Kawanakoa v.
Respondents' Consolidated Comment Polybank, 205 U.S. 349] There are other practical reasons for the enforcement of
In their consolidated comment with opposition to the application for a TEPO and the doctrine. In the case of the foreign state sought to be impleaded in the local
ocular inspection and production orders, respondents assert that: ( 1) the grounds jurisdiction, the added inhibition is expressed in the maxim par in parem, non
relied upon for the issuance of a TEPO or writ of Kalikasan have become fait habet imperium. All states are sovereign equals and cannot assert jurisdiction
accompli as the salvage operations on the USS Guardian were already over one another. A contrary disposition would, in the language of a celebrated
completed; (2) the petition is defective in form and substance; (3) the petition case, "unduly vex the peace of nations." [De Haber v. Queen of Portugal, 17 Q.
improperly raises issues involving the VFA between the Republic of the B. 171]
Philippines and the United States of America; and ( 4) the determination of the While the doctrine appears to prohibit only suits against the state without its
extent of responsibility of the US Government as regards the damage to the consent, it is also applicable to complaints filed against officials of the state for
Tubbataha Reefs rests exdusively with the executive branch. acts allegedly performed by them in the discharge of their duties. The rule is that
The Court's Ruling if the judgment against such officials will require the state itself to perform an
As a preliminary matter, there is no dispute on the legal standing of petitioners to affirmative act to satisfy the same,. such as the appropriation of the amount
file the present petition. needed to pay the damages awarded against them, the suit must be regarded as
Locus standi is "a right of appearance in a court of justice on a given question."10 against the state itself although it has not been formally impleaded. [Garcia v.
Specifically, it is "a party's personal and substantial interest in a case where he Chief of Staff, 16 SCRA 120] In such a situation, the state may move to dismiss
has sustained or will sustain direct injury as a result" of the act being challenged, the comp.taint on the ground that it has been filed without its consent.19
and "calls for more than just a generalized grievance."11 However, the rule on (Emphasis supplied.)
standing is a procedural matter which this Court has relaxed for non-traditional Under the American Constitution, the doctrine is expressed in the Eleventh
plaintiffs like ordinary citizens, taxpayers and legislators when the public interest Amendment which reads:
so requires, such as when the subject matter of the controversy is of The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any
transcendental importance, of overreaching significance to society, or of suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States
paramount public interest.12 by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
In the landmark case of Oposa v. Factoran, Jr.,13 we recognized the "public right" In the case of Minucher v. Court of Appeals,20 we further expounded on the
of citizens to "a balanced and healthful ecology which, for the first time in our immunity of foreign states from the jurisdiction of local courts, as follows:
constitutional history, is solemnly incorporated in the fundamental law." We
The precept that a State cannot be sued in the courts of a foreign state is a long- the US itself. The principle of State immunity therefore bars the exercise of
standing rule of customary international law then closely identified with the jurisdiction by this Court over the persons of respondents Swift, Rice and Robling.
personal immunity of a foreign sovereign from suit and, with the emergence of During the deliberations, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio took the
democratic states, made to attach not just to the person of the head of state, or position that the conduct of the US in this case, when its warship entered a
his representative, but also distinctly to the state itself in its sovereign capacity. If restricted area in violation of R.A. No. 10067 and caused damage to the TRNP
the acts giving rise to a suit arc those of a foreign government done by its foreign reef system, brings the matter within the ambit of Article 31 of the United Nations
agent, although not necessarily a diplomatic personage, but acting in his official Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). He explained that while historically,
capacity, the complaint could be barred by the immunity of the foreign sovereign warships enjoy sovereign immunity from suit as extensions of their flag State, Art.
from suit without its consent. Suing a representative of a state is believed to be, 31 of the UNCLOS creates an exception to this rule in cases where they fail to
in effect, suing the state itself. The proscription is not accorded for the benefit of comply with the rules and regulations of the coastal State regarding passage
an individual but for the State, in whose service he is, under the maxim -par in through the latter's internal waters and the territorial sea.
parem, non habet imperium -that all states are soverr~ign equals and cannot According to Justice Carpio, although the US to date has not ratified the UNCLOS,
assert jurisdiction over one another. The implication, in broad terms, is that if the as a matter of long-standing policy the US considers itself bound by customary
judgment against an official would rec 1uire the state itself to perform an international rules on the "traditional uses of the oceans" as codified in UNCLOS,
affirmative act to satisfy the award, such as the appropriation of the amount as can be gleaned from previous declarations by former Presidents Reagan and
needed to pay the damages decreed against him, the suit must be regarded as Clinton, and the US judiciary in the case of United States v. Royal Caribbean
being against the state itself, although it has not been formally impleaded.21 Cruise Lines, Ltd.27
(Emphasis supplied.) The international law of the sea is generally defined as "a body of treaty rules arid
In the same case we also mentioned that in the case of diplomatic immunity, the customary norms governing the uses of the sea, the exploitation of its resources,
privilege is not an immunity from the observance of the law of the territorial and the exercise of jurisdiction over maritime regimes. It is a branch of public
sovereign or from ensuing legal liability; it is, rather, an immunity from the exercise international law, regulating the relations of states with respect to the uses of the
of territorial jurisdiction.22 oceans."28 The UNCLOS is a multilateral treaty which was opened for signature
In United States of America v. Judge Guinto,23 one of the consolidated cases on December 10, 1982 at Montego Bay, Jamaica. It was ratified by the Philippines
therein involved a Filipino employed at Clark Air Base who was arrested following in 1984 but came into force on November 16, 1994 upon the submission of the
a buy-bust operation conducted by two officers of the US Air Force, and was 60th ratification.
eventually dismissed from his employment when he was charged in court for The UNCLOS is a product of international negotiation that seeks to balance State
violation of R.A. No. 6425. In a complaint for damages filed by the said employee sovereignty (mare clausum) and the principle of freedom of the high seas (mare
against the military officers, the latter moved to dismiss the case on the ground liberum).29 The freedom to use the world's marine waters is one of the oldest
that the suit was against the US Government which had not given its consent. The customary principles of international law.30 The UNCLOS gives to the coastal
RTC denied the motion but on a petition for certiorari and prohibition filed before State sovereign rights in varying degrees over the different zones of the sea which
this Court, we reversed the RTC and dismissed the complaint. We held that are: 1) internal waters, 2) territorial sea, 3) contiguous zone, 4) exclusive
petitioners US military officers were acting in the exercise of their official functions economic zone, and 5) the high seas. It also gives coastal States more or less
when they conducted the buy-bust operation against the complainant and jurisdiction over foreign vessels depending on where the vessel is located.31
thereafter testified against him at his trial. It follows that for discharging their duties Insofar as the internal waters and territorial sea is concerned, the Coastal State
as agents of the United States, they cannot be directly impleaded for acts exercises sovereignty, subject to the UNCLOS and other rules of international law.
imputable to their principal, which has not given its consent to be sued. Such sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its
This traditional rule of State immunity which exempts a State from being sued in bed and subsoil.32
the courts of another State without the former's consent or waiver has evolved In the case of warships,33 as pointed out by Justice Carpio, they continue to enjoy
into a restrictive doctrine which distinguishes sovereign and governmental acts sovereign immunity subject to the following exceptions:
(Jure imperil") from private, commercial and proprietary acts (Jure gestionis). Article 30
Under the restrictive rule of State immunity, State immunity extends only to acts Non-compliance by warships with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
Jure imperii. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper only when the If any warship does not comply with the laws and regulations of the coastal State
proceedings arise out of commercial transactions of the foreign sovereign, its concerning passage through the territorial sea and disregards any request for
commercial activities or economic affairs.24 compliance therewith which is made to it, the coastal State may require it to leave
In Shauf v. Court of Appeals,25 we discussed the limitations of the State immunity the territorial sea immediately.
principle, thus: Article 31
It is a different matter where the public official is made to account in his capacity Responsibility of the flag State for damage caused by a warship
as such for acts contrary to law and injurious to the rights of plaintiff. As was clearly or other government ship operated for non-commercial purposes
set forth by JustiGe Zaldivar in Director of the Bureau of Telecommunications, et The flag State shall bear international responsibility for any loss or damage to the
al. vs. Aligaen, etc., et al. : "Inasmuch as the State authorizes only legal acts by coastal State resulting from the non-compliance by a warship or other government
its officers, unauthorized acts of government officials or officers are not acts of the ship operated for non-commercial purposes with the laws and regulations of the
State, and an action against the officials or officers by one whose rights have been coastal State concerning passage through the territorial sea or with the provisions
invaded or violated by such acts, for the protection of his rights, is not a suit of this Convention or other rules of international law.
against the State within the rule of immunity of the State from suit. In the same Article 32
tenor, it has been said that an action at law or suit in equity against a State officer Immunities of warships and other government ships operated for non-commercial
or the director of a State department on the ground that, while claiming to act for purposes
the State, he violates or invades the personal and property rights of the plaintiff, With such exceptions as are contained in subsection A and in articles 30 and 31,
under an unconstitutional act or under an assumption of authority which he does nothing in this Convention affects the immunities of warships and other
not have, is not a suit against the State within the constitutional provision that the government ships operated for non-commercial purposes. (Emphasis supplied.)
State may not be sued without its consent." The rationale for this ruling is that the A foreign warship's unauthorized entry into our internal waters with resulting
doctrine of state immunity cannot be used as an instrument for perpetrating an damage to marine resources is one situation in which the above provisions may
injustice. apply. But what if the offending warship is a non-party to the UNCLOS, as in this
xxxx case, the US?
The aforecited authorities are clear on the matter. They state that the doctrine of An overwhelming majority - over 80% -- of nation states are now members of
immunity from suit will not apply and may not be invoked where the public official UNCLOS, but despite this the US, the world's leading maritime power, has not
is being sued in his private and personal capacity as an ordinary citizen. The cloak ratified it.
of protection afforded the officers and agents of the government is removed the While the Reagan administration was instrumental in UNCLOS' negotiation and
moment they are sued in their individual capacity. This situation usually arises drafting, the U.S. delegation ultimately voted against and refrained from signing it
where the public official acts without authority or in excess of the powers vested due to concerns over deep seabed mining technology transfer provisions
in him. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public official may be liable in his contained in Part XI. In a remarkable, multilateral effort to induce U.S.
personal private capacity for whatever damage he may have caused by his act membership, the bulk of UNCLOS member states cooperated over the
done with malice and in bad faith, or beyond the scope of his authority or succeeding decade to revise the objection.able provisions. The revisions satisfied
jurisdiction.26 (Emphasis supplied.) In this case, the US respondents were sued the Clinton administration, which signed the revised Part XI implementing
in their official capacity as commanding officers of the US Navy who had control agreement in 1994. In the fall of 1994, President Clinton transmitted UNCLOS and
and supervision over the USS Guardian and its crew. The alleged act or omission the Part XI implementing agreement to the Senate requesting its advice and
resulting in the unfortunate grounding of the USS Guardian on the TRNP was consent. Despite consistent support from President Clinton, each of his
committed while they we:re performing official military duties. Considering that the successors, and an ideologically diverse array of stakeholders, the Senate has
satisfaction of a judgment against said officials will require remedial actions and since withheld the consent required for the President to internationally bind the
appropriation of funds by the US government, the suit is deemed to be one against United States to UNCLOS.
While UNCLOS cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) during improper considering that it is the VF A which governs disputes involving US
the 108th and 110th Congresses, its progress continues to be hamstrung by military ships and crew navigating Philippine waters in pursuance of the objectives
significant pockets of political ambivalence over U.S. participation in international of the agreement.
institutions. Most recently, 111 th Congress SFRC Chairman Senator John Kerry As it is, the waiver of State immunity under the VF A pertains only to criminal
included "voting out" UNCLOS for full Senate consideration among his highest jurisdiction and not to special civil actions such as the present petition for issuance
priorities. This did not occur, and no Senate action has been taken on UNCLOS of a writ of Kalikasan. In fact, it can be inferred from Section 17, Rule 7 of the
by the 112th Congress.34 Rules that a criminal case against a person charged with a violation of an
Justice Carpio invited our attention to the policy statement given by President environmental law is to be filed separately:
Reagan on March 10, 1983 that the US will "recognize the rights of the other , SEC. 17. Institution of separate actions.-The filing of a petition for the issuance of
states in the waters off their coasts, as reflected in the convention [UNCLOS], so the writ of kalikasan shall not preclude the filing of separate civil, criminal or
long as the rights and freedom of the United States and others under international administrative actions.
law are recognized by such coastal states", and President Clinton's reiteration of In any case, it is our considered view that a ruling on the application or non-
the US policy "to act in a manner consistent with its [UNCLOS] provisions relating application of criminal jurisdiction provisions of the VF A to US personnel who may
to traditional uses of the oceans and to encourage other countries to do likewise." be found responsible for the grounding of the USS Guardian, would be premature
Since Article 31 relates to the "traditional uses of the oceans," and "if under its and beyond the province of a petition for a writ of Kalikasan. We also find it
policy, the US 'recognize[s] the rights of the other states in the waters off their unnecessary at this point to determine whether such waiver of State immunity is
coasts,"' Justice Carpio postulates that "there is more reason to expect it to indeed absolute. In the same vein, we cannot grant damages which have resulted
recognize the rights of other states in their internal waters, such as the Sulu Sea from the violation of environmental laws. The Rules allows the recovery of
in this case." damages, including the collection of administrative fines under R.A. No. 10067, in
As to the non-ratification by the US, Justice Carpio emphasizes that "the US' a separate civil suit or that deemed instituted with the criminal action charging the
refusal to join the UN CLOS was centered on its disagreement with UN CLOS' same violation of an environmental law.37
regime of deep seabed mining (Part XI) which considers the oceans and deep Section 15, Rule 7 enumerates the reliefs which may be granted in a petition for
seabed commonly owned by mankind," pointing out that such "has nothing to do issuance of a writ of Kalikasan, to wit:
with its [the US'] acceptance of customary international rules on navigation." SEC. 15. Judgment.-Within sixty (60) days from the time the petition is submitted
It may be mentioned that even the US Navy Judge Advocate General's Corps for decision, the court shall render judgment granting or denying the privilege of
publicly endorses the ratification of the UNCLOS, as shown by the following the writ of kalikasan.
statement posted on its official website: The reliefs that may be granted under the writ are the following:
The Convention is in the national interest of the United States because it (a) Directing respondent to permanently cease and desist from
establishes stable maritime zones, including a maximum outer limit for territorial committing acts or neglecting the performance of a duty in violation of
seas; codifies innocent passage, transit passage, and archipelagic sea lanes environmental laws resulting in environmental destruction or damage;
passage rights; works against "jurisdictiomtl creep" by preventing coastal nations (b) Directing the respondent public official, govemment agency, private
from expanding their own maritime zones; and reaffirms sovereign immunity of person or entity to protect, preserve, rehabilitate or restore the
warships, auxiliaries anJ government aircraft. environment;
xxxx (c) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, private
Economically, accession to the Convention would support our national interests person or entity to monitor strict compliance with the decision and
by enhancing the ability of the US to assert its sovereign rights over the resources orders of the court;
of one of the largest continental shelves in the world. Further, it is the Law of the (d) Directing the respondent public official, government agency, or
Sea Convention that first established the concept of a maritime Exclusive private person or entity to make periodic reports on the execution of the
Economic Zone out to 200 nautical miles, and recognized the rights of coastal final judgment; and
states to conserve and manage the natural resources in this Zone.35 (e) Such other reliefs which relate to the right of the people to a
We fully concur with Justice Carpio's view that non-membership in the UNCLOS balanced and healthful ecology or to the protection, preservation,
does not mean that the US will disregard the rights of the Philippines as a Coastal rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, except the award of
State over its internal waters and territorial sea. We thus expect the US to bear damages to individual petitioners. (Emphasis supplied.)
"international responsibility" under Art. 31 in connection with the USS Guardian We agree with respondents (Philippine officials) in asserting that this petition has
grounding which adversely affected the Tubbataha reefs. Indeed, it is difficult to become moot in the sense that the salvage operation sought to be enjoined or
imagine that our long-time ally and trading partner, which has been actively restrained had already been accomplished when petitioners sought recourse from
supporting the country's efforts to preserve our vital marine resources, would shirk this Court. But insofar as the directives to Philippine respondents to protect and
from its obligation to compensate the damage caused by its warship while rehabilitate the coral reef stn icture and marine habitat adversely affected by the
transiting our internal waters. Much less can we comprehend a Government grounding incident are concerned, petitioners are entitled to these reliefs
exercising leadership in international affairs, unwilling to comply with the UNCLOS notwithstanding the completion of the removal of the USS Guardian from the coral
directive for all nations to cooperate in the global task to protect and preserve the reef. However, we are mindful of the fact that the US and Philippine governments
marine environment as provided in Article 197, viz: both expressed readiness to negotiate and discuss the matter of compensation
Article 197 for the damage caused by the USS Guardian. The US Embassy has also declared
Cooperation on a global or regional basis it is closely coordinating with local scientists and experts in assessing the extent
States shall cooperate on a global basis and, as appropriate, on a regional basis, of the damage and appropriate methods of rehabilitation.
directly or through competent international organizations, in formulating and Exploring avenues for settlement of environmental cases is not proscribed by the
elaborating international rules, standards and recommended practices and Rules. As can be gleaned from the following provisions, mediation and settlement
procedures consistent with this Convention, for the protection and preservation of are available for the consideration of the parties, and which dispute resolution
the marine environment, taking into account characteristic regional features. methods are encouraged by the court, to wit:
In fine, the relevance of UNCLOS provisions to the present controversy is beyond RULE3
dispute. Although the said treaty upholds the immunity of warships from the xxxx
jurisdiction of Coastal States while navigating the.latter's territorial sea, the flag SEC. 3. Referral to mediation.-At the start of the pre-trial conference, the court
States shall be required to leave the territorial '::;ea immediately if they flout the shall inquire from the parties if they have settled the dispute; otherwise, the court
laws and regulations of the Coastal State, and they will be liable for damages shall immediately refer the parties or their counsel, if authorized by their clients,
caused by their warships or any other government vessel operated for non- to the Philippine Mediation Center (PMC) unit for purposes of mediation. If not
commercial purposes under Article 31. available, the court shall refer the case to the clerk of court or legal researcher for
Petitioners argue that there is a waiver of immunity from suit found in the VFA. mediation.
Likewise, they invoke federal statutes in the US under which agencies of the US Mediation must be conducted within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days
have statutorily waived their immunity to any action. Even under the common law from receipt of notice of referral to mediation.
tort claims, petitioners asseverate that the US respondents are liable for The mediation report must be submitted within ten (10) days from the expiration
negligence, trespass and nuisance. of the 30-day period.
We are not persuaded. SEC. 4. Preliminary conference.-If mediation fails, the court will schedule the
The VFA is an agreement which defines the treatment of United States troops and continuance of the pre-trial. Before the scheduled date of continuance, the court
personnel visiting the Philippines to promote "common security interests" between may refer the case to the branch clerk of court for a preliminary conference for the
the US and the Philippines in the region. It provides for the guidelines to govern following purposes:
such visits of military personnel, and further defines the rights of the United States (a) To assist the parties in reaching a settlement;
and the Philippine government in the matter of criminal jurisdiction, movement of xxxx
vessel and aircraft, importation and exportation of equipment, materials and
supplies.36 The invocation of US federal tort laws and even common law is thus
SEC. 5. Pre-trial conference; consent decree.-The judge shall put the parties and
their counsels under oath, and they shall remain under oath in all pre-trial MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
conferences. Associate Justice Associate Justice
The judge shall exert best efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement
of the dispute. The judge may issue a consent decree approving the agreement
between the parties in accordance with law, morals, public order and public policy (On official leave)
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
to protect the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology. JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA*
Associate Justice
xxxx Associate Justice
SEC. 10. Efforts to settle.- The court shall endeavor to make the parties to agree
to compromise or settle in accordance with law at any stage of the proceedings
See Separate Concurring
before rendition of judgment. (Underscoring supplied.) ESTELA M. PERLAS-
Opinion
The Court takes judicial notice of a similar incident in 2009 when a guided-missile BERNABE
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN
cruiser, the USS Port Royal, ran aground about half a mile off the Honolulu Airport Associate Justice
Associate Justice
Reef Runway and remained stuck for four days. After spending $6.5 million
restoring the coral reef, the US government was reported to have paid the State
(No Part)
of Hawaii $8.5 million in settlement over coral reef damage caused by the
FRANCIS H. JARDELEZA**
grounding.38
Associate Justice
To underscore that the US government is prepared to pay appropriate
CERTIFICATION
compensation for the damage caused by the USS Guardian grounding, the US
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, it is hereby certified
Embassy in the Philippines has announced the formation of a US interdisciplinary
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
scientific team which will "initiate discussions with the Government of the
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
Philippines to review coral reef rehabilitation options in Tubbataha, based on
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
assessments by Philippine-based marine scientists." The US team intends to
Chief Justice
"help assess damage and remediation options, in coordination with the Tubbataha
Management Office, appropriate Philippine government entities, non-
Footnotes
governmental organizations, and scientific experts from Philippine universities."39
* On official leave.
A rehabilitation or restoration program to be implemented at the cost of the violator
** No part.
is also a major relief that may be obtained under a judgment rendered in a citizens'
1 T ubbataha Reefs Natural Park - <http://tubbatahareef org>.
suit under the Rules, viz:
2 Id.
RULES
3 "AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE TUBBATAHA REEFS NATURAL
SECTION 1. Reliefs in a citizen suit.-If warranted, the court may grant to the
PARK IN THE PROVINCE OF PALAWAN AS A PROTECTED AREA
plaintiff proper reliefs which shall include the protection, preservation or
UNDER THE NIPAS ACT (R.A. 7586) AND THE STRATEGIC
rehabilitation of the environment and the payment of attorney's fees, costs of suit
ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN (SEP) FOR PALAWAN ACT (R.A. 7611),
and other litigation expenses. It may also require the violator to submit a program
PROVIDING FOR ITS MANAGEMENT AND FOR OTHER
of rehabilitation or restoration of the environment, the costs of which shall be borne
PURPOSES."
by the violator, or to contribute to a special trust fund for that purpose subject to
4 Rollo, pp. 194-199.
the control of the court.1âwphi1
5 < http://manila.usembassy.gov/pressphotoreleases2013/navy-
In the light of the foregoing, the Court defers to the Executive Branch on the matter
commander-expresses-regret-concerning-uss-guardian-
of compensation and rehabilitation measures through diplomatic channels.
grounding.html>.
Resolution of these issues impinges on our relations with another State in the
6 "Joint Statement Between The Philippines And The United States On
context of common security interests under the VFA. It is settled that "[t]he
The USS Guardian Grounding On Tubbatata Reef," February 5, 2013.
conduct of the foreign relations of our government is committed by the
Accessed. at US Embassy website -
Constitution to the executive and legislative-"the political" --departments of the
<http://manila.usembassy.gov/jointstatementguardiantubbataha.html>.
government, and the propriety of what may be done in the exercise of this political
7 Rollo, pp. 89-92.
power is not subject to judicial inquiry or decision."40
8 Id. at 156-191. In a letter dated 27 May 2013, the DFA's Office of
On the other hand, we cannot grant the additional reliefs prayed for in the petition
Legal Affairs informed this Court that it has received from the Embassy
to order a review of the VFA and to nullify certain immunity provisions thereof.
of the United States the Notice sent by this Court, with a request to
As held in BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,41 the
return the same. It said that the US Embassy "asserts that it is not an
VFA was duly concurred in by the Philippine Senate and has been recognized as
agent for the service of process upon the individuals named in court
a treaty by the United States as attested and certified by the duly authorized
documents, and that the transmission of the Court documents should
representative of the United States government. The VF A being a valid and
have been done through diplomatic channels." (Id. at 255.)
binding agreement, the parties are required as a matter of international law to
9 Id. at 215-247.
abide by its terms and provisions.42 The present petition under the Rules is not
10 Bayan Muna v. Romulo, G.R. No. 159618, February 1, 2011, 641
the proper remedy to assail the constitutionality of its provisions. WHEREFORE,
SCRA 244, 254, citing David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705, 755
the petition for the issuance of the privilege of the Writ of Kalikasan is hereby
(2006).
DENIED.
11 Id., citing Jumamil v. Cafe, 507 Phil. 455, 465 (2005), citing
No pronouncement as to costs.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines v. Zamora, 392 Phil. 6I8, 632-633
SO ORDERED.
(2000).
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
12 Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission of2010, G.R. Nos. 192935
Associate Justice
& 193036, December 7, 2010, 637 SCRA 78, 151, citing Social Justice
WE CONCUR:
Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, et al., 591 Phil. 393, 404
See Concurring Opinion
(2008); Tatad v. Secretary of the Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
(1997) and De Guia v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 104712, May 6, 1992, 208
Chief Justice
SCRA 420, 422.
13 G.R. No. 101083, July 30, 1993, 224 SCRA 792.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
ANTONIO T. CARPIO 14 Id. at 804-805.
JR.
Associate Justice 15 Id. at 802-803.
Associate Justice
16 See ANNOTATION TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL CASES ..
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE 17 Air Transportation Office v. Ramos, G.R. No. 159402, February 23,
ARTURO D. BRION 2011, 644 SCRA 36, 41.
CASTRO
Associate Justice 18 261 Phil. 777 (1990).
Associate Justice
19 Id. at 790-792.
20 445 Phil. 250 (2003).
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA LUCAS P. BERSAMIN 21 Id. at 269-270. Citations omitted.
Associate Justice Associate Justice 22 Id. at 268, citing J.L. Brierly, "The Law of Nations," Oxford University
Press, 6th Edition, 1963, p. 244.
23 Supra note 18, at 788-789 & 797.
24 United States of America v. Ruiz, 221 Phil. 179, 182-183 & 184
(1985).
25 G.R. No. 90314, November 27, 1990, 191 SCRA 713.
26 Id. at 727-728.
27 24 F Supp. 2d 155, 159 (D.P.R. 1997).
28 Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer on the Law of the Sea, 1997, p. 1.
29 Bertrand Theodor L. Santos, "Untangling a Tangled Net of
Confusion: Reconciling the Philippine Fishery Poaching Law and the
UNCLOS' World Bulletin, Vol. 18: 83-116 (July-December 2002), p. 96.
30 Anne Bardin, "Coastal State's Jurisdiction Over Foreign Vessels" 14
Pace Int'!. Rev. 27, 28 (2002).
31 Id. at 29.
32 Art. 2, UNCLOS.
33 Art. 29 of UNCLOS defines warship as "a ship belonging to the
armed forces of a State bearing the external marks distinguishing such
ships of its nationality, under the command of an officer duly
commissioned by the government of the State and whose name
appears in the appropriate service list or its equivalent, and manned by
a crew which is under regular armed forces discipline."
34 Commander Robert C. "Rock" De Tolve, JAGC, USN, "At What
Cost? Americas UNCLOS Allergy in the Time of 'Lav.fare'", 61 Naval L.
Rev. 1, 3 (2012).
35 <http://www.jag.navy.mil/organizationlcode10lawofthesea.htm>.
36 See BAYAN (Bagong Alyansang Makabayan) v. Exec. Sec. Zamora,
396 Phil. 623, 652 (2000).
37 Rule 10, RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
CASES.
38 USS Port Royal (CG73)" - <http://navysite.de/cg/cg73.html>; "USS
Port Royal Returns to Homeport", Navy Military Home Page, Story
Number NNS0902 l l-02 Release Date: 2/11/2009 6:00 AM -
<http://www.navymillsubmit/display.asp?story_id=42502>; "Navy, state
reach settlement on USS Port Royal damage'', posted Feb. 05, 2011
8:26 AM - <http:/!www.hawaiinewsnow.com!story/13974224/navystate-
reach-settlement-on-uss-port-royal-reef-damage>.
39 <http://manila.usembassy.gov/usgtargetedassistancetubbataha.
html>.
40 Vinuya v. Romulo, G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010, 619 SCRA 533,
559, citing Detjen v. Central Leather Co., 246 U.S. 297, 302 (1918).
41 Supra note 36.
42 Nicolas v. Secretary Romulo, et al., 598 Phil. 262. 280 & 285.
Republic of the Philippines The PHILCONSA, petitioner in L-28224, is admittedly a corporation duly
SUPREME COURT organized and existing under the laws of the Philippines, and a civic, non-profit
Manila and non-partisan organization the objective of which is to uphold the rule of law in
EN BANC the Philippines and to defend its Constitution against erosions or onslaughts from
G.R. No. L-28196 November 9, 1967 whatever source. Despite his aforementioned statement in L-28196, in his answer
RAMON A. GONZALES, petitioner, in L-28224 the Solicitor General maintains that this Court has no jurisdiction over
vs. the subject-matter of L-28224, upon the ground that the same is "merely political"
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, DIRECTOR OF PRINTING and AUDITOR as held in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito.3 Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, who appeared
GENERAL, respondents. before the Commission on Elections and filed an opposition to the PHILCONSA
G.R. No. L-28224 November 9, 1967 petition therein, was allowed to appear before this Court and objected to said
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), petitioner, petition upon the ground: a) that the Court has no jurisdiction either to grant the
vs. relief sought in the petition, or to pass upon the legality of the composition of the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. House of Representatives; b) that the petition, if granted, would, in effect, render
No. 28196: in operational the legislative department; and c) that "the failure of Congress to
Ramon A. Gonzales for and in his own behalf as petitioner. enact a valid reapportionment law . . . does not have the legal effect of rendering
Juan T. David as amicus curiae illegal the House of Representatives elected thereafter, nor of rendering its acts
Office of the Solicitor General for respondents. null and void."
No. 28224: JURISDICTION
Salvador Araneta for petitioner. As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission,4 this Court — speaking through one
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent. of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention and a respected
CONCEPCION, C.J.: professor of Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel — declared that "the judicial
G. R. No. L-28196 is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction. department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine
Petitioner therein prays for judgment: the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the
1) Restraining: (a) the Commission on Elections from enforcing Republic Act No. integral or constituent units thereof." It is true that in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito,5 this
4913, or from performing any act that will result in the holding of the plebiscite for Court characterizing the issue submitted thereto as a political one, declined to
the ratification of the constitutional amendments proposed in Joint Resolutions pass upon the question whether or not a given number of votes cast in Congress
Nos. 1 and 3 of the two Houses of Congress of the Philippines, approved on March in favor of a proposed amendment to the Constitution — which was being
16, 1967; (b) the Director of Printing from printing ballots, pursuant to said Act and submitted to the people for ratification — satisfied the three-fourths vote
Resolutions; and (c) the Auditor General from passing in audit any disbursement requirement of the fundamental law. The force of this precedent has been
from the appropriation of funds made in said Republic Act No. 4913; and weakened, however, by Suanes vs. Chief Accountant of the Senate,6 Avelino vs.
2) declaring said Act unconstitutional and void. Cuenco,7 Tañada vs. Cuenco,8 and Macias vs. Commission on Elections.9 In the
The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House first, we held that the officers and employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are
of Representatives passed the following resolutions: under its supervision and control, not of that of the Senate President, as claimed
1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article by the latter; in the second, this Court proceeded to determine the number of
VI, of the Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the Senators necessary for a quorum in the Senate; in the third, we nullified the
membership of the House of Representatives from a maximum of 120, as election, by Senators belonging to the party having the largest number of votes in
provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum of 180, to be apportioned said chamber, purporting to act on behalf of the party having the second largest
among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their number of votes therein, of two (2) Senators belonging to the first party, as
respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1) members, for the second party, of the, Senate Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth,
member; we declared unconstitutional an act of Congress purporting to apportion the
2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said representative districts for the House of Representatives, upon the ground that
Constitution, the convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from the apportionment had not been made as may be possible according to the
each representative district, to be "elected in the general elections to be held on number of inhabitants of each province. Thus we rejected the theory, advanced
the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and in these four (4) cases, that the issues therein raised were political questions the
3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, determination of which is beyond judicial review.
be amended so as to authorize Senators and members of the House of Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto
Representatives to become delegates to the aforementioned constitutional is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress. 10 It is part
convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in Congress. of the inherent powers of the people — as the repository of sovereignty in a
Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on republican state, such as ours11 — to make, and, hence, to amend their own
June 17, 1967, became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the Constitution
to the Constitution proposed in the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be merely because the same explicitly grants such power. 12 Hence, when exercising
submitted, for approval by the people, at the general elections which shall be held the same, it is said that Senators and Members of the House of Representatives
on November 14, 1967. act, not as members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent
The petition in L-28196 was filed on October 21, 1967. At the hearing thereof, on assembly. When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority
October 28, 1967, the Solicitor General appeared on behalf of respondents. from the Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function,13 for
Moreover, Atty. Juan T. David and counsel for the Philippine Constitution their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they are the very source
Association — hereinafter referred to as the PHILCONSA — were allowed to of all powers of government, including the Constitution itself .
argue as amici curiae. Said counsel for the PHILCONSA, Dr. Salvador Araneta, Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the
likewise prayed that the decision in this case be deferred until after a substantially Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
identical case brought by said organization before the Commission on Elections, 1 Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on
which was expected to decide it any time, and whose decision would, in all whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they
probability, be appealed to this Court — had been submitted thereto for final could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that
determination, for a joint decision on the identical issues raised in both cases. In ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our
fact, on October 31, 1967, the PHILCONSA filed with this Court the petition in G. Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that, the Constitution expressly
R. No. L-28224, for review by certiorari of the resolution of the Commission on confers upon the Supreme Court,14 the power to declare a treaty
Elections2 dismissing the petition therein. The two (2) cases were deemed unconstitutional,15 despite the eminently political character of treaty-making
submitted for decision on November 8, 1967, upon the filing of the answer of power.
respondent, the memorandum of the petitioner and the reply memorandum of In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a
respondent in L-28224. constituent assembly — violates the Constitution essentially justiciable, not
Ramon A. Gonzales, the petitioner in L-28196, is admittedly a Filipino citizen, a political, and, hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent that this view
taxpayer, and a voter. He claims to have instituted case L-28196 as a class unit, may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag vs. Lopez Vito,16 the latter
for and in behalf of all citizens, taxpayers, and voters similarly situated. Although should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are
respondents and the Solicitor General have filed an answer denying the truth of unanimous on this point.
this allegation, upon the ground that they have no knowledge or information to THE MERITS
form a belief as to the truth thereof, such denial would appear to be a perfunctory Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, as amended, reads:
one. In fact, at the hearing of case L-28196, the Solicitor General expressed The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three-fourths of
himself in favor of a judicial determination of the merits of the issued raised in said all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives
case. voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call
a convention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part
 of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an It is argued that the above-quoted provision refers only to the elections held in
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their 1935. This theory assumes that an apportionment had to be made necessarily
ratification. before the first elections to be held after the inauguration of the Commonwealth
Pursuant to this provision, amendments to the Constitution may be proposed, of the Philippines, or in 1938.19 The assumption, is, however, unwarranted, for
either by Congress, or by a convention called by Congress for that purpose. In there had been no enumeration in 1935, and nobody could foretell when it would
either case, the vote of "three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the be made. Those who drafted and adopted the Constitution in 1935 could be
House of Representatives voting separately" is necessary. And, "such certain, therefore, that the three-year period, after the earliest possible
amendments shall be valid as part of" the "Constitution when approved by a enumeration, would expire after the elections in 1938.
majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted What is more, considering that several provisions of the Constitution, particularly
to the people for their ratification." those on the legislative department, were amended in 1940, by establishing a
In the cases at bar, it is conceded that the R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 have been bicameral Congress, those who drafted and adopted said amendment,
approved by a vote of three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the incorporating therein the provision of the original Constitution regarding the
House of Representatives voting separately. This, notwithstanding, it is urged that apportionment of the districts for representatives, must have known that the three-
said resolutions are null and void because: year period therefor would expire after the elections scheduled to be held and
1. The Members of Congress, which approved the proposed amendments, as well actually held in 1941.
as the resolution calling a convention to propose amendments, are, at best, de Thus, the events contemporaneous with the framing and ratification of the original
facto Congressmen; Constitution in 1935 and of the amendment thereof in 1940 strongly indicate that
2. Congress may adopt either one of two alternatives propose — amendments or the provision concerning said apportionment and the effect of the failure to make
call a convention therefore but may not avail of both — that is to say, propose it were expected to be applied to conditions obtaining after the elections in 1935
amendment and call a convention — at the same time; and 1938, and even after subsequent elections.
3. The election, in which proposals for amendment to the Constitution shall be Then again, since the report of the Director of the Census on the last enumeration
submitted for ratification, must be a special election, not a general election, in was submitted to the President on November 30, 1960, it follows that the three-
which officers of the national and local governments — such as the elections year period to make the apportionment did not expire until 1963, or after the
scheduled to be held on November 14, 1967 — will be chosen; and Presidential elections in 1961. There can be no question, therefore, that the
4. The spirit of the Constitution demands that the election, in which proposals for Senate and the House of Representatives organized or constituted on December
amendment shall be submitted to the people for ratification, must be held under 30, 1961, were de jure bodies, and that the Members thereof were de jure officers.
such conditions — which, allegedly, do not exist — as to give the people a Pursuant to the theory of petitioners herein, upon expiration of said period of three
reasonable opportunity to have a fair grasp of the nature and implications of said years, or late in 1963, Congress became illegal and its Members, or at least, those
amendments. of the House of Representatives, became illegal holder of their respective offices,
Legality of Congress and Legal Status of the Congressmen and were de facto officers.
The first objection is based upon Section 5, Article VI, of the Constitution, which Petitioners do not allege that the expiration of said three-year period without a
provides: reapportionment, had the effect of abrogating or repealing the legal provision
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than one creating Congress, or, at least, the House of Representatives, and are not aware
hundred and twenty Members who shall be apportioned among the of any rule or principle of law that would warrant such conclusion. Neither do they
several provinces as nearly as may be according to the number of their allege that the term of office of the members of said House automatically expired
respective inhabitants, but each province shall have at least one or that they ipso facto forfeited their seats in Congress, upon the lapse of said
Member. The Congress shall by law make an apportionment within period for reapportionment. In fact, neither our political law, nor our law on public
three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise. officers, in particular, supports the view that failure to discharge a mandatory duty,
Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of whatever it may be, would automatically result in the forfeiture of an office, in the
Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that fixed absence of a statute to this effect.
by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified Similarly, it would seem obvious that the provision of our Election Law relative to
electors from the present Assembly districts. Each representative the election of Members of Congress in 1965 were not repealed in consequence
district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous and compact of the failure of said body to make an apportionment within three (3) years after
territory. the census of 1960. Inasmuch as the general elections in 1965 were presumably
It is urged that the last enumeration or census took place in 1960; that, no held in conformity with said Election Law, and the legal provisions creating
apportionment having been made within three (3) years thereafter, the Congress Congress — with a House of Representatives composed of members elected by
of the Philippines and/or the election of its Members became illegal; that Congress qualified voters of representative districts as they existed at the time of said
and its Members, likewise, became a de facto Congress and/or de facto elections — remained in force, we can not see how said Members of the House
congressmen, respectively; and that, consequently, the disputed Resolutions, of Representatives can be regarded as de facto officers owing to the failure of
proposing amendments to the Constitution, as well as Republic Act No. 4913, are their predecessors in office to make a reapportionment within the period
null and void. aforementioned.
It is not true, however, that Congress has not made an apportionment within three Upon the other hand, the Constitution authorizes the impeachment of the
years after the enumeration or census made in 1960. It did actually pass a bill, President, the Vice-President, the Justices of the Supreme Court and the Auditor
which became Republic Act No. 3040,17 purporting to make said apportionment. General for, inter alia, culpable violation of the Constitution,20 the enforcement of
This Act was, however, declared unconstitutional, upon the ground that the which is, not only their mandatory duty, but also, their main function. This provision
apportionment therein undertaken had not been made according to the number indicates that, despite the violation of such mandatory duty, the title to their
of inhabitants of the different provinces of the Philippines.18 respective offices remains unimpaired, until dismissal or ouster pursuant to a
Moreover, we are unable to agree with the theory that, in view of the failure of judgment of conviction rendered in accordance with Article IX of the Constitution.
Congress to make a valid apportionment within the period stated in the In short, the loss of office or the extinction of title thereto is not automatic.
Constitution, Congress became an "unconstitutional Congress" and that, in Even if we assumed, however, that the present Members of Congress are merely
consequence thereof, the Members of its House of Representatives are de facto de facto officers, it would not follow that the contested resolutions and Republic
officers. The major premise of this process of reasoning is that the constitutional Act No. 4913 are null and void. In fact, the main reasons for the existence of the
provision on "apportionment within three years after the return of every de facto doctrine is that public interest demands that acts of persons holding,
enumeration, and not otherwise," is mandatory. The fact that Congress is under under color of title, an office created by a valid statute be, likewise, deemed valid
legal obligation to make said apportionment does not justify, however, the insofar as the public — as distinguished from the officer in question — is
conclusion that failure to comply with such obligation rendered Congress illegal or concerned.21 Indeed, otherwise, those dealing with officers and employees of the
unconstitutional, or that its Members have become de facto officers. Government would be entitled to demand from them satisfactory proof of their title
It is conceded that, since the adoption of the Constitution in 1935, Congress has to the positions they hold, before dealing with them, or before recognizing their
not made a valid apportionment as required in said fundamental law. The effect authority or obeying their commands, even if they should act within the limits of
of this omission has been envisioned in the Constitution, pursuant to which: the authority vested in their respective offices, positions or employments. 22 One
. . . Until such apportionment shall have been made, the House of can imagine this great inconvenience, hardships and evils that would result in the
Representatives shall have the same number of Members as that fixed absence of the de facto doctrine.
by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally.23
electors from the present Assembly districts. . . . . It may not be contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither
The provision does not support the view that, upon the expiration of the period to may the validity of his acts be questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de
make the apportionment, a Congress which fails to make it is dissolved or facto officer.24 And the reasons are obvious: (1) it would be an indirect inquiry into
becomes illegal. On the contrary, it implies necessarily that Congress shall the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if within the competence
continue to function with the representative districts existing at the time of the of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is concerned.
expiration of said period.
It is argued that the foregoing rules do not apply to the cases at bar because the alternative, as implied in the term "election" used, without qualification, in the
acts therein involved have not been completed and petitioners herein are not third abovequoted provision of the Constitution. Such authority becomes even more
parties. This pretense is untenable. It is inconsistent with Tayko vs. Capistrano.25 patent when we consider: (1) that the term "election," normally refers to the choice
In that case, one of the parties to a suit being heard before Judge Capistrano or selection of candidates to public office by popular vote; and (2) that the word
objected to his continuing to hear the case, for the reason that, meanwhile, he had used in Article V of the Constitution, concerning the grant of suffrage to women
reached the age of retirement. This Court held that the objection could not be is, not "election," but "plebiscite."
entertained, because the Judge was at least, a de facto Judge, whose title can Petitioners maintain that the term "election," as used in Section 1 of Art. XV of the
not be assailed collaterally. It should be noted that Tayko was not a third party Constitution, should be construed as meaning a special election. Some members
insofar as the Judge was concerned. Tayko was one of the parties in the of the Court even feel that said term ("election") refers to a "plebiscite," without
aforementioned suit. Moreover, Judge Capistrano had not, as yet, finished any "election," general or special, of public officers. They opine that constitutional
hearing the case, much less rendered decision therein. No rights had vested in amendments are, in general, if not always, of such important, if not transcendental
favor of the parties, in consequence of the acts of said Judge. Yet, Tayko's and vital nature as to demand that the attention of the people be focused
objection was overruled. Needless to say, insofar as Congress is concerned, its exclusively on the subject-matter thereof, so that their votes thereon may reflect
acts, as regards the Resolutions herein contested and Republic Act No. 4913, are no more than their intelligent, impartial and considered view on the merits of the
complete. Congress has nothing else to do in connection therewith. proposed amendments, unimpaired, or, at least, undiluted by extraneous, if not
The Court is, also, unanimous in holding that the objection under consideration is insidious factors, let alone the partisan political considerations that are likely to
untenable. affect the selection of elective officials.
Available Alternatives to Congress This, certainly, is a situation to be hoped for. It is a goal the attainment of which
Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, maintains that Congress may either should be promoted. The ideal conditions are, however, one thing. The question
propose amendments to the Constitution or call a convention for that purpose, but whether the Constitution forbids the submission of proposals for amendment to
it can not do both, at the same time. This theory is based upon the fact that the the people except under such conditions, is another thing. Much as the writer and
two (2) alternatives are connected in the Constitution by the disjunctive "or." Such those who concur in this opinion admire the contrary view, they find themselves
basis is, however, a weak one, in the absence of other circumstances — and none unable to subscribe thereto without, in effect, reading into the Constitution what
has brought to our attention — supporting the conclusion drawn by the amicus they believe is not written thereon and can not fairly be deduced from the letter
curiae. In fact, the term "or" has, oftentimes, been held to mean "and," or vice- thereof, since the spirit of the law should not be a matter of sheer speculation.
versa, when the spirit or context of the law warrants it. 26 The majority view — although the votes in favor thereof are insufficient to declare
It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 propose amendments to the Republic Act No. 4913 unconstitutional — as ably set forth in the opinion penned
constitutional provision on Congress, to be submitted to the people for ratification by Mr. Justice Sanchez, is, however, otherwise.
on November 14, 1967, whereas R. B. H. No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971, to Would the Submission now of the Contested Amendments to the People Violate
consider proposals for amendment to the Constitution, in general. In other words, the Spirit of the Constitution?
the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2 is different from that of R B. H. Nos. 1 and 3. It should be noted that the contested Resolutions were approved on March 16,
Moreover, the amendments proposed under R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be 1967, so that, by November 14, 1967, our citizenry shall have had practically eight
submitted for ratification several years before those that may be proposed by the (8) months to be informed on the amendments in question. Then again, Section 2
constitutional convention called in R. B. H. No. 2. Again, although the three (3) of Republic Act No. 4913 provides:
resolutions were passed on the same date, they were taken up and put to a vote (1) that "the amendments shall be published in three consecutive issues of the
separately, or one after the other. In other words, they were not passed at the Official Gazette, at least twenty days prior to the election;"
same time. (2) that "a printed copy of the proposed amendments shall be posted in a
In any event, we do not find, either in the Constitution, or in the history thereof conspicuous place in every municipality, city and provincial office building and in
anything that would negate the authority of different Congresses to approve the every polling place not later than October 14, 1967," and that said copy "shall
contested Resolutions, or of the same Congress to pass the same in, different remain posted therein until after the election;"
sessions or different days of the same congressional session. And, neither has (3) that "at least five copies of said amendment shall be kept in each polling place,
any plausible reason been advanced to justify the denial of authority to adopt said to be made available for examination by the qualified electors during election day;"
resolutions on the same day. (4) that "when practicable, copies in the principal native languages, as may be
Counsel ask: Since Congress has decided to call a constitutional convention to determined by the Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each polling place;"
propose amendments, why not let the whole thing be submitted to said (5) that "the Commission on Elections shall make available copies of said
convention, instead of, likewise, proposing some specific amendments, to be amendments in English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the principal
submitted for ratification before said convention is held? The force of this native languages, for free distributing:" and
argument must be conceded. but the same impugns the wisdom of the action (6) that the contested Resolutions "shall be printed in full" on the back of the
taken by Congress, not its authority to take it. One seeming purpose thereof to ballots which shall be used on November 14, 1967.
permit Members of Congress to run for election as delegates to the constitutional We are not prepared to say that the foregoing measures are palpably inadequate
convention and participate in the proceedings therein, without forfeiting their seats to comply with the constitutional requirement that proposals for amendment be
in Congress. Whether or not this should be done is a political question, not subject "submitted to the people for their ratification," and that said measures are
to review by the courts of justice. manifestly insufficient, from a constitutional viewpoint, to inform the people of the
On this question there is no disagreement among the members of the Court. amendment sought to be made.
May Constitutional Amendments Be Submitted for Ratification in a These were substantially the same means availed of to inform the people of the
General Election? subject submitted to them for ratification, from the original Constitution down to
Article XV of the Constitution provides: the Parity Amendment. Thus, referring to the original Constitution, Section 1 of
. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths Act No. 4200, provides:
of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives Said Constitution, with the Ordinance appended thereto, shall be
voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call published in the Official Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for three
a contention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part consecutive issues at least fifteen days prior to said election, and a
of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an printed copy of said Constitution, with the Ordinance appended thereto,
election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their shall be posted in a conspicuous place in each municipal and provincial
ratification. government office building and in each polling place not later than the
There is in this provision nothing to indicate that the "election" therein referred to twenty-second day of April, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, and shall
is a "special," not a general, election. The circumstance that three previous remain posted therein continually until after the termination of the
amendments to the Constitution had been submitted to the people for ratification election. At least ten copies of the Constitution with the Ordinance
in special elections merely shows that Congress deemed it best to do so under appended thereto, in English and in Spanish, shall be kept at each
the circumstances then obtaining. It does not negate its authority to submit polling place available for examination by the qualified electors during
proposed amendments for ratification in general elections. election day. Whenever practicable, copies in the principal local dialects
It would be better, from the viewpoint of a thorough discussion of the proposed as may be determined by the Secretary of the Interior shall also be kept
amendments, that the same be submitted to the people's approval independently in each polling place.
of the election of public officials. And there is no denying the fact that an adequate The provision concerning woman's suffrage is Section 1 of Commonwealth Act
appraisal of the merits and demerits proposed amendments is likely to be No. 34, reading:
overshadowed by the great attention usually commanded by the choice of Said Article V of the Constitution shall be published in the Official
personalities involved in general elections, particularly when provincial and Gazette, in English and in Spanish, for three consecutive issues at least
municipal officials are to be chosen. But, then, these considerations are fifteen days prior to said election, and the said Article V shall be posted
addressed to the wisdom of holding a plebiscite simultaneously with the election in a conspicuous place in each municipal and provincial office building
of public officer. They do not deny the authority of Congress to choose either and in each polling place not later than the twenty-second day of April,
 nineteen and thirty-seven, and shall remain posted therein continually We are impressed by the factors considered by our distinguished and esteemed
until after the termination of the plebiscite. At least ten copies of said brethren, who opine otherwise, but, we feel that such factors affect the wisdom of
Article V of the Constitution, in English and in Spanish, shall be kept at Republic Act No. 4913 and that of R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, not the authority of
each polling place available for examination by the qualified electors Congress to approve the same.
during the plebiscite. Whenever practicable, copies in the principal The system of checks and balances underlying the judicial power to strike down
native languages, as may be determined by the Secretary of the acts of the Executive or of Congress transcending the confines set forth in the
Interior, shall also be kept in each polling place. fundamental laws is not in derogation of the principle of separation of powers,
Similarly, Section 2, Commonwealth Act No. 517, referring to the 1940 pursuant to which each department is supreme within its own sphere. The
amendments, is of the following tenor: determination of the conditions under which the proposed amendments shall be
The said amendments shall be published in English and Spanish in submitted to the people is concededly a matter which falls within the legislative
three consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days sphere. We do not believe it has been satisfactorily shown that Congress has
prior to the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a exceeded the limits thereof in enacting Republic Act No. 4913. Presumably, it
conspicuous place in every municipal, city, and provincial government could have done something better to enlighten the people on the subject-matter
office building and in every polling place not later than May eighteen, thereof. But, then, no law is perfect. No product of human endeavor is beyond
nineteen hundred and forty, and shall remain posted therein until after improvement. Otherwise, no legislation would be constitutional and valid. Six (6)
the election. At least ten copies of said amendments shall be kept in Members of this Court believe, however, said Act and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 violate
each polling place to be made available for examination by the qualified the spirit of the Constitution.
electors during election day. When practicable, copies in the principal Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act
native languages, as may be determined by the Secretary of the 4913 and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these
Interior, shall also be kept therein. two (2) cases must be, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed
As regards the Parity Amendment, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 73 is to the effect for denied, without special pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.
that: Makalintal and Bengzon, J.P., JJ., concur.
The said amendment shall be published in English and Spanish in three Fernando, J., concurs fully with the above opinion, adding a few words on the
consecutive issues of the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to question of jurisdiction.
the election. A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous
place in every municipal, city, and provincial government office building Separate Opinions
and in every polling place not later than February eleven, nineteen MAKALINTAL, J., concurring:
hundred and forty-seven, and shall remain posted therein until after the I concur in the foregoing opinion of the Chief Justice. I would make some
election. At least, ten copies of the said amendment shall be kept in additional observations in connection with my concurrence. Sections 2 and 4 of
each polling place to be made available for examination by the qualified Republic Act No. 4913 provide:
electors during election day. When practicable, copies in the principal Sec. 2. The amendments shall be published in three consecutive issues
native languages, as may be determined by the Commission on of the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to the election. A printed
Elections, shall also be kept in each polling place. copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous place in every
The main difference between the present situation and that obtaining in municipality, city and provincial office building and in every polling place
connection with the former proposals does not arise from the law enacted therefor. not later than October fourteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-seven, and
The difference springs from the circumstance that the major political parties had shall remain posted therein until after the election. At least five copies
taken sides on previous amendments to the Constitution — except, perhaps, the of the said amendments shall be kept in each polling place to be made
woman's suffrage — and, consequently, debated thereon at some length before available for examination by the qualified electors during election day.
the plebiscite took place. Upon the other hand, said political parties have not When practicable, copies in the principal native languages, as may be
seemingly made an issue on the amendments now being contested and have, determined by the Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each
accordingly, refrained from discussing the same in the current political campaign. polling place. The Commission on Elections shall make available copies
Such debates or polemics as may have taken place — on a rather limited scale of each amendments in English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in
— on the latest proposals for amendment, have been due principally to the the principal native languages, for free distribution.
initiative of a few civic organizations and some militant members of our citizenry xxx xxx xxx
who have voiced their opinion thereon. A legislation cannot, however, be nullified Sec. 4. The ballots which shall be used in the election for the approval
by reason of the failure of certain sectors of the community to discuss it of said amendments shall be printed in English and Pilipino and shall
sufficiently. Its constitutionality or unconstitutionality depends upon no other be in the size and form prescribed by the Commission on Elections:
factors than those existing at the time of the enactment thereof, unaffected by the Provided, however, That at the back of said ballot there shall be printed
acts or omissions of law enforcing agencies, particularly those that take place in full Resolutions of both Houses of Congress Numbered One and
subsequently to the passage or approval of the law. Three, both adopted on March sixteen, nineteen hundred and sixty-
Referring particularly to the contested proposals for amendment, the sufficiency seven, proposing the amendments: Provided, further, That the
or insufficiency, from a constitutional angle, of the submission thereof for questionnaire appearing on the face of the ballot shall be as follows:
ratification to the people on November 14, 1967, depends — in the view of those Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to Section five of Article
who concur in this opinion, and who, insofar as this phase of the case, constitute VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
the minority — upon whether the provisions of Republic Act No. 4913 are such as Are you in favor of the proposed amendment to section sixteen of Article
to fairly apprise the people of the gist, the main idea or the substance of said VI of our Constitution printed at the back of this ballot?
proposals, which is — under R. B. H. No. 1 — the increase of the maximum To vote for the approval of the proposed amendments, the voter shall
number of seats in the House of Representatives, from 120 to 180, and — under write the word "yes" or its equivalent in Pilipino or in the local dialect in
R. B. H. No. 3 — the authority given to the members of Congress to run for the blank space after each question; to vote for the rejection thereof, he
delegates to the Constitutional Convention and, if elected thereto, to discharge shall write the word "No" or its equivalent in Pilipino or in the local
the duties of such delegates, without forfeiting their seats in Congress. We — who dialect.
constitute the minority — believe that Republic Act No. 4913 satisfies such I believe that intrinsically, that is, considered in itself and without reference to
requirement and that said Act is, accordingly, constitutional. extraneous factors and circumstances, the manner prescribed in the aforesaid
A considerable portion of the people may not know how over 160 of the proposed provisions is sufficient for the purpose of having the proposed amendments
maximum of representative districts are actually apportioned by R. B. H. No. 1 submitted to the people for their ratification, as enjoined in Section 1, Article XV
among the provinces in the Philippines. It is not improbable, however, that they of the Constitution. I am at a loss to say what else should have been required by
are not interested in the details of the apportionment, or that a careful reading the Act to make it adhere more closely to the constitutional requirement. Certainly
thereof may tend in their simple minds, to impair a clear vision thereof. Upon the it would have been out of place to provide, for instance, that government officials
other hand, those who are more sophisticated, may enlighten themselves and employees should go out and explain the amendments to the people, or that
sufficiently by reading the copies of the proposed amendments posted in public they should be the subject of any particular means or form of public discussion.
places, the copies kept in the polling places and the text of contested resolutions, The objection of some members of the Court to Republic Act No. 4913 seems to
as printed in full on the back of the ballots they will use. me predicated on the fact that there are so many other issues at stake in the
It is, likewise, conceivable that as many people, if not more, may fail to realize or coming general election that the attention of the electorate, cannot be entirely
envisage the effect of R. B. H. No. 3 upon the work of the Constitutional focused on the proposed amendments, such that there is a failure to properly
Convention or upon the future of our Republic. But, then, nobody can foretell such submit them for ratification within the intendment of the Constitution. If that is so,
effect with certainty. From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the then the defect is not intrinsic in the law but in its implementation. The same
Constitution are satisfied so long as the electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 manner of submitting the proposed amendments to the people for ratification may,
permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators, even if they should run in a different setting, be sufficient for the purpose. Yet I cannot conceive that the
for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention. constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a law may be made to depend willy-nilly
on factors not inherent in its provisions. For a law to be struck down as amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification. To prohibition being
unconstitutional it must be so by reason of some irreconcilable conflict between it found in the plain terms of the Constitution, none should be inferred. Had the
and the Constitution. Otherwise a law may be either valid or invalid, according to framers of requiring Constitution thought of requiring a special election for the
circumstances not found in its provisions, such as the zeal with which they are purpose only of the proposed amendments, they could have said so, by qualifying
carried out. To such a thesis I cannot agree. The criterion would be too broad and the phrase with some word such as "special" or "solely" or "exclusively". They did
relative, and dependent upon individual opinions that at best are subjective. What not.
one may regard as sufficient compliance with the requirement of submission to It is not herein decided that such concurrence of election is wise, or that it would
the people, within the context of the same law, may not be so to another. The not have been better to provide for a separate election exclusively for the
question is susceptible of as many views as there are viewers; and I do not think ratification of the proposed amendments. The point however is that such separate
this Court would be justified in saying that its own view on the matter is the correct and exclusive election, even if it may be better or wiser, which again, is not for this
one, to the exclusion of the opinions of others. Court to decide, is not included in the procedure required by the Constitution to
On the other hand, I reject the argument that the ratification must necessarily be amend the same. The function of the Judiciary is "not to pass upon questions of
in a special election or plebiscite called for that purpose alone. While such wisdom, justice or expediency of legislation".2 It is limited to determining whether
procedure is highly to be preferred, the Constitution speaks simply of "an election the action taken by the Legislative Department has violated the Constitution or
at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification," and I not. On this score, I am of the opinion that it has not.
do not subscribe to the restrictive interpretation that the petitioners would place Petitioner Gonzales' second point is that Republic Act 4913 is deficient for not
on this provision, namely, that it means only a special election. having been passed by Congress in joint session by 3/4 vote.
Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution provides:
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring: Sec. 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-
It is the glory of our institutions that they are founded upon law, that no one can fourths of all the members of the Senate and of the House of
exercise any authority over the rights and interests of others except pursuant to Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this
and in the manner authorized by law.1 Based upon this principle, petitioners Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such amendments
Ramon A. Gonzales and Philippine Constitution Association (PHILCONSA) come shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority
to this Court in separate petitions. of the votes cast at an election to which the amendments are submitted
Petitioner Gonzales, as taxpayer, voter and citizen, and allegedly in to the people for their ratification.
representation thru class suit of all citizens of this country, filed this suit for Does Republic Act 4913 propose amendments to the Constitution? If by the term
prohibition with preliminary injunction to restrain the Commission on Elections, "propose amendment" is meant to determine WHAT said amendment shall be,
Director of Printing and Auditor General from implementing and/or complying with then Republic Act 4913 does not; Resolutions of Both Houses 1 and 3 already did
Republic Act 4913, assailing said law as unconstitutional. that. If, on the other hand, it means, or also means, to provide for how, when, and
Petitioner PHILCONSA, as a civic, non-profit and non-partisan corporation, by what means the amendments shall be submitted to the people for approval,
assails the constitutionality not only of Republic Act 4913 but also of Resolutions then it does.
of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3 of March 16, 1967. A careful reading of Sec. 1, Art. XV shows that the first sense. is the one intended.
Republic Act 4913, effective June 17, 1967, is an Act submitting to the Filipino Said Section has two sentences: in the first, it requires the 3/4 voting in joint
people for approval the amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines session, for Congress to "propose amendments". And then in the second
proposed by the Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions of Both Houses sentence, it provides that "such amendments . . . shall be submitted to the people
Numbered 1 and 3, adopted on March 16, 1967. Said Republic Act fixes the date for their ratification". This clearly indicates that by the term "propose amendments"
and manner of the election at which the aforesaid proposed amendments shall be in the first sentence is meant to frame the substance or the content or the WHAT-
voted upon by the people, and appropriates funds for said election. Resolutions element of the amendments; for it is this and this alone that is submitted to the
of Both Houses Nos. 1 and 3 propose two amendments to the Constitution: the people for their ratification. The details of when the election shall be held for
first, to amend Sec. 5, Art. VI, by increasing the maximum membership of the approval or rejection of the proposed amendments, or the manner of holding it,
House of Representatives from 120 to 180, apportioning 160 of said 180 seats are not submitted for ratification to form part of the Constitution. Stated differently,
and eliminating the provision that Congress shall by law make an apportionment the plain language of Section 1, Art. XV, shows that the act of proposing
within three years after the return of every enumeration; the second, to amend amendments is distinct from — albeit related to — that of submitting the
Sec. 16, Art. VI, by allowing Senators and Representatives to be delegates to a amendments to the people for their ratification; and that the 3/4 voting requirement
constitutional convention without forfeiting their seats. applies only to the first step, not to the second one.
Since both petitions relate to the proposed amendments, they are considered It follows that the submission of proposed amendments can be done thru an
together herein. ordinary statute passed by Congress. The Constitution does not expressly state
Specifically and briefly, petitioner Gonzales' objections are as follows: (1) Republic by whom the submission shall be undertaken; the rule is that a power not lodged
Act 4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, in submitting the proposed elsewhere under the Constitution is deemed to reside with the legislative body,
amendments to the Constitution, to the people for approval, at the general election under the doctrine of residuary powers. Congress therefore validly enacted
of 1967 instead of at a special election solely for that purpose; (2) Republic Act Republic Act 4913 to fix the details of the date and manner of submitting the
4913 violates Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution, since it was not passed with the proposed amendments to the people for their ratification. Since it does not
3/4 vote in joint session required when Congress proposes amendments to the "propose amendments" in the sense referred to by Sec. 1, Art. XV of the
Constitution, said Republic Act being a step in or part of the process of proposing Constitution, but merely provides for how and when the amendments, already
amendments to the Constitution; and (3) Republic Act 4913 violates the due proposed, are going to be voted upon, the same does not need the 3/4 vote in
process clause of the Constitution (Sec. 1, Subsec. 1, Art. III), in not requiring that joint session required in Sec. 1, Art. XV of the Constitution. Furthermore, Republic
the substance of the proposed amendments be stated on the face of the ballot or Act 4913 is an appropriation measure. Sec. 6 thereof appropriates P1,000,000 for
otherwise rendering clear the import of the proposed amendments, such as by carrying out its provisions. Sec. 18, Art. VI of the Constitution states that "All
stating the provisions before and after said amendments, instead of printing at the appropriation . . . bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives".
back of the ballot only the proposed amendments. Republic Act 4913, therefore, could not have been validly adopted in a joint
Since observance of Constitutional provisions on the procedure for amending the session, reinforcing the view that Sec. 1, Art. XV does not apply to such a measure
Constitution is concerned, the issue is cognizable by this Court under its powers providing for the holding of the election to ratify the proposed amendments, which
to review an Act of Congress to determine its conformity to the fundamental law. must perforce appropriate funds for its purpose.
For though the Constitution leaves Congress free to propose whatever Petitioner Gonzales contends, thirdly, that Republic Act 4913 offends against
Constitutional amendment it deems fit, so that the substance or content of said substantive due process. An examination of the provisions of the law shows no
proposed amendment is a matter of policy and wisdom and thus a political violation of the due process clause of the Constitution. The publication in the
question, the Constitution nevertheless imposes requisites as to the manner or Official Gazette at least 20 days before the election, the posting of notices in public
procedure of proposing such amendments, e.g., the three-fourths vote buildings not later than October 14, 1967, to remain posted until after the
requirement. Said procedure or manner, therefore, from being left to the discretion elections, the placing of copies of the proposed amendments in the polling places,
of Congress, as a matter of policy and wisdom, is fixed by the Constitution. And aside from printing the same at the back of the ballot, provide sufficient opportunity
to that extent, all questions bearing on whether Congress in proposing to the voters to cast an intelligent vote on the proposal. Due process refers only
amendments followed the procedure required by the Constitution, is perforce to providing fair opportunity; it does not guarantee that the opportunity given will
justiciable, it not being a matter of policy or wisdom. in fact be availed of; that is the look-out of the voter and the responsibility of the
Turning then to petitioner Gonzales' first objection, Sec. 1, Art. XV clearly does citizen. As long as fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed is given, and it
not bear him on the point. It nowhere requires that the ratification be thru an is, the due process clause is not infringed.
election solely for that purpose. It only requires that it be at "an election at which Non-printing of the provisions to be amended as they now stand, and the printing
the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification." To join it with of the full proposed amendments at the back of the ballot instead of the substance
an election for candidates to public office, that is, to make it concurrent with such thereof at the face of the ballot, do not deprive the voter of fair opportunity to be
election, does not render it any less an election at which the proposed informed. The present wording of the Constitution is not being veiled or
suppressed from him; he is conclusively presumed to know them and they are confronting the country would be to avoid the existence of any obstacle to its being
available should he want to check on what he is conclusively presumed to know. submitted for ratification. Moreover, the Republic being less than a year old,
Should the voters choose to remain ignorant of the present Constitution, the fault American Supreme Court opinions on constitutional questions were-invariably
does not lie with Congress. For opportunity to familiarize oneself with the accorded uncritical acceptance. Thus the approach followed by Justice Tuason is
Constitution as it stands has been available thru all these years. Perhaps it would not difficult to understand. It may be said that there is less propensity now, which
have been more convenient for the voters if the present wording of the provisions is all to the good, for this Court to accord that much deference to constitutional
were also to be printed on the ballot. The same however is a matter of policy. As views coming from the quarter.
long as the method adopted provides sufficiently reasonable chance to Nor is this mode of viewing the opinion of Justice Tuason to do injustice to his
intelligently vote on the amendments, and I think it does in this case, it is not memory. For as he stated in another major opinion in Araneta v. Dinglasan,4 in
constitutionally defective. ascertaining the meaning to be given the Emergency Powers Act,5 one should not
Petitioner Gonzales' other arguments touch on the merits or wisdom of the ignore what would ensue if a particular mode of construction were followed. As he
proposed amendments. These are for the people in their sovereign capacity to so emphatically stated, "We test a rule by its results."
decide, not for this Court. The consequences of a judicial veto on the then proposed amendment on the
Two arguments were further advanced: first, that Congress cannot both call a economic survival of the country, an erroneous appraisal it turned out later,
convention and propose amendments; second, that the present Congress is a de constituted an effective argument for its submission. Why not then consider the
facto one, since no apportionment law was adopted within three years from the question political and let the people decide? That assumption could have been
last census of 1960, so that the Representatives elected in 1961 are de facto indulged in. It could very well be the inarticulate major premise. For many it did
officers only. Not being de jure, they cannot propose amendments, it is argued. bear the stamp of judicial statesmanship.
As to the first point, Sec. 1 of Art. XV states that Congress "may propose The opinion of Chief Justice Concepcion renders crystal-clear why as of this date
amendments or call a convention for that purpose". The term "or", however, is and in the foreseeable future judicial inquiry to assure the utmost compliance with
frequently used as having the same meaning as "and" particularly in permissive, the constitutional requirement would be a more appropriate response.
affirmative sentences so that the interpretation of the word "or" as "and" in the
Constitution in such use will not change its meaning (Vicksburg S. & P. R. Co. v. SANCHEZ, J., in separate opinion:
Goodenough, 32 So. 404, 411, 108 La, 442). And it should be pointed out that the Right at the outset, the writer expresses his deep appreciation to Mr. Justice
resolutions proposing amendments (R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3) are different from that Calixto O. Zaldivar and Mr. Justice Fred Ruiz Castro for their invaluable
calling for a convention (R.B.H. No. 2). Surely, if Congress deems it better or wise contribution to the substance and form of the opinion which follows.
to amend the Constitution before a convention called for is elected, it should not Directly under attack in this, a petition for prohibition, is the constitutionality of
be fettered from doing so. For our purposes in this case, suffice it to note that the Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17, 1967. This Act seeks to implement
Constitution does not prohibit it from doing so. Resolutions 1 and 3 adopted by the Senate and the House of Representatives on
As to the second argument, it is also true that Sec. 5 of Art. VI of the Constitution March 16, 1967 with the end in view of amending vital portions of the Constitution.
provides in part that "The Congress shall by law make an apportionment within Since the problem here presented has its roots in the resolutions aforesaid of both
three years after the return of every enumeration, and not otherwise". It however houses of Congress, it may just as well be that we recite in brief the salient
further states in the next sentence: "Until such apportionment shall have been features thereof. Resolution No. 1 increases the membership of the House of
made, the House of Representatives shall have the same number of Members as Representatives from 120 to 180 members, and immediately apportions 160
that fixed by law for the National Assembly, who shall be elected by the qualified seats. A companion resolution is Resolution No. 3 which permits Senators and
electors from the present assembly districts." The failure of Congress, therefore, Congressmen — without forfeiting their seats in Congress — to be members of
to pass a valid redistricting law since the time the above provision was adopted, the Constitutional Convention1 to be convened, as provided in another resolution
does not render the present districting illegal or unconstitutional. For the — Resolution No. 2. Parenthetically, two of these proposed amendments to the
Constitution itself provides for its continuance in such case, rendering legal and Constitution (Resolutions I and 3) are to be submitted to the people for their
de jure the status quo. ratification next November 14, 1967. Resolution No. 2 just adverted to calls for a
For the above reasons, I vote to uphold the constitutionality of Republic Act 4913, constitutional convention also to propose amendments to the Constitution. The
and fully concur with the opinion of the Chief Justice. delegates thereto are to be elected on the second Tuesday of November 1970;
the convention to sit on June 1, 1971; and the amendments proposed by the
FERNANDO, J., concurring: convention to be submitted to the people thereafter for their ratification.
At the outset, we are faced with a question of jurisdiction. The opinion prepared Of importance now are the proposed amendments increasing the number of
by the Chief Justice discusses the matter with a fullness that erases doubts and members of the House of representatives under Resolution No. 1, and that in
misgivings and clarifies the applicable principles. A few words may however be Resolution No. 3 which gives Senators and Congressmen the right to sit as
added. members of the constitutional convention to be convened on June 1, 1971.
We start from the premise that only where it can be shown that the question is to Because, these are the two amendments to be submitted to the people in the
be solved by public opinion or where the matter has been left by the Constitution general elections soon to be held on November 14, 1967, upon the provisions of
to the sole discretion of any of the political branches, as was so clearly stated by Section 1, Republic Act 4913, which reads:
the then Justice Concepcion in Tañada v. Cuenco,1 may this Court avoid passing The amendments to the Constitution of the Philippines proposed by the
on the issue before it. Whatever may be said about the present question, it is hard Congress of the Philippines in Resolutions of both Houses Numbered
to speak with certitude considering Article XV, that Congress may be entrusted One and Three, both adopted on March sixteen, nineteen hundred and
with the full and uncontrolled discretion on the procedure leading to proposals for sixty- seven, shall be submitted to the people for approval at the general
an amendment of the Constitution. election which shall be held on November fourteen, nineteen hundred
It may be said however that in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito,2 this Court through Justice and sixty- seven, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
Tuason followed Coleman v. Miller,3 in its holding that certain aspects of the Republic Act 4913 projects the basic angle of the problem thrust upon us — the
amending process may be considered political. His opinion quoted with approval manner in which the amendments proposed by Congress just adverted to be
the view of Justice Black, to which three other members of the United States brought to the people's attention.
Supreme Court agreed, that the process itself is political in its entirety, "from First, to the controlling constitutional precept. In order that proposed amendments
submission until an amendment becomes part of the Constitution, and is not to the Constitution may become effective, Section 1, Article XV thereof commands
subject to judicial guidance, control or interference at any point." In a sense that that such amendments must be "approved by a majority of the votes cast at an
would solve the matter neatly. The judiciary would be spared the at times arduous election at which amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification."2
and in every case soul-searching process of determining whether the procedure The accent is on two words complementing each other, namely, "submitted" and
for amendments required by the Constitution has been followed. "ratification."
At the same time, without impugning the motives of Congress, which cannot be 1. We are forced to take a long hard look at the core of the problem facing us. And
judicially inquired into at any rate, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that a this, because the amendments submitted are transcendental and encompassing.
failure to observe the requirements of Article XV would occur. In the event that The ceiling of the number of Congressmen is sought to be elevated from 120 to
judicial intervention is sought, to rely automatically on the theory of political 180 members; and Senators and Congressmen may run in constitutional
question to avoid passing on such a matter of delicacy might under certain conventions without forfeiting their seats. These certainly affect the people as a
circumstances be considered, and rightly so, as nothing less than judicial whole. The increase in the number of Congressmen has its proportional increase
abdication or surrender. in the people's tax burdens. They may not look at this with favor, what with the
What appears regrettable is that a major opinion of an esteemed jurist, the late constitutional provision (Section 5, Article VI) that Congress "shall by law make
Justice Tuason, would no longer be controlling. There is comfort in the thought an apportionment", without the necessity of disturbing the present constitutionally
that the view that then prevailed was itself a product of the times. It could very well provided number of Congressmen. People in Quezon City, for instance, may balk
be that considering the circumstances existing in 1947 as well as the particular at the specific apportionment of the 160 seats set forth in Resolution No. 1, and
amendment sought to be incorporated in the Constitution, the parity rights ask for a Congressman of their own, on the theory of equal representation. And
ordinance, the better part of wisdom in view of the grave economic situation then then, people may question the propriety of permitting the increased 180
Congressmen from taking part in the forthcoming constitutional convention and (3) At least five copies of the said amendments shall be kept in each
future conventions for fear that they may dominate its proceedings. They may polling place to be made available for examination by the qualified
entertain the belief that, if at all, increase in the number of Congressmen should electors during election day.
be a proper topic for deliberation in a constitutional convention which, anyway, will (4) When practicable, copies in the principal native languages, as may
soon take place. They probably would ask: Why the hurry? These ponderables be determined by the Commission on Elections, shall be kept in each
require the people's close scrutiny. polling place.
2. With these as backdrop, we perforce go into the philosophy behind the (5) The Commission on Elections shall make available copies of said
constitutional directive that constitutional amendments be submitted to the people amendments in English, Spanish and, whenever practicable, in the
for their ratification. principal native languages, for free distribution.
A constitutional amendment is not a temporary expedient. Unlike a statute which A question that comes to mind is whether the procedure for dissemination of
may suffer amendments three or more times in the same year, it is intended to information regarding the amendments effectively brings the matter to the people.
stand the test of time. It is an expression of the people's sovereign will. A dissection of the mechanics yields disturbing thoughts. First, the Official Gazette
And so, our approach to the problem of the mechanics of submission for is not widely read. It does not reach the barrios. And even if it reaches the barrios,
ratification of amendments is that reasoning on the basis of the spirit of the is it available to all? And if it is, would all under stand English? Second, it should
Constitution is just as important as reasoning by a strict adherence to the be conceded that many citizens, especially those in the outlying barrios, do not
phraseology thereof. We underscore this, because it is within the realm of go to municipal, city and/or provincial office buildings, except on special occasions
possibility that a Constitution maybe overhauled. Supposing three-fourths of the like paying taxes or responding to court summonses. And if they do, will they
Constitution is to be amended. Or, the proposal is to eliminate the all important; notice the printed amendments posted on the bulletin board? And if they do notice,
Bill of Rights in its entirety. We believe it to be beyond debate that in some such such copy again is in English (sample submitted to this Court by the Solicitor
situations the amendments ought to call for a constitutional convention rather than General) for, anyway, the statute does not require that it be in any other language
a legislative proposal. And yet, nothing there is in the books or in the Constitution or dialect. Third, it would not help any if at least five copies are kept in the polling
itself. which would require such amendments to be adopted by a constitutional place for examination by qualified electors during election day. As petitioner puts
convention. And then, too, the spirit of the supreme enactment, we are sure, it, voting time is not study time. And then, who can enter the polling place, except
forbids that proposals therefor be initiated by Congress and thereafter presented those who are about to vote? Fourth, copies in the principal native languages shall
to the people for their ratification. be kept in each polling place. But this is not, as Section 2 itself implies, in the
In the context just adverted to, we take the view that the words "submitted to the nature of a command because such copies shall be kept therein only "when
people for their ratification", if construed in the light of the nature of the practicable" and "as may be determined by the Commission on Elections." Even
Constitution — a fundamental charter that is legislation direct from the people, an if it be said that these are available before election, a citizen may not intrude into
— expression of their sovereign will — is that it can only be amended by the the school building where the polling places are usually located without disturbing
people expressing themselves according to the procedure ordained by the the school classes being held there. Fifth, it is true that the Comelec is directed to
Constitution. Therefore, amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their make available copies of such amendments in English, Spanish or whenever
blessing or spurning. The people are not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not practicable, in the principal native languages, for free distribution. However,
to vote blindly. They must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the original Comelec is not required to actively distribute them to the people. This is significant
provisions compare them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a as to people in the provinces, especially those in the far-flung barrios who are
conclusion as the dictates of their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of completely unmindful of the discussions that go on now and then in the cities and
extraneous or possibly in insidious influences. We believe, the word "submitted" centers of population on the merits and demerits of the amendments. Rather,
can only mean that the government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain Comelec, in this case, is but a passive agency which may hold copies available,
every effort to inform very citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the but which copies may not be distributed at all. Finally, it is of common knowledge
proposed amendments and the meaning, nature and effects thereof. By this, we that Comelec has more than its hands full in these pre-election days. They cannot
are not to be understood as saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens or 1,000 possibly make extensive distribution.
citizens cannot be reached, then there is no submission within the meaning of the Voters will soon go to the polls to say "yes" or "no". But even the official sample
word as intended by the framers of the Constitution. What the Constitution in effect ballot submitted to this Court would show that only the amendments are printed
directs is that the government, in submitting an amendment for ratification, should at the back. And this, in pursuance to Republic Act 4913 itself.
put every instrumentality or agency within its structural framework to enlighten the Surely enough, the voters do not have the benefit of proper notice of the proposed
people, educate them with respect to their act of ratification or rejection. For, as amendments thru dissemination by publication in extenso. People do not have at
we have earlier stated, one thing is submission and another is ratification. There hand the necessary data on which to base their stand on the merits and demerits
must be fair submission, intelligent, consent or rejection. If with all these of said amendments.
safeguards the people still approve the amendment no matter how prejudicial it is We, therefore, hold that there is no proper submission of the proposed
to them, then so be it. For, the people decree their own fate. constitutional amendments within the meaning and intendment of Section 1,
Aptly had it been said: Article XV of the Constitution.
. . . The great men who builded the structure of our state in this respect 4. Contemporary history is witness to the fact that during the present election
had the mental vision of a good Constitution voiced by Judge Cooley, campaign the focus is on the election of candidates. The constitutional
who has said "A good Constitution should beyond the reach of amendments are crowded out. Candidates on the homestretch, and their leaders
temporary excitement and popular caprice or passion. It is needed for as well as the voters, gear their undivided efforts to the election of officials; the
stability and steadiness; it must yield to the thought of the people; not constitutional amendments cut no ice with them. The truth is that even in the ballot
to the whim of the people, or the thought evolved the excitement or hot itself, the space accorded to the casting of "yes" or "no" vote would give one the
blood, but the sober second thought, which alone, if the government is impression that the constitutional amendments are but a bootstrap to the electoral
to be safe, can be allowed efficiency. . . . Changes in government are ballot. Worse still, the fortunes of many elective officials, on the national and local
to be feared unless the benefit is certain. As Montaign says: "All great levels, are inextricably intertwined with the results of the votes on the plebiscite.
mutations shake and disorder a state. Good does not necessarily In a clash between votes for a candidate and conscience on the merits and
succeed evil; another evil may succeed and a worse." Am. Law Rev. demerits of the constitutional amendments, we are quite certain that it is the latter
1889, p. 3113 that will be dented.
3. Tersely put, the issue before us funnels down to this proposition: If the people 5. That proper submission of amendments to the people to enable them to equally
are not sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to ratify them properly is the meat of the constitutional requirement, is reflected in
conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner can the sequence of uniform past practices. The Constitution had been amended
it be said that in accordance with the constitutional mandate, "the amendments thrice — in 1939, 1940 and 1947. In each case, the amendments were embodied
are submitted to the people for their ratification?" Our answer is "No". in resolutions adopted by the Legislature, which thereafter fixed the dates at which
We examine Republic Act 4913, approved on June 17, 1967 — the statute that the proposed amendments were to be ratified or rejected. These plebiscites have
submits to the people the constitutional amendments proposed by Congress in been referred to either as an "election" or "general election". At no time, however,
Resolutions 1 and 3. Section 2 of the Act provides the manner of propagation of was the vote for the amendments of the Constitution held simultaneously with the
the nature of the amendments throughout the country. There are five parts in said election officials, national or local. Even with regard to the 1947 parity
Section 2, viz: amendment; the record shows that the sole issue was the 1947 parity
(1) The amendment shall be published in three consecutive issues of amendment; and the special elections simultaneously held in only three
the Official Gazette at least twenty days prior to the election. provinces, Iloilo, Pangasinan and Bukidnon, were merely incidental thereto.
(2) A printed copy thereof shall be posted in a conspicuous place in In the end we say that the people are the last ramparts that guard against
every municipality, city and provincial office building and in every polling indiscriminate changes in the Constitution that is theirs. Is it too much to ask that
place not later than October fourteen, nineteen hundred and sixty- reasonable guarantee be made that in the matter of the alterations of the law of
seven, and shall remain posted therein until after the election. the land, their true voice be heard? The answer perhaps is best expressed in the
following thoughts: "It must be remembered that the Constitution is the people's
 5
enactment. No proposed change can become effective unless they will it so Commonwealth Act No. 671 (1941).
through the compelling force of need of it and desire for it."4 6
Araneta v. Dinglasan, supra, at p. 376.
For the reasons given, our vote is that Republic Act 4913 must be stricken down SANCHEZ, J., separate opinion:
1
as in violation of the Constitution. The text of the law reads: "He (Senator or Member of the House of
Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur. Representatives) may, however, be a Member of Constitutional
Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon and Angeles, JJ., concur in the result. Convention."
2
Emphasis supplied.
3
REYES, J.B.L., J., concurring: Ellingham vs. Dye, 99 N.E. pp. 4, 15; Emphasis supplied.
4
I concur in the result with the opinion penned by Mr. Justice Sanchez. To approve Elingham vs. Dye, supra, at p. 17; emphasis supplied.
a mere proposal to amend the Constitution requires (Art. XV) a three-fourths (3/4)
vote of all the members of each legislative chamber, the highest majority ever
demanded by the fundamental charter, one higher even than that required in order
to declare war (Sec. 24, Article VI), with all its dire consequences. If such an
overwhelming majority, that was evidently exacted in order to impress upon all
and sundry the seriousness of every constitutional amendment, is asked for a
proposal to amend the Constitution, I find it impossible to believe that it was ever
intended by its framers that such amendment should be submitted and ratified by
just "a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are
submitted to the people for their ratification", if the concentration of the people's
attention thereon to be diverted by other extraneous issues, such as the choice of
local and national officials. The framers of the Constitution, aware of the
fundamental character thereof, and of the need of giving it as much stability as is
practicable, could have only meant that any amendments thereto should be
debated, considered and voted upon at an election wherein the people could
devote undivided attention to the subject. That this was the intention and the spirit
of the provision is corroborated in the case of all other constitutional amendments
in the past, that were submitted to and approved in special elections exclusively
devoted to the issue whether the legislature's amendatory proposals should be
ratified or not.
Dizon, Angeles, Zaldivar and Castro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1
Urging the latter to refrain from implementing Republic Act. No. 4913
and from submitting to a plebiscite in the general elections to be held
on November 14, 1967, the Constitutional amendments proposed in the
aforementioned R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3.
2
Dated October 30, 1967.
3
78 Phil. 1.
4
63 Phil. 139, 157.
5
Supra.
6
81 Phil. 818.
7
L-2851, March 4 and 14, 1949.
8
L-10520, February 28, 1957.
9
L-18684, September 14, 1961.
10
Section 1, Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines.
11
Section 1, Art. II, Constitution of the Philippines.
12
Section 1, Art. XV, Constitution of the Philippines.
13
Of amending the Constitution.
14
And, inferentially, to lower courts.
15
Sec. 2(1), Art. VIII of the Constitution.
16
Supra.
17
Approved, June 17, 1961.
18
Macias vs. Commission on Elections, supra.
19
Under the original Constitution providing for a unicameral legislative
body, whose members were chosen for a term of three (3) years
(Section 1, Art. VI, of the Original Constitution).
20
Section 1, Article IX of the Constitution.
21
Lino Luna vs. Rodriguez and De los Angeles, 37 Phil. p. 192;
Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, 85 Phil., 126; Codilla vs. Martinez, L-
14569, November 23, 1960. See, also, State vs. Carrol, 38 Conn. 499;
Wilcox vs. Smith, 5 Wendell [N.Y.] 231; 21 Am. Dec., 213; Sheenan's
Case, 122 Mass., 445; 23 Am. Rep., 323.
22
Torres vs. Ribo, 81 Phil. 50.
23
Nacionalista Party vs. De Vera, supra.
24
People vs. Rogelio Gabitanan, 43 O.G. 3211.
25
53 Phil. 866.
26
50 Am. Jur., Sec. 282, pp. 267-268, citing Heckathorn v. Heckathorn,
284 Mich. 677, 280 NW 79, citing RCL; Robson v. Cantwell, 143 SC
104, 141 SE 180, citing RCL; Geiger v. Kobilka, 26 Wash 171, 66 P
423, Am. St. Rep. 733 and many others.
BENGZON, J.P., J., concurring:
1
United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273.
2
Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139, 1958, Justice Laurel,
ponente.
FERNANDO, J., concurring:
1
103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
2
78 Phil. 1 (1947).
3
307 US 433 (1939).
4
84 Phil. 368 (1940).
Republic of the Philippines Upon the filing of the Delfin Petition, which was forthwith given the number UND
SUPREME COURT 96-037 (INITIATIVE), the COMELEC, through its Chairman, issued an Order 11
Manila (a) directing Delfin "to cause the publication of the petition, together with the
EN BANC attached Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution (including the proposal,
proposed constitutional amendment, and the signature form), and the notice of
G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997 hearing in three (3) daily newspapers of general circulation at his own expense"
MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO, ALEXANDER PADILLA, and MARIA not later than 9 December 1996; and (b) setting the case for hearing on 12
ISABEL ONGPIN, petitioners, December 1996 at 10:00 a.m.
vs. At the hearing of the Delfin Petition on 12 December 1996, the following appeared:
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JESUS DELFIN, ALBERTO PEDROSA & Delfin and Atty. Pete Q. Quadra; representatives of the People's Initiative for
CARMEN PEDROSA, in their capacities as founding members of the Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA); intervenor-oppositor Senator Raul
People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), S. Roco, together with his two other lawyers, and representatives of, or counsel
respondents. for, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang
SENATOR RAUL S. ROCO, DEMOKRASYA-IPAGTANGGOL ANG Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong
KONSTITUSYON (DIK), MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYS FOR BROTHERHOOD Pilipino (LABAN). 12 Senator Roco, on that same day, filed a Motion to Dismiss
INTEGRITY AND NATIONALISM, INC. (MABINI), INTEGRATED BAR OF THE the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly
PHILIPPINES (IBP), and LABAN NG DEMOKRATIKONG PILIPINO (LABAN), cognizable by the COMELEC.
petitioners-intervenors. After hearing their arguments, the COMELEC directed Delfin and the oppositors
to file their "memoranda and/or oppositions/memoranda" within five days. 13
DAVIDE, JR., J.: On 18 December 1996, the petitioners herein — Senator Miriam Defensor
The heart of this controversy brought to us by way of a petition for prohibition Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin — filed this special civil
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the right of the people to directly propose action for prohibition raising the following arguments:
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 (1) The constitutional provision on people's initiative to
of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Undoubtedly, this demands special amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to
attention, as this system of initiative was unknown to the people of this country, be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed; in
except perhaps to a few scholars, before the drafting of the 1987 Constitution. fact, Senate Bill No. 1290 entitled An Act Prescribing and
The 1986 Constitutional Commission itself, through the original proponent1 and Regulating Constitution Amendments by People's Initiative,
the main sponsor2 of the proposed Article on Amendments or Revision of the which petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November
Constitution, characterized this system as "innovative".3 Indeed it is, for both 1995, is still pending before the Senate Committee on
under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, only two methods of proposing Constitutional Amendments.
amendments to, or revision of, the Constitution were recognized, viz., (1) by (2) It is true that R.A. No. 6735 provides for three systems of
Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members and (2) by a initiative, namely, initiative on the Constitution, on statutes,
constitutional convention.4 For this and the other reasons hereafter discussed, and on local legislation. However, it failed to provide any
we resolved to give due course to this petition. subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other
On 6 December 1996, private respondent Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with public modes of initiative, which are specifically provided for in
respondent Commission on Elections (hereafter, COMELEC) a "Petition to Subtitle II and Subtitle III. This deliberate omission indicates
Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's that the matter of people's initiative to amend the Constitution
Initiative" (hereafter, Delfin Petition)5 wherein Delfin asked the COMELEC for an was left to some future law. Former Senator Arturo Tolentino
order stressed this deficiency in the law in his privilege speech
1. Fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over delivered before the Senate in 1994: "There is not a single
the country; word in that law which can be considered as implementing
2. Causing the necessary publications of said Order and the [the provision on constitutional initiative]. Such implementing
attached "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution, in provisions have been obviously left to a separate law.
newspapers of general and local circulation; (3) Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the
3. Instructing Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of law after publication in print media. This indicates that the Act
the Philippines, to assist Petitioners and volunteers, in covers only laws and not constitutional amendments
establishing signing stations at the time and on the dates because the latter take effect only upon ratification and not
designated for the purpose. after publication.
Delfin alleged in his petition that he is a founding member of the Movement for (4) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, adopted on 16 January
People's Initiative,6 a group of citizens desirous to avail of the system intended to 1991 to govern "the conduct of initiative on the Constitution
institutionalize people power; that he and the members of the Movement and other and initiative and referendum on national and local laws, is
volunteers intend to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the ultra vires insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution granted under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution; that the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC has no
exercise of that power shall be conducted in proceedings under the control and power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the
supervision of the COMELEC; that, as required in COMELEC Resolution No. right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is
2300, signature stations shall be established all over the country, with the authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
assistance of municipal election registrars, who shall verify the signatures affixed (5) The people's initiative is limited to amendments to the
by individual signatories; that before the Movement and other volunteers can Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
gather signatures, it is necessary that the time and dates to be designated for the term limits constitutes a revision and is, therefore, outside the
purpose be first fixed in an order to be issued by the COMELEC; and that to power of the people's initiative.
adequately inform the people of the electoral process involved, it is likewise (6) Finally, Congress has not yet appropriated funds for
necessary that the said order, as well as the Petition on which the signatures shall people's initiative; neither the COMELEC nor any other
be affixed, be published in newspapers of general and local circulation, under the government department, agency, or office has realigned
control and supervision of the COMELEC. funds for the purpose.
The Delfin Petition further alleged that the provisions sought to be amended are To justify their recourse to us via the special civil action for prohibition, the
Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI,7 Section 4 of Article VII,8 and Section 8 of Article petitioners allege that in the event the COMELEC grants the Delfin Petition, the
X9 of the Constitution. Attached to the petition is a copy of a "Petition for Initiative people's initiative spearheaded by PIRMA would entail expenses to the national
on the 1987 Constitution" 10 embodying the proposed amendments which consist treasury for general re-registration of voters amounting to at least P180 million,
in the deletion from the aforecited sections of the provisions concerning term not to mention the millions of additional pesos in expenses which would be
limits, and with the following proposition: incurred in the conduct of the initiative itself. Hence, the transcendental
DO YOU APPROVE OF LIFTING THE TERM LIMITS OF importance to the public and the nation of the issues raised demands that this
ALL ELECTIVE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, AMENDING petition for prohibition be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside
FOR THE PURPOSE SECTIONS 4 AND 7 OF ARTICLE VI, technicalities of procedure and calling for the admission of a taxpayer's and
SECTION 4 OF ARTICLE VII, AND SECTION 8 OF legislator's suit. 14 Besides, there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy
ARTICLE X OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION? in the ordinary course of law.
According to Delfin, the said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the On 19 December 1996, this Court (a) required the respondents to comment on
people, and after it is signed by at least twelve per cent of the total number of the petition within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice; and (b) issued
registered voters in the country it will be formally filed with the COMELEC. a temporary restraining order, effective immediately and continuing until further
orders, enjoining public respondent COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin
Petition, and private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting (2) Section 9(b) of R.A. No. 6735 specifically provides that
a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the Constitution. the proposition in an initiative to amend the Constitution
On 2 January 1997, private respondents, through Atty Quadra, filed their approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite
Comment 15 on the petition. They argue therein that: shall become effective as of the day of the plebiscite.
1. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT "IT WOULD ENTAIL EXPENSES (3) The claim that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra
TO THE NATIONAL TREASURY FOR GENERAL vires is contradicted by (a) Section 2, Article IX-C of the
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS AMOUNTING TO AT LEAST Constitution, which grants the COMELEC the power to
PESOS: ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY MILLION enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to the
(P180,000,000.00)" IF THE "COMELEC GRANTS THE conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum, and
PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT DELFIN BEFORE THE recall; and (b) Section 20 of R.A. 6735, which empowers the
COMELEC. COMELEC to promulgate such rules and regulations as may
2. NOT A SINGLE CENTAVO WOULD BE SPENT BY THE be necessary to carry out the purposes of the Act.
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT IF THE COMELEC GRANTS (4) The proposed initiative does not involve a revision of, but
THE PETITION OF RESPONDENT DELFIN. ALL mere amendment to, the Constitution because it seeks to
EXPENSES IN THE SIGNATURE GATHERING ARE ALL alter only a few specific provisions of the Constitution, or
FOR THE ACCOUNT OF RESPONDENT DELFIN AND HIS more specifically, only those which lay term limits. It does not
VOLUNTEERS PER THEIR PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES seek to reexamine or overhaul the entire document.
AND EXPENDITURES SUBMITTED TO THE COMELEC. As to the public expenditures for registration of voters, Delfin considers petitioners'
THE ESTIMATED COST OF THE DAILY PER DIEM OF THE estimate of P180 million as unreliable, for only the COMELEC can give the exact
SUPERVISING SCHOOL TEACHERS IN THE SIGNATURE figure. Besides, if there will be a plebiscite it will be simultaneous with the 1997
GATHERING TO BE DEPOSITED and TO BE PAID BY Barangay Elections. In any event, fund requirements for initiative will be a priority
DELFIN AND HIS VOLUNTEERS IS P2,571,200.00; government expense because it will be for the exercise of the sovereign power of
3. THE PENDING PETITION BEFORE THE COMELEC IS the people.
ONLY ON THE SIGNATURE GATHERING WHICH BY LAW In the Comment 17 for the public respondent COMELEC, filed also on 2 January
COMELEC IS DUTY BOUND "TO SUPERVISE CLOSELY" 1997, the Office of the Solicitor General contends that:
PURSUANT TO ITS "INITIATORY JURISDICTION" (1) R.A. No. 6735 deals with, inter alia, people's initiative to
UPHELD BY THE HONORABLE COURT IN ITS RECENT amend the Constitution. Its Section 2 on Statement of Policy
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE OF SUBIC explicitly affirms, recognizes, and guarantees that power; and
BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VS. COMELEC, ET AL. its Section 3, which enumerates the three systems of
G.R. NO. 125416; initiative, includes initiative on the Constitution and defines
4. REP. ACT NO. 6735 APPROVED ON AUGUST 4, 1989 the same as the power to propose amendments to the
IS THE ENABLING LAW IMPLEMENTING THE POWER OF Constitution. Likewise, its Section 5 repeatedly mentions
PEOPLE INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO initiative on the Constitution.
THE CONSTITUTION. SENATOR DEFENSOR- (2) A separate subtitle on initiative on the Constitution is not
SANTIAGO'S SENATE BILL NO. 1290 IS A DUPLICATION necessary in R.A. No. 6735 because, being national in scope,
OF WHAT ARE ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN REP. ACT that system of initiative is deemed included in the subtitle on
NO. 6735; National Initiative and Referendum; and Senator Tolentino
5. COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300 PROMULGATED simply overlooked pertinent provisions of the law when he
ON JANUARY 16, 1991 PURSUANT TO REP. ACT 6735 claimed that nothing therein was provided for initiative on the
WAS UPHELD BY THE HONORABLE COURT IN THE Constitution.
RECENT SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 DECISION IN THE CASE (3) Senate Bill No. 1290 is neither a competent nor a material
OF SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY VS. proof that R.A. No. 6735 does not deal with initiative on the
COMELEC, ET AL. G.R. NO. 125416 WHERE THE Constitution.
HONORABLE COURT SAID: "THE COMMISSION ON (4) Extension of term limits of elected officials constitutes a
ELECTIONS CAN DO NO LESS BY SEASONABLY AND mere amendment to the Constitution, not a revision thereof.
JUDICIOUSLY PROMULGATING GUIDELINES AND (5) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 was validly issued under
RULES FOR BOTH NATIONAL AND LOCAL USE, IN Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 and under the Omnibus Election
IMPLEMENTING OF THESE LAWS." Code. The rule-making power of the COMELEC to implement
6. EVEN SENATOR DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO'S SENATE the provisions of R.A. No. 6735 was in fact upheld by this
BILL NO. 1290 CONTAINS A PROVISION DELEGATING Court in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. COMELEC.
TO THE COMELEC THE POWER TO "PROMULGATE On 14 January 1997, this Court (a) confirmed nunc pro tunc the temporary
SUCH RULES AND REGULATIONS AS MAY BE restraining order; (b) noted the aforementioned Comments and the Motion to Lift
NECESSARY TO CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES OF THIS Temporary Restraining Order filed by private respondents through Atty. Quadra,
ACT." (SEC. 12, S.B. NO. 1290, ENCLOSED AS ANNEX E, as well as the latter's Manifestation stating that he is the counsel for private
PETITION); respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa only and the Comment he filed was for
7. THE LIFTING OF THE LIMITATION ON THE TERM OF the Pedrosas; and (c) granted the Motion for Intervention filed on 6 January 1997
OFFICE OF ELECTIVE OFFICIALS PROVIDED UNDER by Senator Raul Roco and allowed him to file his Petition in Intervention not later
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION IS NOT A "REVISION" OF THE than 20 January 1997; and (d) set the case for hearing on 23 January 1997 at
CONSTITUTION. IT IS ONLY AN AMENDMENT. 9:30 a.m.
"AMENDMENT ENVISAGES AN ALTERATION OF ONE OR On 17 January 1997, the Demokrasya-Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon (DIK) and
A FEW SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood Integrity and Nationalism, Inc.
REVISION CONTEMPLATES A RE-EXAMINATION OF THE (MABINI), filed a Motion for Intervention. Attached to the motion was their Petition
ENTIRE DOCUMENT TO DETERMINE HOW AND TO in Intervention, which was later replaced by an Amended Petition in Intervention
WHAT EXTENT IT SHOULD BE ALTERED." (PP. 412-413, wherein they contend that:
2ND. ED. 1992, 1097 PHIL. CONSTITUTION, BY JOAQUIN (1) The Delfin proposal does not involve a mere amendment
G. BERNAS, S.J.). to, but a revision of, the Constitution because, in the words of
Also on 2 January 1997, private respondent Delfin filed in his own behalf a Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., 18 it would involve a change from a
Comment 16 which starts off with an assertion that the instant petition is a "knee- political philosophy that rejects unlimited tenure to one that
jerk reaction to a draft 'Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution'. . . which is accepts unlimited tenure; and although the change might
not formally filed yet." What he filed on 6 December 1996 was an "Initiatory appear to be an isolated one, it can affect other provisions,
Pleading" or "Initiatory Petition," which was legally necessary to start the signature such as, on synchronization of elections and on the State
campaign to amend the Constitution or to put the movement to gather signatures policy of guaranteeing equal access to opportunities for
under COMELEC power and function. On the substantive allegations of the public service and prohibiting political dynasties. 19 A
petitioners, Delfin maintains as follows: revision cannot be done by initiative which, by express
(1) Contrary to the claim of the petitioners, there is a law, R.A. provision of Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution, is
No. 6735, which governs the conduct of initiative to amend limited to amendments.
the Constitution. The absence therein of a subtitle for such (2) The prohibition against reelection of the President and the
initiative is not fatal, since subtitles are not requirements for limits provided for all other national and local elective officials
the validity or sufficiency of laws. are based on the philosophy of governance, "to open up the
 political arena to as many as there are Filipinos qualified to At the hearing of the case on 23 January 1997, the parties argued on the following
handle the demands of leadership, to break the concentration pivotal issues, which the Court formulated in light of the allegations and arguments
of political and economic powers in the hands of a few, and raised in the pleadings so far filed:
to promote effective proper empowerment for participation in 1. Whether R.A. No. 6735, entitled An Act Providing for a
policy and decision-making for the common good"; hence, to System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating
remove the term limits is to negate and nullify the noble vision Funds Therefor, was intended to include or cover initiative on
of the 1987 Constitution. amendments to the Constitution; and if so, whether the Act,
(3) The Delfin proposal runs counter to the purpose of as worded, adequately covers such initiative.
initiative, particularly in a conflict-of-interest situation. 2. Whether that portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
Initiative is intended as a fallback position that may be availed (In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of
of by the people only if they are dissatisfied with the Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum
performance of their elective officials, but not as a premium on National and Local Laws) regarding the conduct of
for good performance. 20 initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid,
(4) R.A. No. 6735 is deficient and inadequate in itself to be considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on
called the enabling law that implements the people's initiative the conduct of such initiative.
on amendments to the Constitution. It fails to state (a) the 3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective national and
proper parties who may file the petition, (b) the appropriate local officials, as proposed in the draft "Petition for Initiative
agency before whom the petition is to be filed, (c) the on the 1987 Constitution," would constitute a revision of, or
contents of the petition, (d) the publication of the same, (e) an amendment to, the Constitution.
the ways and means of gathering the signatures of the voters 4. Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has
nationwide and 3% per legislative district, (f) the proper jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order
parties who may oppose or question the veracity of the (a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering; (b)
signatures, (g) the role of the COMELEC in the verification of instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin's
the signatures and the sufficiency of the petition, (h) the movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations;
appeal from any decision of the COMELEC, (I) the holding of and (c) directing or causing the publication of, inter alia, the
a plebiscite, and (g) the appropriation of funds for such unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987
people's initiative. Accordingly, there being no enabling law, Constitution.
the COMELEC has no jurisdiction to hear Delfin's petition. 5. Whether it is proper for the Supreme Court to take
(5) The deficiency of R.A. No. 6735 cannot be rectified or cognizance of the petition when there is a pending case
remedied by COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, since the before the COMELEC.
COMELEC is without authority to legislate the procedure for After hearing them on the issues, we required the parties to submit simultaneously
a people's initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the their respective memoranda within twenty days and requested intervenor Senator
Constitution. That function exclusively pertains to Congress. Roco to submit copies of the deliberations on House Bill No. 21505.
Section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 does not constitute a legal basis On 27 January 1997, LABAN filed its Petition in Intervention wherein it adopts the
for the Resolution, as the former does not set a sufficient allegations and arguments in the main Petition. It further submits that the
standard for a valid delegation of power. COMELEC should have dismissed the Delfin Petition for failure to state a
On 20 January 1997, Senator Raul Roco filed his Petition in sufficient cause of action and that the Commission's failure or refusal to do so
Intervention. 21 He avers that R.A. No. 6735 is the enabling law that implements constituted grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
the people's right to initiate constitutional amendments. This law is a consolidation On 28 January 1997, Senator Roco submitted copies of portions of both the
of Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505; he co-authored the House Bill Journal and the Record of the House of Representatives relating to the
and even delivered a sponsorship speech thereon. He likewise submits that the deliberations of House Bill No. 21505, as well as the transcripts of stenographic
COMELEC was empowered under Section 20 of that law to promulgate notes on the proceedings of the Bicameral Conference Committee, Committee on
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. Nevertheless, he contends that the respondent Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, of 6 June 1989 on House Bill No. 21505 and
Commission is without jurisdiction to take cognizance of the Delfin Petition and to Senate Bill No. 17.
order its publication because the said petition is not the initiatory pleading Private respondents Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa filed their Consolidated
contemplated under the Constitution, Republic Act No. 6735, and COMELEC Comments on the Petitions in Intervention of Senator Roco, DIK and MABINI, and
Resolution No. 2300. What vests jurisdiction upon the COMELEC in an initiative IBP. 23 The parties thereafter filed, in due time, their separate memoranda. 24
on the Constitution is the filing of a petition for initiative which is signed by the As we stated in the beginning, we resolved to give due course to this special civil
required number of registered voters. He also submits that the proponents of a action.
constitutional amendment cannot avail of the authority and resources of the For a more logical discussion of the formulated issues, we shall first take up the
COMELEC to assist them is securing the required number of signatures, as the fifth issue which appears to pose a prejudicial procedural question.
COMELEC's role in an initiative on the Constitution is limited to the determination I
of the sufficiency of the initiative petition and the call and supervision of a THE INSTANT PETITION IS VIABLE DESPITE THE PENDENCY IN
plebiscite, if warranted. THE COMELEC OF THE DELFIN PETITION.
On 20 January 1997, LABAN filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene. Except for the petitioners and intervenor Roco, the parties paid no serious
The following day, the IBP filed a Motion for Intervention to which it attached a attention to the fifth issue, i.e., whether it is proper for this Court to take cognizance
Petition in Intervention raising the following arguments: of this special civil action when there is a pending case before the COMELEC.
(1) Congress has failed to enact an enabling law mandated The petitioners provide an affirmative answer. Thus:
under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. 28. The Comelec has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of
(2) COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 cannot substitute for the the petition filed by private respondent Delfin. This being so,
required implementing law on the initiative to amend the it becomes imperative to stop the Comelec from proceeding
Constitution. any further, and under the Rules of Court, Rule 65, Section
(3) The Petition for Initiative suffers from a fatal defect in that 2, a petition for prohibition is the proper remedy.
it does not have the required number of signatures. 29. The writ of prohibition is an extraordinary judicial writ
(4) The petition seeks, in effect a revision of the Constitution, issuing out of a court of superior jurisdiction and directed to
which can be proposed only by Congress or a constitutional an inferior court, for the purpose of preventing the inferior
convention. 22 tribunal from usurping a jurisdiction with which it is not legally
On 21 January 1997, we promulgated a Resolution (a) granting the Motions for vested. (People v. Vera, supra., p. 84). In this case the writ is
Intervention filed by the DIK and MABINI and by the IBP, as well as the Motion for an urgent necessity, in view of the highly divisive and adverse
Leave to Intervene filed by LABAN; (b) admitting the Amended Petition in environmental consequences on the body politic of the
Intervention of DIK and MABINI, and the Petitions in Intervention of Senator Roco questioned Comelec order. The consequent climate of legal
and of the IBP; (c) requiring the respondents to file within a nonextendible period confusion and political instability begs for judicial
of five days their Consolidated Comments on the aforesaid Petitions in statesmanship.
Intervention; and (d) requiring LABAN to file its Petition in Intervention within a 30. In the final analysis, when the system of constitutional law
nonextendible period of three days from notice, and the respondents to comment is threatened by the political ambitions of man, only the
thereon within a nonextendible period of five days from receipt of the said Petition Supreme Court
in Intervention. can save a nation in peril and uphold the paramount majesty
of the Constitution. 25
It must be recalled that intervenor Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to After several interpellations, but before the period of amendments, the
dismiss the Delfin Petition on the ground that the COMELEC has no jurisdiction Committee submitted a new formulation of the concept of initiative
or authority to entertain the petition. 26 The COMELEC made no ruling thereon which it denominated as Section 2; thus:
evidently because after having heard the arguments of Delfin and the oppositors MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam
at the hearing on 12 December 1996, it required them to submit within five days President. May we respectfully call
their memoranda or oppositions/memoranda. 27 Earlier, or specifically on 6 attention of the Members of the
December 1996, it practically gave due course to the Delfin Petition by ordering Commission that pursuant to the
Delfin to cause the publication of the petition, together with the attached Petition mandate given to us last night, we
for Initiative, the signature form, and the notice of hearing; and by setting the case submitted this afternoon a complete
for hearing. The COMELEC's failure to act on Roco's motion to dismiss and its Committee Report No. 7 which
insistence to hold on to the petition rendered ripe and viable the instant petition embodies the proposed provision
under Section 2 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, which provides: governing the matter of initiative. This is
Sec. 2. Petition for prohibition. — Where the proceedings of now covered by Section 2 of the
any tribunal, corporation, board, or person, whether complete committee report. With the
exercising functions judicial or ministerial, are without or in permission of the Members, may I quote
excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of Section 2:
discretion, and there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy The people may, after five years from the date of the last
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this
aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper Constitution thru initiative upon petition of at least ten percent
court alleging the facts with certainty and praying that of the registered voters.
judgment be rendered commanding the defendant to desist This completes the blanks appearing in the original
from further proceedings in the action or matter specified Committee Report No. 7. 32
therein. The interpellations on Section 2 showed that the details for carrying out Section 2
It must also be noted that intervenor Roco claims that the COMELEC has no are left to the legislature. Thus:
jurisdiction over the Delfin Petition because the said petition is not supported by FR. BERNAS. Madam President, just
the required minimum number of signatures of registered voters. LABAN also two simple, clarificatory questions.
asserts that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in refusing to dismiss the First, on Section 1 on the matter of
Delfin Petition, which does not contain the required number of signatures. In light initiative upon petition of at least 10
of these claims, the instant case may likewise be treated as a special civil action percent, there are no details in the
for certiorari under Section I of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. provision on how to carry this out. Do we
In any event, as correctly pointed out by intervenor Roco in his Memorandum, this understand, therefore, that we are
Court may brush aside technicalities of procedure in leaving this matter to the legislature?
cases of transcendental importance. As we stated in Kilosbayan, Inc. v. Guingona, MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam
Jr. 28 President.
A party's standing before this Court is a procedural FR. BERNAS. And do we also
technicality which it may, in the exercise of its discretion, set understand, therefore, that for as long as
aside in view of the importance of issues raised. In the the legislature does not pass the
landmark Emergency Powers Cases, this Court brushed necessary implementing law on this, this
aside this technicality because the transcendental will not operate?
importance to the public of these cases demands that they MR. SUAREZ. That matter was also
be settled promptly and definitely, brushing aside, if we must, taken up during the committee hearing,
technicalities of procedure. especially with respect to the budget
II appropriations which would have to be
R.A. NO. 6735 INTENDED TO INCLUDE THE SYSTEM OF legislated so that the plebiscite could be
INITIATIVE ON AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, BUT IS, called. We deemed it best that this
UNFORTUNATELY, INADEQUATE TO COVER THAT SYSTEM. matter be left to the legislature. The
Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution provides: Gentleman is right. In any event, as
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be envisioned, no amendment through the
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a power of initiative can be called until
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of after five years from the date of the
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be ratification of this Constitution.
represented by at least three per centum of the registered Therefore, the first amendment that
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be could be proposed through the exercise
authorized within five years following the ratification of this of this initiative power would be after five
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. years. It is reasonably expected that
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. within that five-year period, the National
This provision is not self-executory. In his book, 29 Joaquin Bernas, a member of Assembly can come up with the
the 1986 Constitutional Commission, stated: appropriate rules governing the exercise
Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. of this power.
Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a FR. BERNAS. Since the matter is left to
mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, the legislature — the details on how this
in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional is to be carried out — is it possible that,
action. in effect, what will be presented to the
Bluntly stated, the right of the people to directly propose amendments people for ratification is the work of the
to the Constitution through the system of initiative would remain legislature rather than of the people?
entombed in the cold niche of the Constitution until Congress provides Does this provision exclude that
for its implementation. Stated otherwise, while the Constitution has possibility?
recognized or granted that right, the people cannot exercise it if MR. SUAREZ. No, it does not exclude
Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation. that possibility because even the
This system of initiative was originally included in Section 1 of the draft Article on legislature itself as a body could propose
Amendment or Revision proposed by the Committee on Amendments and that amendment, maybe individually or
Transitory Provisions of the 1986 Constitutional Commission in its Committee collectively, if it fails to muster the three-
Report No. 7 (Proposed Resolution No. 332). 30 That section reads as follows: fourths vote in order to constitute itself
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed: as a constituent assembly and submit
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of that proposal to the people for
all its members; or ratification through the process of an
(b) by a constitutional convention; or initiative.
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as xxx xxx xxx
provided for in Article___ Section ___of the Constitution. 31
 MS. AQUINO. Do I understand from the matter of amendment and should not
sponsor that the intention in the proposal expand into a revision which
is to vest constituent power in the people contemplates a total overhaul of the
to amend the Constitution? Constitution. That was the sense that
MR. SUAREZ. That is absolutely was conveyed by the Committee.
correct, Madam President. MS. AQUINO. In other words, the
MS. AQUINO. I fully concur with the Committee was attempting to distinguish
underlying precept of the proposal in the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in
terms of institutionalizing popular Section 1 to include the process of
participation in the drafting of the revision; whereas the process of
Constitution or in the amendment initiation to amend, which is given to the
thereof, but I would have a lot of public, would only apply to
difficulties in terms of accepting the draft amendments?
of Section 2, as written. Would the MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were
sponsor agree with me that in the the terms envisioned in the Committee.
hierarchy of legal mandate, constituent 35
power has primacy over all other legal Amendments to the proposed Section 2 were thereafter introduced by then
mandates? Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., which the Committee accepted. Thus:
MR. SUAREZ. The Commissioner is MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam
right, Madam President. President. I propose to substitute the
MS. AQUINO. And would the sponsor entire Section 2 with the following:
agree with me that in the hierarchy of MR. DAVIDE. Madam President, I have
legal values, the Constitution is source modified the proposed amendment after
of all legal mandates and that therefore taking into account the modifications
we require a great deal of submitted by the sponsor himself and
circumspection in the drafting and in the the honorable Commissioners
amendments of the Constitution? Guingona, Monsod, Rama, Ople, de los
MR. SUAREZ. That proposition is Reyes and Romulo. The modified
nondebatable. amendment in substitution of the
MS. AQUINO. Such that in order to proposed Section 2 will now read as
underscore the primacy of constituent follows: "SECTION 2. —
power we have a separate article in the AMENDMENTS TO THIS
constitution that would specifically cover CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE
the process and the modes of amending DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE
the Constitution? PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON
MR. SUAREZ. That is right, Madam A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE
President. PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER
MS. AQUINO. Therefore, is the sponsor Of REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH
inclined, as the provisions are drafted EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT
now, to again concede to the legislature MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT
the process or the requirement of LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE
determining the mechanics of amending REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF.
the Constitution by people's initiative? NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS
MR. SUAREZ. The matter of SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED
implementing this could very well be WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING
placed in the hands of the National THE RATIFICATION OF THIS
Assembly, not unless we can CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER
incorporate into this provision the THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS
mechanics that would adequately cover THEREAFTER.
all the conceivable situations. 33 THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL
It was made clear during the interpellations that the aforementioned Section 2 is BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE
limited to proposals to AMEND — not to REVISE — the Constitution; thus: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MR. SUAREZ. . . . This proposal was EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT.
suggested on the theory that this matter MR. SUAREZ. Madam President,
of initiative, which came about because considering that the proposed
of the extraordinary developments this amendment is reflective of the sense
year, has to be separated from the contained in Section 2 of our completed
traditional modes of amending the Committee Report No. 7, we accept the
Constitution as embodied in Section 1. proposed amendment. 36
The committee members felt that this The interpellations which ensued on the proposed modified amendment to
system of initiative should not extend to Section 2 clearly showed that it was a legislative act which must implement the
the revision of the entire Constitution, so exercise of the right. Thus:
we removed it from the operation of MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner
Section 1 of the proposed Article on Davide's amendment, is it possible for
Amendment or Revision. 34 the legislature to set forth certain
xxx xxx xxx procedures to carry out the initiative. . .?
MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am MR. DAVIDE. It can.
seriously bothered by providing this xxx xxx xxx
process of initiative as a separate MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's
section in the Article on Amendment. amendment does not prevent the
Would the sponsor be amenable to legislature from asking another body to
accepting an amendment in terms of set the proposition in proper form.
realigning Section 2 as another MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is
subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of correct. In other words, the
setting it up as another separate section implementation of this particular right
as if it were a self-executing provision? would be subject to legislation, provided
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable the legislature cannot determine
except that, as we clarified a while ago, anymore the percentage of the
this process of initiative is limited to the requirement.
 MR. ROMULO. But the procedures, THE REGISTERED VOTERS
including the determination of the proper THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER
form for submission to the people, may THIS SECTION SHALL BE
be subject to legislation. AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS
MR. DAVIDE. As long as it will not FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF
destroy the substantive right to initiate. THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER
In other words, none of the procedures THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS
to be proposed by the legislative body THEREAFTER.
must diminish or impair the right THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL
conceded here. BY LAW PROVIDE
MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
Constitution can the procedures which I EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT. 40
have discussed be legislated? The entire proposed Article on Amendments or Revisions was
MR. DAVIDE. Yes. 37 approved on second reading on 9 July 1986. 41 Thereafter, upon his
Commissioner Davide also reaffirmed that his modified amendment strictly motion for reconsideration, Commissioner Gascon was allowed to
confines initiative to AMENDMENTS to — NOT REVISION of — the Constitution. introduce an amendment to Section 2 which, nevertheless, was
Thus: withdrawn. In view thereof, the Article was again approved on Second
MR. DAVIDE. With pleasure, Madam and Third Readings on 1 August 1986. 42
President. However, the Committee on Style recommended that the approved Section 2 be
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: amended by changing "percent" to "per centum" and "thereof" to "therein" and
Commissioner Davide's proposed deleting the phrase "by law" in the second paragraph so that said paragraph
amendment on line 1 refers to reads: The Congress 43 shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
"amendment." Does it not cover the this right. 44 This amendment was approved and is the text of the present second
word "revision" as defined by paragraph of Section 2.
Commissioner Padilla when he made The conclusion then is inevitable that, indeed, the system of initiative on the
the distinction between the words Constitution under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not self-
"amendments" and "revision"? executory.
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because Has Congress "provided" for the implementation of the exercise of this right?
"amendments" and "revision" should be Those who answer the question in the affirmative, like the private respondents
covered by Section 1. So insofar as and intervenor Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735.
initiative is concerned, it can only relate There is, of course, no other better way for Congress to implement the exercise
to "amendments" not "revision." 38 of the right than through the passage of a statute or legislative act. This is the
Commissioner Davide further emphasized that the process of proposing essence or rationale of the last minute amendment by the Constitutional
amendments through initiative must be more rigorous and difficult than the Commission to substitute the last paragraph of Section 2 of Article XVII then
initiative on legislation. Thus: reading:
MR. DAVIDE. A distinction has to be The Congress 45 shall by law provide for the implementation
made that under this proposal, what is of the exercise of this right.
involved is an amendment to the with
Constitution. To amend a Constitution The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
would ordinarily require a proposal by exercise of this right.
the National Assembly by a vote of This substitute amendment was an investiture on Congress of a power
three-fourths; and to call a constitutional to provide for the rules implementing the exercise of the right. The
convention would require a higher "rules" means "the details on how [the right] is to be carried out." 46
number. Moreover, just to submit the We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to cover initiative
issue of calling a constitutional to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is a consolidation of House
convention, a majority of the National Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17. The former was prepared by the Committee
Assembly is required, the import being on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms of the House of Representatives on the basis
that the process of amendment must be of two House Bills referred to it, viz., (a) House Bill No. 497, 47 which dealt with
made more rigorous and difficult than the initiative and referendum mentioned
probably initiating an ordinary legislation in Sections 1 and 32 of Article VI of the Constitution; and (b) House Bill No. 988,
or putting an end to a law proposed by 48 which dealt with the subject matter of House Bill No. 497, as well as with
the National Assembly by way of a initiative and referendum under Section 3 of Article X (Local Government) and
referendum. I cannot agree to reducing initiative provided for in Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution. Senate Bill
the requirement approved by the No. 17 49 solely dealt with initiative and referendum concerning ordinances or
Committee on the Legislative because it resolutions of local government units. The Bicameral Conference Committee
would require another voting by the consolidated Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which
Committee, and the voting as precisely was subsequently approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate 50 and by the House
based on a requirement of 10 percent. of Representatives. 51 This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.
Perhaps, I might present such a But is R.A. No. 6735 a full compliance with the power and duty of Congress to
proposal, by way of an amendment, "provide for the implementation of the exercise of the right?"
when the Commission shall take up the A careful scrutiny of the Act yields a negative answer.
Article on the Legislative or on the First. Contrary to the assertion of public respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the
National Assembly on plenary sessions. Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The said
39 section reads:
The Davide modified amendments to Section 2 were subjected to amendments, Sec. 2. Statement and Policy. — The power of the people
and the final version, which the Commission approved by a vote of 31 in favor and under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
3 against, reads as follows: propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the
MR. DAVIDE. Thank you Madam Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any
President. Section 2, as amended, legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of
reads as follows: "AMENDMENT TO this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.
THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE (Emphasis supplied).
BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE The inclusion of the word "Constitution" therein was a delayed
PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON afterthought. That word is neither germane nor relevant to said section,
A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE which exclusively relates to initiative and referendum on national laws
PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER and local laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That section is silent as to
OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OF amendments on the Constitution. As pointed out earlier, initiative on the
WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE Constitution is confined only to proposals to AMEND. The people are
DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED not accorded the power to "directly propose, enact, approve, or reject,
BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF
 in whole or in part, the Constitution" through the system of initiative. Sec. 11. Indirect Initiative. — Any duly accredited people's
They can only do so with respect to "laws, ordinances, or resolutions." organization, as defined by law, may file a petition for indirect
The foregoing conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that this section was initiative with the House of Representatives, and other
lifted from Section 1 of Senate Bill No. 17, which solely referred to a statement of legislative bodies. . . .
policy on local initiative and referendum and appropriately used the phrases and (3) Section 12 on Appeal, since it applies to decisions of the
"propose and enact," "approve or reject" and "in whole or in part." 52 COMELEC on the findings of sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition
Second. It is true that Section 3 (Definition of Terms) of the Act defines initiative for initiative or referendum, which could be petitions for both national
on amendments to the Constitution and mentions it as one of the three systems and local initiative and referendum.
of initiative, and that Section 5 (Requirements) restates the constitutional Upon the other hand, Section 18 on "Authority of Courts" under subtitle III on Local
requirements as to the percentage of the registered voters who must submit the Initiative and Referendum is misplaced, 54 since the provision therein applies to
proposal. But unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not both national and local initiative and referendum. It reads:
provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Section 5, Sec. 18. Authority of Courts. — Nothing in this Act shall
paragraph (c) requires, among other things, statement of the proposed law sought prevent or preclude the proper courts from declaring null and
to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be. void any proposition approved pursuant to this Act for
It does not include, as among the contents of the petition, the provisions of the violation of the Constitution or want of capacity of the local
Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution. legislative body to enact the said measure.
Said paragraph (c) reads in full as follows: Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735 exerted utmost diligence and care in providing
(c) The petition shall state the following: for the details in the implementation of initiative and referendum on national and
c.1 contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, local legislation thereby giving them special attention, it failed, rather intentionally,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may to do so on the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Anent the
be; initiative on national legislation, the Act provides for the following:
c.2 the proposition; (a) The required percentage of registered voters to sign the petition and the
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor; contents of the petition;
c.4 that it is not one of the exceptions provided therein; (b) The conduct and date of the initiative;
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and (c) The submission to the electorate of the proposition and the required number
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition is not more than one of votes for its approval;
hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed (d) The certification by the COMELEC of the approval of the proposition;
at the top of every page of the petition. (Emphasis supplied). (e) The publication of the approved proposition in the Official Gazette or in a
The use of the clause "proposed laws sought to be enacted, approved newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines; and
or rejected, amended or repealed" only strengthens the conclusion that (f) The effects of the approval or rejection of the proposition. 55
Section 2, quoted earlier, excludes initiative on amendments to the As regards local initiative, the Act provides for the following:
Constitution. (a) The preliminary requirement as to the number of signatures of registered
Third. While the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum voters for the petition;
(Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is (b) The submission of the petition to the local legislative body concerned;
provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter (c) The effect of the legislative body's failure to favorably act thereon, and the
simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on invocation of the power of initiative as a consequence thereof;
national and local laws. If Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully provide for the (d) The formulation of the proposition;
implementation of the initiative on amendments to the Constitution, it could have (e) The period within which to gather the signatures;
provided for a subtitle therefor, considering that in the order of things, the primacy (f) The persons before whom the petition shall be signed;
of interest, or hierarchy of values, the right of the people to directly propose (g) The issuance of a certification by the COMELEC through its official in the local
amendments to the Constitution is far more important than the initiative on government unit concerned as to whether the required number of signatures have
national and local laws. been obtained;
We cannot accept the argument that the initiative on amendments to the (h) The setting of a date by the COMELEC for the submission of the proposition
Constitution is subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum to the registered voters for their approval, which must be within the period
because it is national in scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National Initiative and specified therein;
Referendum) and Subtitle III (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves no room for (i) The issuance of a certification of the result;
doubt that the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, (j) The date of effectivity of the approved proposition;
but on its nature and character. It is "national initiative," if what is proposed to be (k) The limitations on local initiative; and
adopted or enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass. It is (l) The limitations upon local legislative bodies. 56
"local initiative" if what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance, Upon the other hand, as to initiative on amendments to the Constitution, R.A. No.
or resolution which only the legislative bodies of the governments of the 6735, in all of its twenty-three sections, merely (a) mentions, the word
autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass. "Constitution" in Section 2; (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes
This classification of initiative into national and local is actually based on Section it in the enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3; (c) speaks of
3 of the Act, which we quote for emphasis and clearer understanding: "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an initiative on the
Sec. 3. Definition of terms — Constitution may be approved or rejected by the people; (d) reiterates the
xxx xxx xxx constitutional requirements as to the number of voters who should sign the
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: petition; and (e) provides for the date of effectivity of the approved proposition.
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition There was, therefore, an obvious downgrading of the more important or the
proposing amendments to the Constitution; paramount system of initiative. RA. No. 6735 thus delivered a humiliating blow to
a.2 Initiative on Statutes which refers to a petition proposing the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution by merely paying it a
to enact a national legislation; and reluctant lip service. 57
a.3 Initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition The foregoing brings us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete,
proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city, municipal, or inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
barangay law, resolution or ordinance. (Emphasis supplied). amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive
Hence, to complete the classification under subtitles there should have been a matter are fatal and cannot be cured by "empowering" the COMELEC "to
subtitle on initiative on amendments to the Constitution. 53 promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
A further examination of the Act even reveals that the subtitling is not accurate. purposes of [the] Act. 58
Provisions not germane to the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum are The rule is that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated or as expressed
placed therein, like (1) paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 9, which reads: in a Latin maxim: potestas delegata non delegari potest. 59 The recognized
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution exceptions to the rule are as follows:
approved by the majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite (1) Delegation of tariff powers to the President under Section 28(2) of Article VI of
shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite. the Constitution;
(c) A national or local initiative proposition approved by (2) Delegation of emergency powers to the President under Section 23(2) of
majority of the votes cast in an election called for the purpose Article VI of the Constitution;
shall become effective fifteen (15) days after certification and (3) Delegation to the people at large;
proclamation of the Commission. (Emphasis supplied). (4) Delegation to local governments; and
(2) that portion of Section 11 (Indirect Initiative) referring to indirect initiative with (5) Delegation to administrative bodies. 60
the legislative bodies of local governments; thus: Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi-judicial
functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative
authority under no. 5 above. However, in every case of permissible delegation, a) GRANTING the instant petition;
there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative on
(a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient standard
or implemented by the delegate; and (b) fixes a standard — the limits of which are for subordinate legislation;
sufficiently determinate and determinable — to which the delegate must conform c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the Commission on
in the performance of his functions. 61 A sufficient standard is one which defines Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative or
legislative policy, marks its limits, maps out its boundaries and specifies the public amendments to the Constitution; and
agency to apply it. It indicates the circumstances under which the legislative d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the DELFIN
command is to be effected. 62 petition (UND-96-037).
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution is concerned, R.A. The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is made
No. 6735 miserably failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED as against
The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid. private respondents.
III Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300, INSOFAR AS IT PRESCRIBES SO ORDERED.
RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF INITIATIVE ON Narvasa, C.J., Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan, Hermosisima, Jr. and
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION, IS VOID. Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
It logically follows that the COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and Padilla, J., took no part.
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 Separate Opinions
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) PUNO, J., concurring and dissenting:
Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where subordinate I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice
legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness" and the "sufficient Davide insofar as it orders the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. I regret,
standard" tests. however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution
IV No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people's initiative to
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the
ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed. With due respect:
PETITION. I
Even if it be conceded ex gratia that R.A. No. 6735 is a full compliance with the First, I submit that R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently implements the right of the people to
power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, initiate amendments to the Constitution thru initiative. Our effort to discover the
or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate meaning of R.A. No. 6735 should start with the search of the intent of our
legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted lawmakers. A knowledge of this intent is critical for the intent of the legislature is
without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin the law and the controlling factor in its interpretation.1 Stated otherwise, intent is
Petition. the essence of the law, the spirit which gives life to its enactment.2
Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. No. Significantly, the majority decision concedes that ". . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended
6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at least 12% to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution." It ought to be so
of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative district is for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the law which was a consolidation
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition of House Bill No. 215053 and Senate Bill No. 17.4 Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled
does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Delfin himself "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception
admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that the purpose of his petition Therefrom, Whereby People in Local Government Units Can Directly Propose and
is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather signatures. Without the Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or
required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. Resolution Passed by the Local Legislative Body." Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No.
The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after its filing. 17 did not include people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its filing is cognizable In checkered contrast, House Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people's
by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation of the COMELEC or its initiative to amend the Constitution. Congressman (now Senator) Raul Roco
personnel before the filing of such petition are (1) to prescribe the form of the emphasized in his sponsorship remarks:6
petition; 63 (2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a xxx xxx xxx
certificate on the total number of registered voters in each legislative district; 64 SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ROCO
(3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of signature At the outset, Mr. Roco provided the following backgrounder
stations; 65 and (4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the on the constitutional basis of the proposed measure.
basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits, and voters' identification cards 1. As cited in Vera vs. Avelino (1946), the presidential system
used in the immediately preceding election. 66 which was introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735 and application of the principle of separation of powers.
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of 2. While under the parliamentary system of the 1973
by the COMELEC. The respondent Commission must have known that the Constitution the principle remained applicable, the 1981
petition does not fall under any of the actions or proceedings under the COMELEC amendments to the Constitution of 1973 ensured presidential
Rules of Procedure or under Resolution No. 2300, for which reason it did not dominance over the Batasang Pambansa.
assign to the petition a docket number. Hence, the said petition was merely Constitutional history then saw the shifting and sharing of
entered as UND, meaning, undocketed. That petition was nothing more than a legislative powers between the Legislature and the Executive
mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6 departments. Transcending changes in the exercise of
December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin legislative power is the declaration in the Philippine
and the oppositors to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the Constitution that the Philippines is a republican state where
COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely sovereignty resides in the people and all sovereignty
wasted its time, energy, and resources. emanates from them.
The foregoing considered, further discussion on the issue of whether the proposal 3. Under the 1987 Constitution, the lawmaking power is still
to lift the term limits of elective national and local officials is an amendment to, and preserved in Congress; however, to institutionalize direct
not a revision of, the Constitution is rendered unnecessary, if not academic. action of the people as exemplified in the 1986 Revolution,
CONCLUSION the Constitution recognizes the power of the people, through
This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently the system of initiative and referendum.
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on As cited in Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution,
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly Congress does not have plenary powers since reserve
enacted to provide for the implementation of the system. powers are given to the people expressly. Section 32 of the
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the same Article mandates Congress to pass at the soonest
Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and possible time, a bill on referendum and initiative, and to share
blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying its legislative powers with the people.
with the constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the right of Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, on the other
the people under that system. hand, vests in the people the power to directly propose
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered amendments to the Constitution through initiative, upon
petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered At this juncture, Mr. Roco also requested that the prepared
voters. text of his speech together with the footnotes be reproduced
Stating that House Bill No. 21505 is the Committee's as part of the Congressional Records.
response to the duty imposed on Congress to implement the The same sentiment as to the bill's intent to implement people's
exercise by the people of the right to initiative and initiative to amend the Constitution was stressed by then Congressman
referendum, Mr. Roco recalled the beginnings of the system (now Secretary of Agriculture) Salvador Escudero III in his sponsorship
of initiative and referendum under Philippine Law. He cited remarks, viz:7
Section 99 of the Local Government Code which vests in the xxx xxx xxx
barangay assembly the power to initiate legislative SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ESCUDERO
processes, decide the holding of plebiscite and hear reports Mr. Escudero first pointed out that the people have been
of the Sangguniang Barangay, all of which are variations of clamoring for a truly popular democracy ever since,
the power of initiative and referendum. He added that the especially in the so-called parliament of the streets. A
holding of barangay plebiscites and referendum are likewise substantial segment of the population feels, he said, that the
provided in Sections 100 and 101 of the same Code. form of democracy is there, but not the reality or substance
Thereupon, for the sake of brevity, Mr. Roco moved that of it because of the increasingly elitist approach of their
pertinent quotation on the subject which he will later submit representatives to the country's problem.
to the Secretary of the House be incorporated as part of his Whereupon, Mr. Escudero pointed out that the Constitution
sponsorship speech. has provided a means whereby the people can exercise the
He then cited examples of initiative and referendum similar to reserved power of initiative to propose amendments to the
those contained in the instant Bill among which are the Constitution, and requested that Sections 1 and 32, Article
constitutions of states in the United States which recognize VI; Section 3, Article X; and Section 2, Article XVII of the
the right of registered voters to initiate the enactment of any Constitution be made part of his sponsorship remarks.
statute or to project any existing law or parts thereof in a Mr. Escudero also stressed that an implementing law is
referendum. These states, he said, are Alaska, Alabama, needed for the aforecited Constitutional provisions. While the
Montana, Massachusets, Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and enactment of the Bill will give way to strong competition
practically all other states. among cause-oriented and sectoral groups, he continued, it
Mr. Roco explained that in certain American states, the kind will hasten the politization of the citizenry, aid the government
of laws to which initiative and referendum apply is also in forming an enlightened public opinion, and produce more
without limitation, except for emergency measures, which are responsive legislation. The passage of the Bill will also give
likewise incorporated in House Bill No. 21505. He added that street parliamentarians the opportunity to articulate their
the procedure provided by the Bill from the filing of the ideas in a democratic forum, he added.
petition, the requirements of a certain percentage of Mr. Escudero stated that he and Mr. Roco hoped for the early
supporters to present a proposition, to the submission to approval of the Bill so that it can be initially used for the
electors are substantially similar to the provisions in Agrarian Reform Law. He said that the passage of House Bill
American laws. Although an infant in Philippine political No. 21505 will show that the Members can set aside their
structure, the system of initiative and referendum, he said, is personal and political consideration for the greater good of
a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and the Bill is the people.
patterned after American experience. The disagreeing provisions in Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No.
He further explained that the bill has only 12 sections, and 21505 were threshed out in a Bicameral Conference Committee.8 In
recalled that the Constitutional Commissioners saw the the meeting of the Committee on June 6, 1989,9 the members agreed
system of the initiative and referendum as an instrument that the two (2) bills should be consolidated and that the consolidated
which can be used should the legislature show itself to be version should include people's initiative to amend the Constitution as
indifferent to the needs of the people. This is the reason, he contemplated by House Bill No. 21505. The transcript of the meeting
claimed, why now is an opportune time to pass the Bill even states:
as he noted the felt necessity of the times to pass laws which xxx xxx xxx
are necessary to safeguard individual rights and liberties. CHAIRMAN GONZALES. But at any
At this juncture Mr. Roco explained the process of initiative rate, as I have said, because this is new
and referendum as advocated in House Bill No. 21505. He in our political system, the Senate
stated that: decided on a more cautious approach
1. Initiative means that the people, on their own political and limiting it only to the local
judgment, submit a Bill for the consideration of the general government units because even with
electorate. that stage where . . . at least this has
2. The instant Bill provides three kinds of initiative, namely; been quite popular, ano? It has been
the initiative to amend the Constitution once every five years; attempted on a national basis. Alright.
the initiative to amend statutes approved by Congress; and There has not been a single attempt.
the initiative to amend local ordinances. Now, so, kami limitado doon. And,
3. The instant Bill gives a definite procedure and allows the second, we consider also that it is only
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to define rules and fair that the local legislative body should
regulations on the power of initiative. be given a chance to adopt the
4. Referendum means that the legislators seek the consent legislation bill proposed, right? Iyong
of the people on measures that they have approved. sinasabing indirect system of initiative. If
5. Under Section 4 of the Bill the people can initiate a after all, the local legislative assembly or
referendum which is a mode of plebiscite by presenting a body is willing to adopt it in full or in toto,
petition therefor, but under certain limitations, such as the there ought to be any reason for
signing of said petition by at least 10 percent of the total of initiative, ano for initiative. And, number
registered voters at which every legislative district is 3, we feel that there should be some
represented by at least three percent of the registered voters limitation on the frequency with which it
thereof. Within 30 days after receipt of the petition, the should be applied. Number 4, na the
COMELEC shall determine the sufficiency of the petition, people, thru initiative, cannot enact any
publish the same, and set the date of the referendum within ordinance that is beyond the scope of
45 to 90-day period. authority of the local legislative body,
6. When the matter under referendum or initiative is approved otherwise, my God, mag-aassume sila
by the required number of votes, it shall become effective 15 ng power that is broader and greater
days following the completion of its publication in the Official than the grant of legislative power to the
Gazette. Sanggunians. And Number 5, because
In concluding his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Roco stressed of that, then a proposition which has
that the Members cannot ignore the people's call for initiative been the result of a successful initiative
and referendum and urged the Body to approve House Bill can only carry the force and effect of an
No. 21505. ordinance and therefore that should not
 deprive the court of its jurisdiction to both in the constitutional amendment
declare it null and void for want of and national legislation.
authority. Ha, di ba? I mean it is beyond MR. ROCO. That is correct.
powers of local government units to MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as
enact. Iyon ang main essence namin, so municipal resolutions?
we concentrated on that. And that is why MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr.
. . . so ang sa inyo naman includes iyon Speaker.
sa Constitution, amendment to the MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and
Constitution eh . . . national laws. Sa referendum is in consonance with the
amin, if you insist on that, alright, provision of the Constitution whereby it
although we feel na it will in effect mandates this Congress to enact the
become a dead statute. Alright, and we enabling law, so that we shall have a
can agree, we can agree. So ang system which can be done every five
mangyayari dito, and magiging basic years. Is it five years in the provision of
nito, let us not discuss anymore kung the Constitution?
alin and magiging basic bill, ano, MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr.
whether it is the Senate Bill or whether it Speaker. For constitutional
is the House bill. Logically it should be amendments in the 1987 Constitution, it
ours sapagkat una iyong sa amin eh. It is every five years.
is one of the first bills approved by the MR. ALBANO. For every five years, Mr.
Senate kaya ang number niyan, Speaker?
makikita mo, 17, eh. Huwag na nating MR. ROCO. Within five years, we
pagusapan. Now, if you insist, really cannot have multiple initiatives and
iyong features ng national at saka referenda.
constitutional, okay. ____ gagawin na MR. ALBANO. Therefore, basically,
natin na consolidation of both bills. there was no substantial difference
HON. ROCO. Yes, we shall consolidate. between the two versions?
CHAIRMAN GONZALES. Consolidation MR. ROCO. The gaps in our bill were
of the Senate and House Bill No. so and filled by the Senate which, as I said
so. 10 earlier, ironically was about local,
When the consolidated bill was presented to the House for approval, provincial and municipal legislation.
then Congressman Roco upon interpellation by Congressman Rodolfo MR. ALBANO. And the two bills were
Albano, again confirmed that it covered people's initiative to amend the consolidated?
Constitution. The record of the House Representative states: 11 MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
xxx xxx xxx MR. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The APPROVAL OF C.C.R.
Gentleman from Camarines Sur is ON S.B. NO. 17 AND H.B. NO. 21505
recognized. (The Initiative and Referendum Act)
MR. ROCO. On the Conference THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. There was a motion to
Committee Report on the disagreeing approve this consolidated bill on Senate Bill No. 17 and
provisions between Senate Bill No. House Bill No. 21505.
21505 which refers to the system Is there any objection? (Silence. The Chair hears none; the
providing for the initiative and motion is approved.
referendum, fundamentally, Mr. Since it is crystalline that the intent of R.A. No. 6735 is to implement the
Speaker, we consolidated the Senate people's initiative to amend the Constitution, it is our bounden duty to
and the House versions, so both interpret the law as it was intended by the legislature. We have ruled
versions are totally intact in the bill. The that once intent is ascertained, it must be enforced even if it may not be
Senators ironically provided for local consistent with the strict letter of the law and this ruling is as old as the
initiative and referendum and the House mountain. We have also held that where a law is susceptible of more
Representatives correctly provided for than one interpretation, that interpretation which will most tend to
initiative and referendum on the effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature will be adopted. 12
Constitution and on national legislation. The text of R.A. No. 6735 should therefore be reasonably construed to effectuate
I move that we approve the consolidated its intent to implement the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. To be sure,
bill. we need not torture the text of said law to reach the conclusion that it implements
MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker. people's initiative to amend the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735 is replete with
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What references to this prerogative of the people.
is the pleasure of the Minority Floor First, the policy statement declares:
Leader? Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — The power of the people
MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished under a system of initiative and referendum to directly
sponsor answer just a few questions? propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any
Gentlemen will please proceed. legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of
MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.
that the only difference in the two bills (emphasis supplied)
was that in the Senate version there was Second, the law defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose
a provision for local initiative and amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an
referendum, whereas the House version election called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which
has none. an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people.
MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version Third, the law provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the
provide purely for local initiative and Constitution. Section 5(b) states that "(a) petition for an initiative on the 1987
referendum, whereas in the House Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
version, we provided purely for national registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be
and constitutional legislation. represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." It
MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding also states that "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5)
therefore, that the two provisions were years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5)
incorporated? years thereafter.
MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Finally, R.A. No. 6735 fixes the effectivity date of the amendment. Section 9(b)
MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have states that "(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a
a complete initiative and referendum
majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of states the number of signatures necessary to start a people's initiative, 18 directs
the plebiscite. how initiative proceeding is commenced, 19 what the COMELEC should do upon
It is unfortunate that the majority decision resorts to a strained interpretation of filing of the petition for initiative, 20 how a proposition is approved, 21 when a
R.A. No. 6735 to defeat its intent which it itself concedes is to implement people's plebiscite may be held, 22 when the amendment takes effect 23 and what matters
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. Thus, it laments that the may not be the subject of any initiative. 24 By any measure, these standards are
word "Constitution" is neither germane nor relevant to the policy thrust of section adequate.
2 and that the statute's subtitling is not accurate. These lapses are to be expected Former Justice Isagani A. Cruz, similarly elucidated that "a sufficient standard is
for laws are not always written in impeccable English. Rightly, the Constitution intended to map out the boundaries of the delegates' authority by defining the
does not require our legislators to be word-smiths with the ability to write bills with legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued
poetic commas like Jose Garcia Villa or in lyrical prose like Winston Churchill. But and effected. The purpose of the sufficient standard is to prevent a total
it has always been our good policy not to refuse to effectuate the intent of a law transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate." 25 In
on the ground that it is badly written. As the distinguished Vicente Francisco 13 enacting R.A. No. 6735, it cannot be said that Congress totally transferred its
reminds us: "Many laws contain words which have not been used accurately. But power to enact the law implementing people's initiative to COMELEC. A close look
the use of inapt or inaccurate language or words, will not vitiate the statute if the at COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 will show that it merely provided the procedure
legislative intention can be ascertained. The same is equally true with reference to effectuate the policy of R.A. No. 6735 giving life to the people's initiative to
to awkward, slovenly, or ungrammatical expressions, that is, such expressions amend the Constitution. The debates 26 in the Constitutional Commission make
and words will be construed as carrying the meaning the legislature intended that it clear that the rules of procedure to enforce the people's initiative can be
they bear, although such a construction necessitates a departure from the literal delegated, thus:
meaning of the words used. MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner
In the same vein, the argument that R.A. No. 7535 does not include people's Davide's amendment, it is possible for
initiative to amend the Constitution simply because it lacks a sub-title on the the legislature to set forth certain
subject should be given the weight of helium. Again, the hoary rule in statutory procedures to carry out the initiative. . .
construction is that headings prefixed to titles, chapters and sections of a statute ?
may be consulted in aid of interpretation, but inferences drawn therefrom are MR. DAVIDE. It can.
entitled to very little weight, and they can never control the plain terms of the xxx xxx xxx
enacting clauses. 14 MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's
All said, it is difficult to agree with the majority decision that refuses to enforce the amendment does not prevent the
manifest intent or spirit of R.A. No. 6735 to implement the people's initiative to legislature from asking another body to
amend the Constitution. It blatantly disregards the rule cast in concrete that the set the proposition in proper form.
letter of the law must yield to its spirit for the letter of the law is its body but its MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is
spirit is its soul. 15 correct. In other words, the
II implementation of this particular right
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, 16 promulgated under the stewardship of would be subject to legislation, provided
Commissioner Haydee Yorac, then its Acting Chairman, spelled out the procedure the legislature cannot determine
on how to exercise the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. This is in anymore the percentage of the
accord with the delegated power granted by section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 to the requirement.
COMELEC which expressly states: "The Commission is hereby empowered to MR. DAVIDE. As long as it will not
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the destroy the substantive right to initiate.
purposes of this Act." By no means can this delegation of power be assailed as In other words, none of the procedures
infirmed. In the benchmark case of Pelaez v. Auditor General, 17 this Court, thru to be proposed by the legislative body
former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion laid down the test to determine whether must diminish or impair the right
there is undue delegation of legislative power, viz: conceded here.
xxx xxx xxx MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the
Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Constitution can the procedures which I
Government the power to fill details in the execution, have discussed be legislated?
enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to MR. DAVIDE. Yes.
forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, In his book, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 27 Father
that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it must set forth Bernas likewise affirmed: "In response to questions of Commissioner
therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented Romulo, Davide explained the extent of the power of the legislature
by the delegate — and (b) to fix standard — the limits of which over the process: it could for instance, prescribe the 'proper form before
are sufficiently determinate or determinable — to which the (the amendment) is submitted to the people,' it could authorize another
delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. body to check the proper form. It could also authorize the COMELEC,
Indeed, without a statutory declaration of policy, which is the for instance, to check the authenticity of the signatures of petitioners.
essence of every law, and, without the aforementioned Davide concluded: 'As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to
standard, there would be no means to determine, with initiate. In other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the
reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.'" Quite
or beyond the scope of his authority. Hence, he could thereby clearly, the prohibition against the legislature is to impair the substantive
arrogate upon himself the power, not only to make the law, right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution. It is not,
but, also — and this is worse — to unmake it, by adopting however, prohibited from legislating the procedure to enforce the
measures inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by people's right of initiative or to delegate it to another body like the
the Act of Congress, thus nullifying the principle of separation COMELEC with proper standard.
of powers and the system of checks and balances, and, A survey of our case law will show that this Court has prudentially refrained from
consequently, undermining the very foundation of our invalidating administrative rules on the ground of lack of adequate legislative
republican system. standard to guide their promulgation. As aptly perceived by former Justice Cruz,
Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not meet "even if the law itself does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the courts will bend
these well-settled requirements for a valid delegation of the backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the statute, if it can, from
power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. It does constitutional infirmity." 28 He cited the ruling in Hirabayashi v. United States, 29
not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by viz:
the President. Neither does it give a standard sufficiently xxx xxx xxx
precise to avoid the evil effects above referred to. It is true that the Act does not in terms establish a particular
R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide the standard to which orders of the military commander are to
COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and regulations of the conform, or require findings to be made as a prerequisite to
law. As aforestated, section 2 spells out the policy of the law; viz: "The power of any order. But the Executive Order, the Proclamations and
the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, the statute are not to be read in isolation from each other.
approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or They were parts of a single program and must be judged as
resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements such. The Act of March 21, 1942, was an adoption by
of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed." Spread out all over Congress of the Executive Order and of the Proclamations.
R.A. No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to the The Proclamations themselves followed a standard
COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations from overflowing. Thus, the law authorized by the Executive Order — the necessity of
 protecting military resources in the designated areas against recognized the truism that the only constant in life is change and so should the
espionage and sabotage. majority.
In the case at bar, the policy and the standards are bright-lined in R.A. IV
No. 6735. A 20-20 look at the law cannot miss them. They were not In a stream of cases, this Court has rhapsodized people power as expanded in
written by our legislators in invisible ink. The policy and standards can the 1987 Constitution. On October 5, 1993, we observed that people's might is no
also be found in no less than section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution longer a myth but an article of faith in our Constitution. 41 On September 30, 1994,
on Amendments or Revisions. There is thus no reason to hold that the we postulated that people power can be trusted to check excesses of government
standards provided for in R.A. No. 6735 are insufficient for in other and that any effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives ought to be
cases we have upheld as adequate more general standards such as rejected. 42 On September 26, 1996, we pledged that ". . . this Court as a matter
"simplicity and dignity," 30 "public interest," 31 "public welfare," 32 of policy and doctrine will exert every effort to nurture, protect and promote their
"interest of law and order," 33 "justice and equity,"34 "adequate and legitimate exercise." 43 Just a few days ago, or on March 11, 1997, by a
efficient instruction," 35 "public safety," 36 "public policy", 37 "greater unanimous decision, 44 we allowed a recall election in Caloocan City involving
national interest", 38 "protect the local consumer by stabilizing and the mayor and ordered that he submits his right to continue in office to the
subsidizing domestic pump rates", 39 and "promote simplicity, economy judgment of the tribunal of the people. Thus far, we have succeeded in
and efficiency in government." 40 A due regard and respect to the transforming people power from an opaque abstraction to a robust reality. The
legislature, a co-equal and coordinate branch of government, should Constitution calls us to encourage people empowerment to blossom in full. The
counsel this Court to refrain from refusing to effectuate laws unless they Court cannot halt any and all signature campaigns to amend the Constitution
are clearly unconstitutional. without setting back the flowering of people empowerment. More important, the
III Court cannot seal the lips of people who are pro-change but not those who are
It is also respectfully submitted that the petition should he dismissed with respect anti-change without concerting the debate on charter change into a sterile
to the Pedrosas. The inclusion of the Pedrosas in the petition is utterly baseless. talkaton. Democracy is enlivened by a dialogue and not by a monologue for in a
The records show that the case at bar started when respondent Delfin alone and democracy nobody can claim any infallibility.
by himself filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Term Limits of Elective Officials by People's Initiative. The Pedrosas did not join
the petition. It was Senator Roco who moved to intervene and was allowed to do VITUG, J., concurring and dissenting:
so by the COMELEC. The petition was heard and before the COMELEC could The COMELEC should have dismissed, outrightly, the Delfin Petition.
resolve the Delfin petition, the case at bar was filed by the petitioners with this It does seem to me that there is no real exigency on the part of the Court to
Court. Petitioners sued the COMELEC. Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and engross, let alone to commit, itself on all the issues raised and debated upon by
Carmen Pedrosa in their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative the parties. What is essential at this time would only be to resolve whether or not
for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA). The suit is an original action for the petition filed with the COMELEC, signed by Atty. Jesus S. Delfin in his capacity
prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary as a "founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative" and seeking
injunction. through a people initiative certain modifications on the 1987 Constitution, can
The petition on its face states no cause of action against the Pedrosas. The only properly be regarded and given its due course. The Constitution, relative to any
allegation against the Pedrosas is that they are founding members of the PIRMA proposed amendment under this method, is explicit. Section 2, Article XVII,
which proposes to undertake the signature drive for people's initiative to amend thereof provides:
the Constitution. Strangely, the PIRMA itself as an organization was not Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
impleaded as a respondent. Petitioners then prayed that we order the Pedrosas directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
". . . to desist from conducting a signature drive for a people's initiative to amend petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
the Constitution." On December 19, 1996, we temporarily enjoined the Pedrosas registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
". . . from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the represented by at least three per centum of the registered
Constitution." It is not enough for the majority to lift the temporary restraining order voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
against the Pedrosas. It should dismiss the petition and all motions for contempt authorized within five years following the ratification of this
against them without equivocation. Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
One need not draw a picture to impart the proposition that in soliciting signatures The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
to start a people's initiative to amend the Constitution the Pedrosas are not exercise of this right.
engaged in any criminal act. Their solicitation of signatures is a right guaranteed The Delfin petition is thus utterly deficient. Instead of complying with the
in black and white by section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution which provides constitutional imperatives, the petition would rather have much of its burden
that ". . . amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by passed on, in effect, to the COMELEC. The petition would require COMELEC to
the people through initiative. . ." This right springs from the principle proclaimed in schedule "signature gathering all over the country," to cause the necessary
section 1, Article II of the Constitution that in a democratic and republican state publication of the petition "in newspapers of general and local circulation," and to
"sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from instruct "Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines to assist
them." The Pedrosas are part of the people and their voice is part of the voice of petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations at the time and on the
the people. They may constitute but a particle of our sovereignty but no power dates designated for the purpose.
can trivialize them for sovereignty is indivisible. I submit, even then, that the TRO earlier issued by the Court which,
But this is not all. Section 16 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The right consequentially, is made permanent under the ponencia should be held to cover
of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at only the Delfin petition and must not be so understood as having intended or
all levels of social, political and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. contemplated to embrace the signature drive of the Pedrosas. The grant of such
The State shall by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation a right is clearly implicit in the constitutional mandate on people initiative.
mechanisms." This is another novel provision of the 1987 Constitution The distinct greatness of a democratic society is that those who reign are the
strengthening the sinews of the sovereignty of our people. In soliciting signatures governed themselves. The postulate is no longer lightly taken as just a perceived
to amend the Constitution, the Pedrosas are participating in the political decision- myth but a veritable reality. The past has taught us that the vitality of government
making process of our people. The Constitution says their right cannot be lies not so much in the strength of those who lead as in the consent of those who
abridged without any ifs and buts. We cannot put a question mark on their right. are led. The role of free speech is pivotal but it can only have its true meaning if it
Over and above these new provisions, the Pedrosas' campaign to amend the comes with the correlative end of being heard.
Constitution is an exercise of their freedom of speech and expression and their Pending a petition for a people's initiative that is sufficient in form and substance,
right to petition the government for redress of grievances. We have memorialized it behooves the Court, I most respectfully submit, to yet refrain from resolving the
this universal right in all our fundamental laws from the Malolos Constitution to the question of whether or not Republic Act No. 6735 has effectively and sufficiently
1987 Constitution. We have iterated and reiterated in our rulings that freedom of implemented the Constitutional provision on right of the people to directly propose
speech is a preferred right, the matrix of other important rights of our people. constitutional amendments. Any opinion or view formulated by the Court at this
Undeniably, freedom of speech enervates the essence of the democratic creed of point would at best be only a non-binding, albeit possibly persuasive, obiter
think and let think. For this reason, the Constitution encourages speech even if it dictum.
protects the speechless. I vote for granting the instant petition before the Court and for clarifying that the
It is thus evident that the right of the Pedrosas to solicit signatures to start a TRO earlier issued by the Court did not prescribe the exercise by the Pedrosas of
people's initiative to amend the Constitution does not depend on any law, much their right to campaign for constitutional amendments.
less on R.A. 6735 or COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. No law, no Constitution
can chain the people to an undesirable status quo. To be sure, there are no FRANCISCO, J., dissenting and concurring:
irrepealable laws just as there are no irrepealable Constitutions. Change is the There is no question that my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Davide has
predicate of progress and we should not fear change. Mankind has long prepared a scholarly and well-written ponencia. Nonetheless, I cannot fully
subscribe to his view that R. A. No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. is the pleasure of the Minority Floor
To begin with, sovereignty under the constitution, resides in the people and all Leader?
government authority emanates from them.1 Unlike our previous constitutions, MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished
the present 1987 Constitution has given more significance to this declaration of sponsor answer just a few questions?
principle for the people are now vested with power not only to propose, enact or THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What
reject any act or law passed by Congress or by the local legislative body, but to does the sponsor say?
propose amendments to the constitution as well.2 To implement these MR. ROCO. Willingly, Mr. Speaker.
constitutional edicts, Congress in 1989 enacted Republic Act No. 6735, otherwise THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The
known as "The initiative and Referendum Act". This law, to my mind, amply covers Gentleman will please proceed.
an initiative on the constitution. The contrary view maintained by petitioners is MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say
based principally on the alleged lack of sub-title in the law on initiative to amend that the only difference in the two bills
the constitution and on their allegation that: was that in the Senate version there was
Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law a provision for local initiative and
after publication in print media. [And] [t]his indicates that referendum, whereas the House version
Republic Act No. 6735 covers only laws and not constitutional has none.
amendments, because constitutional amendments take MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version
effect upon ratification not after publication.3 provided purely for local initiative and
which allegation manifests petitioners' selective interpretation of the referendum, whereas in the House
law, for under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6735 on the Effectivity of version, we provided purely for national
Initiative or Referendum Proposition paragraph (b) thereof is clear in and constitutional legislation.
providing that: MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding,
The proposition in an initiative on the constitution approved by a majority of the therefore, that the two provisions were
votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite. incorporated?
It is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference the MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be construed together with the MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have
other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 4 a complete initiative and referendum
Thus, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 may not be interpreted in isolation. both in the constitutional amendment
The legislative intent behind every law is to be extracted from the statute as a and national legislation.
whole.5 MR. ROCO. That is correct.
In its definition of terms, Republic Act No. 6735 defines initiative as "the power of MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as
the people to propose amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact municipal resolutions?
legislations through an election called for the purpose".6 The same section, in MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr.
enumerating the three systems of initiative, included an "initiative on the Speaker.
constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the constitution"7 MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and
Paragraph (e) again of Section 3 defines "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by referendum is in consonance with the
which an initiative on the constitution is approved or rejected by the people" And provision of the Constitution to enact the
as to the material requirements for an initiative on the Constitution, Section 5(b) enabling law, so that we shall have a
distinctly enumerates the following: system which can be done every five
A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have years. Is it five years in the provision of
at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of the the Constitution?
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr.
district must be represented by at least three per centum Speaker. For constitutional
(3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the amendments to the 1987 Constitution, it
constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from is every five years." (Id. [Journal and
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every Record of the House of
five years thereafter. Representatives], Vol. VIII, 8 June 1989,
These provisions were inserted, on purpose, by Congress the intent p. 960; quoted in Garcia v. Comelec,
being to provide for the implementation of the right to propose an 237 SCRA 279, 292-293 [1994];
amendment to the Constitution by way of initiative. "A legal provision", emphasis supplied)
the Court has previously said, "must not be construed as to be a useless . . . The Senate version of the Bill may not have
surplusage, and accordingly, meaningless, in the sense of adding comprehended initiatives on the Constitution. When
nothing to the law or having no effect whatsoever thereon". 8 That this consolidated, though, with the House version of the Bill and
is the legislative intent is further shown by the deliberations in as approved and enacted into law, the proposal included
Congress, thus: initiative on both the Constitution and ordinary laws.9
. . . More significantly, in the course of the consideration of Clearly then, Republic Act No. 6735 covers an initiative on the
the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing constitution. Any other construction as what petitioners foist upon the
provisions of Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505, it Court constitute a betrayal of the intent and spirit behind the enactment.
was noted: At any rate, I agree with the ponencia that the Commission on Elections, at
MR. ROCO. On the Conference present, cannot take any action (such as those contained in the Commission's
Committee Report on the disagreeing orders dated December 6, 9, and 12, 1996 [Annexes B, C and B-1]) indicative of
provisions between Senate Bill No. 17 its having already assumed jurisdiction over private respondents' petition. This is
and the consolidated House Bill No. so because from the tenor of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 6735 it would appear that
21505 which refers to the system proof of procurement of the required percentage of registered voters at the time
providing for the initiative and the petition for initiative is filed, is a jurisdictional requirement.
referendum, fundamentally, Mr. Thus:
Speaker, we consolidated the Senate A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have
and the House versions, so both at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of
versions are totally intact in the bill. The registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative
Senators ironically provided for local district must be represented by at least three per centum
initiative and referendum and the House (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the
of Representatives correctly provided for Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from
initiative and referendum an the the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every
Constitution and on national legislation. five (5) years thereafter.
I move that we approve the consolidated Here private respondents' petition is unaccompanied by the required
bill. signatures. This defect notwithstanding, it is without prejudice to the
MR. ALBANO, Mr. Speaker. refiling of their petition once compliance with the required percentage is
satisfactorily shown by private respondents. In the absence, therefore,
of an appropriate petition before the Commission on Elections, any
 determination of whether private respondents' proposal constitutes an Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we cannot ascribe
amendment or revision is premature. any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and exemplary effort to
ACCORDINGLY, I take exception to the conclusion reached in the ponencia that give life to a cherished right of our people.
R.A. No. 6735 is an "inadequate" legislation to cover a people's initiative to The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to national laws
propose amendments to the Constitution. I, however, register my concurrence and local legislations, it is void in reference to constitutional amendments. There
with the dismissal, in the meantime, of private respondents' petition for initiative is no basis for such differentiation. The source of and authority for the Resolution
before public respondent Commission on Elections until the same be supported is the same law, RA 6735.
by proof of strict compliance with Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 6735. I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the
Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R4 6735 and Comelec Resolution
2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize
PANGANIBAN, J., concurring and dissenting: our people's power to amend the Constitution.
Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the Petitioner Delfin and the Pedrosa
majority, holds that: Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in I am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary restraining
entertaining the "initiatory" Delfin Petition. order issued by this Court on 18 December 1996 insofar as it prohibited Petitioner
(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to "be directly proposed by the Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from exercising their right of initiative. In fact, I
people through initiative," there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735 believe that such restraining order as against private respondents should not have
is "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar been issued, in the first place. While I agree that the Comelec should be stopped
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned." from using public funds and government resources to help them gather
(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2330, "insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations signatures, I firmly believe that this Court has no power to restrain them from
on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void." exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose amendments to the
I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can show Constitution is really a species of the right of free speech and free assembly. And
the required number of signatures — in this case, 12% of all the registered voters certainly, it would be tyrannical and despotic to stop anyone from speaking freely
in the Philippines with at least 3% in every legislative district — no public funds and persuading others to conform to his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire once
may be spent and no government resources may be used in an initiative to amend said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
the Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent to say it." After all, freedom is not really for the thought we agree with, but as
such signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority's two other Justice Holmes wrote, "freedom for the thought that we hate."5
rulings. Let me explain. Epilogue
Under the above restrictive holdings espoused by the Court's majority, the By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate Opinion.
Constitution cannot be amended at all through a people's initiative. Not by Delfin, Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino
not by Pirma, not by anyone, not even by all the voters of the country acting constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the world-admired
together. This decision will effectively but unnecessarily curtail, nullify, abrogate EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed
and render inutile the people's right to change the basic law. At the very least, the expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our
majority holds the right hostage to congressional discretion on whether to pass a people to be used as their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism,
new law to implement it, when there is already one existing at present. This right inaction, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments to
to amend through initiative, it bears stressing, is guaranteed by Section 2, Article exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders.
XVII of the Constitution, as follows: While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be resolutely struck down,
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be on the other, their legitimate exercise should be carefully nurtured and zealously
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a protected.
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition of Sen. Miriam D. Santiago et al. and
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be to DIRECT Respondent Commission on Elections to DISMISS the Delfin Petition
represented by at least three per centum of the registered on the ground of prematurity, but not on the other grounds relied upon by the
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be majority. I also vote to LIFT the temporary restraining order issued on 18
authorized within five years following the ratification of this December 1996 insofar as it prohibits Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. Pedrosa from exercising their right to free speech in proposing amendments to
With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and all too the Constitution.
extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. What Citizen Delfin wants the Comelec
to do we should reject. But we should not thereby preempt any future effort to Separate Opinions
exercise the right of initiative correctly and judiciously. The fact that the Delfin PUNO, J., concurring and dissenting:
Petition proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper I join the ground-breaking ponencia of our esteemed colleague, Mr. Justice
use. Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time and for the Davide insofar as it orders the COMELEC to dismiss the Delfin petition. I regret,
right reason. however, I cannot share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution
Taken Together and Interpreted Properly, the Constitution, RA 6735 No. 2300 are legally defective and cannot implement the people's initiative to
and Comelec Resolution 2300 Are Sufficient to Implement amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect to the
Constitutional Initiatives Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed. With due respect:
While RA 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority openly I
concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I respectfully submit, it First, I submit that R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently implements the right of the people to
contains enough provisions to effectuate an initiative on the Constitution.1 I initiate amendments to the Constitution thru initiative. Our effort to discover the
completely agree with the inspired and inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato meaning of R.A. No. 6735 should start with the search of the intent of our
S. Puno and Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law on lawmakers. A knowledge of this intent is critical for the intent of the legislature is
initiative, sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to the law and the controlling factor in its interpretation.1 Stated otherwise, intent is
the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat nor elaborate on, are the essence of the law, the spirit which gives life to its enactment.2
thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en banc rulings in Subic Bay Significantly, the majority decision concedes that ". . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended
Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on Elections, 2 that "provisions for initiative to cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution." It ought to be so
. . . are (to be) liberally construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the law which was a consolidation
hamper the exercise by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia of House Bill No. 215053 and Senate Bill No. 17.4 Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled
vs. Comelec, 3 that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception
ought to be rejected." Therefrom, Whereby People in Local Government Units Can Directly Propose and
No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. In Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or
recognition of this, RA 6735 wisely empowered 4 the Commission on Election "to Resolution Passed by the Local Legislative Body." Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No.
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the 17 did not include people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto, the Comelec issued its Resolution In checkered contrast, House Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people's
2300 on 16 January 1991. Such Resolution, by its very words, was promulgated initiative to amend the Constitution. Congressman (now Senator) Raul Roco
"to govern the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and emphasized in his sponsorship remarks:6
referendum on national and local laws," not by the incumbent Commission on xxx xxx xxx
Elections but by one then composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac, SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ROCO
Comms. Alfredo E. Abueg Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. At the outset, Mr. Roco provided the following backgrounder
Rama and Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed on the constitutional basis of the proposed measure.
1. As cited in Vera vs. Avelino (1946), the presidential system 1. Initiative means that the people, on their own political
which was introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the judgment, submit a Bill for the consideration of the general
application of the principle of separation of powers. electorate.
2. While under the parliamentary system of the 1973 2. The instant Bill provides three kinds of initiative, namely;
Constitution the principle remained applicable, the 1981 the initiative to amend the Constitution once every five years;
amendments to the Constitution of 1973 ensured presidential the initiative to amend statutes approved by Congress; and
dominance over the Batasang Pambansa. the initiative to amend local ordinances.
Constitutional history then saw the shifting and sharing of 3. The instant Bill gives a definite procedure and allows the
legislative powers between the Legislature and the Executive Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to define rules and
departments. Transcending changes in the exercise of regulations on the power of initiative.
legislative power is the declaration in the Philippine 4. Referendum means that the legislators seek the consent
Constitution that the Philippines is a republican state where of the people on measures that they have approved.
sovereignty resides in the people and all sovereignty 5. Under Section 4 of the Bill the people can initiate a
emanates from them. referendum which is a mode of plebiscite by presenting a
3. Under the 1987 Constitution, the lawmaking power is still petition therefor, but under certain limitations, such as the
preserved in Congress; however, to institutionalize direct signing of said petition by at least 10 percent of the total of
action of the people as exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, registered voters at which every legislative district is
the Constitution recognizes the power of the people, through represented by at least three percent of the registered voters
the system of initiative and referendum. thereof. Within 30 days after receipt of the petition, the
As cited in Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, COMELEC shall determine the sufficiency of the petition,
Congress does not have plenary powers since reserve publish the same, and set the date of the referendum within
powers are given to the people expressly. Section 32 of the 45 to 90-day period.
same Article mandates Congress to pass at the soonest 6. When the matter under referendum or initiative is approved
possible time, a bill on referendum and initiative, and to share by the required number of votes, it shall become effective 15
its legislative powers with the people. days following the completion of its publication in the Official
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, on the other Gazette.
hand, vests in the people the power to directly propose In concluding his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Roco stressed
amendments to the Constitution through initiative, upon that the Members cannot ignore the people's call for initiative
petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered and referendum and urged the Body to approve House Bill
voters. No. 21505.
Stating that House Bill No. 21505 is the Committee's At this juncture, Mr. Roco also requested that the prepared
response to the duty imposed on Congress to implement the text of his speech together with the footnotes be reproduced
exercise by the people of the right to initiative and as part of the Congressional Records.
referendum, Mr. Roco recalled the beginnings of the system The same sentiment as to the bill's intent to implement people's
of initiative and referendum under Philippine Law. He cited initiative to amend the Constitution was stressed by then Congressman
Section 99 of the Local Government Code which vests in the (now Secretary of Agriculture) Salvador Escudero III in his sponsorship
barangay assembly the power to initiate legislative remarks, viz:7
processes, decide the holding of plebiscite and hear reports xxx xxx xxx
of the Sangguniang Barangay, all of which are variations of SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. ESCUDERO
the power of initiative and referendum. He added that the Mr. Escudero first pointed out that the people have been
holding of barangay plebiscites and referendum are likewise clamoring for a truly popular democracy ever since,
provided in Sections 100 and 101 of the same Code. especially in the so-called parliament of the streets. A
Thereupon, for the sake of brevity, Mr. Roco moved that substantial segment of the population feels, he said, that the
pertinent quotation on the subject which he will later submit form of democracy is there, but not the reality or substance
to the Secretary of the House be incorporated as part of his of it because of the increasingly elitist approach of their
sponsorship speech. representatives to the country's problem.
He then cited examples of initiative and referendum similar to Whereupon, Mr. Escudero pointed out that the Constitution
those contained in the instant Bill among which are the has provided a means whereby the people can exercise the
constitutions of states in the United States which recognize reserved power of initiative to propose amendments to the
the right of registered voters to initiate the enactment of any Constitution, and requested that Sections 1 and 32, Article
statute or to project any existing law or parts thereof in a VI; Section 3, Article X; and Section 2, Article XVII of the
referendum. These states, he said, are Alaska, Alabama, Constitution be made part of his sponsorship remarks.
Montana, Massachusets, Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Mr. Escudero also stressed that an implementing law is
practically all other states. needed for the aforecited Constitutional provisions. While the
Mr. Roco explained that in certain American states, the kind enactment of the Bill will give way to strong competition
of laws to which initiative and referendum apply is also among cause-oriented and sectoral groups, he continued, it
without limitation, except for emergency measures, which are will hasten the politization of the citizenry, aid the government
likewise incorporated in House Bill No. 21505. He added that in forming an enlightened public opinion, and produce more
the procedure provided by the Bill from the filing of the responsive legislation. The passage of the Bill will also give
petition, the requirements of a certain percentage of street parliamentarians the opportunity to articulate their
supporters to present a proposition, to the submission to ideas in a democratic forum, he added.
electors are substantially similar to the provisions in Mr. Escudero stated that he and Mr. Roco hoped for the early
American laws. Although an infant in Philippine political approval of the Bill so that it can be initially used for the
structure, the system of initiative and referendum, he said, is Agrarian Reform Law. He said that the passage of House Bill
a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and the Bill is No. 21505 will show that the Members can set aside their
patterned after American experience. personal and political consideration for the greater good of
He further explained that the bill has only 12 sections, and the people.
recalled that the Constitutional Commissioners saw the The disagreeing provisions in Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No.
system of the initiative and referendum as an instrument 21505 were threshed out in a Bicameral Conference Committee.8 In
which can be used should the legislature show itself to be the meeting of the Committee on June 6, 1989,9 the members agreed
indifferent to the needs of the people. This is the reason, he that the two (2) bills should be consolidated and that the consolidated
claimed, why now is an opportune time to pass the Bill even version should include people's initiative to amend the Constitution as
as he noted the felt necessity of the times to pass laws which contemplated by House Bill No. 21505. The transcript of the meeting
are necessary to safeguard individual rights and liberties. states:
At this juncture Mr. Roco explained the process of initiative xxx xxx xxx
and referendum as advocated in House Bill No. 21505. He CHAIRMAN GONZALES. But at any
stated that: rate, as I have said, because this is new
in our political system, the Senate
decided on a more cautious approach
 and limiting it only to the local Representatives correctly provided for
government units because even with initiative and referendum on the
that stage where . . . at least this has Constitution and on national legislation.
been quite popular, ano? It has been I move that we approve the consolidated
attempted on a national basis. Alright. bill.
There has not been a single attempt. MR. ALBANO. Mr. Speaker.
Now, so, kami limitado doon. And, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What
second, we consider also that it is only is the pleasure of the Minority Floor
fair that the local legislative body should Leader?
be given a chance to adopt the MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished
legislation bill proposed, right? Iyong sponsor answer just a few questions?
sinasabing indirect system of initiative. If THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The
after all, the local legislative assembly or Gentlemen will please proceed.
body is willing to adopt it in full or in toto, MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say
there ought to be any reason for that the only difference in the two bills
initiative, ano for initiative. And, number was that in the Senate version there was
3, we feel that there should be some a provision for local initiative and
limitation on the frequency with which it referendum, whereas the House version
should be applied. Number 4, na the has none.
people, thru initiative, cannot enact any MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version
ordinance that is beyond the scope of provide purely for local initiative and
authority of the local legislative body, referendum, whereas in the House
otherwise, my God, mag-aassume sila version, we provided purely for national
ng power that is broader and greater and constitutional legislation.
than the grant of legislative power to the MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding
Sanggunians. And Number 5, because therefore, that the two provisions were
of that, then a proposition which has incorporated?
been the result of a successful initiative MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
can only carry the force and effect of an MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have
ordinance and therefore that should not a complete initiative and referendum
deprive the court of its jurisdiction to both in the constitutional amendment
declare it null and void for want of and national legislation.
authority. Ha, di ba? I mean it is beyond MR. ROCO. That is correct.
powers of local government units to MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as
enact. Iyon ang main essence namin, so municipal resolutions?
we concentrated on that. And that is why MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr.
. . . so ang sa inyo naman includes iyon Speaker.
sa Constitution, amendment to the MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and
Constitution eh . . . national laws. Sa referendum is in consonance with the
amin, if you insist on that, alright, provision of the Constitution whereby it
although we feel na it will in effect mandates this Congress to enact the
become a dead statute. Alright, and we enabling law, so that we shall have a
can agree, we can agree. So ang system which can be done every five
mangyayari dito, and magiging basic years. Is it five years in the provision of
nito, let us not discuss anymore kung the Constitution?
alin and magiging basic bill, ano, MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr.
whether it is the Senate Bill or whether it Speaker. For constitutional
is the House bill. Logically it should be amendments in the 1987 Constitution, it
ours sapagkat una iyong sa amin eh. It is every five years.
is one of the first bills approved by the MR. ALBANO. For every five years, Mr.
Senate kaya ang number niyan, Speaker?
makikita mo, 17, eh. Huwag na nating MR. ROCO. Within five years, we
pagusapan. Now, if you insist, really cannot have multiple initiatives and
iyong features ng national at saka referenda.
constitutional, okay. ____ gagawin na MR. ALBANO. Therefore, basically,
natin na consolidation of both bills. there was no substantial difference
HON. ROCO. Yes, we shall consolidate. between the two versions?
CHAIRMAN GONZALES. Consolidation MR. ROCO. The gaps in our bill were
of the Senate and House Bill No. so and filled by the Senate which, as I said
so. 10 earlier, ironically was about local,
When the consolidated bill was presented to the House for approval, provincial and municipal legislation.
then Congressman Roco upon interpellation by Congressman Rodolfo MR. ALBANO. And the two bills were
Albano, again confirmed that it covered people's initiative to amend the consolidated?
Constitution. The record of the House Representative states: 11 MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
xxx xxx xxx MR. ALBANO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The APPROVAL OF C.C.R.
Gentleman from Camarines Sur is ON S.B. NO. 17 AND H.B. NO. 21505
recognized. (The Initiative and Referendum Act)
MR. ROCO. On the Conference THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. There was a motion to
Committee Report on the disagreeing approve this consolidated bill on Senate Bill No. 17 and
provisions between Senate Bill No. House Bill No. 21505.
21505 which refers to the system Is there any objection? (Silence. The Chair hears none; the
providing for the initiative and motion is approved.
referendum, fundamentally, Mr. Since it is crystalline that the intent of R.A. No. 6735 is to implement the
Speaker, we consolidated the Senate people's initiative to amend the Constitution, it is our bounden duty to
and the House versions, so both interpret the law as it was intended by the legislature. We have ruled
versions are totally intact in the bill. The that once intent is ascertained, it must be enforced even if it may not be
Senators ironically provided for local consistent with the strict letter of the law and this ruling is as old as the
initiative and referendum and the House mountain. We have also held that where a law is susceptible of more
 than one interpretation, that interpretation which will most tend to are sufficiently determinate or determinable — to which the
effectuate the manifest intent of the legislature will be adopted. 12 delegate must conform in the performance of his functions.
The text of R.A. No. 6735 should therefore be reasonably construed to effectuate Indeed, without a statutory declaration of policy, which is the
its intent to implement the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. To be sure, essence of every law, and, without the aforementioned
we need not torture the text of said law to reach the conclusion that it implements standard, there would be no means to determine, with
people's initiative to amend the Constitution. R.A. No. 6735 is replete with reasonable certainty, whether the delegate has acted within
references to this prerogative of the people. or beyond the scope of his authority. Hence, he could thereby
First, the policy statement declares: arrogate upon himself the power, not only to make the law,
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — The power of the people but, also — and this is worse — to unmake it, by adopting
under a system of initiative and referendum to directly measures inconsistent with the end sought to be attained by
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the the Act of Congress, thus nullifying the principle of separation
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any of powers and the system of checks and balances, and,
legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of consequently, undermining the very foundation of our
this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. republican system.
(emphasis supplied) Section 68 of the Revised Administrative Code does not meet
Second, the law defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose these well-settled requirements for a valid delegation of the
amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an power to fix the details in the enforcement of a law. It does
election called for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which not enunciate any policy to be carried out or implemented by
an initiative on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people. the President. Neither does it give a standard sufficiently
Third, the law provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the precise to avoid the evil effects above referred to.
Constitution. Section 5(b) states that "(a) petition for an initiative on the 1987 R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide the
Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and regulations of the
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be law. As aforestated, section 2 spells out the policy of the law; viz: "The power of
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." It the people under a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact,
also states that "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) approve or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or
years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) resolutions passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements
years thereafter. of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed." Spread out all over
Finally, R.A. No. 6735 fixes the effectivity date of the amendment. Section 9(b) R.A. No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to the
states that "(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations from overflowing. Thus, the law
majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of states the number of signatures necessary to start a people's initiative, 18 directs
the plebiscite. how initiative proceeding is commenced, 19 what the COMELEC should do upon
It is unfortunate that the majority decision resorts to a strained interpretation of filing of the petition for initiative, 20 how a proposition is approved, 21 when a
R.A. No. 6735 to defeat its intent which it itself concedes is to implement people's plebiscite may be held, 22 when the amendment takes effect 23 and what matters
initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. Thus, it laments that the may not be the subject of any initiative. 24 By any measure, these standards are
word "Constitution" is neither germane nor relevant to the policy thrust of section adequate.
2 and that the statute's subtitling is not accurate. These lapses are to be expected Former Justice Isagani A. Cruz, similarly elucidated that "a sufficient standard is
for laws are not always written in impeccable English. Rightly, the Constitution intended to map out the boundaries of the delegates' authority by defining the
does not require our legislators to be word-smiths with the ability to write bills with legislative policy and indicating the circumstances under which it is to be pursued
poetic commas like Jose Garcia Villa or in lyrical prose like Winston Churchill. But and effected. The purpose of the sufficient standard is to prevent a total
it has always been our good policy not to refuse to effectuate the intent of a law transference of legislative power from the lawmaking body to the delegate." 25 In
on the ground that it is badly written. As the distinguished Vicente Francisco 13 enacting R.A. No. 6735, it cannot be said that Congress totally transferred its
reminds us: "Many laws contain words which have not been used accurately. But power to enact the law implementing people's initiative to COMELEC. A close look
the use of inapt or inaccurate language or words, will not vitiate the statute if the at COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 will show that it merely provided the procedure
legislative intention can be ascertained. The same is equally true with reference to effectuate the policy of R.A. No. 6735 giving life to the people's initiative to
to awkward, slovenly, or ungrammatical expressions, that is, such expressions amend the Constitution. The debates 26 in the Constitutional Commission make
and words will be construed as carrying the meaning the legislature intended that it clear that the rules of procedure to enforce the people's initiative can be
they bear, although such a construction necessitates a departure from the literal delegated, thus:
meaning of the words used. MR. ROMULO. Under Commissioner
In the same vein, the argument that R.A. No. 7535 does not include people's Davide's amendment, it is possible for
initiative to amend the Constitution simply because it lacks a sub-title on the the legislature to set forth certain
subject should be given the weight of helium. Again, the hoary rule in statutory procedures to carry out the initiative. . .
construction is that headings prefixed to titles, chapters and sections of a statute ?
may be consulted in aid of interpretation, but inferences drawn therefrom are MR. DAVIDE. It can.
entitled to very little weight, and they can never control the plain terms of the xxx xxx xxx
enacting clauses. 14 MR. ROMULO. But the Commissioner's
All said, it is difficult to agree with the majority decision that refuses to enforce the amendment does not prevent the
manifest intent or spirit of R.A. No. 6735 to implement the people's initiative to legislature from asking another body to
amend the Constitution. It blatantly disregards the rule cast in concrete that the set the proposition in proper form.
letter of the law must yield to its spirit for the letter of the law is its body but its MR. DAVIDE. The Commissioner is
spirit is its soul. 15 correct. In other words, the
II implementation of this particular right
COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, 16 promulgated under the stewardship of would be subject to legislation, provided
Commissioner Haydee Yorac, then its Acting Chairman, spelled out the procedure the legislature cannot determine
on how to exercise the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. This is in anymore the percentage of the
accord with the delegated power granted by section 20 of R.A. No. 6735 to the requirement.
COMELEC which expressly states: "The Commission is hereby empowered to MR. DAVIDE. As long as it will not
promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the destroy the substantive right to initiate.
purposes of this Act." By no means can this delegation of power be assailed as In other words, none of the procedures
infirmed. In the benchmark case of Pelaez v. Auditor General, 17 this Court, thru to be proposed by the legislative body
former Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion laid down the test to determine whether must diminish or impair the right
there is undue delegation of legislative power, viz: conceded here.
xxx xxx xxx MR. ROMULO. In that provision of the
Although Congress may delegate to another branch of the Constitution can the procedures which I
Government the power to fill details in the execution, have discussed be legislated?
enforcement or administration of a law, it is essential, to MR. DAVIDE. Yes.
forestall a violation of the principle of separation of powers, In his book, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers, 27 Father
that said law: (a) be complete in itself — it must set forth Bernas likewise affirmed: "In response to questions of Commissioner
therein the policy to be executed, carried out or implemented Romulo, Davide explained the extent of the power of the legislature
by the delegate — and (b) to fix standard — the limits of which over the process: it could for instance, prescribe the 'proper form before
 (the amendment) is submitted to the people,' it could authorize another "sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
body to check the proper form. It could also authorize the COMELEC, them." The Pedrosas are part of the people and their voice is part of the voice of
for instance, to check the authenticity of the signatures of petitioners. the people. They may constitute but a particle of our sovereignty but no power
Davide concluded: 'As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to can trivialize them for sovereignty is indivisible.
initiate. In other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the But this is not all. Section 16 of Article XIII of the Constitution provides: "The right
legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.'" Quite of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at
clearly, the prohibition against the legislature is to impair the substantive all levels of social, political and economic decision-making shall not be abridged.
right of the people to initiate amendments to the Constitution. It is not, The State shall by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation
however, prohibited from legislating the procedure to enforce the mechanisms." This is another novel provision of the 1987 Constitution
people's right of initiative or to delegate it to another body like the strengthening the sinews of the sovereignty of our people. In soliciting signatures
COMELEC with proper standard. to amend the Constitution, the Pedrosas are participating in the political decision-
A survey of our case law will show that this Court has prudentially refrained from making process of our people. The Constitution says their right cannot be
invalidating administrative rules on the ground of lack of adequate legislative abridged without any ifs and buts. We cannot put a question mark on their right.
standard to guide their promulgation. As aptly perceived by former Justice Cruz, Over and above these new provisions, the Pedrosas' campaign to amend the
"even if the law itself does not expressly pinpoint the standard, the courts will bend Constitution is an exercise of their freedom of speech and expression and their
backward to locate the same elsewhere in order to spare the statute, if it can, from right to petition the government for redress of grievances. We have memorialized
constitutional infirmity." 28 He cited the ruling in Hirabayashi v. United States, 29 this universal right in all our fundamental laws from the Malolos Constitution to the
viz: 1987 Constitution. We have iterated and reiterated in our rulings that freedom of
xxx xxx xxx speech is a preferred right, the matrix of other important rights of our people.
It is true that the Act does not in terms establish a particular Undeniably, freedom of speech enervates the essence of the democratic creed of
standard to which orders of the military commander are to think and let think. For this reason, the Constitution encourages speech even if it
conform, or require findings to be made as a prerequisite to protects the speechless.
any order. But the Executive Order, the Proclamations and It is thus evident that the right of the Pedrosas to solicit signatures to start a
the statute are not to be read in isolation from each other. people's initiative to amend the Constitution does not depend on any law, much
They were parts of a single program and must be judged as less on R.A. 6735 or COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. No law, no Constitution
such. The Act of March 21, 1942, was an adoption by can chain the people to an undesirable status quo. To be sure, there are no
Congress of the Executive Order and of the Proclamations. irrepealable laws just as there are no irrepealable Constitutions. Change is the
The Proclamations themselves followed a standard predicate of progress and we should not fear change. Mankind has long
authorized by the Executive Order — the necessity of recognized the truism that the only constant in life is change and so should the
protecting military resources in the designated areas against majority.
espionage and sabotage. IV
In the case at bar, the policy and the standards are bright-lined in R.A. In a stream of cases, this Court has rhapsodized people power as expanded in
No. 6735. A 20-20 look at the law cannot miss them. They were not the 1987 Constitution. On October 5, 1993, we observed that people's might is no
written by our legislators in invisible ink. The policy and standards can longer a myth but an article of faith in our Constitution. 41 On September 30, 1994,
also be found in no less than section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution we postulated that people power can be trusted to check excesses of government
on Amendments or Revisions. There is thus no reason to hold that the and that any effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives ought to be
standards provided for in R.A. No. 6735 are insufficient for in other rejected. 42 On September 26, 1996, we pledged that ". . . this Court as a matter
cases we have upheld as adequate more general standards such as of policy and doctrine will exert every effort to nurture, protect and promote their
"simplicity and dignity," 30 "public interest," 31 "public welfare," 32 legitimate exercise." 43 Just a few days ago, or on March 11, 1997, by a
"interest of law and order," 33 "justice and equity,"34 "adequate and unanimous decision, 44 we allowed a recall election in Caloocan City involving
efficient instruction," 35 "public safety," 36 "public policy", 37 "greater the mayor and ordered that he submits his right to continue in office to the
national interest", 38 "protect the local consumer by stabilizing and judgment of the tribunal of the people. Thus far, we have succeeded in
subsidizing domestic pump rates", 39 and "promote simplicity, economy transforming people power from an opaque abstraction to a robust reality. The
and efficiency in government." 40 A due regard and respect to the Constitution calls us to encourage people empowerment to blossom in full. The
legislature, a co-equal and coordinate branch of government, should Court cannot halt any and all signature campaigns to amend the Constitution
counsel this Court to refrain from refusing to effectuate laws unless they without setting back the flowering of people empowerment. More important, the
are clearly unconstitutional. Court cannot seal the lips of people who are pro-change but not those who are
III anti-change without concerting the debate on charter change into a sterile
It is also respectfully submitted that the petition should he dismissed with respect talkaton. Democracy is enlivened by a dialogue and not by a monologue for in a
to the Pedrosas. The inclusion of the Pedrosas in the petition is utterly baseless. democracy nobody can claim any infallibility.
The records show that the case at bar started when respondent Delfin alone and Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
by himself filed with the COMELEC a Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift
Term Limits of Elective Officials by People's Initiative. The Pedrosas did not join VITUG, J., concurring and dissenting:
the petition. It was Senator Roco who moved to intervene and was allowed to do The COMELEC should have dismissed, outrightly, the Delfin Petition.
so by the COMELEC. The petition was heard and before the COMELEC could It does seem to me that there is no real exigency on the part of the Court to
resolve the Delfin petition, the case at bar was filed by the petitioners with this engross, let alone to commit, itself on all the issues raised and debated upon by
Court. Petitioners sued the COMELEC. Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and the parties. What is essential at this time would only be to resolve whether or not
Carmen Pedrosa in their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative the petition filed with the COMELEC, signed by Atty. Jesus S. Delfin in his capacity
for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA). The suit is an original action for as a "founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative" and seeking
prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order and/or writ of preliminary through a people initiative certain modifications on the 1987 Constitution, can
injunction. properly be regarded and given its due course. The Constitution, relative to any
The petition on its face states no cause of action against the Pedrosas. The only proposed amendment under this method, is explicit. Section 2, Article XVII,
allegation against the Pedrosas is that they are founding members of the PIRMA thereof provides:
which proposes to undertake the signature drive for people's initiative to amend Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be
the Constitution. Strangely, the PIRMA itself as an organization was not directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a
impleaded as a respondent. Petitioners then prayed that we order the Pedrosas petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
". . . to desist from conducting a signature drive for a people's initiative to amend registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
the Constitution." On December 19, 1996, we temporarily enjoined the Pedrosas represented by at least three per centum of the registered
". . . from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be
Constitution." It is not enough for the majority to lift the temporary restraining order authorized within five years following the ratification of this
against the Pedrosas. It should dismiss the petition and all motions for contempt Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
against them without equivocation. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
One need not draw a picture to impart the proposition that in soliciting signatures exercise of this right.
to start a people's initiative to amend the Constitution the Pedrosas are not The Delfin petition is thus utterly deficient. Instead of complying with the
engaged in any criminal act. Their solicitation of signatures is a right guaranteed constitutional imperatives, the petition would rather have much of its burden
in black and white by section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution which provides passed on, in effect, to the COMELEC. The petition would require COMELEC to
that ". . . amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by schedule "signature gathering all over the country," to cause the necessary
the people through initiative. . ." This right springs from the principle proclaimed in publication of the petition "in newspapers of general and local circulation," and to
section 1, Article II of the Constitution that in a democratic and republican state instruct "Municipal Election Registrars in all Regions of the Philippines to assist
petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations at the time and on the nothing to the law or having no effect whatsoever thereon". 8 That this
dates designated for the purpose. is the legislative intent is further shown by the deliberations in
I submit, even then, that the TRO earlier issued by the Court which, Congress, thus:
consequentially, is made permanent under the ponencia should be held to cover . . . More significantly, in the course of the consideration of
only the Delfin petition and must not be so understood as having intended or the Conference Committee Report on the disagreeing
contemplated to embrace the signature drive of the Pedrosas. The grant of such provisions of Senate Bill No. 17 and House Bill No. 21505, it
a right is clearly implicit in the constitutional mandate on people initiative. was noted:
The distinct greatness of a democratic society is that those who reign are the MR. ROCO. On the Conference
governed themselves. The postulate is no longer lightly taken as just a perceived Committee Report on the disagreeing
myth but a veritable reality. The past has taught us that the vitality of government provisions between Senate Bill No. 17
lies not so much in the strength of those who lead as in the consent of those who and the consolidated House Bill No.
are led. The role of free speech is pivotal but it can only have its true meaning if it 21505 which refers to the system
comes with the correlative end of being heard. providing for the initiative and
Pending a petition for a people's initiative that is sufficient in form and substance, referendum, fundamentally, Mr.
it behooves the Court, I most respectfully submit, to yet refrain from resolving the Speaker, we consolidated the Senate
question of whether or not Republic Act No. 6735 has effectively and sufficiently and the House versions, so both
implemented the Constitutional provision on right of the people to directly propose versions are totally intact in the bill. The
constitutional amendments. Any opinion or view formulated by the Court at this Senators ironically provided for local
point would at best be only a non-binding, albeit possibly persuasive, obiter initiative and referendum and the House
dictum. of Representatives correctly provided for
I vote for granting the instant petition before the Court and for clarifying that the initiative and referendum an the
TRO earlier issued by the Court did not prescribe the exercise by the Pedrosas of Constitution and on national legislation.
their right to campaign for constitutional amendments. I move that we approve the consolidated
bill.
FRANCISCO, J., dissenting and concurring: MR. ALBANO, Mr. Speaker.
There is no question that my esteemed colleague Mr. Justice Davide has THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What
prepared a scholarly and well-written ponencia. Nonetheless, I cannot fully is the pleasure of the Minority Floor
subscribe to his view that R. A. No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of Leader?
initiative on amendments to the Constitution. MR. ALBANO. Will the distinguished
To begin with, sovereignty under the constitution, resides in the people and all sponsor answer just a few questions?
government authority emanates from them.1 Unlike our previous constitutions, THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. What
the present 1987 Constitution has given more significance to this declaration of does the sponsor say?
principle for the people are now vested with power not only to propose, enact or MR. ROCO. Willingly, Mr. Speaker.
reject any act or law passed by Congress or by the local legislative body, but to THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE. The
propose amendments to the constitution as well.2 To implement these Gentleman will please proceed.
constitutional edicts, Congress in 1989 enacted Republic Act No. 6735, otherwise MR. ALBANO. I heard the sponsor say
known as "The initiative and Referendum Act". This law, to my mind, amply covers that the only difference in the two bills
an initiative on the constitution. The contrary view maintained by petitioners is was that in the Senate version there was
based principally on the alleged lack of sub-title in the law on initiative to amend a provision for local initiative and
the constitution and on their allegation that: referendum, whereas the House version
Republic Act No. 6735 provides for the effectivity of the law has none.
after publication in print media. [And] [t]his indicates that MR. ROCO. In fact, the Senate version
Republic Act No. 6735 covers only laws and not constitutional provided purely for local initiative and
amendments, because constitutional amendments take referendum, whereas in the House
effect upon ratification not after publication.3 version, we provided purely for national
which allegation manifests petitioners' selective interpretation of the and constitutional legislation.
law, for under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6735 on the Effectivity of MR. ALBANO. Is it our understanding,
Initiative or Referendum Proposition paragraph (b) thereof is clear in therefore, that the two provisions were
providing that: incorporated?
The proposition in an initiative on the constitution approved by a majority of the MR. ROCO. Yes, Mr. Speaker.
votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of the plebiscite. MR. ALBANO. So that we will now have
It is a rule that every part of the statute must be interpreted with reference the a complete initiative and referendum
context, i.e., that every part of the statute must be construed together with the both in the constitutional amendment
other parts and kept subservient to the general intent of the whole enactment. 4 and national legislation.
Thus, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 may not be interpreted in isolation. MR. ROCO. That is correct.
The legislative intent behind every law is to be extracted from the statute as a MR. ALBANO. And provincial as well as
whole.5 municipal resolutions?
In its definition of terms, Republic Act No. 6735 defines initiative as "the power of MR. ROCO. Down to barangay, Mr.
the people to propose amendments to the constitution or to propose and enact Speaker.
legislations through an election called for the purpose".6 The same section, in MR. ALBANO. And this initiative and
enumerating the three systems of initiative, included an "initiative on the referendum is in consonance with the
constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the constitution"7 provision of the Constitution to enact the
Paragraph (e) again of Section 3 defines "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by enabling law, so that we shall have a
which an initiative on the constitution is approved or rejected by the people" And system which can be done every five
as to the material requirements for an initiative on the Constitution, Section 5(b) years. Is it five years in the provision of
distinctly enumerates the following: the Constitution?
A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have MR. ROCO. That is correct, Mr.
at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of the Speaker. For constitutional
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative amendments to the 1987 Constitution, it
district must be represented by at least three per centum is every five years." (Id. [Journal and
(3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the Record of the House of
constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from Representatives], Vol. VIII, 8 June 1989,
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every p. 960; quoted in Garcia v. Comelec,
five years thereafter. 237 SCRA 279, 292-293 [1994];
These provisions were inserted, on purpose, by Congress the intent emphasis supplied)
being to provide for the implementation of the right to propose an . . . The Senate version of the Bill may not have
amendment to the Constitution by way of initiative. "A legal provision", comprehended initiatives on the Constitution. When
the Court has previously said, "must not be construed as to be a useless consolidated, though, with the House version of the Bill and
surplusage, and accordingly, meaningless, in the sense of adding
 as approved and enacted into law, the proposal included Taken Together and Interpreted Properly, the Constitution, RA 6735
initiative on both the Constitution and ordinary laws.9 and Comelec Resolution 2300 Are Sufficient to Implement
Clearly then, Republic Act No. 6735 covers an initiative on the Constitutional Initiatives
constitution. Any other construction as what petitioners foist upon the While RA 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority openly
Court constitute a betrayal of the intent and spirit behind the enactment. concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I respectfully submit, it
At any rate, I agree with the ponencia that the Commission on Elections, at contains enough provisions to effectuate an initiative on the Constitution.1 I
present, cannot take any action (such as those contained in the Commission's completely agree with the inspired and inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato
orders dated December 6, 9, and 12, 1996 [Annexes B, C and B-1]) indicative of S. Puno and Mr. Justice Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law on
its having already assumed jurisdiction over private respondents' petition. This is initiative, sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to
so because from the tenor of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 6735 it would appear that the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat nor elaborate on, are
proof of procurement of the required percentage of registered voters at the time thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en banc rulings in Subic Bay
the petition for initiative is filed, is a jurisdictional requirement. Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on Elections, 2 that "provisions for initiative
Thus: . . . are (to be) liberally construed to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not
A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have hamper the exercise by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia
at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of vs. Comelec, 3 that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative ought to be rejected."
district must be represented by at least three per centum No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. In
(3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the recognition of this, RA 6735 wisely empowered 4 the Commission on Election "to
Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto, the Comelec issued its Resolution
five (5) years thereafter. 2300 on 16 January 1991. Such Resolution, by its very words, was promulgated
Here private respondents' petition is unaccompanied by the required "to govern the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and
signatures. This defect notwithstanding, it is without prejudice to the referendum on national and local laws," not by the incumbent Commission on
refiling of their petition once compliance with the required percentage is Elections but by one then composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac,
satisfactorily shown by private respondents. In the absence, therefore, Comms. Alfredo E. Abueg Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C.
of an appropriate petition before the Commission on Elections, any Rama and Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed
determination of whether private respondents' proposal constitutes an Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we cannot ascribe
amendment or revision is premature. any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and exemplary effort to
ACCORDINGLY, I take exception to the conclusion reached in the ponencia that give life to a cherished right of our people.
R.A. No. 6735 is an "inadequate" legislation to cover a people's initiative to The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to national laws
propose amendments to the Constitution. I, however, register my concurrence and local legislations, it is void in reference to constitutional amendments. There
with the dismissal, in the meantime, of private respondents' petition for initiative is no basis for such differentiation. The source of and authority for the Resolution
before public respondent Commission on Elections until the same be supported is the same law, RA 6735.
by proof of strict compliance with Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 6735. I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and liberally, the
Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R4 6735 and Comelec Resolution
2300 provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and realize
PANGANIBAN, J., concurring and dissenting: our people's power to amend the Constitution.
Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing for the Petitioner Delfin and the Pedrosa
majority, holds that: Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled
(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in I am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary restraining
entertaining the "initiatory" Delfin Petition. order issued by this Court on 18 December 1996 insofar as it prohibited Petitioner
(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to "be directly proposed by the Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from exercising their right of initiative. In fact, I
people through initiative," there is no implementing law for the purpose. RA 6735 believe that such restraining order as against private respondents should not have
is "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar been issued, in the first place. While I agree that the Comelec should be stopped
as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned." from using public funds and government resources to help them gather
(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2330, "insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations signatures, I firmly believe that this Court has no power to restrain them from
on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void." exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose amendments to the
I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition can show Constitution is really a species of the right of free speech and free assembly. And
the required number of signatures — in this case, 12% of all the registered voters certainly, it would be tyrannical and despotic to stop anyone from speaking freely
in the Philippines with at least 3% in every legislative district — no public funds and persuading others to conform to his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire once
may be spent and no government resources may be used in an initiative to amend said, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right
the Constitution. Verily, the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent to say it." After all, freedom is not really for the thought we agree with, but as
such signatures. However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority's two other Justice Holmes wrote, "freedom for the thought that we hate."5
rulings. Let me explain. Epilogue
Under the above restrictive holdings espoused by the Court's majority, the By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate Opinion.
Constitution cannot be amended at all through a people's initiative. Not by Delfin, Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured feature of the Filipino
not by Pirma, not by anyone, not even by all the voters of the country acting constitutional system. All three are institutionalized legacies of the world-admired
together. This decision will effectively but unnecessarily curtail, nullify, abrogate EDSA people power. Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed
and render inutile the people's right to change the basic law. At the very least, the expressions of popular sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our
majority holds the right hostage to congressional discretion on whether to pass a people to be used as their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism,
new law to implement it, when there is already one existing at present. This right inaction, oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments to
to amend through initiative, it bears stressing, is guaranteed by Section 2, Article exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen leaders.
XVII of the Constitution, as follows: While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be resolutely struck down,
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be on the other, their legitimate exercise should be carefully nurtured and zealously
directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a protected.
petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition of Sen. Miriam D. Santiago et al. and
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be to DIRECT Respondent Commission on Elections to DISMISS the Delfin Petition
represented by at least three per centum of the registered on the ground of prematurity, but not on the other grounds relied upon by the
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be majority. I also vote to LIFT the temporary restraining order issued on 18
authorized within five years following the ratification of this December 1996 insofar as it prohibits Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. Pedrosa from exercising their right to free speech in proposing amendments to
With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and all too the Constitution.
extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and Melo and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. What Citizen Delfin wants the Comelec Footnotes
to do we should reject. But we should not thereby preempt any future effort to 1 Commissioner Blas Ople.
exercise the right of initiative correctly and judiciously. The fact that the Delfin 2 Commissioner Jose Suarez.
Petition proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper 3 I Record of the Constitutional Commission, 371, 378.
use. Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time and for the 4 Section 1, Article XV of the 1935 Constitution and Section
right reason. 1(1), Article XVI of the 1973 Constitution.
5 Annex "A" of Petition, Rollo, 15. 26 Annex "D" of Roco's Motion for Intervention in this case,
6 Later identified as the People's Initiative for Reforms, Rollo, 184.
Modernization and Action, or PIRMA for brevity. 27 Rollo, 28.
7 These sections read: 28 232 SCRA 110, 134 [1994].
Sec. 4. The term of office of the Senators shall be six years 29 II The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, A
and shall commence, unless otherwise provided by law, at Commentary 571 [1988].
noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election. 30 I Record of the Constitutional Commission 370-371.
No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms. 31 Id., 371.
Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length of time shall 32 Id., 386.
not be considered as an interruption in the continuity of his 33 Id., 391-392. (Emphasis supplied).
service for the full term for which he was elected. 34 Id., 386.
xxx xxx xxx 35 Id., 392.
Sec. 7. The Members of the House of Representatives shall 36 Id., 398-399.
be elected for a term of three years which shall begin, unless 37 Id., 399. Emphasis supplied.
otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of 38 Id., 402-403.
June next following their election. 39 Id., 401-402.
No Member of the House of Representatives shall serve for 40 Id., 410.
more than three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of 41 Id., 412.
the office for any length of time shall not be considered as an 42 II Record of the Constitutional Commission 559-560.
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for 43 The Congress originally appeared as The National
which he was elected. Assembly. The change came about as a logical consequence
8 The section reads: of the amended Committee Report No. 22 of the Committee
Sec. 4. The President and the Vice-President shall be elected on Legislative which changed The National Assembly to "The
by direct vote of the people for a term of six years which shall Congress of the Philippines" in view of the approval of the
begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following the amendment to adopt the bicameral system (II Record of the
day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six Constitutional Commission 102-105). The proposed new
years thereafter. The President shall not be eligible for any Article on the Legislative Department was, after various
reelection. No person who has succeeded as President and amendments approved on Second and Third Readings on 9
has served as such for more than four years shall be qualified October 1986 (Id., 702-703)
for election to the same office at any time. 44 V Record of the Constitutional Commission 806.
No Vice-President shall serve for more than two successive 45 See footnote No. 42.
terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office for any length or 46 As Stated by Commissioner Bernas in his interpellation of
time shall not be considered as an interruption in the Commissioner Suarez, footnote 28.
continuity of the service for the full term for which he was 47 Entitled "Initiative and Referendum Act of 1987,"
elected. introduced by then Congressmen Raul Roco, Raul del Mar
9 The section reads: and Narciso Monfort.
Sec. 8. The term of office of elective local officials, except 48 Entitled "An Act Implementing the Constitutional
barangay officials, which shall be determined by law, shall be Provisions on Initiative and Referendum and for Other
three years and no such official shall serve for more than Purposes," introduced by Congressmen Salvador Escudero.
three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of the office 49 Entitled "An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
for any length of time shall not be considered as an Referendum, and the Exceptions Therefrom, Whereby
interruption in the continuity of his service for the full term for People in Local Government Units Can Directly Propose and
which he was elected. Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject Any
10 Rollo, 19. Ordinance or Resolution Passed By the Local Legislative
11 Annex "B" of Petition, Rollo, 25. Body," introduced by Senators Gonzales, Romulo, Pimentel,
12 Order of 12 December 1996, Annex "B-1" of Petition, Jr., and Lina, Jr.
Rollo, 27. 50 IV Record of the Senate, No. 143, pp. 1509-1510.
13 Id. 51 VIII Journal and Record of the House of Representatives,
14 Citing Araneta v. Dinglasan, 84 Phil. 368 [1949]; Sanidad 957-961.
v. COMELEC, 73 SCRA 333 [1976]. 52 That section reads:
15 Rollo, 68. Sec. 1. Statement of Policy. The power of the people under
16 Rollo, 100. a system of initiative and referendum to directly propose and
17 Rollo, 130. enact resolutions and ordinances or approve or reject, in
18 A Member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. whole or in part, any ordinance or resolution passed by any
19 Section 26, Article II, Constitution. local legislative body upon compliance with the requirements
20 Citing Commissioner Ople of the Constitutional of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed.
Commission, I Record of the Constitutional Commission, 53 It must be pointed out that Senate Bill No. 17 and House
405. Bill No. 21505, as approved on Third Reading, did not contain
21 Rollo, 239. any subtitles.
22 Rollo, 304. 54 If some confusion attended the preparation of the subtitles
23 Rollo, 568. resulting in the leaving out of the more important and
24 These were submitted on the following dates: paramount system of initiative on amendments to the
(a) Private respondent Delfin — 31 Constitution, it was because there was in the Bicameral
January 1997 (Rollo, 429); Conference Committee an initial agreement for the Senate
(b) Private respondents Alberto and panel to draft that portion on local initiative and for the House
Carmen Pedrosa — 10 February 1997 of Representatives panel to draft that portion covering
(Id., 446); national initiative and initiative on the Constitution;
(c) Petitioners — 12 February 1997 (Id., eventually, however, the Members thereof agreed to leave
585); the drafting of the consolidated bill to their staff. Thus:
(d) IBP — 12 February 1997 (Id., 476); CHAIRMAN GONZALES.
(e) Senator Roco — 12 February 1997 . . . All right, and we can agree, we can agree. So ang
(Id., 606); mangyayari dito, ang magiging basic nito, let us not discuss
(f) DIK and MABINI — 12 February 1997 anymore kung alin ang magiging basic bill, ano, whether it is
(Id., 465); the Senate Bill or whether it is the House Bill. Logically it
(g) COMELEC — 12 February 1997 (Id., should be ours sapagkat una iyong sa amin, eh. It is one of
489); the first bills approved by the Senate kaya ang number niyan,
(h) LABAN — 13 February 1997 (Id., makikita mo, 17, eh. Huwag na nating pag-usapan. Now, if
553). you insist, really iyong features ng national at saka
25 Rollo, 594. constitutional, okay. Pero gagawin na nating consolidation of
both bills. (TSN, proceedings of the Bicameral Conference 3 Prepared and sponsored by the House Committee on
Committee on 6 June 1989 submitted by Nora, R, pp. 1-4 — Suffrage and Electoral Reforms on the basis of H.B. No. 497
1-5). introduced by Congressmen Raul Roco, Raul del Mar and
xxx xxx xxx Narciso Monfort and H.B. No. 988 introduced by
HON. ROCO. So how do we proceed from this? The staff will Congressman Salvador Escudero.
consolidate. 4 Introduced by Senators Neptali Gonzales, Alberto Romulo,
HON. GONZALES. Gumawa lang ng isang draft. Submit it to Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., and Jose Lina, Jr.
the Chairman, kami na ang bahalang magconsult sa aming 5 It was entitled "An Act Providing a System of Initiative and
mga members na kung okay, Referendum and Appropriating Funds therefor.
HON. ROCO. Within today? 6 Journal No. 85, February 14, 1989, p. 121.
HON. GONZALES. Within today and early tomorrow. 7 Ibid.
Hanggang Huwebes lang tayo, eh. 8 The Senate Committee was chaired by Senator Neptali
HON. AQUINO. Kinakailangang palusutin natin ito. Kung Gonzales with Senators Agapito Aquino and John Osmena
mabigyan tayo ng kopya bukas and you are not objecting as members. The House Committee was chaired by
naman kayo naman ganoon din. Congressman Magdaleno M. Palacol with Congressmen
HON. ROCO. Editing na lang because on a physical Raul Roco, Salvador H. Escudero III and Joaquin Chipeco,
consolidation nga ito, eh. Yung mga provisions naman namin Jr., as members.
wala sa inyo. (TSN, proceedings of Bicameral Conference 9 Held at Constancia Room, Ciudad Fernandina, Greenhills,
Committee of 6 June 1989, submitted by E.S. Bongon, pp. San Juan, Metro Manila.
III-4 — III-5). 10 See Compliance submitted by intervenor Roco dated
55 Sec. 5(a & c), Sec. 8, Section 9(a). January 28, 1997.
56 Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16. 11 Record No. 137, June 8, 1989, pp. 960-961.
57 It would thus appear that the Senate's "cautious 12 Agpalo, op cit., p. 38 citing US v. Toribio, 15 Phil 7 (1910);
approach" in the implementation of the system of initiative as US v. Navarro, 19 Phil 134 (1911).
a mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution, as 13 Francisco, Statutory Construction, 3rd ed., (1968) pp. 145-
expressed by Senator Gonzales in the course of his 146 citing Crawford, Statutory Construction, pp. 337-338.
sponsorship of Senate Bill No. 17 in the Bicameral 14 Black, Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation
Conference Committee meeting and in his sponsorship of the of the Laws (2nd ed), pp. 258-259. See also Commissioner
Committee's Report, might have insidiously haunted the of Custom v. Relunia, 105 Phil 875 (1959); People v. Yabut,
preparation of the consolidated version of Senate Bill No. 17 58 Phil 499 (1933).
and House Bill No. 21505. In the first he said: 15 Alcantara, Statutes, 1990 ed., p. 26 citing Dwarris on
Senate Bill No. 17 recognizes the initiatives and Statutes, p. 237.
referendum are recent innovations in our political 16 Entitled In re: Rules and Regulations Governing the
system. And recognizing that, it has adopted a Conduct of Initiative on the Constitution, and Initiative and
cautious approach by: first, allowing them only Referendum on National and Local Laws and promulgated
when the local legislative body had refused to act; on January 16, 1991 by the COMELEC with Commissioner
second, not more frequently than once a year; and, Haydee B. Yorac as Acting Chairperson and Commissioners
third, limiting them to the national level. (I Record Alfredo E. Abueg, Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores,
of the Senate, No. 33, p. 871). Dario C. Rama and Magdara B. Dimaampao.
xxx xxx xxx 17 15 SCRA 569.
First, as I have said Mr. President, and I am saying 18 Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 6735.
for the nth time, that we are introducing a novel and 19 Sec. 5(b), R.A. No. 6735.
new system in politics. We have to adopt first a 20 Sec. 7, R.A. No. 6735.
cautious approach. We feel it is prudent and wise 21 Sec. 9(b), R.A. No. 6735.
at this point in time, to limit those powers that may 22 Sec. 8, R.A. No. 6735 in relation to Sec. 4, Art. XVII of the
be the subject of initiatives and referendum to Constitution.
those exercisable or within the authority of the local 23 Sec. 9(b), R.A. No. 6735.
government units. (Id., p. 880). 24 Sec. 10, R.A. No. 6735.
In the second he stated: 25 Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed., p. 98.
But at any rate, as I have said, because this is new 26 See July 8, 1986 Debates of the Concom, p. 399.
in our political system, the Senate decided on a 27 1995 ed., p. 1207.
more cautious approach and limiting it only to the 28 Cruz, op cit., p. 99.
local general units. (TSN of the proceedings of the 29 320 US 99.
Bicameral Conference Committee on 6 June 1989, 30 Balbuena v. Secretary of Education, 110 Phil 150 (1910).
submitted by stenographer Nora R, pp. 1-2 to 1-3). 31 People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil 328 (1939).
In the last he declared: 32 Calalang v. Williams, 70 Phil 726 (1940).
The initiatives and referendum are new tools of democracy; 33 Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, 39 Phil 669 (1919).
therefore, we have decided to be cautious in our approach. 34 International Hardwood v. Pangil Federation of Labor, 70
Hence, 1) we limited initiative and referendum to the local Phil 602 (1940).
government units; 2) that initiative can only be exercised if 35 Phil. Association of Colleges and Universities v. Secretary
the local legislative cannot be exercised more frequently that of Education, 97 Phil 806 (1955).
once every year. (IV Records of the Senate, No. 143, pp. 15- 36 Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481 (1990); Agustin v. Edu, 88
9-1510). SCRA 195 (1979).
58 Section 20, RA. No. 6735. 37 Pepsi Cola Bottling Co. vs. Municipality of Tanawan Leyte,
59 People v. Rosenthal, 68 Phil. 328 [1939]; ISAGANI A. 69 SCRA 460 (1976).
CRUZ, Philippine Political Law 86 [1996] (hereafter CRUZ). 38 Maceda v. Macaraig, 197 SCRA 771 (1991).
60 People v. Vera, 65 Phil. 56 [1937]; CRUZ, supra, 87. 39 Osmena v. Orbos, 220 SCRA 703 (1993).
61 Pelaez v. Auditor General, 122 Phil. 965, 974 [1965]. 40 Chiongbian v. Orbos, 245 SCRA 253 (1995).
62 Edu v. Ericta, 35 SCRA 481,497 [1970]. 41 Garcia v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 111511, October 5,
63 Sec. 7, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300. 1993.
64 Sec. 28, id. 42 Garcia, et al. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 111230,
65 Sec. 29, id. September 30, 1994.
66 Sec. 30, id. 43 Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. COMELEC, et al.,
PUNO, J., concurring and dissenting:: G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996.
1 Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 1986 ed., p. 38, citing, inter 44 Malonzo vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 127066, March
alia, US v. Tamparong 31 Phil. 321; Hernani v. Export Control 11, 1997.
Committee, 100 Phil. 973; People v. Purisima, 86 SCRA 542. FRANCISCO, J., concurring and dissenting:
2 Ibid, citing Torres v. Limjap, 56 Phil. 141. 1 Article II, Section 1, 1987 Constitution.
2 Article VI, Section 32, and Article XVII, Section 2, 1987 repealed, as the
Constitution. case may be;
3 Petition, p. 5. c.2 the proposition;
4 Paras v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 123619, c.3 the reason or
December 4, 1996. reasons therefor;
5 Tamayo v. Gsell, 35 Phil. 953, 980. c.4 that it is not one
6 Section 3 (a), Republic Act No 6735. of the exceptions
7 Section 3(a) [a.1], Republic Act No 6735. provided herein;
8 Uytengsu v. Republic, 95 Phil. 890, 893 c.5 signatures of
9 Petition in Intervention filed by Sen. Raul Roco, pp. 15-16. the petitioners or
PANGANIBAN, J., concurring and dissenting: registered voters;
1 Apart from its text on "national initiative" which could be and
used by analogy, RA 6735 contains sufficient provisions c.6 an abstract or
covering initiative on the Constitution, which are clear enough summary
and speak for themselves, like: proposition in not
Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. — The power of the people more than one
under a system of initiative and referendum to directly hundred (100)
propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in part, the words which shall
Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolution passed by any be legibly written or
legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of printed at the top of
this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. every page of the
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. — For purposes of this Act, the petition.
following terms shall mean: xxx xxx xxx
(a) "Initiative" is the power of the people Sec. 19. Applicability of the Omnibus Election Code. — The
to propose amendments to the Omnibus Election Code and other election laws, not
Constitution or to propose and enact inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, shall apply to all
legislation's through an election called initiatives and referenda.
for the purpose. Sec. 20. Rules and Regulations. — The Commission is
There are three (3) systems of initiative, namely: hereby empowered to promulgate such rules and regulations
a.1 Initiative on the Constitution which as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.
refers to a petition proposing (Emphasis supplied)
amendments to the Constitution; 2 G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996.
a.2 Initiative on statutes which refers to 3 237 SCRA 279, 282, September 30, 1994.
a petition proposing to enact a national 4 Sec. 20, R.A. 6735.
legislation; and 5 United States vs. Rosika Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655
a.3 Initiative on local legislation which (1929).
refers to a petition proposing to enact a
regional, provincial, city, municipal, or
barangay law, resolution or ordinance.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) "Plebiscite" is the electoral process
by which an initiative on the Constitution
is approved or rejected by the people
(f) "Petition" is the written instrument
containing the proposition and the
required number of signatories. It shall
be in a form to be determined by and
submitted to the Commission on
Elections, hereinafter referred to as the
Commission
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 5 Requirements. — . . .
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987
Constitution must have at least twelve
per centum (12 %) of the total number of
registered voters as signatories, of
which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum
(3%) of the registered voters therein.
Initiative on the Constitution may be
exercised only after five (5) years from
the ratification of the 1987 Constitution
and only once every five (5) years
thereafter.
Sec. 9. Effectivity of Initiative or Referendum Proposition. —
xxx xxx xxx
(b) The proposition in an initiative on the
Constitution approved by a majority of
the votes cast in the plebiscite shall
become effective as to the day of the
plebiscite.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) The petition shall state the following:
c.1 contents or text
of the proposed law
sought to be
enacted, approved
or rejected,
amended or
G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 CARPIO, J.:
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH 6,327,952 The Case
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, These are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the
vs. Commission on Elections ("COMELEC") denying due course to an initiative
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent. petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.
x--------------------------------------------------------x Antecedent Facts
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., Intervenor. On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino
x ------------------------------------------------------ x and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino Group"), with other groups 1 and individuals,
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE, and CARLOS P. Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the
MEDINA, JR., Intervenors. COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section
x------------------------------------------------------ x 5(b) and (c)2 and Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA, Intervenor. Referendum Act ("RA 6735").
x--------------------------------------------------------x The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson Dr. Carolina Pagaduan-Araullo, individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters,
BAYAN MUNA represented by its Chairperson Dr. Reynaldo Lesaca, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its
KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented by its Secretary General Joel registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election
Maglunsod, HEAD represented by its Secretary General Dr. Gene Alzona registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals.
Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito The Lambino Group's initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by
Cabillas, MIGRANTE represented by its Chairperson Concepcion Bragas- modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department)4 and Sections 1-4 of
Regalado, GABRIELA represented by its Secretary General Emerenciana de Article VII (Executive Department)5 and by adding Article XVIII entitled "Transitory
Jesus, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina Provisions."6 These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-
Palabay, ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson Eleanor de Guzman, Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The
LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS represented by Chair Vencer Crisostomo Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC
Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the League of Concerned Professionals and should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters' ratification:
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO of the Solidarity of Health Against DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF
Charter Change, DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS of Health Action for Human THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
Rights, Intervenors. GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL
x--------------------------------------------------------x TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, Intervenors. SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?
x--------------------------------------------------------x On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, Intervenor. COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
x ------------------------------------------------------- x Provisions) of their initiative.7
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, Intervenor. The Ruling of the COMELEC
x---------------------------------------------------------x On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO, Intervenor. the Lambino Group's petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative
x ------------------------------------------------------- x petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court's ruling in
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. Santiago v. Commission on Elections8 declaring RA 6735 inadequate to
ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution.9
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of
GAT INCIONG, Intervenors. certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August
x ------------------------------------------------------- x 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition.
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA, The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of
Intervenors. discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding
x -------------------------------------------------------- x precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of
(PTGWO) and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Intervenors. the "will of the sovereign people."
x -------------------------------------------------------- x In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners ("Binay Group") pray that the Court require
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by its President, MANUEL respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be
VILLAR, JR., Intervenor. cited in contempt for the COMELEC's verification of signatures and for
x ------------------------------------------------------- x "entertaining" the Lambino Group's petition despite the permanent injunction in
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., Intervenor. Santiago. The Court treated the Binay Group's petition as an opposition-in-
x ------------------------------------------------------- x intervention.
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, In his Comment to the Lambino Group's petition, the Solicitor General joined
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and RANDALL TABAYOYONG, Intervenors. causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite the
x -------------------------------------------------------- x Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES, CEBU CITY AND CEBU its implementing rules "as temporary devises to implement the system of
PROVINCE CHAPTERS, Intervenors. initiative."
x --------------------------------------------------------x Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and SENATORS opposing the Lambino Group's petition. The supporting intervenors10 uniformly
SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY MADRIGAL, JINGGOY ESTRADA, hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying
ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO LACSON, Intervenors. on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors11 hold the contrary view
x -----------------------------------------------------x and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, challenged (1) the Lambino Group's standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of
Intervenors. the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group's
x -----------------------------------------------------x compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution;12 (4)
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A.V. the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as
SAGUISAG, Petitioners, provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the
vs. Lambino Group's compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. limiting initiative petitions to only one subject.
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. 2006. After receiving the parties' memoranda, the Court considered the case
SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe,, submitted for resolution.
Respondent. The Issues
The petitions raise the following issues:
DECISION
1. Whether the Lambino Group's initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article is signing. Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the
XVII of the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution through a people's subscription requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A
initiative; person permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 to a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the
"incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting,
implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition that
3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due might not be to the signer's liking. This danger seems particularly
course to the Lambino Group's petition. acute when, in this case, the person giving the description is the
The Ruling of the Court drafter of the petition, who obviously has a vested interest in
There is no merit to the petition. seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify for the
The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the ballot.17 (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Constitution for conducting a people's initiative. Thus, there is even no need to Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury,18 the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained:
revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the The purposes of "full text" provisions that apply to amendments by
Lambino Group's glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose
Constitution. For following the Court's ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient information so
discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections. that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the
1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the initiative petition."); x x x (publication of full text of amended
Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People constitutional provision required because it is "essential for the elector
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision to have x x x the section which is proposed to be added to or subtracted
that allows a people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must have this knowledge.
section states: Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote in the dark.")
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly (Emphasis supplied)
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least Moreover, "an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters of which nature and effect of that which is proposed" and failure to do so is "deceptive
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per and misleading" which renders the initiative void.19
centum of the registered voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments. However, the
an amendment "directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers
petition," thus: intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on people's initiative. In
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters particular, the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal
want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the that the framers intended that the people must first see the full text of the
proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the people must sign on
people when they are asked to sign? a petition containing such full text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No.
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the Lambino Group invokes as valid,
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as signatories."
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft? The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President. proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public
MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain
draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people.
propose this constitutional amendment. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often
proposal and pass it around for signature.13 (Emphasis supplied) pay those who gather the signatures.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the "draft of the proposed Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional
constitutional amendment" should be "ready and shown" to the people requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of
"before" they sign such proposal. The framers plainly stated that "before they proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the
sign there is already a draft shown to them." The framers also "envisioned" signatures - that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the
that the people should sign on the proposal itself because the proponents must full text of the proposed amendments.
"prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature." The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy
The essence of amendments "directly proposed by the people through of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group
initiative upon a petition" is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet20 after the oral arguments of
by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. First, the 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006. The
people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative signature sheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the signature sheet
can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must attached21 to the opposition in intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by
be embodied in a petition. intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra.
These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra's opposition and the signature sheet
amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing attached to the Lambino Group's Memorandum are the same. We reproduce
such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is "directly below the signature sheet in full:
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition" only if the people Province: City/Municipality: No. of
sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. Legislative District: Barangay: Verified
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the Signatur
petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such PROPOSITION: "DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI
attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF
signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A
before signing. Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO
prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN
proposed amendments before signing. GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY
The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed14 the concept of people's PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO
initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an ANOTHER?"
initiative clause. In almost all States15 which allow initiative petitions, the I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My
unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the signature herein which shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the
proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the Constitution signifies my support for the filing thereof.
people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the
Precinct Name Address Birthdat
proposed amendments.16
Number Last Name, First Name, MM/DD
The rationale for this requirement has been repeatedly explained in several
M.I.
decisions of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission,
the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit Court of 1
Appeals, declared: 2
[A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person 3
supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she
4
 5 DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting held
6 on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel, Manila.23 (Underscoring
supplied)
7 ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to
8 prepare the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August 2006 amended petition,
9 filed with the COMELEC. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 "support(s) the
10 porposals (sic) of the Consulatative (sic) Commission on Charter Change
through people's initiative and referendum as a mode of amending the 1987
_________________ _________________ Constitution." The proposals of the Consultative Commission24 are vastly
__________________
Barangay Official Witness different from the proposed changes of the Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006
Witness
(Print Name and Sign) (Print Name and Sign) petition or 30 August
(Print 2006
Name amended
and Sign) petition filed with the COMELEC.
For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all
There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the Lambino provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the Transitory
Group's proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the Provisions. The proposed revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary and
signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. the National Patrimony provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions that the
Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments before this Lambino Group's proposed changes do not touch. The Lambino Group's
Court on 26 September 2006. proposed changes purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the existing
The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift Constitution, including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions.
from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of The ULAP adopted Resolution No. 2006-02 on 14 January 2006 or more than six
government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of months before the filing of the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30 August 2006
the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. amended petition with the COMELEC. However, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02
Clearly, the signature sheet is not the "petition" that the framers of the Constitution does not establish that ULAP or the Lambino Group caused the circulation of the
envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of draft petition, together with the signature sheets, six months before the filing with
the Constitution. the COMELEC. On the contrary, ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 casts grave
Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature-gathering doubt on the Lambino Group's claim that they circulated the draft petition
from February to August 2006, the Lambino Group circulated, together with the together with the signature sheets. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not
signature sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group's draft petition which they refer at all to the draft petition or to the Lambino Group's proposed changes.
later filed on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC. When asked if his group also In their Manifestation explaining their amended petition before the COMELEC, the
circulated the draft of their amended petition filed on 30 August 2006 with the Lambino Group declared:
COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they circulated both. However, Atty. After the Petition was filed, Petitioners belatedly realized that the
Lambino changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the proposed amendments alleged in the Petition, more specifically,
draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 paragraph 3 of Section 4 and paragraph 2 of Section 5 of the Transitory
petition. Provisions were inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their
The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft of proposed amendments.
the 30 August 2006 amended petition almost seven months earlier in February The Lambino Group did not allege that they were amending the petition because
2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado's the amended petition was what they had shown to the people during the February
"Verification/Certification" of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30 to August 2006 signature-gathering. Instead, the Lambino Group alleged that the
August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states as follows: petition of 25 August 2006 "inaccurately stated and failed to correctly reflect their
I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in proposed amendments."
my personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of the The Lambino Group never alleged in the 25 August 2006 petition or the 30
Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP August 2006 amended petition with the COMELEC that they circulated printed
Resolution No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of the copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets. Likewise, the
mass of signatories hereto. (Emphasis supplied) Lambino Group did not allege in their present petition before this Court that they
The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to circulated printed copies of the draft petition together with the signature sheets.
the present petition. However, the "Official Website of the Union of Local The signature sheets do not also contain any indication that the draft petition is
Authorities of the Philippines"22 has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, attached to, or circulated with, the signature sheets.
which provides: It is only in their Consolidated Reply to the Opposition-in-Interventions that the
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02 Lambino Group first claimed that they circulated the "petition for initiative filed with
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE'S the COMELEC," thus:
CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH [T]here is persuasive authority to the effect that "(w)here there is not
PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF (sic) fraud, a signer who did not read the measure attached to a
AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION referendum petition cannot question his signature on the ground
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the that he did not understand the nature of the act." [82 C.J.S. S128h.
Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to Mo. State v. Sullivan, 224, S.W. 327, 283 Mo. 546.] Thus, the
support the proposals of the People's Consultative Commission on registered voters who signed the signature sheets circulated
Charter Change; together with the petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC
WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of below, are presumed to have understood the proposition contained in
Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional the petition. (Emphasis supplied)
reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional The Lambino Group's statement that they circulated to the people "the petition
Reforms signed by the members of the ULAP and the majority coalition for initiative filed with the COMELEC" appears an afterthought, made after the
of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in October intervenors Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Cebu City Chapter and Cebu
2005; Province Chapters) and Atty. Quadra had pointed out that the signature sheets
WHEREAS, the People's Consultative Commission on Charter Change did not contain the text of the proposed changes. In their Consolidated Reply, the
created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987 Lambino Group alleged that they circulated "the petition for initiative" but failed
Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December 2005; to mention the amended petition. This contradicts what Atty. Lambino finally
WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments stated during the oral arguments that what they circulated was the draft of the
in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of amended petition of 30 August 2006.
amending the 1987 Constitution; The Lambino Group cites as authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating that "a
WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and signer who did not read the measure attached to a referendum petition cannot
the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent question his signature on the ground that he did not understand the nature of the
assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional act." The Lambino Group quotes an authority that cites a proposed change
reform agenda through People's Initiative and Referendum without attached to the petition signed by the people. Even the authority the Lambino
prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same; Group quotes requires that the proposed change must be attached to the petition.
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, The same authority the Lambino Group quotes requires the people to sign on the
THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL petition itself.
AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE Indeed, it is basic in American jurisprudence that the proposed amendment must
PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE'S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) be incorporated with, or attached to, the initiative petition signed by the people. In
COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE'S the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed changes were not
INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE
1987 CONSTITUTION;
incorporated with, or attached to, the signature sheets. The Lambino Group's Section 5(2) does not state that the elections for the regular Parliament will be
citation of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls the rug from under their feet. held simultaneously with the 2007 local elections. This section merely requires
It is extremely doubtful that the Lambino Group prepared, printed, circulated, from that the elections for the regular Parliament shall be held simultaneously with the
February to August 2006 during the signature-gathering period, the draft of the local elections without specifying the year.
petition or amended petition they filed later with the COMELEC. The Lambino Petitioner Atty. Lambino, who claims to be the principal drafter of the proposed
Group are less than candid with this Court in their belated claim that they printed changes, could have easily written the word "next" before the phrase "election of
and circulated, together with the signature sheets, the petition or amended all local government officials." This would have insured that the elections for the
petition. Nevertheless, even assuming the Lambino Group circulated the regular Parliament would be held in the next local elections following the
amended petition during the signature-gathering period, the Lambino Group ratification of the proposed changes. However, the absence of the word "next"
admitted circulating only very limited copies of the petition. allows the interim Parliament to schedule the elections for the regular Parliament
During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino expressly admitted that they printed simultaneously with any future local elections.
only 100,000 copies of the draft petition they filed more than six months later Thus, the members of the interim Parliament will decide the expiration of their own
with the COMELEC. Atty. Lambino added that he also asked other supporters to term of office. This allows incumbent members of the House of Representatives
print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state with certainty how to hold office beyond their current three-year term of office, and possibly even
many additional copies the other supporters printed. Atty. Lambino could only beyond the five-year term of office of regular members of the Parliament.
assure this Court of the printing of 100,000 copies because he himself Certainly, this is contrary to the representations of Atty. Lambino and his
caused the printing of these 100,000 copies. group to the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets. Atty.
Likewise, in the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006, the Lambino and his group deceived the 6.3 million signatories, and even the
Lambino Group expressly admits that "petitioner Lambino initiated the entire nation.
printing and reproduction of 100,000 copies of the petition for initiative x x This lucidly shows the absolute need for the people to sign an initiative petition
x."25 This admission binds the Lambino Group and establishes beyond any that contains the full text of the proposed amendments to avoid fraud or
doubt that the Lambino Group failed to show the full text of the proposed misrepresentation. In the present initiative, the 6.3 million signatories had to rely
changes to the great majority of the people who signed the signature sheets. on the verbal representations of Atty. Lambino and his group because the
Thus, of the 6.3 million signatories, only 100,000 signatories could have received signature sheets did not contain the full text of the proposed changes. The result
with certainty one copy each of the petition, assuming a 100 percent distribution is a grand deception on the 6.3 million signatories who were led to believe that
with no wastage. If Atty. Lambino and company attached one copy of the petition the proposed changes would require the holding in 2007 of elections for the
to each signature sheet, only 100,000 signature sheets could have circulated with regular Parliament simultaneously with the local elections.
the petition. Each signature sheet contains space for ten signatures. Assuming The Lambino Group's initiative springs another surprise on the people who signed
ten people signed each of these 100,000 signature sheets with the attached the signature sheets. The proposed changes mandate the interim Parliament to
petition, the maximum number of people who saw the petition before they signed make further amendments or revisions to the Constitution. The proposed Section
the signature sheets would not exceed 1,000,000. 4(4), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, provides:
With only 100,000 printed copies of the petition, it would be physically impossible Section 4(4). Within forty-five days from ratification of these
for all or a great majority of the 6.3 million signatories to have seen the petition amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to propose
before they signed the signature sheets. The inescapable conclusion is that amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution consistent with
the Lambino Group failed to show to the 6.3 million signatories the full text the principles of local autonomy, decentralization and a strong
of the proposed changes. If ever, not more than one million signatories saw the bureaucracy. (Emphasis supplied)
petition before they signed the signature sheets. During the oral arguments, Atty. Lambino stated that this provision is a
In any event, the Lambino Group's signature sheets do not contain the full text of "surplusage" and the Court and the people should simply ignore it. Far from being
the proposed changes, either on the face of the signature sheets, or as attachment a surplusage, this provision invalidates the Lambino Group's initiative.
with an indication in the signature sheet of such attachment. Petitioner Atty. Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift from the Bicameral-
Lambino admitted this during the oral arguments, and this admission binds Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system. American jurisprudence on
the Lambino Group. This fact is also obvious from a mere reading of the initiatives outlaws this as logrolling - when the initiative petition incorporates an
signature sheet. This omission is fatal. The failure to so include the text of the unrelated subject matter in the same petition. This puts the people in a dilemma
proposed changes in the signature sheets renders the initiative void for non- since they can answer only either yes or no to the entire proposition, forcing them
compliance with the constitutional requirement that the amendment must be to sign a petition that effectively contains two propositions, one of which they may
"directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition." The find unacceptable.
signature sheet is not the "petition" envisioned in the initiative clause of the Under American jurisprudence, the effect of logrolling is to nullify the entire
Constitution. proposition and not only the unrelated subject matter. Thus, in Fine v.
For sure, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature Firestone,29 the Supreme Court of Florida declared:
sheets did not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing. They could Combining multiple propositions into one proposal constitutes
not have known the nature and effect of the proposed changes, among which are: "logrolling," which, if our judicial responsibility is to mean
1. The term limits on members of the legislature will be lifted and anything, we cannot permit. The very broadness of the proposed
thus members of Parliament can be re-elected indefinitely;26 amendment amounts to logrolling because the electorate cannot know
2. The interim Parliament can continue to function indefinitely until its what it is voting on - the amendment's proponents' simplistic
members, who are almost all the present members of Congress, decide explanation reveals only the tip of the iceberg. x x x x The ballot must
to call for new parliamentary elections. Thus, the members of the give the electorate fair notice of the proposed amendment being voted
interim Parliament will determine the expiration of their own term on. x x x x The ballot language in the instant case fails to do that. The
of office; 27 very broadness of the proposal makes it impossible to state what it will
3. Within 45 days from the ratification of the proposed changes, the affect and effect and violates the requirement that proposed
interim Parliament shall convene to propose further amendments amendments embrace only one subject. (Emphasis supplied)
or revisions to the Constitution.28 Logrolling confuses and even deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v.
These three specific amendments are not stated or even indicated in the Lambino McAlpine,30 the Supreme Court of Alaska warned against "inadvertence, stealth
Group's signature sheets. The people who signed the signature sheets had no and fraud" in logrolling:
idea that they were proposing these amendments. These three proposed changes Whenever a bill becomes law through the initiative process, all of the problems
are highly controversial. The people could not have inferred or divined these that the single-subject rule was enacted to prevent are exacerbated. There is a
proposed changes merely from a reading or rereading of the contents of the greater danger of logrolling, or the deliberate intermingling of issues to increase
signature sheets. the likelihood of an initiative's passage, and there is a greater opportunity for
During the oral arguments, petitioner Atty. Lambino stated that he and his group "inadvertence, stealth and fraud" in the enactment-by-initiative process. The
assured the people during the signature-gathering that the elections for the drafters of an initiative operate independently of any structured or supervised
regular Parliament would be held during the 2007 local elections if the process. They often emphasize particular provisions of their proposition, while
proposed changes were ratified before the 2007 local elections. However, the text remaining silent on other (more complex or less appealing) provisions, when
of the proposed changes belies this. communicating to the public. x x x Indeed, initiative promoters typically use
The proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, as found in the simplistic advertising to present their initiative to potential petition-signers
amended petition, states: and eventual voters. Many voters will never read the full text of the initiative
Section 5(2). The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the before the election. More importantly, there is no process for amending or splitting
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held the several provisions in an initiative proposal. These difficulties clearly distinguish
simultaneously with the election of all local government officials. the initiative from the legislative process. (Emphasis supplied)
x x x x (Emphasis supplied) Thus, the present initiative appears merely a preliminary step for further
amendments or revisions to be undertaken by the interim Parliament as a
constituent assembly. The people who signed the signature sheets could not have Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the first and second modes, applies to "[A]ny
known that their signatures would be used to propose an amendment mandating amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution." In contrast, Section 2 of Article
the interim Parliament to propose further amendments or revisions to the XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to "[A]mendments to this
Constitution. Constitution." This distinction was intentional as shown by the following
Apparently, the Lambino Group inserted the proposed Section 4(4) to compel the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission:
interim Parliament to amend or revise again the Constitution within 45 days from MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
ratification of the proposed changes, or before the May 2007 elections. In the May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the
absence of the proposed Section 4(4), the interim Parliament has the discretion Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we
whether to amend or revise again the Constitution. With the proposed Section submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
4(4), the initiative proponents want the interim Parliament mandated to embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This
immediately amend or revise again the Constitution. is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the
However, the signature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in amending permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
or revising again so soon the Constitution. The signature sheets do not also The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held,
explain what specific amendments or revisions the initiative proponents want the directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon
interim Parliament to make, and why there is a need for such further amendments petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
or revisions. The people are again left in the dark to fathom the nature and This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report
effect of the proposed changes. Certainly, such an initiative is not "directly No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of
proposed by the people" because the people do not even know the nature and initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary developments
effect of the proposed changes. this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending
There is another intriguing provision inserted in the Lambino Group's amended the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members
petition of 30 August 2006. The proposed Section 4(3) of the Transitory Provisions felt that this system of initiative should be limited to amendments
states: to the Constitution and should not extend to the revision of the
Section 4(3). Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section
members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. x x x x
After 30 June 2010, not one of the present Senators will remain as member of xxxx
Parliament if the interim Parliament does not schedule elections for the regular MS. AQUINO: [I] am seriously bothered by providing this process of
Parliament by 30 June 2010. However, there is no counterpart provision for the initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the
present members of the House of Representatives even if their term of office will sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning
all end on 30 June 2007, three years earlier than that of half of the present Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting
Senators. Thus, all the present members of the House will remain members of the it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
interim Parliament after 30 June 2010. MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a
The term of the incumbent President ends on 30 June 2010. Thereafter, the Prime while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of
Minister exercises all the powers of the President. If the interim Parliament does amendment and should not expand into a revision which
not schedule elections for the regular Parliament by 30 June 2010, the Prime contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the
Minister will come only from the present members of the House of sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
Representatives to the exclusion of the present Senators. MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to
The signature sheets do not explain this discrimination against the Senators. The distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to
6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets could not have known include the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation
that their signatures would be used to discriminate against the Senators. to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply to
They could not have known that their signatures would be used to limit, after amendments?
30 June 2010, the interim Parliament's choice of Prime Minister only to MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the
members of the existing House of Representatives. Committee.
An initiative that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
people the full text of the proposed amendments is most likely a deception, and xxxx
can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. That is why the Constitution MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's
requires that an initiative must be "directly proposed by the people x x x in a proposed amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it
petition" - meaning that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla
text of the proposed amendments. On so vital an issue as amending the nation's when he made the distinction between the words "amendments"
fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed amendments cannot be and "revision"?
hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and
unnamed, faceless, and unelected individuals. "revision" should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative
The Constitution entrusts to the people the power to directly propose amendments is concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."
to the Constitution. This Court trusts the wisdom of the people even if the MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.31 (Emphasis supplied)
members of this Court do not personally know the people who sign the petition. There can be no mistake about it. The framers of the Constitution intended, and
However, this trust emanates from a fundamental assumption: the full text wrote, a clear distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of the Constitution.
of the proposed amendment is first shown to the people before they sign The framers intended, and wrote, that only Congress or a constitutional
the petition, not after they have signed the petition. convention may propose revisions to the Constitution. The framers intended, and
In short, the Lambino Group's initiative is void and unconstitutional because it wrote, that a people's initiative may propose only amendments to the Constitution.
dismally fails to comply with the requirement of Section 2, Article XVII of the Where the intent and language of the Constitution clearly withhold from the people
Constitution that the initiative must be "directly proposed by the people through the power to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose
initiative upon a petition." revisions even as they are empowered to propose amendments.
2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution This has been the consistent ruling of state supreme courts in the United States.
Disallowing Revision through Initiatives Thus, in McFadden v. Jordan,32 the Supreme Court of California ruled:
A people's initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of The initiative power reserved by the people by amendment to the
the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional Constitution x x x applies only to the proposing and the adopting
convention can propose both amendments and revisions to the Constitution. or rejecting of 'laws and amendments to the Constitution' and
Article XVII of the Constitution provides: does not purport to extend to a constitutional revision. x x x x It is
ARTICLE XVII thus clear that a revision of the Constitution may be accomplished only
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS through ratification by the people of a revised constitution proposed by
Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be a convention called for that purpose as outlined hereinabove.
proposed by: Consequently if the scope of the proposed initiative measure
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or (hereinafter termed 'the measure') now before us is so broad that if such
(2) A constitutional convention. measure became law a substantial revision of our present state
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly Constitution would be effected, then the measure may not properly be
proposed by the people through initiative x x x. (Emphasis supplied) submitted to the electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a
Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the constitutional convention, and the writ sought by petitioner should issue.
Constitution. The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Members. The second mode is through a constitutional convention. The third Likewise, the Supreme Court of Oregon ruled in Holmes v. Appling:33
mode is through a people's initiative.
 It is well established that when a constitution specifies the manner in reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a
which it may be amended or revised, it can be altered by those who revision."37 Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a
favor amendments, revision, or other change only through the use of proper subject of inquiry. Thus, "a change in the nature of [the] basic
one of the specified means. The constitution itself recognizes that there governmental plan" includes "change in its fundamental framework or the
is a difference between an amendment and a revision; and it is obvious fundamental powers of its Branches."38 A change in the nature of the basic
from an examination of the measure here in question that it is not an governmental plan also includes changes that "jeopardize the traditional form of
amendment as that term is generally understood and as it is used in government and the system of check and balances."39
Article IV, Section 1. The document appears to be based in large part Under both the quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Group's initiative is
on the revision of the constitution drafted by the 'Commission for a revision and not merely an amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Group's
Constitutional Revision' authorized by the 1961 Legislative Assembly, proposed changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on the Legislature and Article
x x x and submitted to the 1963 Legislative Assembly. It failed to receive VII on the Executive - affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire Constitution.40
in the Assembly the two-third's majority vote of both houses required by Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of
Article XVII, Section 2, and hence failed of adoption, x x x. government, from presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a
While differing from that document in material respects, the measure unicameral legislature.
sponsored by the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorough overhauling of A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when
the present constitution x x x. the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are
To call it an amendment is a misnomer. reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A
Whether it be a revision or a new constitution, it is not such a measure shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-
as can be submitted to the people through the initiative. If a revision, it Parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and
is subject to the requirements of Article XVII, Section 2(1); if a new executive branches is a radical change in the structure of government.
constitution, it can only be proposed at a convention called in the The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power
manner provided in Article XVII, Section 1. x x x x alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution.
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there can be no dispute that a people's initiative can Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the system of
only propose amendments to the Constitution since the Constitution itself limits checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the
initiatives to amendments. There can be no deviation from the constitutionally Constitution.
prescribed modes of revising the Constitution. A popular clamor, even one By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-
backed by 6.3 million signatures, cannot justify a deviation from the specific Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the
modes prescribed in the Constitution itself. Office of the President and the abolition of one chamber of Congress, is beyond
As the Supreme Court of Oklahoma ruled in In re Initiative Petition No. 364:34 doubt a revision, not a mere amendment. On the face alone of the Lambino
It is a fundamental principle that a constitution can only be revised Group's proposed changes, it is readily apparent that the changes will radically
or amended in the manner prescribed by the instrument itself, and alter the framework of government as set forth in the Constitution. Father
that any attempt to revise a constitution in a manner other than the Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a leading member of the Constitutional Commission, writes:
one provided in the instrument is almost invariably treated as An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and separable
extra-constitutional and revolutionary. x x x x "While it is universally provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment is to improve specific
conceded that the people are sovereign and that they have power to parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary to meet new conditions or to
adopt a constitution and to change their own work at will, they must, in suppress specific portions that may have become obsolete or that are judged to
doing so, act in an orderly manner and according to the settled be dangerous. In revision, however, the guiding original intention and plan
principles of constitutional law. And where the people, in adopting a contemplates a re-examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the
constitution, have prescribed the method by which the people may alter document which have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine
or amend it, an attempt to change the fundamental law in violation of how and to what extent they should be altered. Thus, for instance a switch from
the self-imposed restrictions, is unconstitutional." x x x x (Emphasis the presidential system to a parliamentary system would be a revision
supplied) because of its over-all impact on the entire constitutional structure. So
This Court, whose members are sworn to defend and protect the Constitution, would a switch from a bicameral system to a unicameral system be because
cannot shirk from its solemn oath and duty to insure compliance with the clear of its effect on other important provisions of the Constitution.41 (Emphasis
command of the Constitution ― that a people's initiative may only amend, never supplied)
revise, the Constitution. In Adams v. Gunter,42 an initiative petition proposed the amendment of the
The question is, does the Lambino Group's initiative constitute an amendment or Florida State constitution to shift from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
revision of the Constitution? If the Lambino Group's initiative constitutes a The issue turned on whether the initiative "was defective and unauthorized where
revision, then the present petition should be dismissed for being outside the scope [the] proposed amendment would x x x affect several other provisions of [the]
of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Constitution." The Supreme Court of Florida, striking down the initiative as outside
Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a the scope of the initiative clause, ruled as follows:
revision of a constitution. One of the earliest cases that recognized the distinction The proposal here to amend Section 1 of Article III of the 1968
described the fundamental difference in this manner: Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only
[T]he very term "constitution" implies an instrument of a permanent and many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a
abiding nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision change in the form of the legislative branch of government, which
indicate the will of the people that the underlying principles upon has been in existence in the United States Congress and in all of the
which it rests, as well as the substantial entirety of the instrument, states of the nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be
shall be of a like permanent and abiding nature. On the other hand, the difficult to visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of a
significance of the term "amendment" implies such an addition or House and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It
change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an would not only radically change the whole pattern of government
improvement, or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed.35 in this state and tear apart the whole fabric of the Constitution, but
(Emphasis supplied) would even affect the physical facilities necessary to carry on
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the government.
constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of xxxx
checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters the substantial We conclude with the observation that if such proposed amendment
entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial were adopted by the people at the General Election and if the
provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to Legislature at its next session should fail to submit further amendments
a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle to revise and clarify the numerous inconsistencies and conflicts which
involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while would result, or if after submission of appropriate amendments the
amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. people should refuse to adopt them, simple chaos would prevail in the
In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to government of this State. The same result would obtain from an
the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part amendment, for instance, of Section 1 of Article V, to provide for only a
test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks Supreme Court and Circuit Courts-and there could be other examples
whether the proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change too numerous to detail. These examples point unerringly to the answer.
directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of The purpose of the long and arduous work of the hundreds of men and
numerous existing provisions."36 The court examines only the number of women and many sessions of the Legislature in bringing about the
provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. Constitution of 1968 was to eliminate inconsistencies and conflicts and
The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in to give the State a workable, accordant, homogenous and up-to-date
the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will "accomplish such far document. All of this could disappear very quickly if we were to hold that
 it could be amended in the manner proposed in the initiative petition ballot measure "will refashion the most basic principles of Oregon
here.43 (Emphasis supplied) constitutional law," the trial court correctly held that it violated Article
The rationale of the Adams decision applies with greater force to the present XVII, section 2, and cannot appear on the ballot without the prior
petition. The Lambino Group's initiative not only seeks a shift from a bicameral to approval of the legislature.
a unicameral legislature, it also seeks to merge the executive and legislative We first address Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section 2(1), does
departments. The initiative in Adams did not even touch the executive not prohibit revisions instituted by initiative. In Holmes v. Appling, x x x,
department. the Supreme Court concluded that a revision of the constitution may not
In Adams, the Supreme Court of Florida enumerated 18 sections of the Florida be accomplished by initiative, because of the provisions of Article XVII,
Constitution that would be affected by the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral section 2. After reviewing Article XVII, section1, relating to proposed
legislature. In the Lambino Group's present initiative, no less than 105 amendments, the court said:
provisions of the Constitution would be affected based on the count of "From the foregoing it appears that Article IV, Section 1, authorizes the
Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr.44 There is no doubt that the Lambino use of the initiative as a means of amending the Oregon Constitution,
Group's present initiative seeks far more radical changes in the structure of but it contains no similar sanction for its use as a means of revising the
government than the initiative in Adams. constitution." x x x x
The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between "amendment" and It then reviewed Article XVII, section 2, relating to revisions, and said:
"revision" is only one of procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group "It is the only section of the constitution which provides the means for
posits that when a deliberative body drafts and proposes changes to the constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an individual,
Constitution, substantive changes are called "revisions" because members of the through the initiative, may place such a measure before the electorate."
deliberative body work full-time on the changes. However, the same xxxx
substantive changes, when proposed through an initiative, are called Accordingly, we reject Mabon's argument that Article XVII, section
"amendments" because the changes are made by ordinary people who do 2, does not apply to constitutional revisions proposed by initiative.
not make an "occupation, profession, or vocation" out of such endeavor. (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, the Lambino Group makes the following exposition of their theory in their Similarly, this Court must reject the Lambino Group's theory which negates the
Memorandum: express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution.
99. With this distinction in mind, we note that the constitutional We can visualize amendments and revisions as a spectrum, at one end green for
provisions expressly provide for both "amendment" and "revision" when amendments and at the other end red for revisions. Towards the middle of the
it speaks of legislators and constitutional delegates, while the same spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties arise in determining whether there is an
provisions expressly provide only for "amendment" when it speaks of amendment or revision. The present initiative is indisputably located at the far end
the people. It would seem that the apparent distinction is based on the of the red spectrum where revision begins. The present initiative seeks a radical
actual experience of the people, that on one hand the common people overhaul of the existing separation of powers among the three co-equal
in general are not expected to work full-time on the matter of correcting departments of government, requiring far-reaching amendments in several
the constitution because that is not their occupation, profession or sections and articles of the Constitution.
vocation; while on the other hand, the legislators and constitutional Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution
convention delegates are expected to work full-time on the same matter without affecting any other section or article, the change may generally be
because that is their occupation, profession or vocation. Thus, the considered an amendment and not a revision. For example, a change reducing
difference between the words "revision" and "amendment" pertain the voting age from 18 years to 15 years 47 is an amendment and not a revision.
only to the process or procedure of coming up with the Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from
corrections, for purposes of interpreting the constitutional provisions. 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision. 48 Also, a change
100. Stated otherwise, the difference between "amendment" and requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the
"revision" cannot reasonably be in the substance or extent of the Presidency is an amendment and not a revision.49
correction. x x x x (Underlining in the original; boldfacing supplied) The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or
The Lambino Group in effect argues that if Congress or a constitutional articles of the Constitution other than the specific provision being amended. These
convention had drafted the same proposed changes that the Lambino Group changes do not also affect the structure of government or the system of checks-
wrote in the present initiative, the changes would constitute a revision of the and-balances among or within the three branches. These three examples are
Constitution. Thus, the Lambino Group concedes that the proposed changes located at the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red end where the
in the present initiative constitute a revision if Congress or a constitutional revision sought by the present petition is located.
convention had drafted the changes. However, since the Lambino Group as However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a
private individuals drafted the proposed changes, the changes are merely revision. A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a
amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group trivializes the serious matter revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the word
of changing the fundamental law of the land. "republican" with "monarchic" or "theocratic" in Section 1, Article II 50 of the
The express intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of government and the
contradict the Lambino Group's theory. Where the intent of the framers and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will
language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated, courts do not deviate have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions,
from such categorical intent and language.45 Any theory espousing a construction as well as how it affects the structure of government, the carefully crafted system
contrary to such intent and language deserves scant consideration. More so, if of checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the existing
such theory wreaks havoc by creating inconsistencies in the form of government Constitution.
established in the Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of any jurisprudential Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of
mooring and inviting inconsistencies in the Constitution, only exposes the a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to
flimsiness of the Lambino Group's position. Any theory advocating that a proposed undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions,
change involving a radical structural change in government does not constitute a but also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions
revision justly deserves rejection. normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or
The Lambino Group simply recycles a theory that initiative proponents in constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions
American jurisdictions have attempted to advance without any success. In Lowe allow people's initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative
v. Keisling,46 the Supreme Court of Oregon rejected this theory, thus: bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not
Mabon argues that Article XVII, section 2, does not apply to changes to revisions.
the constitution proposed by initiative. His theory is that Article XVII, In the present initiative, the Lambino Group's proposed Section 2 of the Transitory
section 2 merely provides a procedure by which the legislature Provisions states:
can propose a revision of the constitution, but it does not affect Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
proposed revisions initiated by the people. and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Plaintiffs argue that the proposed ballot measure constitutes a of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
wholesale change to the constitution that cannot be enacted through and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of
the initiative process. They assert that the distinction between Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
amendment and revision is determined by reviewing the scope and 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
subject matter of the proposed enactment, and that revisions are not Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
limited to "a formal overhauling of the constitution." They argue that this amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
ballot measure proposes far reaching changes outside the lines of the government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
original instrument, including profound impacts on existing fundamental The basic rule in statutory construction is that if a later law is irreconcilably
rights and radical restructuring of the government's relationship with a inconsistent with a prior law, the later law prevails. This rule also applies to
defined group of citizens. Plaintiffs assert that, because the proposed construction of constitutions. However, the Lambino Group's draft of Section 2 of
the Transitory Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction by stating that In dismissing the Lambino Group's initiative petition, the COMELEC en banc
in case of such irreconcilable inconsistency, the earlier provision "shall be merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago and People's Initiative for
amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of government." The Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. COMELEC.52 For following this
effect is to freeze the two irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one "shall be Court's ruling, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the COMELEC. On
amended," which requires a future separate constitutional amendment. this ground alone, the present petition warrants outright dismissal. Thus, this
Realizing the absurdity of the need for such an amendment, petitioner Atty. Court should reiterate its unanimous ruling in PIRMA:
Lambino readily conceded during the oral arguments that the requirement of a The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
future amendment is a "surplusage." In short, Atty. Lambino wants to reinstate the discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
rule of statutory construction so that the later provision automatically prevails in dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
case of irreconcilable inconsistency. However, it is not as simple as that. complied with the dispositions in the Decisions of this Court in G.R. No.
The irreconcilable inconsistency envisioned in the proposed Section 2 of the 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June
Transitory Provisions is not between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 10, 1997.
Constitution and a provision in the proposed changes. The inconsistency is 5. Conclusion
between a provision in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and the "Parliamentary The Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land, deserves the utmost respect
system of government," and the inconsistency shall be resolved in favor of a and obedience of all the citizens of this nation. No one can trivialize the
"unicameral parliamentary form of government." Constitution by cavalierly amending or revising it in blatant violation of the clearly
Now, what "unicameral parliamentary form of government" do the Lambino specified modes of amendment and revision laid down in the Constitution itself.
Group's proposed changes refer to ― the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or To allow such change in the fundamental law is to set adrift the Constitution in
New Zealand models, which are among the few countries with unicameral unchartered waters, to be tossed and turned by every dominant political group of
parliaments? The proposed changes could not possibly refer to the traditional the day. If this Court allows today a cavalier change in the Constitution outside
and well-known parliamentary forms of government ― the British, French, the constitutionally prescribed modes, tomorrow the new dominant political group
Spanish, German, Italian, Canadian, Australian, or Malaysian models, which have that comes will demand its own set of changes in the same cavalier and
all bicameral parliaments. Did the people who signed the signature sheets realize unconstitutional fashion. A revolving-door constitution does not augur well for the
that they were adopting the Bangladeshi, Singaporean, Israeli, or New Zealand rule of law in this country.
parliamentary form of government? An overwhelming majority − 16,622,111 voters comprising 76.3 percent of the
This drives home the point that the people's initiative is not meant for revisions of total votes cast53 − approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on 11
the Constitution but only for amendments. A shift from the present Bicameral- February 1987. That approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the
Presidential to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system requires harmonizing several full expression of the people's sovereign will. That approval included the
provisions in many articles of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution prescribed modes for amending or revising the Constitution.
through a people's initiative will only result in gross absurdities in the Constitution. No amount of signatures, not even the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered by
In sum, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Lambino Group's initiative is a the Lambino Group, can change our Constitution contrary to the specific modes
revision and not an amendment. Thus, the present initiative is void and that the people, in their sovereign capacity, prescribed when they ratified the
unconstitutional because it violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution Constitution. The alternative is an extra-constitutional change, which means
limiting the scope of a people's initiative to "[A]mendments to this subverting the people's sovereign will and discarding the Constitution. This
Constitution." is one act the Court cannot and should never do. As the ultimate guardian of the
3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary Constitution, this Court is sworn to perform its solemn duty to defend and protect
The present petition warrants dismissal for failure to comply with the basic the Constitution, which embodies the real sovereign will of the people.
requirements of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the conduct and Incantations of "people's voice," "people's sovereign will," or "let the people
scope of a people's initiative to amend the Constitution. There is no need to revisit decide" cannot override the specific modes of changing the Constitution as
this Court's ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate or prescribed in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the Constitution ― the people's
wanting in essential terms and conditions" to cover the system of initiative to fundamental covenant that provides enduring stability to our society ― becomes
amend the Constitution. An affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not change the easily susceptible to manipulative changes by political groups gathering
outcome of the present petition. Thus, this Court must decline to revisit Santiago signatures through false promises. Then, the Constitution ceases to be the
which effectively ruled that RA 6735 does not comply with the requirements of the bedrock of the nation's stability.
Constitution to implement the initiative clause on amendments to the Constitution. The Lambino Group claims that their initiative is the "people's voice." However,
This Court must avoid revisiting a ruling involving the constitutionality of a statute the Lambino Group unabashedly states in ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02, in the
if the case before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds. Such verification of their petition with the COMELEC, that "ULAP maintains its
avoidance is a logical consequence of the well-settled doctrine that courts will not unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria
pass upon the constitutionality of a statute if the case can be resolved on some Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms." The Lambino Group thus admits
other grounds.51 that their "people's" initiative is an "unqualified support to the agenda" of the
Nevertheless, even assuming that RA 6735 is valid to implement the constitutional incumbent President to change the Constitution. This forewarns the Court to be
provision on initiatives to amend the Constitution, this will not change the result wary of incantations of "people's voice" or "sovereign will" in the present initiative.
here because the present petition violates Section 2, Article XVII of the This Court cannot betray its primordial duty to defend and protect the Constitution.
Constitution. To be a valid initiative, the present initiative must first comply with The Constitution, which embodies the people's sovereign will, is the bible of this
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution even before complying with RA 6735. Court. This Court exists to defend and protect the Constitution. To allow this
Even then, the present initiative violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which requires constitutionally infirm initiative, propelled by deceptively gathered signatures, to
that the "petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least twelve alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allow a desecration of the
per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories." Constitution. To allow such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court's raison
Section 5(b) of RA 6735 requires that the people must sign the "petition x x x as d'etre.
signatories." WHEREFORE, we DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153.
The 6.3 million signatories did not sign the petition of 25 August 2006 or the SO ORDERED.
amended petition of 30 August 2006 filed with the COMELEC. Only Atty. Panganiban, C.J., Puno, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Lambino, Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty. Alberto C. Agra signed Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-
the petition and amended petition as counsels for "Raul L. Lambino and Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Erico B. Aumentado, Petitioners." In the COMELEC, the Lambino Group, ____________________
claiming to act "together with" the 6.3 million signatories, merely attached the EN BANC
signature sheets to the petition and amended petition. Thus, the petition and G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
amended petition filed with the COMELEC did not even comply with the basic RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ERICO B. AUMENTADO, TOGETHER WITH
requirement of RA 6735 that the Lambino Group claims as valid. 6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS V. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ET AL.
The Lambino Group's logrolling initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA 6735 SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION
stating, "No petition embracing more than one (1) subject shall be submitted PANGANIBAN, CJ.:
to the electorate; x x x." The proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory Provisions,
mandating the interim Parliament to propose further amendmentsWithout theorrule of law,tothere can be no lasting prosperity and certainly no liberty.
revisions
the Constitution, is a subject matter totally unrelated to the shift in the form of 1
government. Since the present initiative embraces more Beverley
than one subject matter, McLachlin
RA 6735 prohibits submission of the initiative petition to theChief Justice of
electorate. Canada
Thus, even
if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino Group's initiative will still fail. After a deep reflection on the issues raised and a careful evaluation of the parties'
4. The COMELEC Did Not Commit Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing respective arguments -- both oral and written -- as well as the enlightened and
the Lambino Group's Initiative
enlightening Opinions submitted by my esteemed colleagues, I am fully convinced public funds and government resources to help them gather signatures,
that the present Petition must be dismissed. I firmly believe that this Court has no power to restrain them from
I write, however, to show that my present disposition is completely consistent with exercising their right of initiative. The right to propose amendments to
my previous Opinions and votes on the two extant Supreme Court cases involving the Constitution is really a species of the right of free speech and free
an initiative to change the Constitution. assembly. And certainly, it would be tyrannical and despotic to stop
In my Separate Opinion in Santiago v. Comelec,2 I opined "that taken together anyone from speaking freely and persuading others to conform to
and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. his/her beliefs. As the eminent Voltaire once said, 'I may disagree with
2), Republic Act 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' After all,
__________________ freedom is not really for the thought we agree with, but as Justice
'SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly Holmes wrote, 'freedom for the thought that we hate.'
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least Epilogue
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which "By way of epilogue, let me stress the guiding tenet of my Separate
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per Opinion. Initiative, like referendum and recall, is a new and treasured
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this feature of the Filipino constitutional system. All three are
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of institutionalized legacies of the world-admired EDSA people power.
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.' Like elections and plebiscites, they are hallowed expressions of popular
"With all due respect, I find the majority's position all too sweeping and sovereignty. They are sacred democratic rights of our people to be used
all too extremist. It is equivalent to burning the whole house to as
exterminate the rats, and to killing the patient to relieve him of pain. Six months after, in my Separate Opinion in People's Initiative for Reform,
What Citizen Delfin wants the Comelec to do we should reject. But we Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. Comelec,3 I joined the rest of the members
should not thereby preempt any future effort to exercise the right of of the Court in ruling "by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of discretion could
initiative correctly and judiciously. The fact that the Delfin Petition be attributed to the Comelec in dismissing the petition filed by
proposes a misuse of initiative does not justify a ban against its proper __________________
use. Indeed, there is a right way to do the right thing at the right time Constitution x x x." While concededly, petitioners in this case were not
and for the right reason. direct parties in Santiago, nonetheless the Court's injunction against the
Taken Together and Interpreted Properly, Comelec covered ANY petition, not just the Delfin petition which was
the Constitution, R.A. 6735 and Comelec Resolution the immediate subject of said case. As a dissenter in Santiago, I
2300 Are Sufficient to Implement Constitutional Initiatives believed, and still do, that the majority gravely erred in rendering
"While R.A. 6735 may not be a perfect law, it was — as the majority such a sweeping injunction, but I cannot fault the Comelec for
openly concedes — intended by the legislature to cover and, I complying with the ruling even if it, too, disagreed with said
respectfully submit, it contains enough provisions to effectuate an decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec was directly
initiative on the Constitution. I completely agree with the inspired and enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice but to
inspiring opinions of Mr. Justice Reynato S. Puno and Mr. Justice obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of discretion.
Ricardo J. Francisco that RA 6735, the Roco law on initiative, Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse open to the
sufficiently implements the right of the people to initiate amendments to Comelec. Any other mode of action would have constituted defiance of
the Constitution. Such views, which I shall no longer repeat nor the Court and would have been struck down as grave abuse of
elaborate on, are thoroughly consistent with this Court's unanimous en discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's supremacy as the
banc rulings in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority vs. Commission on final arbiter of justiciable controversies.
Elections, that "provisions for initiative . . . are (to be) liberally construed Second Issue:
to effectuate their purposes, to facilitate and not hamper the exercise Sufficiency of RA 6735
by the voters of the rights granted thereby"; and in Garcia vs. Comelec, "I repeat my firm legal position that RA 6735 is adequate to cover
that any "effort to trivialize the effectiveness of people's initiatives ought initiatives on the Constitution, and that whatever administrative
to be rejected." details may have been omitted in said law are satisfactorily
"No law can completely and absolutely cover all administrative details. provided by Comelec Resolution 2300. The promulgation of
In recognition of this, R.A. 6735 wisely empowered the Commission on Resolution 2300 is sanctioned by Section 2, Article IX-C of the
Election "to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be Constitution, which vests upon the Comelec the power to "enforce and
necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act." And pursuant thereto, administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election,
the Comelec issued its Resolution 2300 on 16 January 1991. Such plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." The Omnibus Election
Resolution, by its very words, was promulgated "to govern the conduct Code likewise empowers the electoral body to "promulgate rules and
of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on national regulations implementing the provisions of this Code or other laws
and local laws," not by the incumbent Commission on Elections but by which the Commission is required to enforce and administer x x x."
one then composed of Acting Chairperson Haydee B. Yorac, Comms. Finally and most relevantly, Section 20 of Ra 6735 specifically
Alfredo authorizes Comelec "to promulgate rules and regulations as may be
authority to implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act."
Constitution." "In my dissent in Santiago, I wrote that "there is a right way to do the
__________________ right thing at the right time and for the right reason." Let me explain
E. Abueg, Jr., Leopoldo L. Africa, Andres R. Flores, Dario C. Rama and further.
Magdara B. Dimaampao. All of these Commissioners who signed The Right Thing
Resolution 2300 have retired from the Commission, and thus we cannot "A people's initiative is direct democracy in action. It is the right thing
ascribe any vile motive unto them, other than an honest, sincere and that citizens may avail themselves of to articulate their will. It is a new
exemplary effort to give life to a cherished right of our people. and treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system. Even the
"The majority argues that while Resolution 2300 is valid in regard to majority implicitly conceded its value and worth in our legal firmament
national laws and local legislations, it is void in reference to when it implored Congress "not to tarry any longer in complying with the
constitutional amendments. There is no basis for such differentiation. constitutional mandate to provide for implementation of the right (of
The source of and authority for the Resolution is the same law, R.A. initiative) of the people x x x." Hence, in the en banc case of Subic Bay
6735. Metropolitan Authority vs. Comelec, [G.R. No. 125416, September 26,
"I respectfully submit that taken together and interpreted properly and 1996], this Court unanimously held that "(l)ike elections, initiative and
liberally, the Constitution (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), R.A. 6735 and referendum are powerful and valuable modes of expressing popular
Comelec Resolution 2300 provide more than sufficient authority to PIRMA therein," since the Commission had "only complied" with the Santiago
implement, effectuate and realize our people's power to amend the Decision.
Constitution. __________________
Petitioner Delfin and the Pedrosa sovereignty. And this Court as a matter of policy and doctrine will exert
Spouses Should Not Be Muzzled every effort to nurture, protect and promote their legitimate exercise."
"I am glad the majority decided to heed our plea to lift the temporary The Right Way
restraining order issued by this Court on 18 December 1996 insofar as "From the outset, I have already maintained the view that "taken
it prohibited Petitioner Delfin and the Spouses Pedrosa from exercising together and interpreted properly and liberally, the Constitution
their right of initiative. In fact, I believe that such restraining order as (particularly Art. XVII, Sec. 2), RA 6735 and Comelec Resolution 2300
against private respondents should not have been issued, in the first provide more than sufficient authority to implement, effectuate and
place. While I agree that the Comelec should be stopped from using realize our people's power to amend the Constitution." Let me now
 demonstrate the adequacy of RA 6735 by outlining, in concrete terms, "It took only one million people to stage a peaceful revolution at EDSA,
the steps to be taken – the right way – to amend the Constitution and the very rafters and foundations of the martial law society trembled,
through a people's initiative. quaked and crumbled. On the other hand, PIRMA and its co-petitioners
"Pursuant to Section 3(f) of the law, the Comelec shall prescribe the are claiming that they have gathered six million signatures. If, as
form of the petition which shall contain the proposition and the required claimed by many, these six million signatures are fraudulent, then let
number of signatories. Under Sec. 5(c) thereof, the petition shall state them be exposed and damned for all history in a signature-verification
the following: process conducted under our open system of legal advocacy.
'c.1 contents or text of the [provision or provisions] sought to "More than anything else, it is the truth that I, as a member of this Court
be x x x amended, x x x; and as a citizen of this country, would like to seek: Are these six million
c.2 the proposition [in full text]; signatures real? By insisting on an entirely new doctrine of statutory
c.3 the reason or reasons therefor [fully and clearly inadequacy, the majority effectively suppressed the quest for that truth.
explained]; The Right Reason
c.4 that it is not one of exceptions provided herein; "As mentioned, the third question that must be answered, even if the
c.5 signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 were
c.6 an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one upheld by the majority is: Does the clamor for the proposed change to
hundred (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed the Constitution really emanate from the people who signed the petition
at the top of every page of the petition.' for initiative? Or is it the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact
"Section 8(f) of Comelec Resolution 2300 additionally requires that the orchestrating such move to advance their own political self-interests?
petition include a formal designation of the duly authorized In other words, is PIRMA's exercise of the right to initiative being done
representatives of the signatories. in accordance with our Constitution and our laws? Is such attempted
"Being a constitutional requirement, the number of signatures becomes exercise legitimate?
a condition precedent to the filing of the petition, and is jurisdictional. "In Garcia vs. Commission on Elections, we described initiative, along
Without such requisite signatures, the Commission shall motu proprio with referendum, as the 'ultimate weapon of the people to negate
reject the petition. government malfeasance and misfeasance.' In Subic Bay, we specified
"Where the initiators have substantially complied with the above that 'initiative is entirely the work of the electorate x x x a process of
requirements, they may thence file the petition with the Comelec which lawmaking by the people themselves without the participation and
is tasked to determine the sufficiency thereof and to verify the against the wishes of their elected representatives.' As ponente of
signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits Subic Bay, I stand foursquare on this principle: The right to amend
and voters' identification cards. In deciding whether the petition is through initiative belongs only to the people – not to the
sufficient, the Comelec shall also determine if the proposition is proper government and its minions. This principle finds clear support from
for an initiative, i.e., if it consists of an amendment, not a revision, of the utterances of many constitutional commissioners like those quoted
Constitution. Any decision of the electoral body may be appealed to the below:
Supreme Court within thirty (30) days from notice. "[Initiative is] a reserve power of the sovereign people, when they are
I added "that my position upholding the adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of dissatisfied with the National Assembly x x x [and] precisely a fallback
Comelec Resolution 2300 will not ipso position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied." --
__________________ Commissioner Ople
"Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the petition, and after the "[Initiative is] a check on a legislative that is not responsive [and
determination of its sufficiency, the Comelec shall publish the same in resorted to] only if the legislature is not as responsive to the vital and
Filipino and English at least twice in newspapers of general and local urgent needs of people." -- Commissioner Gascon
circulation, and set the date of the plebiscite. The conduct of the (1) The proposed change -- the lifting of term limits of elective officials --
plebiscite should not be earlier than sixty (60) days, but not later than "constitute[s] a mere amendment and not a revision of the Constitution."
ninety (90) days after certification by the Comelec of the sufficiency of _________________
the petition. The proposition, if approved by a majority of the votes cast "[Initiative is an] extraordinary power given to the people [and] reserved
in the plebiscite, becomes effective as of the day of the plebiscite. for the people [which] should not be frivolously resorted to." --
"From the foregoing, it should be clear that my position upholding the Commissioner Romulo
adequacy of RA 6735 and the validity of Comelec Resolution 2300 will "Indeed, if the powers-that-be desire to amend the Constitution, or even
not ipso facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a to revise it, our Charter itself provides them other ways of doing so,
plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Far from it. Among others, PIRMA namely, by calling a constitutional convention or constituting Congress
must still satisfactorily hurdle the following searching issues: into a constituent assembly. These are officialdom's weapons. But
1. Does the proposed change – the lifting of the term limits of elective initiative belongs to the people.
officials -- constitute a mere amendment and not a revision of the "In the present case, are PIRMA and its co-petitioners legitimate
Constitution? people's organizations or are they merely fronts for incumbents who
2. Which registry of voters will be used to verify the signatures in the want to extend their terms? This is a factual question which,
petition? This question is relevant considering that under RA 8189, the unfortunately, cannot be judicially answered anymore, because the
old registry of voters used in the 1995 national elections was voided Supreme Court majority ruled that the law that implements it, RA 6735,
after the barangay elections on May 12, 1997, while the new list may is inadequate or insufficient insofar as initiatives to the Constitutions are
be used starting only in the elections of May 1998. concerned. With such ruling, the majority effectively abrogated a
3. Does the clamor for the proposed change in the Constitution really constitutional right of our people. That is why in my Separate Opinion
emanate from the people who signed the petition for initiative? Or it is in Santiago, I exclaimed that such precipitate action "is equivalent to
the beneficiaries of term extension who are in fact orchestrating such burning the whole house to exterminate the rats, and to killing the
move to advance their own political self-interest? patient to relieve him of pain." I firmly maintain that to defeat PIRMA's
4. Are the six million signatures genuine and verifiable? Do they really effort, there is no need to "burn" the constitutional right to initiative. If
belong to qualified warm bodies comprising at least 12% of the PIRMA's exercise is not "legitimate," it can be exposed as such in the
registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is ways I have discussed – short of abrogating the right itself. On the other
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein? hand, if PIRMA's position is proven to be legitimate – if it hurdles the
"I shall expound on the third question in the next section, The Right four issues I outlined earlier – by all means, we should allow and
Reason. Question Nos. 1 and 2 above, while important, are basically encourage it. But the majority's theory of statutory inadequacy has pre-
legal in character and can be determined by argumentation and empted – unnecessarily and invalidly, in my view – any judicial
memoranda. However, Question No. 4 involves not only legal issues determination of such legitimacy or illegitimacy. It has silenced the
but gargantuan hurdles of factual determination. This to my mind is the quest for truth into the interstices of the PIRMA petition.
crucible, the litmus test, of a people's petition for initiative. If herein The Right Time
petitioners, led by PIRMA, succeed in proving -- not just alleging -- that "The Constitution itself sets a time limitation on when changes thereto
six million voters of this country indeed want to amend the Constitution, may be proposed. Section 2 of Article XVII precludes amendments
what power on earth can stop them? Not this Court, not the Comelec, "within five years following [its] ratification x x x nor oftener than once
not even the President or Congress. every five years thereafter." Since its ratification, the 1987 Constitution
facto validate the PIRMA petition and automatically lead to a plebiscite to amend has never been amended. Hence, the five-year prohibition is now
the Constitution. Far from it." I stressed that PIRMA must show the following, inoperative and amendments may theoretically be proposed at any
among others: time.
__________________
 "Be that as it may, I believe – given the present circumstances – that the people, not of incumbent officials and their machinators. Fourth and
there is no more time to lift term limits to enable incumbents to seek most important of all, the signatures must be verified as real and
reelection in the May 11, 1998 polls. Between today and the next genuine; not concocted, fictitious or fabricated. The only legal way to
national do this is to enable the Commission on Elections to conduct a
(2) The "six million signatures are genuine and verifiable"; and they "really belong nationwide verification process as mandated by the Constitution and
to qualified warm bodies comprising at the law. Such verification, it bears stressing, is subject to review by this
__________________ Court.
elections, less than eight (8) months remain. Santiago, where the single "There were, by the most generous estimate, only a million people who
issue of the sufficiency of RA 6735 was resolved, took this Court three gathered at EDSA in 1986, and yet they changed the history of our
(3) months, and another two (2) months to decide the motion for country. PIRMA claims six times that number, not just from the National
reconsideration. The instant case, where the same issue is also raised Capital Region but from all over the country. Is this claim through the
by the petitioners, took two months, not counting a possible motion for invention of its novel theory of statutory insufficiency, the Court's
reconsideration. These time spans could not be abbreviated any majority has stifled the only legal method of determining whether
further, because due process requires that all parties be given sufficient PIRMA is real or not, whether there is indeed a popular clamor to lift
time to file their pleadings. term limits of elected officials, and whether six million voters want to
"Thus, even if the Court were to rule now in favor of the adequacy of initiate amendments to their most basic law. In suppressing a judicial
RA 6735 – as I believe it should – and allow the Comelec to act on the answer to such questions, the Court may have unwittingly yielded to
PIRMA petition, such eight-month period will not be enough to tackle PIRMA the benefit of the legal presumption of legality and regularity. In
the four weighty issues I mentioned earlier, considering that two of them its misplaced zeal to exterminate the rats, it burned down the whole
involve tedious factual questions. The Comelec's decision on any of house. It unceremoniously divested the people of a basic constitutional
these issues can still be elevated to this Court for review, and right.
reconsiderations on our decisions on each of those issues may again In both Opinions, I concluded that we must implement "the right thing [initiative] in
be sought. the right way at the right time and for the right reason."
"Comelec's herculean task alone of verifying each of the six million In the present case, I steadfastly stand by my foregoing Opinions in Santiago and
signatures is enormously time-consuming, considering that any person PIRMA. Tested against them, the present Petition of Raul Lambino and Erico
may question the authenticity of each and every signature, initially Aumentado must be DISMISSED. Unfortunately, the right thing is being
before the election registrar, then before the Comelec on appeal and rushed in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons. Let me explain.
finally, before this Court in a separate proceeding. Moreover, the No Grave Abuse
plebiscite itself – assuming such stage can be reached – may be of Discretion by Comelec
scheduled only after sixty (60) but not more than ninety (90) days, from As in PIRMA, I find no grave abuse of discretion in Comelec's dismissal of the
the time the Comelec and this Court, on appeal, finally declare the Lambino Petition. After all, the Commission merely followed the holding in
petition to be sufficient. Santiago permanently
"Meanwhile, under Comelec Resolution 2946, political parties, groups ____________________
organizations or coalitions may start selecting their official candidates "In the ultimate, the mission of the judiciary is to discover truth and to
for President, Vice President and Senators on November 27, 1997; the make it prevail. This mission is undertaken not only to resolve the
period for filing certificates of candidacy is from January 11 to February vagaries of present events but also to build the pathways of tomorrow.
9, 1998; the election period and campaign for national officials start on The sum total of the entire process of adversarial litigation is the verity
February 10, 1998, while the campaign period for other elective of facts and the application of law thereto. By the majority cop-out in
officials, on March 17, 1998. This means, by the time PIRMA's this mission of discovery, our country and our people have been
proposition is ready – if ever – for submission directly to the voters at deprived not only of a basic constitutional right, as earlier noted, but
large, it will have been overcome by the elections. Time will simply run also of the judicial opportunity to verify the truth."
out on PIRMA, if the intention is to lift term limits in time for the 1998 enjoining the poll body "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for
elections. initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been
"That term limits may no longer be lifted prior to the 1998 elections via validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system."
a people's initiative does not detract one whit from (1) my firm conviction Indeed, the Comelec did not violate the Constitution, the laws or any
that RA 6735 is sufficient and adequate to implement this constitutional jurisprudence.4 Neither can whim, caprice, arbitrariness or personal bias be
right and, more important, (2) my faith in the power of the people to attributed to the Commission.5 Quite the contrary, it prudently followed this
initiate changes in local and national laws and the Constitution. In fact, Court's jurisprudence in Santiago and PIRMA. Even assuming arguendo that
I think the Court can deliberate on these two items even more serenely Comelec erred in ruling on a very difficult and unsettled question of law, this Court
and wisely now that the debates will be free from the din and distraction still cannot attribute grave abuse of discretion to the poll body with respect to that
of the 1998 elections. After all, jurisprudence is not merely for the here action.6
and now but, more so, for the hereafter and the morrow. Let me The present Lambino Petition is in exactly the same situation as that of PIRMA in
therefore stress, by way of epilogue, my unbending credo in favor of 1997. The differences pointed out by Justice Reynato S. Puno are, with due
our people's right to initiative. respect, superficial. It is argued that, unlike the present Lambino Petition, PIRMA
least 12% of the registered voters nationwide, of which every legislative district is did not contain verified signatures. These are distinctions that do not make a
represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein." difference. Precisely, Justice Puno is urging a remand, because the verification
__________________ issue is "contentious" and remains unproven by petitioners. Clearly, both the
Epilogue PIRMA and the Lambino Petitions contain unverified signatures. Therefore,
"I believe in democracy – in our people's natural right to determine our they both deserve the same treatment: DISMISSAL.
own destiny. Besides, the only reason given in the unanimous Resolution on PIRMA v.
"I believe in the process of initiative as a democratic method of enabling Comelec was that the Commission had "only complied" with this Court's Decision
our people to express their will and chart their history. Initiative is an in Santiago, the same reason given by Comelec in this case. The Separate
alternative to bloody revolution, internal chaos and civil strife. It is an Opinions in PIRMA gave no other reason. No one argued, even remotely, that
inherent right of the people – as basic as the right to elect, the right to the PIRMA Petition should have been dismissed because the signatures
self-determination and the right to individual liberties. I believe that were unverified.
Filipinos have the ability and the capacity to rise above themselves, to To stress, I adhere to my Opinion in PIRMA that, "[b]eing a constitutional
use this right of initiative wisely and maturely, and to choose what is requirement, the number of signatures becomes a condition precedent to the filing
best for themselves and their posterity. of the petition, and is jurisdictional.7 Without those signatures, the Comelec shall
"Such beliefs, however, should not be equated with a desire to motu proprio reject the petition."
perpetuate a particular official or group of officials in power. Far from it. So, until and unless Santiago is revisited and changed by this Court or the legal
Such perpetuation is anathema to democracy. My firm conviction that moorings of the exercise of the right are substantially changed, the Comelec
there is an adequate law implementing the constitutional right of cannot be faulted for acting in accord with this Court's pronouncements.
initiative does not ipso facto result in the victory of the PIRMA petition Respondent Commission has no discretion, under any guise, to refuse
or of any proposed constitutional change. There are, after all, sufficient enforcement of any final decision of this Court.8 The refusal of the poll body
safeguards to guarantee the proper use of such constitutional right and to act on the Lambino Petition was its only recourse. Any other mode of action
to forestall its misuse and abuse. First, initiative cannot be used to would appear not only presumptuous, but also contemptuous. It would have
revise the Constitution, only to amend it. Second, the petitioners' constituted defiance of the Court and would have surely been struck down as
signatures must be validated against an existing list of voters and/or grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of the supremacy of this
voters' identification cards. Third, initiative is a reverse power of and by Court as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies.
Even assuming further that this Court rules, as I believe it should (for the reasons Petitioners plead with this Court to hear the voice of the people because, in the
given in my Opinions in Santiago and PIRMA), that Republic Act 6735 is indeed words of Justice Puno who supports them, the "people's voice is sovereign in a
sufficient to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution, still, no grave abuse democracy."
of discretion can be attributed to the Comelec for merely following prevailing I, too, believe in heeding the people's voice. I reiterate my Separate Opinion in
jurisprudence extant at the time it rendered its ruling in question. PIRMA that "initiative is a democratic method of enabling our people to express
Only Amendments, their will and chart their history. x x x. I believe that Filipinos have the ability and
Not Revisions the capacity to rise above themselves, to use this right of initiative wisely and
I reiterate that only amendments, not revisions, may be the proper subject of maturely, and to choose what is best for themselves and their posterity."
an initiative to change the Constitution. This principle is crystal clear from even This belief will not, however, automatically and blindly result in an initiative to
a layperson's reading of the basic law.9 change the Constitution, because the present Petition violates the following:
I submit that changing the system of government from presidential to · The Constitution (specifically Article XVII, which allows only amendments, not
parliamentary and the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral revisions, and requires definite percentages of verified signatures)
contemplates an overhaul of the structure of government. The ponencia has · The law (specifically, Republic Act 6735, which prohibits petitions containing
amply demonstrated that the merger of the legislative and the executive branches more than one subject)
under a unicameral-parliamentary system, "[b]y any legal test and under any · Jurisprudence (specifically, PIRMA v. Comelec, which dismissed the Petition
jurisdiction," will "radically alter the framework of government as set forth in the then under consideration on the ground that, by following the Santiago ruling, the
Constitution." Indeed, the proposed changes have an overall implication on the Comelec had not gravely abused its discretion).
entire Constitution; they effectively rewrite its most important and basic provisions. I submit further that a remand of the Lambino Petition is both imprudent and futile.
The prolixity and complexity of the changes cannot be categorized, even by More tellingly, it is a cop-out, a hand-washing already discredited 2000 years
semantic generosity, as "amendments." ago. Instead of finger-pointing, I believe we must confront the issues head on,
In addition, may I say that of the three modes of changing the Constitution, because the people expect no less from this august and venerable institution of
revisions (or amendments) may be proposed only through the first two: by supreme justice.
Congress or by a constitutional convention. Under the third mode -- people's Epilogue
initiative -- only amendments are allowed. Many of the justices' Opinions have At bottom, the issue in this case is simply the Rule of Law.13 Initiative, like
cited the historical, philosophical and jurisprudential bases of their respective referendum and recall, is a treasured feature of the Filipino constitutional system.
positions. I will not add to the woes of the reader by reiterating them here. It was born out of our world-admired and often-imitated People Power, but its
Suffice it to say that, to me, the practical test to differentiate an amendment from misuse and abuse must be resolutely rejected. Democracy must be cherished,
a revision is found in the Constitution itself: a revision may be done only when but mob rule vanquished.
the proposed change can be drafted, defined, articulated, discussed and The Constitution is a sacred social compact, forged between the government
agreed upon after a mature and democratic debate in a deliberative body and the people, between each individual and the rest of the citizenry. Through it,
like Congress or a Convention. The changes proposed must necessarily be the people have solemnly expressed their will that all of them shall be governed
scrutinized, as their adoption or non-adoption must result from an informed by laws, and their rights limited by agreed-upon covenants to promote the
judgment. common good. If we are to uphold the Rule of Law and reject the rule of the mob,
Indeed, the constitutional bodies that drafted the 1935, the 1972 and the 1987 we must faithfully abide by the processes the Constitution has ordained in
Constitutions had to spend many months of purposeful discussions, democratic order to bring about a peaceful, just and humane society. Assuming arguendo
debates and rounds of voting before they could agree on the wordings covering that six million people allegedly gave their assent to the proposed changes in the
the philosophy, the underlying principles, and the structure of government of our Constitution, they are nevertheless still bound by the social covenant -- the
Republic. present Constitution -- which was ratified by a far greater majority almost twenty
Verily, even bills creating or changing the administrative structure of local years ago.14 I do not denigrate the majesty of the sovereign will; rather, I elevate
governments take several weeks or even months of drafting, reading, and our society to the loftiest perch, because our government must remain as one
debating before Congress can approve them. How much more when it comes to of laws and not of men.
constitutional changes? Upon assuming office, each of the justices of the Supreme Court took a solemn
A change in the form of government of our country from presidential-bicameral to oath to uphold the Constitution. Being the protectors of the fundamental law as
parliamentary-unicameral is monumental. Even the initiative proponents admit the highest expression of the sovereign will, they must subject to the strictest
this fact. So, why should a revision be rammed down our people's throats without scrutiny any attempt to change it, lest it be trivialized and degraded by the
the benefit of intelligent discussion in a deliberative assembly? assaults of the mob and of ill-conceived designs. The Court must single-
Added to the constitutional mandate barring revisions is the provision of RA 6735 mindedly defend the Constitution from bogus efforts falsely attributed to the
expressly prohibiting petitions for initiative from "embracing more than one subject sovereign people.
matter."10 The present initiative covers at least two subjects: (1) the shift from a The judiciary may be the weakest branch of government. Nonetheless, when
presidential to a parliamentary form of government; and (2) the change from a ranged against incessant voices from the more powerful branches of government,
bicameral to a unicameral legislature.11 Thus, even under Republic Act 6735 -- it should never cower in submission. On the other hand, I daresay that the same
the law that Justice Puno and I hold to be sufficient and valid -- the Lambino weakness of the Court becomes its strength when it speaks independently
Petition deserves dismissal. through decisions that rightfully uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and
12 Percent and 3 Percent Thresholds the Rule of Law. The strength of the judiciary lies not in its lack of brute power,
Not Proven by Petitioners but in its moral courage to perform its constitutional duty at all times against all
The litmus test of a people's petition for initiative is its ability to muster the odds. Its might is in its being right.15
constitutional requirement that it be supported by at least 12 percent of the During the past weeks, media outfits have been ablaze with reports and
registered voters nationwide, of which at least 3 percent of the registered voters innuendoes about alleged carrots offered and sticks drawn by those interested in
in every legislative district must be represented. As pointed out by Intervenors the outcome of this case.16 There being no judicial proof of these allegations, I
One Voice, Inc., et al., however, records show that there was a failure to meet the shall not comment on them for the nonce, except to quote the Good Book, which
minimum percentages required.12 says, "There is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing secret that
Even Justice Puno concedes that the 12 percent and 3 percent constitutional will not be known and come to light."17
requirements involve "contentious facts," which have not been proven by the Verily, the Supreme Court is now on the crossroads of history. By its decision, the
Lambino Petition. Thus, he is urging a remand to the Comelec. Court and each of its members shall be judged by posterity. Ten years, fifty years,
But a remand is both imprudent and futile. It is imprudent because the a hundred years -- or even a thousand years -- from now, what the Court did here,
Constitution itself mandates the said requisites of an initiative petition. In other and how each justice opined and voted, will still be talked about, either in shame
words, a petition that does not show the required percentages is fatally or in pride. Indeed, the hand-washing of Pontius Pilate, the abomination of Dred
defective and must be dismissed, as the Delfin Petition was, in Santiago. Scott, and the loathing of Javellana still linger and haunt to this day.
Furthermore, as the ponencia had discussed extensively, the present Petition is Let not this case fall into the same damnation. Rather, let this Court be known
void and unconstitutional. It points out that the Petition dismally fails to comply throughout the nation and the world for its independence, integrity, industry
with the constitutional requirement that an initiative must be directly proposed by and intelligence.
the people. Specifically, the ponencia has amply established that petitioners were WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the Petition.
unable to show that the Lambino Petition contained, or incorporated by
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
attachment, the full text of the proposed changes.
So, too, a remand is futile. Even if the required percentages are proven before Chief Justice
the Commission, the Petition must still be dismissed for proposing a ____________________
revision, not an amendment, in gross violation of the Constitution. At the EN BANC
very least, it proposes more than one subject, in violation of Republic Act 6735. G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
Summation
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 fully comprehend the meaning and effect of the proposed changes to enable them
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners, to make a free, intelligent and well-informed choice on the matter.
vs. Needless to say, the requirement of setting forth the complete text of the proposed
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL., Respondents. changes in the petition for initiative is a safeguard against fraud and deception. If
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 the whole text of the proposed changes is contained in or attached to the petition,
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A. Q. intercalations and riders may be duly avoided. Only then can we be assured that
SAGUISAG, Petitioners, the proposed changes are truly of the people and that the signatories have been
vs. fully apprised of its implications.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. If a statutory provision is essential to guard against fraud, corruption or deception
ABALOS, JR. and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, in the initiative and referendum process, such provision must be viewed as an
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. indispensable requirement and failure to substantially comply therewith is fatal. 5
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents. The failure of petitioners in this case to comply with the full text requirement
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x resultantly rendered their petition for initiative fatally defective.
SEPARATE OPINION The petition for initiative is likewise irretrievably infirm because it violates the one
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: subject rule under Section 10(a) of R.A. 6735:
I agree with the opinion of our esteemed colleague, Justice Reynato Puno, that SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures.— The following cannot be the subject
the Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC1 is not a binding precedent. However, of an initiative or referendum petition:
it is my position that even if Santiago were reversed and Republic Act No. 6735 (a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be submitted to
(R.A. 6735) be held as sufficient law for the purpose of people's initiative to amend the electorate; x x x
the Constitution, the petition for initiative in this case must nonetheless be The one subject rule, as relating to an initiative to amend the Constitution, has the
dismissed. same object and purpose as the one subject-one bill rule embodied in Article VI,
There is absolutely no showing here that petitioners complied with R.A. 6735, Section 26(1)6 of the Constitution.7 To elaborate, the one subject-one bill rule was
even as they blindly invoke the said law to justify their alleged people's initiative. designed to do away with the practice of inserting two or more unrelated
Section 5(b) of R.A. 6735 requires that "[a] petition for an initiative on the 1987 provisions in one bill, so that those favoring one provision would be compelled to
Constitution must have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of adopt the others. By this process of log-rolling, the adoption of both provisions
registered voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be could be accomplished and ensured, when neither, if standing alone, could
represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein." succeed on its own merits.
On the other hand, Section 5(c)2 of the same law requires that the petition should As applied to the initiative process, the one subject rule is essentially designed to
state, among others, the proposition3 or the "contents or text of the proposed law prevent surprise and fraud on the electorate. It is meant to safeguard the integrity
sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed." If we were to of the initiative process by ensuring that no unrelated riders are concealed within
apply Section 5(c) to an initiative to amend the Constitution, as petitioners submit, the terms of the proposed amendment. This in turn guarantees that the signatories
the petition for initiative signed by the required number of voters should are fully aware of the nature, scope and purpose of the proposed amendment.
incorporate therein a text of the proposed changes to the Constitution. However, Petitioners insist that the proposed changes embodied in their petition for initiative
such requirement was not followed in the case at bar. relate only to one subject matter, that is – the shift from presidential to a
During the oral arguments, petitioner Lambino admitted that they printed a mere parliamentary system of government. According to petitioners, all of the other
100,000 copies of the text of the proposed changes to the Constitution. According proposed changes are merely incidental to this main proposal and are reasonably
to him, these were subsequently distributed to their agents all over the country, germane and necessary thereto.8 An examination of the text of the proposed
for attachment to the sheets of paper on which the signatures were to be affixed. changes reveals, however, that this is not the case.
Upon being asked, however, if he in fact knew whether the text was actually The proposed changes to the Constitution cover other subjects that are beyond
attached to the signature sheets which were distributed for signing, he said that the main proposal espoused by the petitioners. Apart from a shift from the
he merely assumed that they were. In other words, he could not tell the Court for presidential to a parliamentary form of government, the proposed changes include
certain whether their representatives complied with this requirement. the abolition of one House of Congress,9 and the convening of a constituent
The petition filed with the COMELEC, as well as that which was shown to this assembly to propose additional amendments to the Constitution.10 Also included
Court, indubitably establish that the full text of the proposed changes was not within its terms is an omnibus declaration that those constitutional provisions
attached to the signature sheets. All that the signature sheets contained was the under Articles VI and VII, which are inconsistent with the unicameral-
general proposition and abstract, which falls short of the full text requirement of parliamentary form of government, shall be deemed amended to conform thereto.
R.A. 6735. It is not difficult to see that while the proposed changes appear to relate only to a
The necessity of setting forth the text of the proposed constitutional changes in shift in the form of government, it actually seeks to affect other subjects that are
the petition for initiative to be signed by the people cannot be seriously disputed. not reasonably germane to the constitutional alteration that is purportedly sought.
To begin with, Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution unequivocally states that For one, a shift to a parliamentary system of government does not necessarily
"[a]mendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the result in the adoption of a unicameral legislature. A parliamentary system can exist
people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total in many different "hybrid" forms of government, which may or may not embrace
number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be unicameralism.11 In other words, the shift from presidential to parliamentary
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein." structure and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature is neither the cause nor
Evidently, for the people to propose amendments to the Constitution, they must, effect of the other.
in the first instance, know exactly what they are proposing. It is not enough that I also fail to see the relation of convening a constituent assembly with the
they merely possess a general idea of the proposed changes, as the Constitution proposed change in our system of government. As a subject matter, the
speaks of a "direct" proposal by the people. convening of a constituent assembly to amend the Constitution presents a range
Although the framers of the Constitution left the matter of implementing the of issues that is far removed from the subject of a shift in government. Besides,
constitutional right of initiative to Congress, it might be noted that they themselves the constituent assembly is supposed to convene and propose amendments to
reasonably assumed that the draft of the proposed constitutional amendments the Constitution after the proposed change in the system of government has
would be shown to the people during the process of signature gathering. Thus – already taken place. This only goes to show that the convening of the constituent
MR. RODRIGO. Section 2 of the complete committee report provides: assembly is not necessary to effectuate a change to a parliamentary system of
"upon petition of at least 10 percent of the registered voters." How will government.
we determine that 10 percent has been achieved? How will the voters The omnibus statement that all provisions under Articles VI and VII which are
manifest their desire, is it by signature? inconsistent with a unicameral-parliamentary system of government shall be
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, by signatures. deemed amended is equally bothersome. The statement does not specify what
MR. RODRIGO. Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters these inconsistencies and amendments may be, such that everyone is left to
want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the guess the provisions that could eventually be affected by the proposed changes.
proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people The subject and scope of these automatic amendments cannot even be spelled
when they are asked to sign? out with certainty. There is thus no reasonable measure of its impact on the other
MR. SUAREZ. That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President. constitutional provisions.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and The foregoing proposed changes cannot be the subject of a people's initiative
shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft? under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Taken together, the proposed
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.4 changes indicate that the intendment is not simply to effect substantial
It may thus be logically assumed that even without Section 5(c) of R.A. 6735, the amendments to the Constitution, but a revision thereof. The distinction between
full text of the proposed changes must necessarily be stated in or attached to the an amendment and revision was explained by Dean Vicente G. Sinco, as follows:
initiative petition. The signatories to the petition must be given an opportunity to "Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting
 either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps proposed constitutional changes, in order to determine whether the same is
only some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision revisory or merely amendatory. In that case, the McFadden court found the
may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the proposed changes extensive since at least 15 of the 25 articles contained in the
original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention California Constitution would either be repealed in their entirety or substantially
and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the altered, and four new topics would be introduced. However, it went on to consider
constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or the qualitative effects that the proposed initiative measure would have on
whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new California's basic plan of government. It observed that the proposal would alter
one. the checks and balances inherent in such plan, by delegating far-reaching and
The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a mixed powers to an independent commission created under the proposed
change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to measure. Consequently, the proposal in McFadden was not only deemed as
amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire broad and numerous in physical scope, but was also held as having a substantive
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to effect on the fundamental governmental plan of the State of California.
improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it The dual aspect of the amendment/revision analysis was reiterated by the
provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to California Supreme Court in Raven v. Deukmeijan.15 Proposition 115, as the
suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading initiative in that case was called, would vest in the United States Supreme Court
in their effect."12 all judicial interpretative powers of the California courts over fundamental criminal
The foregoing traditional exposition of the difference between amendment and defense rights in that state. It was observed that although quantitatively, the
revision has indeed guided us throughout our constitutional history. However, the proposition did "not seem so extensive as to change directly the substantial
distinction between the two terms is not, to my mind, as significant in the context entirety of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing
of our past constitutions, as it should be now under the 1987 Constitution. The provisions," the same, nonetheless, "would substantially alter the substance and
reason for this is apparent. Under our past constitutions, it was Congress alone, integrity of the state Constitution as a document of independent force and effect."
acting either as a constituent assembly or by calling out a constitutional Quoting Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of
convention, that exercised authority to either amend or revise the Constitution Equalization,16 the Raven court said:
through the procedures therein described. Although the distinction between the ". . . apart from a measure effecting widespread deletions, additions and
two terms was theoretically recognized under both the 1935 and 1973 amendments involving many constitutional articles, 'even a relatively
Constitutions, the need to highlight the difference was not as material because it simple enactment may accomplish such far reaching changes in the
was only Congress that could effect constitutional changes by choosing between nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision
the two modalities. also…[A]n enactment which purported to vest all judicial power in the
However, it is different now under the 1987 Constitution. Apart from providing for Legislature would amount to a revision without regard either to the
the two modes of either Congress constituting itself as a constituent assembly or length or complexity of the measure or the number of existing articles
calling out for a constitutional convention, a third mode was introduced for or sections affected by such change.'" (Underscoring supplied and
proposing changes to the Constitution. This mode refers to the people's right to citations omitted)
propose amendments to the fundamental law through the filing of a petition for Thus, in resolving the amendment/revision issue, the California Court examines
initiative. both the quantitative and qualitative effects of a proposed measure on its
Otherwise stated, our experience of what constitutes amendment or revision constitutional scheme. Substantial changes in either respect could amount to a
under the past constitutions is not determinative of what the two terms mean now, revision.17
as related to the exercise of the right to propose either amendments or revision. I am persuaded that we can approach the present issue in the same manner. The
The changes introduced to both the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 could have experience of the courts in California is not far removed from the standards
indeed been deemed an amendment or revision, but the authority for effecting expounded on by Dean Sinco when he set out to differentiate between
either would never have been questioned since the same belonged solely amendment and revision. It is actually consistent, not only with our traditional
to Congress. In contrast, the 1987 Constitution clearly limits the right of the concept of the two terms, but also with the mindset of our constitutional framers
people to directly propose constitutional changes to amendments only. We must when they referred to the disquisition of Justice Antonio in Javellana.18 We must
consequently not be swayed by examples of constitutional changes effected prior thus consider whether the proposed changes in this case affect our Constitution
to the present fundamental law, in determining whether such changes are revisory in both its substantial physical entirety and in its basic plan of government.
or amendatory in nature. The question posed is: do the proposed changes, regardless of whether
In this regard, it should be noted that the distinction laid down by Justice Felix Q. these are simple or substantial, amount to a revision as to be excluded from
Antonio in Javellana v. Executive Secretary13 related to the procedure to be the people's right to directly propose amendments to the fundamental law?
followed in ratifying a completely new charter proposed by a constitutional As indicated earlier, we may apply the quantitative/qualitative test in determining
convention. The authority or right of the constitutional convention itself to effect the nature of the proposed changes. These tests are consistent with Dean Sinco's
such a revision was not put in issue in that case. As far as determining what traditional concept of amendment and revision when he explains that,
constitutes "amendments" for the purpose of a people's initiative, therefore, we quantitatively, revision "may result in the rewriting either of the whole constitution,
have neither relevant precedent nor prior experience. We must thus confine or the greater part of it, or perhaps only some of its provisions." In any case, he
ourselves to Dean Sinco's basic articulation of the two terms. continues, "the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the original
It is clear from Dean Sinco's explanation that a revision may either be of the whole intention and plan authorized to be carried out." Unmistakably, the latter statement
or only part of the Constitution. The part need not be a substantial part as a refers to the qualitative effect of the proposed changes.
change may qualify as a revision even if it only involves some of the important It may thus be conceded that, quantitatively, the changes espoused by the
provisions. For as long as the intention and plan to be carried out contemplate a proponents in this case will affect only two (2) out of the eighteen (18) articles of
consideration of all the provisions of the Constitution "to determine which should the 1987 Constitution, namely, Article VI (Legislative Department) and Article VII
be altered or suppressed, or whether the whole document should be replaced with (Executive Department), as well as provisions that will ensure the smooth
an entirely new one," the proposed change may be deemed a revision and not transition from a presidential-bicameral system to a parliamentary-unicameral
merely an amendment. structure of government. The quantitative effect of the proposed changes is
Thus, it is not by the sheer number alone of the proposed changes that the same neither broad nor extensive and will not affect the substantial entirety of the 1987
may be considered as either an amendment or revision. In so determining, Constitution.
another overriding factor is the "original intention and plan authorized to be carried However, it is my opinion that the proposed changes will have serious qualitative
out" by the proposed changes. If the same relates to a re-examination of the entire consequences on the Constitution. The initiative petition, if successful, will
document to see which provisions remain relevant or if it has far-reaching effects undoubtedly alter, not only our basic governmental plan, but also redefine our
on the entire document, then the same constitutes a revision and not a mere rights as citizens in relation to government. The proposed changes will set into
amendment of the Constitution. motion a ripple effect that will strike at the very foundation of our basic
From the foregoing, it is readily apparent that a combination of the quantitative constitutional plan. It is therefore an impermissible constitutional revision that may
and qualitative test is necessary in assessing what may be considered as an not be effected through a people's initiative.
amendment or revision. It is not enough that we focus simply on the physical Petitioners' main proposal pertains to the shifting of our form of government from
scope of the proposed changes, but also consider what it means in relation to the the presidential to the parliamentary system. An examination of their proposal
entire document. No clear demarcation line can be drawn to distinguish the two reveals that there will be a fusion of the executive and legislative departments into
terms and each circumstance must be judged on the basis of its own peculiar one parliament that will be elected on the basis of proportional representation. No
conditions. The determination lies in assessing the impact that the proposed term limits are set for the members of parliament except for those elected under
changes may have on the entire instrument, and not simply on an arithmetical the party-list system whose terms and number shall be provided by law. There will
appraisal of the specific provisions which it seeks to affect. be a President who shall be the head of state, but the head of government is the
In McFadden v. Jordan,14 the California Supreme Court laid down the Prime Minister. The latter and his cabinet shall be elected from among the
groundwork for the combination of quantitative and qualitative assessment of
members of parliament and shall be responsible to parliament for the program of (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
government. Members; or
The preceding proposal indicates that, under the proposed system, the executive (2) A constitutional convention.
and legislature shall be one and the same, such that parliament will be the SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
paramount governing institution. What this implies is that there will be no proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
separation between the law-making and enforcement powers of the state, that are twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
traditionally delineated between the executive and legislature in a presidential every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
form of government. Necessarily, the checks and balances inherent in the centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
fundamental plan of our U.S.-style presidential system will be eliminated. The section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
workings of government shall instead be controlled by the internal political this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
dynamics prevailing in the parliament. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
Our present governmental system is built on the separation of powers among the this right.
three branches of government. The legislature is generally limited to the xxxx
enactment of laws, the executive to the enforcement of laws and the judiciary to SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under
the application of laws. This separation is intended to prevent a concentration of Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes
authority in one person or group that might lead to an irreversible error or abuse cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor
in its exercise to the detriment of our republican institutions. In the words of Justice later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Laurel, the doctrine of separation of powers is intended to secure action, to Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
forestall overaction, to prevent despotism and obtain efficiency. 19 a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
In the proposed parliamentary system, there is an obvious lack of formal than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
institutional checks on the legislative and executive powers of the state, since both Commission of Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. (Underscoring
the Prime Minister and the members of his cabinet are drawn from parliament. supplied)
There are no effective limits to what the Prime Minister and parliament can do, It is clear that the right of the people to directly propose changes to the
except the will of the parliamentary majority. This goes against the central Constitution is limited to amendments and does not include a revision thereof.
principle of our present constitutional scheme that distributes the powers of Otherwise, it would have been unnecessary to provide for Section 2 to distinguish
government and provides for counteraction among the three branches. Although its scope from the rights vested in Congress under Section 1. The latter lucidly
both the presidential and parliamentary systems are theoretically consistent with states that Congress may propose both amendments and a revision of the
constitutional democracy, the underlying tenets and resulting governmental Constitution by either convening a constituent assembly or calling for a
framework are nonetheless radically different. constitutional convention. Section 2, on the other hand, textually commits to the
Consequently, the shift from presidential to parliamentary form of government people the right to propose only amendments by direct action.
cannot be regarded as anything but a drastic change. It will require a total overhaul To hold, therefore, that Section 2 allows substantial amendments
of our governmental structure and involve a re-orientation in the cardinal doctrines amounting to revision obliterates the clear distinction in scope between
that govern our constitutional set-up. As explained by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J., a Sections 1 and 2. The intention, as may be seen from a cursory perusal of the
switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary system would be a revision above provisions, is to provide differing fields of application for the three modes
because of its over-all impact on the entire constitutional structure.20 It cannot, by of effecting changes to the Constitution. We need not even delve into the intent of
any standard, be deemed as a mere constitutional amendment. the constitutional framers to see that the distinction in scope is definitely marked.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and We should thus apply these provisions with a discerning regard for this distinction.
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment Again, McFadden22 is instructive:
is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary ". . . The differentiation required is not merely between two words; more
to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have accurately it is between two procedures and between their respective
become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision, fields of application. Each procedure, if we follow elementary principles
however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplates a re- of statutory construction, must be understood to have a substantial field
examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the document of application, not to be x x x a mere alternative procedure in the same
which have over-all implications for the entire document, to determine field. Each of the two words, then, must be understood to denote,
how and to what extent they should be altered.21 (Underscoring respectively, not only a procedure but also a field of application
supplied) appropriate to its procedure. The people of this state have spoken; they
The inclusion of a proposal to convene a constituent assembly likewise shows the made it clear when they adopted article XVIII and made amendment
intention of the proponents to effect even more far-reaching changes in our relatively simple but provided the formidable bulwark of a constitutional
fundamental law. If the original intent were to simply shift the form of government convention as a protection against improvident or hasty (or any other)
to the parliamentary system, then there would have been no need for the calling revision, that they understood that there was a real difference between
out of a constituent assembly to propose further amendments to the Constitution. amendment and revision. We find nothing whatsoever in the language
It should be noted that, once convened, a constituent assembly can do away and of the initiative amendment of 1911 (art. IV, § 1) to effect a breaking
replace any constitutional provision which may not even have a bearing on the down of that difference. On the contrary, the distinction appears to be x
shift to a parliamentary system of government. The inclusion of such a proposal x x scrupulously preserved by the express declaration in the
reveals the proponents' plan to consider all provisions of the constitution, either to amendment x x x that the power to propose and vote on "amendments
determine which of its provisions should be altered or suppressed or whether the to the Constitution" is reserved directly to the people in initiative
whole document should be replaced with an entirely new one. proceedings, while leaving unmentioned the power and the procedure
Consequently, it is not true that only Articles VI and VII are covered by the alleged relative to constitutional revision, which revisional power and
people's initiative. The proposal to convene a constituent assembly, which by its procedure, it will be remembered, had already been specifically treated
terms is mandatory, will practically jeopardize the future of the entire Constitution in section 2 of article XVIII. Intervenors' contention--that any change
and place it on shaky grounds. The plan of the proponents, as reflected in their less than a total one is but amendatory--would reduce to the rubble of
proposed changes, goes beyond the shifting of government from the presidential absurdity the bulwark so carefully erected and preserved. Each
to the parliamentary system. Indeed, it could even extend to the "fundamental situation involving the question of amendment, as contrasted with
nature of our state as a democratic and republican state." revision, of the Constitution must, we think, be resolved upon its own
To say that the proposed changes will affect only the constitution of government facts."
is therefore a fallacy. To repeat, the combined effect of the proposed changes to Thus, our people too have spoken when they overwhelmingly ratified the 1987
Articles VI and VII and those pertaining to the Transitory Provisions under Article Constitution, with the provisions on amendments and revisions under Article XVII.
XVIII indubitably establish the intent and plan of the proponents to possibly affect The voice and will of our people cannot be any clearer when they limited people's
even the constitutions of liberty and sovereignty. Indeed, no valid reason exists initiative to mere amendments of the fundamental law and excluded revisions in
for authorizing further amendments or revisions to the Constitution if the intention its scope. In this regard, the task of the Court is to give effect to the people's voice,
of the proposed changes is truly what it purports to be. as expressed unequivocally through the Constitution.
There is no question here that only amendments to the Constitution may be Article XVII on amendments and revisions is called a "constitution of sovereignty"
undertaken through a people's initiative and not a revision, as textually reflected because it defines the constitutional meaning of "sovereignty of the people." It is
in the Constitution itself. This conclusion is inevitable especially from a through these provisions that the sovereign people have allowed the expression
comparative examination of Section 2 in relation to Sections 1 and 4 of Article of their sovereign will and have canalized their powers which would otherwise be
XVII, which state: plenary. By approving these provisions, the sovereign people have decided to limit
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may themselves and future generations in the exercise of their sovereign power. 23
be proposed by: They are thus bound by the constitution and are powerless, whatever their
 numbers, to change or thwart its mandates, except through the means prescribed SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR. AND SENATORS
by the Constitution itself.24 SERGIO R. OSMENA III, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCIRO-
It is thus misplaced to argue that the people may propose revisions to the ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM, AND PANFILO M.
Constitution through people's initiative because their representatives, whose LACSON, oppositors-intervenors,
power is merely delegated, may do so. While Section 1 of Article XVII may be JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA AND PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO,
considered as a provision delegating the sovereign powers of amendment oppositors-intervenors,
and revision to Congress, Section 2, in contrast, is a self-limitation on that INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY AND CEBU CHAPTER,
sovereign power. In the words of Cooley: oppositors-intervenors,
x x x Although by their constitutions the people have delegated the JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
exercise of sovereign powers to the several departments, they have not ANTONIO L. SALVADOR AND RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, oppostors-
thereby divested themselves of the sovereignty. They retain in their own intervenors,
hands, so far as they have thought it needful to do so, a power to control SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
the governments they create, and the three departments are MANUEL VILLAR, JR., oppositor-intervenor;
responsible to and subject to be ordered, directed, changed or G.R. NO. 174299
abolished by them. But this control and direction must be exercised in MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. AND RENE A. Q.
the legitimate mode previously agreed upon. The voice of the people, SAGUISAG, petitioners,
acting in their sovereign capacity, can be of legal force only when vs.
expressed at the times and under the conditions which they themselves COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN
have prescribed and pointed out by the Constitution, or which, S. ABALOS, SR. AND COMMISSIONERS RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA,
consistently with the Constitution, have been prescribed and pointed FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR. ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO
out for them by statute; and if by any portion of the people, however AND JOHN DOE AND PETER DOE, respondents.
large, an attempt should be made to interfere with the regular working x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
of the agencies of government at any other time or in any other mode CONCURRING OPINION
than as allowed by existing law, either constitutional or statutory, it SANDOVAL–GUTIERREZ, J.:
would be revolutionary in character, and must be resisted and Vox populi vox Dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of God. Caution should
repressed by the officers who, for the time being, represent legitimate be exercised in choosing one's battlecry, lest it does more harm than good to
government.25 (Underscoring supplied) one's cause. In its original context, the complete version of this Latin phrase
Consequently, there is here no case of "the spring rising above its source." Nor is means exactly the opposite of what it is frequently taken to mean. It originated
it one where the people's sovereign power has been relegated to a lesser plane from a holy man, the monk Alcuin, who advised Charlemagne, "nec audiendi qui
than that of Congress. In choosing to exercise self-limitation, there is no absence solent dicere vox populi vox Dei quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae
or lack of even a fraction of the sovereign power of the people since self- proxima sit," meaning, "And those people should not be listened to who keep
limitation itself is an expression of that sovereign power. The people have on saying, 'The voice of the people is the voice of God,' since the
chosen to delegate and limit their sovereign power by virtue of the Constitution riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness."1 Perhaps, it is by
and are bound by the parameters that they themselves have ordained. Otherwise, providence that the true meaning of the Latin phrase is revealed upon petitioners
if the people choose to defy their self-imposed constitutional restraints, we will be and their allies – that they may reflect upon the sincerity and authenticity of their
faced with a revolutionary situation.26 "people's initiative."
It has repeatedly been emphasized that ours is a democratic and republican History has been a witness to countless iniquities committed in the name of God.
state.27 Even as we affirm, however, that aspect of direct democracy, we should Wars were waged, despotism tolerated and oppressions justified – all these
not forget that, first and foremost, we are a constitutional democracy. To uphold transpired as man boasted of God's imprimatur. Today, petitioners and their allies
direct democracy at the expense of the fundamental law is to sanction, not a hum the same rallying call, convincing this Court that the people's initiative is the
constitutional, but an extra-constitutional recourse. This is clearly beyond the "voice of the people" and, therefore, the "voice of God." After a thorough
powers of the Court who, by sovereign mandate, is the guardian and keeper of consideration of the petitions, I have come to realize that man, with his ingenuity
the Constitution. and arrogance, has perfected the craft of imitating the voice of God. It is against
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. this kind of genius that the Court must guard itself.
174153. The facts of the case are undisputed.
In 1996, the Movement for People's Initiative sought to exercise the power of
ONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution which reads:
sociate Justice Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
____________________ proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
EN BANC twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
G.R. NO. 174153 every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
RAUL L. LAMBINO AND ENRICO B. AUMENTADO TOGETHER WITH centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
6,327,952 REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
vs. this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter,
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), petitioners- of this right.
intervenors, The exercise was thwarted by a petition for prohibition filed with this Court by
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, et al., entitled "Miriam Defensor Santiago,
petitioners-intervenors, Alexander Padilla and Maria Isabel Ongpin, petitioners, v. Commission on
SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., petitioner-intervenor, Elections (COMELEC), Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa, in
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION their capacities as founding members of the People's Initiative for Reforms,
(PTGWO) AND VICTORINO F. BALAIS, petitioners-intervenors, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), respondents."2 The case was docketed as
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. G.R. No. 127325. On March 19, 1997, this Court rendered its Decision in favor of
QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE AND CARLOS P. petitioners, holding that Republic Act No. 6735 (R.A. No. 6735), An Act Providing
MEDINA, JR., oppositors-intervenors, for a System of Initiative and Referendum and Appropriating Funds Therefor, is
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., oppositor-intervenor, "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, oppositor-intervenor, insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned." A
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL majority of eight (8) Justices fully concurred with this ruling, while five (5)
BISHOPS FROUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, subscribed to the opposite view. One (1) opined that there is no need to rule on
ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS,LEONARDO SAN JOSE, the adequacy of R.A. No. 6735.
JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, AND DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, On motion for reconsideration, two (2) of the eight (8) Justices reconsidered their
oppositors-intervenors, positions. One (1) filed an inhibition and the other one (1) joined the minority
LORETA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESA opinion. As a consequence, of the thirteen (13) Justices who participated in the
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, oppositors-intervenors, deliberation, six (6) voted in favor of the majority opinion, while the other six (6)
LUWALHATI ANTONINO, oppositor-intervenor, voted in favor of the minority opinion.3
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO A few months thereafter, or on September 23, 1997, the Court dismissed a similar
F.ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. case, entitled People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS AND Commission on Elections4 on the ground that the COMELEC did not commit grave
AMADO GAT INCION, oppositors-intervenors, abuse of discretion when it dismissed PIRMA's Petition for Initiative to Propose
Amendments to the Constitution "it appearing that that it only complied with Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member(s) of
the dispositions in the Decision of the Court in G.R. no. 127325 (Santiago v. Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" and/or "Acting
COMELEC) promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
1997." Seven (7) Justices voted that there was no need to re-examine its ruling, Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
as regards the issue of the sufficiency of R.A. No. 6735. Another Justice amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
concurred, but on the different premise that the case at bar is not the proper Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall
vehicle for such re-examination. Five (5) Justice opined otherwise. have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the
This time, another group known as Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with the Union Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent Members
of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), have gathered signatures in of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.
support of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, which entail a change (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of
in the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral- Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be
parliamentary, thus: a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for
read as follows: the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall
Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim
unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members Parliament from among themselves.
as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces, (3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of
representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010.
their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand (4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the
inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local
compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have at least autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
one member. Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive,
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an
Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the
resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various
elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may
without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the be delegated to him by the incumbent President."
party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number (2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members
shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming of Parliament which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously with
from the parliamentary districts. the election of all local government officials. The duty elected Prime
B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and
hereby amended to read, as follows: responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the
Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. term of the incumbent President and Vice President.
The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, and written on its upper right hand
assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a portion is the abstract of the proposed amendments, quoted as follows:
majority of all the Members of Parliament from among themselves. He Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Article VI and VII of the
shall be responsible to the Parliament for the program of government. 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the present
C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of
bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and
government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory economy in government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory
Provisions," which shall read, as follows: Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another?
Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve On August 25, 2006, Raul L. Lambino and Enrico B. Aumentado, herein
until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 petitioners, filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the
and shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution Constitution.5 Five (5) days thereafter, they filed an Amended Petition alleging that
unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the they are filing the petition in their own behalf and together with some 6.3
interim parliament. million registered voters who have affixed their signatures on the signature
(2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from sheets attached thereto. They claimed that the signatures of registered voters
office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall appearing on the signature sheets, constituting at least twelve per cent (12%) of
succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability, all registered voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is represented
resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and by at least three per cent (3%) of all the registered voters, were verified by their
Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers respective city or municipal election officers.
and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended. Several organizations opposed the petition. 6
Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President In a Resolution dated August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 petition, citing as basis this Court's ruling in Santiago, permanently enjoining it
of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on
and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section enacted to provide for the implementation of the system."
2, ad seriatium up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the Hence, the present petition for certiorari and mandamus praying that this Court
Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be set aside the COMELEC Resolution and direct the latter tocomply with Section 4,
amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of Article XVII of the Constitution, which provides:
government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to Sec. 4 x x x
"Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
references therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
"Member(s) of Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
and/or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister." I vote to dismiss the petition of Lambino, et al. in G.R. No. 174153 and grant the
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President petition of Mar-len Abigail Binay, et al. in G.R. No. 174299. Here, petitioners pray
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of that the COMELEC Chairman and Commissioners be required to show why they
Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby be amended and should not be punished for contempt7 of court for disregarding the permanent
Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other injunction issued by this Court in Santiago.
Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially as I
Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with Respondent COMELEC did not act with grave abuse of discretion
Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended so as Without necessarily brushing aside the other important issues, I believe the
to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of government; resolution of the present petition hinges on this singular issue -- did the COMELEC
provided, however, that any and all references therein to "Congress," commit grave abuse of discretion when it denied Lambino, et al.'s petition for
"Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall initiative to amend the Constitution on the basis of this Court's Decision in
be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all references therein to Santiago v. COMELEC?
"Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or "Member(s) of the House of
In other words, regardless of how the other remaining issues are resolved, still, With Santiago being the only impediment to the instant petition for initiative,
the ultimate yardstick is the attendance of "grave abuse of discretion" on the part petitioners persistently stress that the doctrine of stare decisis does not bar its re-
of the COMELEC. examination.
Jurisprudence teaches that an act of a court or tribunal may only be considered I am not convinced. The maxim stare decisis et non quieta movere translates
as committed in grave abuse of discretion when the same was performed in a "stand by the decisions and disturb not what is settled."15 As used in our
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment. The abuse of discretion must be jurisprudence, it means that "once this Court has laid down a principle of law
so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or to a virtual as applicable to a certain state of facts, it would adhere to that principle and
refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of apply it to all future cases in which the facts are substantially the same as
law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by in the earlier controversy."16
reason of passion or personal hostility.8 There is considerable literature about whether this doctrine of stare decisis is a
The Resolution of respondent COMELEC denying due course to the petition for good or bad one, but the doctrine is usually justified by arguments which focus on
initiative on the basis of a case (Santiago) decided by this Court cannot, in any the desirability of stability and certainty in the law and also by notions of justice
way, be characterized as "capricious or whimsical," "patent and gross," or and fairness. Justice Benjamin Cardozo in his treatise, The Nature of the Judicial
"arbitrary and despotic." On the contrary, it was the most prudent course to take. Process stated:
It must be stressed that in Santiago, this Court permanently enjoins respondent It will not do to decide the same question one way between one set of
COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for litigants and the opposite way between another. 'If a group of cases
initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have involves the same point, the parties expect the same decision. It
been validly enacted." It being a fact that Congress has not enacted a sufficient would be a gross injustice to decide alternate cases on opposite
law, respondent COMELEC has no alternative but to adhere to Santiago. principles. If a case was decided against me yesterday when I was
Otherwise, it is vulnerable to a citation for contempt. As succinctly stated by Chief a defendant, I shall look for the same judgment today if I am
Justice Artemio V. Panganiban (then Associate Justice) in his Separate Opinion plaintiff. To decide differently would raise a feeling of resentment
in the subsequent case of PIRMA vs. COMELEC:9 and wrong in my breast; it would be an infringement, material and
x x x I cannot fault the Comelec for complying with the ruling even if it, moral, of my rights." Adherence to precedent must then be the rule
too, disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent rather than the exception if litigants are to have faith in the even-handed
Comelec was directly enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had administration of justice in the courts.17
no choice but to obey. Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of That the doctrine of stare decisis is related to justice and fairness may be
discretion. Refusal to act on the PIRMA petition was the only recourse appreciated by considering the observation of American philosopher William K.
open to the Comelec. Any other mode of action would have constituted Frankena as to what constitutes injustice:
defiance of the Court and would have been struck down as grave abuse The paradigm case of injustice is that in which there are two
of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's supremacy as similar individuals in similar circumstances and one of them is
the final arbiter of justiciable controversies. treated better or worse than the other. In this case, the cry of injustice
It need not be emphasized that in our judicial hierarchy, this Court reigns supreme. rightly goes up against the responsible agent or group; and unless that
All courts, tribunals and administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions agent or group can establish that there is some relevant dissimilarity
are obliged to conform to its pronouncements. It has the last word on what the after all between the individuals concerned and their circumstances, he
law is; it is the final arbiter of any justifiable controversy. In other words, or they will be guilty as charged.18
there is only one Supreme Court from whose decisions all other courts Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent re-examining and, if need
should take their bearings.10 As a warning to lower court judges who would not be, overruling prior decisions, "It is x x x a fundamental jurisprudential policy that
adhere to its rulings, this Court, in People v. Santos,11 held: prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if
Now, if a judge of a lower Court feels, in the fulfillment of his mission of considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy
deciding cases, that the application of a doctrine promulgated by this x x x 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability
Superiority is against his way of reasoning, or against his conscience, in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties
he may state his opinion on the matter, but rather than disposing of the should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with
case in accordance with his personal views he must first think that it is reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.19 Accordingly, a party
his duty to apply the law as interpreted by the Highest Court of the Land, urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which
and that any deviation from a principle laid down by the latter would is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent,
unavoidably cause, as a sequel, unnecessary inconveniences, delays the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency
and expenses to the litigants. And if despite of what is here said, a or inconsistency with other related rules of law. Here, petitioners failed to
Judge still believes that he cannot follow Our rulings, then he has no discharge their task.
other alternative than to place himself in the position that he could Santiago v. COMELEC was decided by this Court on March 19, 1997 or more
properly avoid the duty of having to render judgment on the case than nine (9) years ago. During that span of time, the Filipino people, specifically
concerned (Art. 9, C.C.), and he has only one legal way to do that. the law practitioners, law professors, law students, the entire judiciary and litigants
Clearly, respondent COMELEC did not gravely abuse its discretion in dismissing have recognized this Court's Decision as a precedent. In fact, the Santiago
the petition of Lambino, et al. for it merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago. doctrine was applied by this Court in the subsequent case of PIRMA. Even the
Significantly, in PIRMA vs. COMELEC,12 a unanimous Court implicitly legislature has relied on said Decision, thus, several bills have been introduced in
recognized that its ruling in Santiago is the established doctrine and that the both Houses of Congress to cure the deficiency. I cannot fathom why it should be
COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in invoking it, thus: overturned or set aside merely on the basis of the petition of Lambino, et al.
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of Indeed, this Court's conclusion in Santiago that R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete,
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only amendments to the Constitution is concerned remains a precedent and must be
complied with the dispositions of this Court in G.R. No. 127325 upheld.
promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its resolution on June 10, 1997. III
Indeed, I cannot characterize as a "grave abuse of discretion" the COMELEC's The proposed constitutional changes constitute revisions and not mere
obedience and respect to the pronouncement of this Court in Santiago. amendments
II Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution lays down the means for its amendment and
The doctrine of stare decisis revision. Thus:
bars the re-examination of Santiago Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may
It cannot be denied that in Santiago, a majority of the members of this Court or be proposed by:
eight (8) Justices (as against five (5) Justices) concurred in declaring R.A. No. (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
6735 an insufficient law. When the motion for reconsideration was denied via an members; or
equally-divided Court or a 6-6 vote, it does not mean that the Decision was (2) A Constitutional Convention.
overturned. It only shows that the opposite view fails to muster enough votes to Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
modify or reverse the majority ruling. Therefore, the original Decision was proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least
upheld.13 In Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. Velasco,14 this Court twelve per centum of the total number of registered votes, of which
ruled that the denial of a motion or reconsideration signifies that the ground every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
relied upon have been found, upon due deliberation, to be without merit, as centum of the registered voters therein. x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
not being of sufficient weight to warrant a modification of the judgment or At the outset, it must be underscored that initiative and referendum, as means
final order. by which the people can directly propose changes to the Constitution, were not
provided for in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Thus, under these two (2)
Constitutions, there was no demand to draw the distinction between an
amendment and a revision, both being governed by a uniform process. This is not the old. As applied to fundamental law, such as a constitution or
so under our present Constitution. The distinction between an amendment and a charter, it suggests a convention to examine the whole subject and to
revision becomes crucial because only amendments are allowed under the prepare and submit a new instrument whether the desired changes
system of people's initiative. Revisions are within the exclusive domain of from the old are few or many. Amendment implies continuance of
Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members, or of a Constitutional the general plan and purpose of the law, with corrections to better
Convention. accomplish its purpose. Basically, revision suggests fundamental
The deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission is explicit that Section 2, change, while amendment is a correction of detail.
Article XVII covers only amendments, thus: Although there are some authorities which indicate that a change in a city's form
The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized. of government may be accomplished by a process of "amendment," the cases
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President. which so hold seem to involve statutes which only distinguish between
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the amendment and totally new charters.23 However, as in Maine law, where the
Commission that pursuant to the mandate given us last night, we statute authorizing the changes distinguishes between "charter amendment" and
submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which "charter revision," it has been held that "(a) change in the form of government
embodies the proposed provision governing initiative. This is now of a home rule city may be made only by revision of the city charter, not by
covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the its amendment."24
permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2: In summary, it would seem that any major change in governmental form and
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, scheme would probably be interpreted as a "revision" and should be achieved
directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon through the more thorough process of deliberation.
petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters. Although, at first glance, petitioners' proposed changes appear to cover isolated
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report and specific provisions only, however, upon careful scrutiny, it becomes clear that
No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of the proposed changes will alter the very structure of our government and
initiative which came about because of the extraordinary developments create multifarious ramifications. In other words, the proposed changes will
this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending have a "domino effect" or, more appropriately, "ripple effect" on other provisions
the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members of the Constitution.
felt that this system of initiative should be limited to amendments At this juncture, it must be emphasized that the power reserved to the people to
to the Constitution and should not extend to the revision of the effect changes in the Constitution includes the power to amend anysection in such
entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section a manner that the proposed change, if approved, would "be complete within
1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. itself, relate to one subject and not substantially affect any other section or
xxx xxx xxx article of the Constitution or require further amendments to the Constitution
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished proponent to accomplish its purpose."25 This is clearly not the case here.
of the amendment yield to a few questions? Firstly, a shift from a presidential to a parliamentary form of government affects
MR. DAVIDE: With pleasure, Madam President. the well-enshrined doctrine of separation of powers of government, embodied in
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question, Commissioner Davide's our Constitution, by providing for an Executive, Legislative and Judiciary
proposed amendment on line I refers to "amendments." Does it Branches. In a Parliamentary form of government, the Executive Branch is to a
not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla certain degree, dependent on the direct or indirect support of the Parliament, as
when he made the distinction between the words "amendments" expressed through a "vote of confidence." To my mind, this doctrine of
and "revision?" separation of powers is so interwoven in the fabric of our Constitution, that
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" any change affecting such doctrine must necessarily be a revision.
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, In McFadden vs. Jordan,26 the California Supreme Court ruled as follows:
it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision" It is thus clear that that a revision of the Constitution may be
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.20 accomplished only through ratification by the people of a revised
Considering that the initiative on the Constitution only permits amendments, it is constitution proposed by a convention called for that purpose x x x.
imperative to examine whether petitioners' proposed changes partake of the Consequently, if the scope of the proposed initiative measure now
nature of amendments, not revisions. before us is so broad that if such measure became law a
The petition for initiative filed with the COMELEC by Lambino, et al. sought to substantial revision of our present state Constitution would be
amend the following provisions of the 1987 Constitution: Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, effected, then the measure may not properly be submitted to the
and 7 of Article VI (The Legislative Department); Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article electorate until and unless it is first agreed upon by a
VII (The Executive Department). It further includes Article XVIII (Transitory constitutional convention. x x x.
Provisions) for the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral- Secondly, the shift from a bicameral to a unicameral form of government is not a
presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary form of government. mere amendment, but is in actuality a revision, as set forth in Adams v. Gunter27:
Succinctly, the proposals envision a change in the form of government, from The proposal here to amend Section I of Article III of the 1968
bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary; conversion of the present Constitution to provide for a Unicameral Legislature affects not only
Congress of the Philippines to an Interim National Assembly; change in the terms many other provisions of the Constitution but provides for a
of Members of Parliament; and the election of a Prime Minister who shall be change in the form of the legislative branch of government, which
vested with executive power. has been in existence in the United States Congress and in all of the
Petitioners contend that the proposed changes are in the nature of amendments, states of the nation, except one, since the earliest days. It would be
hence, within the coverage of a "people's initiative." difficult to visualize a more revolutionary change. The concept of a
I disagree. House and a Senate is basic in the American form of government. It
The noted constitutionalist, Father Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., who was also a would not only radically change the whole pattern of the
member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, characterized an amendment government in this state and tear apart the whole fabric of the
and a revision to the Constitution as follows: Constitution, but would even affect the physical facilities
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and necessary to carry on government.
separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment Thirdly, the proposed changes, on their face, signify revisions rather than
is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary amendments, especially, with the inclusion of the following "omnibus provision":
to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-
become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamnetary form of government, there
however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplates a shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions" which shall
re-examination of the entire document, or of provisions of the read, as follows:
document which have over-all implications for the document to xxxxxxxxx
determine how and to what extent they should be altered.21 Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
Obviously, both "revision" and amendment" connote change; any distinction and Vice-President, with the exceptions of Section 1,2,3 and 4 of Article
between the two must be based upon the degree of change contemplated. In Kelly VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended x x x x x x and
v. Laing,22 the Supreme Court of Michigan made the following comparison of the all other Sections of Article VII shall be retained and numbered
two terms: sequentially as Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be
"Revision" and "amendment" have the common characteristics of inconsistent with Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be
working changes in the charter, and are sometimes used in exactly the deemed amended so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary
same sense but there is an essential difference between them. system of government x x x x x x .
"Revision" implies a reexamination of the whole law and a redraft xxxxxxxxx
without obligation to maintain the form, scheme, or structure of Section 4. (1) x x x
 (3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the 1) The text of R.A. No. 6735 is replete with references to the right of
Interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or people to initiate changes to the Constitution;
revisions of, this Constitution, consistent with the principles of local 2) The legislative history of R.A. No. 6735 reveals the clear intent of
autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. the lawmakers to use it as instrument to implement the people's
The above provisions will necessarily result in a "ripple effect" on the other initiative; and
provisions of the Constitution to make them conform to the qualities of unicameral- 3) The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. No. 6735
parliamentary form of government. With one sweeping stroke, these proposed demonstrate the legislative intent to use it as instrument to implement
provisions automatically revise some provisions of the Constitution. In people's initiative.
McFadden, the same practice was considered by the Court to be in the nature of I regret to say that the foregoing justifications are wanting.
substantial revision, necessitating a constitutional convention. I quote the A thorough reading of R.A. No. 6735 leads to the conclusion that it covers only
pertinent portion of its ruling, thus: initiatives on national and local legislation. Its references to initiatives on the
There is in the measure itself, no attempt to enumerate the various and Constitution are few, isolated and misplaced. Unlike in the initiatives on national
many articles and sections of our present Constitution which would be and local legislation, where R.A. No. 6735 provides a detailed, logical, and
affected, replaced or repealed. It purports only to add one new article exhaustive enumeration on their implementation,31 however, as regards initiative
but its framers found it necessary to include the omnibus provision on the Constitution, the law merely:
(subdivision (7) of section XII) that "If any section, subsection, sentence, (a) mentions the word "Constitution" in Section 2;32
clause or phrase of the constitution is in conflict with any of the (b) defines "initiative on the Constitution" and includes it in the
provisions of this article, such section, subsection, sentence, clause, or enumeration of the three systems of initiative in Section 3;33
phrase is to the extent of such conflict hereby repealed. x x x (c) speaks of "plebiscite" as the process by which the proposition in an
Consequently, if the scope of the proposed intitiative measure now initiative on the Constitution may be approved or rejected by the
before us is so broad that if such measure become law a substantial people;34
revision of our present state Constitution would be be effected, then the (d) reiterates the constitutional requirements as to the number of voters
measure may not properly be submitted to the electorate until and who should sign the petition;35 and
unless it is first agreed upon by a constitutional convention.28 (e) provides the date for the effectivity of the approved proposition.36
Undoubtedly, the changes proposed by the petitioners are not mere amendments In other words, R.A. No. 6735 does not specify the procedure how initiative on the
which will only affect the Articles or Sections sought to be changed. Rather, they Constitution may be accomplished. This is not the enabling law contemplated by
are in the nature of revisions which will affect considerable portions of the the Constitution. As pointed out by oppositor-intervenor Alternative Law Groups
Constitution resulting in the alteration of our form of government. The proposed Inc., since the promulgation of the Decision in Santiago, various bills have been
changes cannot be taken in isolation since these are connected or "interlocked" introduced in both Houses of Congress providing for a complete and adequate
with the other provisions of our Constitution. Accordingly, it has been held that: "If process for people's initiative, such as:
the changes attempted are so sweeping that it is necessary to include the · Names, signatures and addresses of petitioners who shall be
provisions interlocking them, then it is plain that the plan would constitute registered voters;
a recasting of the whole Constitution and this, we think, it was intended to · A statement of the provision of the Constitution or any part thereof
be accomplished only by a convention under Section 2 which has not yet sought to be amended and the proposed amendment;
been disturbed."29 · The manner of initiation - in a congressional district through a petition
I therefore conclude that since the proposed changes partake of the nature of a by any individual, group, political party or coalition with members in the
revision of the Constitution, then they cannot be the subject of an initiative. On congressional district;
this matter, Father Bernas expressed this insight: · The language used: the petition should be printed in English and
But why limit initiative and referendum to simple amendments? The translated in the local language;
answer, which one can easily glean from the rather long deliberation on · Signature stations to be provided for;
initiative and referendum in the 1986 Constitutional Commission, is · Provisions pertaining to the need and manner of posting, that is, after
practicality. In other words, who is to formulate the revision or how is it the signatures shall have been verified by the Commission, the verified
to be formulated? Revision, as concretely being proposed now, is signatures shall be posted for at least thirty days in the respective
nothing less than a rebuilding of the Philippine constitutional municipal and city halls where the signatures were obtained;
structure. Who were involved in formulating the structure? What · Provisions pertaining to protests allowed any protest as to the
debates ensued? What records are there for future use in interpreting authenticity of the signatures to be filed with the COMELEC and
the provisions which may be found to be unclear? decided within sixty (60) days from the filing of said protest.
In a deliberative body like Congress or a Constitutional Convention, None of the above necessary details is provided by R.A. No. 6735, thus,
decisions are reached after much purifying debate. And while the demonstrating its incompleteness and inadequacy.
deliberations proceed, the public has the opportunity to get involved. It V
is only after the work of an authorized body has been completed that it Petitioners are not Proper Parties to
is presented to the electorate for final judgment. Careful debate is File the Petition for Initiative
important because the electorate tends to accept what is VI
presented to it even sight unseen.30 The Petition for Initiative Filed with the COMELEC Does not Comply with
IV Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735
R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the People's initiative I shall discuss the above issues together since they are interrelated and
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution reads: inseparable. The determination of whether petitioners are proper parties to file the
Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly petition for initiative in behalf of the alleged 6.3 million voters will require an
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least examination of whether they have complied with the provisions of Section
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per To reiterate, Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides:
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter, least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters,
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
of this right. per centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
On its face, Section 2 is not a self-executory provision. This means that an section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of
enabling law is imperative for its implementation. Thus, Congress enacted R.A. this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
No. 6735 in order to breathe life into this constitutional provision. However, as The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of
previously narrated, this Court struck the law in Santiago for being incomplete, this right. (Underscoring supplied)
inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative The mandate of the above constitutional provisions is definite and categorical. For
on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. a people's initiative to prosper, the following requisites must be present:
The passage of time has done nothing to change the applicability of R.A. No. 1. It is "the people" themselves who must "directly propose"
6735. Congress neither amended it nor passed a new law to supply its "amendments" to the Constitution;
deficiencies. 2. The proposed amendments must be contained in "a petition of at
Notwithstanding so, this Court is being persuaded to take a 360-degree turn, least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters;"
enumerating three (3) justifications why R.A. No. 6735 must be considered a and
sufficient law, thus:
 3. The required minimum of 12% of the total number of registered voters In Colgrove v. Green,38 Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter, coined the phrase "political
"must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered thicket" to describe situations where Federal courts should not intervene in
voters" of "every legislative district." political questions which they have neither the competence nor the commission
In this case, however, the above requisites are not present. to decide. In Colgrove, the US Supreme Court, with a narrow 4-3 vote branded
The petition for initiative was filed with the COMELEC by petitioners Lambino and the apportionment of legislative districts in Illinois "as a political question and
Aumentado, two registered voters. As shown in the "Verification/Certification that the invalidation of the districts might, in requiring statewide elections,
with Affidavit of Non-Forum Shopping" contained in their petition, they alleged create an evil greater than that sought to be remedied."
under oath that they have caused the preparation of the petition in their personal While this Court has adopted the use of Frankfurter's "political thicket,"
capacity as registered voters "and as representatives" of the supposed 6.3 nonetheless, it has sought to come up with a definition of the term "political
million registered voters. This goes to show that the questioned petition was not question." Thus, in Vera v. Avelino,39 this Court ruled that properly, political
initiated directly by the 6.3 million people who allegedly comprised at least 12% questions are "those questions which, under the Constitution, are to be
of the total number of registered voters, as required by Section 2. Moreover, decided by the people in their sovereign capacity or in regard to which full
nowhere in the petition itself could be found the signatures of the 6.3 million discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive
registered voters. Only the signatures of petitioners Lambino and Aumentado branch of the government." In Tañada and Macapagal v. Cuenco,40 the Court
were affixed therein "as representatives" of those 6.3 million people. Certainly, held that the term political question connotes, in legal parlance, what it means in
that is not the petition for people's initiative contemplated by the Constitution. ordinary parlance, namely, a question of policy. It is concerned with issues
Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no authority whatsoever to file the dependent upon the wisdom, not legality, of a particular measure.
petition "as representatives" of the alleged 6.3 million registered voters. Such In Aquino v. Enrile,41 this Court adopted the following guidelines laid down in
act of representation is constitutionally proscribed. To repeat, Section 2 Baker v. Carr42 in determining whether a question before it is political, rather than
strictly requires that amendments to the Constitution shall be "directly proposed judicial in nature, to wit:
by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum 1) there is a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the
of the total number of registered voters." Obviously, the phrase "directly issue to a coordinate political department; or
proposed by the people" excludes any person acting as representative or agent 2) there is a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards
of the 12% of the total number of registered voters. The Constitution has bestowed for resolving it; or
upon the people the right to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. 3) there is the sheer impossibility of deciding the matter without an initial
Such right cannot be usurped by anyone under the guise of being the people's policy determination of a kind clearly for non-judicial discretion; or
representative. Simply put, Section 2 does not recognize acts of representation. 4) there is the sheer impossibility of the Court's undertaking an
For it is only "the people" (comprising the minimum of 12% of the total number of independent resolution without expressing lack of respect due the
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at coordinate branches of government; or
least three per centum of the registered voters therein) who are the proper 5) there is an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political
parties to initiate a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution. Verily, the decision already made; or
petition filed with the COMELEC by herein petitioners Lambino and Aumentado is 6) there exists the potentiality of embarrassment arising from
not a people's initiative. Necessarily, it must fail. multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.
Cororarilly, the plea that this Court should "hear" and "heed" "the people's voice" None of the foregoing standards is present in the issues raised before this Court.
is baseless and misleading. There is no people's voice to be heard and heeded Accordingly, the issues are justiciable. What is at stake here is the legality
as this petition for initiative is not truly theirs, but only of petitioners and not the wisdom of the act complained of.
Lambino and Aumentado and their allies. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the issues raised before this Court are
VII political in nature, it is not precluded from resolving them under its expanded
The issues at bar are not political questions. jurisdiction conferred upon it by Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution, following
Lambino and Aumentado, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, vehemently argue that: Daza v. Singson.43 As pointed out in Marcos v. Manglapus,44 the present
(1) "the validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution limits resort to the political question doctrine and broadens the scope
Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that over six million registered of judicial power which the Court, under previous charters, would have normally
voters indicated their support of the Petition for initiative is a purely political and ordinarily left to the political departments to decide.
question;" and (2) "[t]he power to propose amendments to the Constitution is a CONCLUSION
right explicitly bestowed upon the sovereign people. Hence, the determination by In fine, considering the political scenario in our country today, it is my view that
the people to exercise their right to propose amendments under the system of the so-called people's initiative to amend our Constitution from bicameral-
initiative is a sovereign act and falls squarely within the ambit of a political presidential to unicameral-parliamentary is actually not an initiative of the people,
question." but an initiative of some of our politicians. It has not been shown by petitioners,
The "political question doctrine" was first enunciated by the US Supreme Court in during the oral arguments in this case, that the 6.3 million registered voters who
Luther v. Borden.37 Faced with the difficult question of whether the Supreme Court affixed their signatures understood what they signed. In fact, petitioners admitted
was the appropriate institution to define the substantive content of republicanism, that the Constitutional provisions sought to be amended and the proposed
the US Supreme Court, speaking thru Mr. Justice Roger B. Taney, concluded that amendments were not explained to all those registered voters. Indeed, there will
"the sovereignty in every State resides in the people, as to how and whether be no means of knowing, to the point of judicial certainty, whether they really
they exercised it, was under the circumstances of the case, a political understood what petitioners and their group asked them to sign.
question to be settled by the political power." In other words, the responsibility Let us not repeat the mistake committed by this Court in Javellana v. The
of settling certain constitutional questions was left to the legislative and executive Executive Secretary.45 The Court then ruled that "This being the vote of the
branches of the government. majority, there is no further judicial obstacle to the new Constitution being
The Luther case arose from the so-called "Dorr Rebellion" in the State of Rhode considered in force and effect," although it had notice that the Constitution
Island. Due to increased migration brought about by the Industrial Revolution, the proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention was not validly ratified by the
urban population of Rhode Island increased. However, under the 1663 Royal people in accordance with the 1935 Constitution. The Court concluded, among
Charter which served as the State Constitution, voting rights were largely limited others, that the viva voce voting in the Citizens' Assemblies "was and is null and
to residents of the rural districts. This severe mal-apportionment of suffrage rights void ab initio." That was during martial law when perhaps majority of the justices
led to the "Dorr Rebellion." Despairing of obtaining remedies for their were scared of the dictator. Luckily at present, we are not under a martial law
disenfranchisement from the state government, suffrage reformers invoked their regime. There is, therefore, no reason why this Court should allow itself to be used
rights under the American Declaration of Independence to "alter or abolish" the as a legitimizing authority by the so-called people's initiative for those who want
government and to institute a new one. The reformers proceeded to call for and to perpetuate themselves in power.
hold an extralegal constitutional convention, drafted a new State Constitution, At this point, I can say without fear that there is nothing wrong with our present
submitted the document for popular ratification, and held elections under it. The government structure. Consequent1y, we must not change it. America has a
State government, however, refused to cede power, leading to an anomalous presidential type of government. Yet, it thrives ideally and has become a super
situation in that for a few months in 1842, there were two opposing state power. It is then safe to conclude that what we should change are some of
governments contending for legitimacy and possession of state of offices. the people running the government, NOT the SYSTEM.
The Rhode Island militia, under the authority of martial law, entered and searched According to petitioners, the proposed amendment would effect a more efficient,
the house of Martin Luther, a Dorr supporter. He brought suit against Luther more economical and more responsive government.
Borden, a militiaman. Before the US Supreme Court, Luther's counsel argued that Is there hope that a new breed of politicians, more qualified and capable, may be
since the State's archaic Constitution prevented a fair and peaceful address of elected as members and leaders of the unicameral-parliament? Or will the present
grievances through democratic processes, the people of Rhode Island had members of the Lower House continue to hold their respective positions with
instead chosen to exercise their inherent right in popular sovereignty of replacing limitless terms?
what they saw as an oppressive government. The US Supreme Court deemed
the controversy as non-justiciable and inappropriate for judicial resolution.
 Will the new government be more responsive to the needs of the poor and the signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
marginalized? Will it be able to provide homes for the homeless, food for the least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative
hungry, jobs for the jobless and protection for the weak? on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the
This is a defining moment in our history. The issue posed before us is crucial with ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years
transcendental significance. And history will judge us on how we resolve this issue thereafter.
– shall we allow the revision of our Constitution, of which we are duty bound to (c) The petition shall state the following:
guard and revere, on the basis of a doubtful people's initiative? c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be
Amending the Constitution involving a change of government system or structure enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the
is a herculean task affecting the entire Filipino people and the future generations. case may be;
Let us, therefore, entrust this duty to more knowledgeable people elected as c.2. the proposition;
members of a Constitutional Convention. c.3. the reason or reasons therefor;
Yes, the voice of the people is the voice of God. But under the circumstances c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein;
in this case, the voice of God is not audible. c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and to GRANT c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred
the petition in G.R. No. 174299. (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top
of every page of the petition.
NGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ
xxxx
sociate Justice Sec. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify
____________________ the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits
EN BANC and voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding
G.R. No. 174153 election.
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952 They also alleged that the COMELEC has the authority, mandate and obligation
REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, to give due course to the petition for initiative, in compliance with the constitutional
vs. directive for the COMELEC to "enforce and administer all laws and regulations
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent. relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall." 2
G.R. No. 174299 Petitioners incorporated in their petition for initiative the changes they proposed
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q. to be incorporated in the 1987 Constitution and prayed that the COMELEC issue
SAGUISAG, petitioners, an order:
vs. 1. Finding the Petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. of the 1987 Constitution;
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, 2. Directing the publication of the Petition in Filipino and English at least
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
SARMIENTO, and JOHN DOE and PETER DOE, respondents. 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x ninety days after the Certification by this Honorable Commission of the
SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION sufficiency of this Petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their
CALLEJO, SR., J.: sovereign will on the proposition.
I am convinced beyond cavil that the respondent Commission on Elections Petitioners pray for such other reliefs deemed just and equitable in the
(COMELEC) did not commit an abuse of its discretion in dismissing the amended premises.
petition before it. The proposals of petitioners incorporated in said amended The Ruling of the respondent COMELEC
petition are for the revision of the 1987 Constitution. Further, the amended petition On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC promulgated the assailed Resolution denying
before the respondent COMELEC is insufficient in substance. due course and dismissing the petition for initiative. The COMELEC ruled that:
The Antecedents We agree with the petitioners that this Commission has the solemn
On August 25, 2006, petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado filed Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws and regulations
with the COMELEC a petition entitled "IN THE MATTER OF PROPOSING relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative.
AMENDMENTS TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION THROUGH A PEOPLE'S This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other
INITIATIVE: A SHIFT FROM A BICAMERAL PRESIDENTIAL TO A provisions of the Constitution particularly on initiative.
UNICAMERAL PARLIAMENTARY GOVERNMENT BY AMENDING ARTICLES Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
VI AND VII; AND PROVIDING TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE "Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may, likewise, be
ORDERLY SHIFT FROM THE PRESIDENTIAL TO THE PARLIAMENTARY directly proposed by the people through initiative, upon a
SYSTEM." The case was docketed as EM (LD)-06-01. On August 30, 2006, petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
petitioners filed an amended petition. For brevity, it is referred to as the petition registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
for initiative. represented by at least three per centum of the registered
Petitioners alleged therein, inter alia, that they filed their petition in their own behalf voters therein. x x x.
and together with those who have affixed their signatures to the signature sheets The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the
appended thereto who are Filipino citizens, residents and registered voters of the exercise of this right."
Philippines, and they constitute at least twelve percent (12%) of all the registered The aforequoted provision of the Constitution being a non-self-
voters in the country, wherein each legislative district is represented by at least executory provision needed an enabling law for its implementation.
three percent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. Thus, in order to breathe life into the constitutional right of the people
Petitioners further alleged therein that the filing of the petition for initiative is based under a system of initiative to directly propose, enact, approve or reject,
on their constitutional right to propose amendments to the 1987 Constitution by in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolution,
way of people's initiative, as recognized in Section 2, Article XVII thereof, which Congress enacted RA 6735.
provides: However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Santiago v.
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly Commission on Elections struck down the said law for being
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per The Supreme Court, likewise, declared that this Commission should be
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of of the system.
this right." Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet the
According to petitioners, while the above provision states that "(T)he Congress required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters,
shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right," the provisions of of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per
Section 5(b) and (c), along with Section 7 of Republic Act (RA) 6735, 1 are centum of the registered voters therein, still the Petition cannot be given
sufficient enabling details for the people's exercise of the power. The said sections due course since the Supreme Court categorically declared RA 6735
of RA 6735 state: as inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the
Sec. 5. Requirements. – (a) To exercise the power x x x Constitution.
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of
twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as the right of the people under a system of initiative. However, neither can
 we turn a blind eye to the pronouncement of the High Court that in the THE MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE COMELEC IS TO SET
absence of a valid enabling law, this right of the people remains nothing THE INITIATIVE FOR PLEBISCITE.3
but an "empty right," and that this Commission is permanently enjoined Petitioners Failed to Allege and Demonstrate All the Essential
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on Facts To Establish the Right to a Writ of Certiorari
amendments to the Constitution. (Citations omitted.) Section 1, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court reads:
Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to this Court on a petition for certiorari Sec. 1. Petition for certiorari. – When any tribunal, board or officer
and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
The Petitioners' Case excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion
In support of their petition, petitioners alleged, inter alia, that: amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
I. any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law,
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED a person aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO TAKE court, alleging the facts with certainty and praying that judgment be
COGNIZANCE OF, AND TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO THE PETITION rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal, board
FOR INITIATIVE, BECAUSE THE CITED SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as law and justice may
MARCH 1997 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED THE MAJORITY OPINION require.
OF THE SUPREME COURT EN BANC, CONSIDERING THAT UPON The petition shall be accompanied by a certified true copy of the
ITS RECONSIDERATION AND FINAL VOTING ON 10 JUNE 1997, NO judgment, order or resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
MAJORITY VOTE WAS SECURED TO DECLARE REPUBLIC ACT and documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a sworn certification
NO. 6735 AS INADEQUATE, INCOMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENT IN of non-forum shopping as provided in the third paragraph of Section 3,
STANDARD. Rule 46.
II. A writ for certiorari may issue only when the following requirements are set out in
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735, REPUBLIC the petition and established:
ACT NO. 8189 AND EXISTING APPROPRIATION OF THE COMELEC (1) the writ is directed against a tribunal, a board or any officer
PROVIDE FOR SUFFICIENT DETAILS AND AUTHORITY FOR THE exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions;
EXERCISE OF PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE, THUS, EXISTING LAWS (2) such tribunal, board or officer has acted without or in excess of
TAKEN TOGETHER ARE ADEQUATE AND COMPLETE. jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
III. excess of jurisdiction; and
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COMELEC COMMITTED (3) there is no appeal or any plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REFUSING TO TAKE ordinary course of law. x x x4
COGNIZANCE OF, AND IN REFUSING TO GIVE DUE COURSE TO The Court has invariably defined "grave abuse of discretion," thus:
THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE, THEREBY VIOLATING AN By grave abuse of discretion is meant such capricious and whimsical
EXPRESS CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE AND DISREGARDING exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction, and it must
AND CONTRAVENING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. be shown that the discretion was exercised arbitrarily or despotically.
A. For certiorari to lie, there must be a capricious, arbitrary and whimsical
THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT exercise of power, the very antithesis of the judicial prerogative in
APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR accordance with centuries of both civil law and common law traditions.5
INITIATIVE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. There is thus grave abuse of discretion on the part of the COMELEC when it acts
1. in a capricious, whimsical, arbitrary or despotic manner in the exercise of its
THE FRAMERS OF THE CONSTITUTION judgment amounting to lack of jurisdiction. Mere abuse of discretion is not
INTENDED TO GIVE THE PEOPLE THE POWER enough.6 The only question involved is jurisdiction, either the lack or excess
TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS AND THE thereof, and abuse of discretion warrants the issuance of the extraordinary
PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE NOW GIVING remedy of certiorari only when the same is grave, as when the power is exercised
VIBRANT LIFE TO THIS CONSTITUTIONAL in an arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion, prejudice or personal
PROVISION hostility. A writ of certiorari is a remedy designed for the correction of errors of
2. jurisdiction and not errors of judgment.7 An error of judgment is one in which the
PRIOR TO THE QUESTIONED SANTIAGO court may commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, which error is reversible only
RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997, THE RIGHT OF by an appeal.8
THE PEOPLE TO EXERCISE THE SOVEREIGN In the present case, it appears from the assailed Resolution of the COMELEC that
POWER OF INITIATIVE AND RECALL HAS it denied the petition for initiative solely in obedience to the mandate of this Court
BEEN INVARIABLY UPHELD in Santiago v. Commission on Elections.9 In said case, the Court En Banc
3. permanently enjoined the COMELEC from entertaining or taking cognizance of
THE EXERCISE OF THE INITIATIVE TO any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS IS A POLITICAL shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
QUESTION WHICH SHALL BE DETERMINED When the COMELEC denied the petition for initiative, there was as yet no valid
SOLELY BY THE SOVEREIGN PEOPLE. law enacted by Congress to provide for the implementation of the system.
4. It is a travesty for the Court to declare the act of the COMELEC in denying due
BY SIGNING THE SIGNATURE SHEETS course to the petition for initiative as "capricious, despotic, oppressive or
ATTACHED TO THE PETITION FOR INITIATIVE whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction." In fact, in
DULY VERIFIED BY THE ELECTION OFFICERS, so doing, the COMELEC merely followed or applied, as it ought to do, the Court's
THE PEOPLE HAVE CHOSEN TO PERFORM ruling in Santiago to the effect that Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
THIS SACRED EXERCISE OF THEIR the system of initiative is a non self-executory provision and requires an enabling
SOVEREIGN POWER. law for its implementation. In relation thereto, RA 6735 was found by the Court to
B. be "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions" to
THE SANTIAGO RULING OF 19 MARCH 1997 IS NOT implement the constitutional provision on initiative. Consequently, the COMELEC
APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT PETITION FOR was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
INITIATIVE FILED BY THE PETITIONERS for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have
C. been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system." The
THE PERMANENT INJUNCTION ISSUED IN SANTIAGO V. decision of the Court En Banc interpreting RA 6735 forms part of the legal system
COMELEC ONLY APPLIES TO THE DELFIN PETITION. of the Philippines.10 And no doctrine or principle laid down by the Court En Banc
1. may be modified or reversed except by the Court En Banc,11 certainly not by the
IT IS THE DISPOSITIVE PORTION OF THE COMELEC. Until the Court En Banc modifies or reverses its decision, the
DECISION AND NOT OTHER STATEMENTS IN COMELEC is bound to follow the same.12 As succinctly held in Fulkerson v.
THE BODY OF THE DECISION THAT GOVERNS Thompson:13
THE RIGHTS IN CONTROVERSY. Whatever was before the Court, and is disposed of, is considered as
IV. finally settled. The inferior court is bound by the judgment or decree as
THE HONORABLE PUBLIC RESPONDENT FAILED OR the law of the case, and must carry it into execution according to the
NEGLECTED TO ACT OR PERFORM A DUTY MANDATED BY LAW. mandate. The inferior court cannot vary it, or judicially examine it for
A. any other purpose than execution. It can give no other or further relief
as to any matter decided by the Supreme Court even where there is
 error apparent; or in any manner intermeddle with it further than to dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
execute the mandate and settle such matters as have been remanded, complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No.
not adjudicated by the Supreme Court…. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June
The principles above stated are, we think, conclusively established by 10, 1997.
the authority of adjudged cases. And any further departure from them The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to
would inevitably mar the harmony of the whole judiciary system, bring resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the
its parts into conflict, and produce therein disorganization, disorder, and Court re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the
incalculable mischief and confusion. Besides, any rule allowing the Chief Justice and six (6) other members of the Court, namely,
inferior courts to disregard the adjudications of the Supreme Court, or Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted
to refuse or omit to carry them into execution would be repugnant to the that there was no need to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was no
principles established by the constitution, and therefore void.14 need for re-examination of said second issue since the case a bar is
At this point, it is well to recall the factual context of Santiago as well as the not the proper vehicle for that purpose. Five (5) other members of the
pronouncement made by the Court therein. Like petitioners in the instant case, in Court, namely, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima and Panganiban,
Santiago, Atty. Jesus Delfin, the People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization JJ., opined that there was need for such a re-examination. x x x
and Action (PIRMA), et al., invoked Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution as WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.18 (Underscoring supplied.)
they filed with the COMELEC a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term In the present case, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) takes the side of
Limits of Elective Officials, By People's Initiative" (the Delfin petition). They asked petitioners and argues that the COMELEC should not have applied the ruling in
the COMELEC to issue an order fixing the time and date for signature gathering Santiago to the petition for initiative because the permanent injunction therein
all over the country; causing the necessary publications of said order and their referred only to the Delfin petition. The OSG buttresses this argument by pointing
petition in newspapers of general and local circulation and instructing municipal out that the Temporary Restraining Order dated December 18, 1996 that was
election registrars in all regions all over the country and to assist petitioners in made permanent in the dispositive portion referred only to the Delfin petition.
establishing signing stations. Acting thereon, the COMELEC issued the order The OSG's attempt to isolate the dispositive portion from the body of the Court's
prayed for. decision in Santiago is futile. It bears stressing that the dispositive portion must
Senator Miriam Santiago, et al. forthwith filed with this Court a petition for not be read separately but in connection with the other portions of the decision of
prohibition to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing its order. The Court, which it forms a part. To get to the true intent and meaning of a decision, no
speaking through Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice), granted the specific portion thereof should be resorted to but the same must be considered in
petition as it declared: its entirety. Hence, a resolution or ruling may and does appear in other parts of
1. RA 6735 "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions the decision and not merely in the fallo thereof.19
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned"; The pronouncement in the body of the decision in Santiago permanently enjoining
2. COMELEC Resolution No. 230015 invalid insofar as it prescribed rules and the COMELEC "from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative
regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly
because the COMELEC is without authority to promulgate the rules and enacted to provide for the implementation of the system" is thus as much a part
regulations to implement the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose of the Court's decision as its dispositive portion. The ruling of this Court is of
amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative; and the nature of an in rem judgment barring any and all Filipinos from filing a
3. The Delfin petition insufficient as it did not contain the required number of petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
signatures of registered voters. law shall have been validly enacted. Clearly, the COMELEC, in denying due
The Court concluded in Santiago that "the COMELEC should be permanently course to the present petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on conformably with the Court's ruling in Santiago did not commit grave abuse of
amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly discretion. On the contrary, its actuation is in keeping with the salutary principle
enacted to provide for the implementation of the system." The dispositive portion of hierarchy of courts. For the Court to find the COMELEC to have abused its
of the decision reads: discretion when it dismissed the amended petition based on the ruling of this Court
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered: in Santiago would be sheer judicial apostasy.
a) GRANTING the instant petition; As eloquently put by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, "there is only one Supreme Court from
b) DECLARING RA 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative whose decisions all other courts should take their bearings."20 This truism applies
on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide with equal force to the COMELEC as a quasi-judicial body for, after all, judicial
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation; decisions applying or interpreting laws or the Constitution "assume the same
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the authority as the statute itself and, until authoritatively abandoned, necessarily
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the become, to the extent that they are applicable, the criteria which must control the
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and actuations not only of those called upon to abide thereby but also of those duty
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the bound to enforce obedience thereto."21
Delfin petition (UND-96-037). Petitioners Cannot Ascribe
The Temporary Restraining Order issued on December 18, 1996 is Grave Abuse of Discretion on
made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is the COMELEC Based on the
LIFTED as against private respondents.16 Minority Opinion in Santiago
The Court reiterated its ruling in Santiago in another petition which was filed with It is elementary that the opinion of the majority of the members of the Court, not
the Court by PIRMA and the spouses Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa (who were the opinion of the minority, prevails. As a corollary, the decision of the majority
parties in Santiago) docketed as PIRMA v. Commission on Elections.17 The said cannot be modified or reversed by the minority of the members of the Court.
petitioners, undaunted by Santiago and claiming to have gathered 5,793,213 However, to eschew the binding effect of Santiago, petitioners argue, albeit
signatures, filed a petition with the COMELEC praying, inter alia, that COMELEC unconvincingly, that the Court's declaration therein on the inadequacy,
officers be ordered to verify all the signatures collected in behalf of the petition incompleteness and insufficiency of RA 6735 to implement the system of initiative
and, after due hearing, that it (COMELEC) declare the petition sufficient for the to propose constitutional amendments did not constitute the majority opinion. This
purpose of scheduling a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. Like the Delfin contention is utterly baseless.
petition in Santiago, the PIRMA petition proposed to submit to the people in a Santiago was concurred in, without any reservation, by eight Justices, 22 or the
plebiscite the amendment to the Constitution on the lifting of the term limits of majority of the members of the Court, who actually took part in the deliberations
elected officials. thereon. On the other hand, five Justices,23 while voting for the dismissal of the
The opinion of the minority that there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court in Delfin petition on the ground of insufficiency, dissented from the majority opinion
PIRMA has no basis. The COMELEC, in its Resolution dated July 8, 1997, as they maintained the view that RA 6735 was sufficient to implement the system
dismissed the PIRMA petition citing the permanent restraining order issued of initiative.
against it by the Court in Santiago. PIRMA and the spouses Pedrosa forthwith Given that a clear majority of the members of the Court, eight Justices, concurred
elevated the matter to the Court alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of in the decision in Santiago, the pronouncement therein that RA 6735 is
the COMELEC in refusing to exercise jurisdiction over, and thereby dismissing, "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as
their petition for initiative to amend the Constitution. initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned" constitutes a definitive
The Court dismissed outright, by a unanimous vote, the petition filed by PIRMA ruling on the matter.
and the spouses Albert Pedrosa. The Court declared that the COMELEC merely In the Resolution dated June 10, 1997, the motions for reconsideration of the
complied with the dispositions in the decision of the Court in Santiago and, hence, Santiago decision were denied with finality as only six Justices, or less than the
cannot be held to have committed a grave abuse of its discretion in dismissing the majority, voted to grant the same. The Resolution expressly stated that the motion
petition before it: for reconsideration failed "to persuade the requisite majority of the Court to modify
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of or reverse the Decision of 19 March 1977." 24 In fine, the pronouncement in
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
Santiago as embodied in the Decision of March 19, 1997 remains the definitive "Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in
ruling on the matter. a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members
It bears stressing that in PIRMA, petitioners prayed for the Court to resolve the as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces,
issue posed by them and to re-examine its ruling as regards RA 6735. By a vote representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of
of seven members of the Court, including Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr. and Justice their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand
Jose C. Vitug, the Court voted that there was no need to resolve the issue. Five inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive
members of the Court opined that there was a need for the re-examination of said ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous,
ruling. Thus, the pronouncement of the Court in Santiago remains the law of the compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have at least
case and binding on petitioners. one member.
If, as now claimed by the minorty, there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court "(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
in Santiago, the Court should have resolved to set aside its original resolution Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
dismissing the petition and to grant the motion for reconsideration and the petition. resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be
But the Court did not. The Court positively and unequivocally declared that the elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years
COMELEC merely followed the ruling of the Court in Santiago in dismissing the without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the
petition before it. No less than Senior Justice Reynato S. Puno concurred with the party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number
resolution of the Court. It behooved Justice Puno to dissent from the ruling of the shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming
Court on the motion for reconsideration of petitioners precisely on the ground that from the parliamentary districts."
there was no doctrine enunciated by the Court in Santiago. He did not. Neither did B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are hereby
Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban, who was a member of the Court. amended to read, as follows:
That RA 6735 has failed to validly implement the people's right to directly propose "Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State.
constitutional amendments through the system of initiative had already been The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the
conclusively settled in Santiago as well as in PIRMA. Heeding these decisions, assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a
several lawmakers, including no less than Solicitor General Antonio Eduardo majority of all the Members of Parliament from among themselves. He
Nachura when he was then a member of the House of Representatives, 25 have shall be responsible to the Parliament for the program of government.
filed separate bills to implement the system of initiative under Section 2, Article C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the bicameral-
XVII of the Constitution. Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of government, there shall
In the present Thirteenth (13th) Congress, at least seven (7) bills are pending. In be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory Provisions," which shall read as
the Senate, the three (3) pending bills are: Senate Bill No. 119 entitled An Act follows:
Providing for People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution introduced by Senator Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve
Luisa "Loi" P. Ejercito Estrada; Senate Bill No. 2189 entitled An Act Providing for until the expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010
People's Initiative to Amend the Constitution introduced by Senator Miriam and shall continue to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution
Defensor Santiago; and Senate Bill No. 2247 entitled An Act Providing for a unless impeached by a vote of two thirds of all the members of the
System of People's Initiative to Propose Amendments to the Constitution interim parliament.,
introduced by Senator Richard Gordon. (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from
In the House of Representatives, there are at least four (4) pending bills: House office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall
Bill No. 05281 filed by Representative Carmen Cari, House Bill No. 05017 filed by succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability,
Representative Imee Marcos, House Bill No. 05025 filed by Representative resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and
Roberto Cajes, and House Bill No. 05026 filed by Representative Edgardo Chatto. Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers
These House bills are similarly entitled An Act Providing for People's Initiative to and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
Amend the Constitution. Section 2. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
The respective explanatory notes of the said Senate and House bills uniformly and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
recognize that there is, to date, no law to govern the process by which of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
constitutional amendments are introduced by the people directly through the and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other Sections of
system of initiative. Ten (10) years after Santiago and absent the occurrence of Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
any compelling supervening event, i.e., passage of a law to implement the system 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, that would warrant the Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
re-examination of the ruling therein, it behooves the Court to apply to the present amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
case the salutary and well-recognized doctrine of stare decisis. As earlier shown, government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
Congress and other government agencies have, in fact, abided by Santiago. The "Congress," "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "House of
Court can do no less with respect to its own ruling. Congress," "Senator[s] or "Member[s] of the House of Representatives"
Contrary to the stance taken by petitioners, the validity or constitutionality of a law and "House of Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that
cannot be made to depend on the individual opinions of the members who any and all references therein to "Member[s] of the House of
compose it – the Supreme Court, as an institution, has already determined RA Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member[s] of
6735 to be "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" and or "Acting
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned" and President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
therefore the same remains to be so regardless of any change in the Court's Section 3. "Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
composition.26 Indeed, it is vital that there be stability in the courts in adhering to and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
decisions deliberately made after ample consideration. Parties should not be Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and
encouraged to seek re-examination of determined principles and speculate on Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other
fluctuation of the law with every change in the expounders of it.27 Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially as
Proposals to Revise the Constitution, Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with
As in the Case of the Petitioners' Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended so as
Proposal to Change the Form of to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of government;
Government, Cannot be Effected provided, however, that any and all references therein to "Congress,"
Through the System of Initiative, "Senate," "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall
Which by Express Provision of be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all references therein to
Section 2, Article XVII of the "Member[s] of Congress," "Senator[s]" or "Member[s] of the House of
Constitution, is Limited to Amendments Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" and of "Acting
Even granting arguendo the Court, in the present case, abandons its President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
pronouncement in Santiago and declares RA 6735, taken together with other Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
extant laws, sufficient to implement the system of initiative, still, the amended amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
petition for initiative cannot prosper. Despite the denomination of their petition, the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall
proposals of petitioners to change the form of government from the present have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the
bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of government are Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent Members
actually for the revision of the Constitution. of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.
Petitioners propose to "amend" Articles VI and VII of the Constitution in this (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of
manner: Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to read as a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially
follows: convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its session for
 the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of our
have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim research, we came up with the observations made in the famous – or
Parliament from among themselves. notorious – Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered by
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the following distinction
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. between "amendment" and "revision" of an existing Constitution:
(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On the
interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change of
revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the
autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific
"Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive, parts or the addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence
shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an of new conditions or the elimination of parts already considered
interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times.
members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935
ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying
be delegated to him by the incumbent President." new political, social and economic concepts.
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two
of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing
with the election of all local government officials. [Thereafter, the Vice- amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.30
President, as Member of Parliament, shall immediately convene the Further, the framers of the Constitution deliberately omitted the term "revision" in
Parliament and shall initially preside over its session for the purpose of Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution because it was their intention to reserve
electing the Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the power to propose a revision of the Constitution to Congress or the
all its members, from among themselves.] The duly-elected Prime constitutional convention. Stated in another manner, it was their manifest intent
Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and that revision thereof shall not be undertaken through the system of initiative.
responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the Instead, the revision of the Constitution shall be done either by Congress or by a
term of the incumbent President and Vice President. 28 constitutional convention.
Petitioners claim that the required number of signatures of registered voters have It is significant to note that, originally, the provision on the system of initiative was
been complied with, i.e., the signatories to the petition constitute twelve percent included in Section 1 of the draft Article on Amendment or Revision proposed by
(12%) of all the registered voters in the country, wherein each legislative district the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions. The original draft
is represented by at least three percent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. provided:
Certifications allegedly executed by the respective COMELEC Election Registrars SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
of each municipality and city verifying these signatures were attached to the proposed:
petition for initiative. The verification was allegedly done on the basis of the list of (a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
registered voters contained in the official COMELEC list used in the immediately members; or
preceding election. (b) by a constitutional convention; or
The proposition, as formulated by petitioners, to be submitted to the Filipino (c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in
people in a plebiscite to be called for the said purpose reads: Article __ Section __ of the Constitution.31
DO YOU APPROVE THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF However, after deliberations and interpellations, the members of the Commission
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF agreed to remove the provision on the system of initiative from Section 1 and,
GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL instead, put it under a separate provision, Section 2. It was explained that the
TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING removal of the provision on initiative from the other "traditional modes" of changing
ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY the Constitution was precisely to limit the former (system of initiative) to
SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE OTHER?29 amendments to the Constitution. It was emphasized that the system of initiative
According to petitioners, the proposed amendment of Articles VI and VII would should not extend to revision.
effect a more efficient, more economical and more responsive government. The MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
parliamentary system would allegedly ensure harmony between the legislative May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the
and executive branches of government, promote greater consensus, and provide Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we
faster and more decisive governmental action. submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which
Sections 1 and 2 of Article XVII pertinently read: embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This
Article XVII is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
be proposed by: The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held,
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon
(2) A constitutional convention. petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary developments
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of that this system of initiative should be limited to amendments to the
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. Constitution and should not extend to the revision of the entire
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section 1 of the
It can be readily gleaned that the above provisions set forth different modes and proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. x x x32
procedures for proposals for the amendment and revision of the Constitution: The intention to exclude "revision" of the Constitution as a mode that may be
1. Under Section 1, Article XVII, any amendment to, or revision of, the undertaken through the system of initiative was reiterated and made clear by
Constitution may be proposed by – Commissioner Suarez in response to a suggestion of Commissioner Felicitas
a. Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or Aquino:
b. A constitutional convention. MR. SUAREZ. Section 2 must be interpreted together with the
2. Under Section 2, Article XVII, amendments to the Constitution may provisions of Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently
be likewise directly proposed by the people through initiative. drafted, there is no take-off date for the 60-day and 90-day periods.
The framers of the Constitution deliberately adopted the terms "amendment" and MS. AQUINO. Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative
"revision" and provided for their respective modes and procedures for effecting mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further
changes of the Constitution fully cognizant of the distinction between the two require the process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not
concepts. Commissioner Jose E. Suarez, the Chairman of the Committee on self-executing.
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, explained: MR. SUAREZ. No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off
MR. SUAREZ. One more point, and we will be through. period.
We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this
"amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment.
– "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms
honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1,
 instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self- only some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revisions
executing provision? may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the
MR SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention
while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the
and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or
overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense conveyed by the whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new
Committee. one.
MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a
distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend, amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments? constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned by the improve the specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
Committee.33 provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
Then Commissioner Hilario P. Davide, Jr. (later Chief Justice) also made the suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or dangerous, or
clarification with respect to the observation of Commissioner Regalado misleading in their effect.37
Maambong: In the United States, the Supreme Court of Georgia in Wheeler v. Board of
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed Trustees38 had the occasion to make the distinction between the two terms with
amendment on line 1 refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the respect to Ga.L. 1945, an instrument which "amended" the 1877 Constitution of
word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the Georgia. It explained the term "amendment:"
distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"? "Amendment" of a statute implies its survival and not destruction. It
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" repeals or changes some provision, or adds something thereto. A law
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it is amended when it is in whole or in part permitted to remain, and
can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."34 something is added to or taken from it, or it is in some way changed or
After several amendments, the Commission voted in favor of the following wording altered to make it more complete or perfect, or to fit it the better to
of Section 2: accomplish the object or purpose for which it was made, or some other
AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE object or purpose.39
DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE On the other hand, the term "revision" was explained by the said US appellate
UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE court:
TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS OF WHICH EVERY x x x When a house is completely demolished and another is erected
LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST on the same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered
THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO house, or do you have a new house? Some of the materials contained
AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED in the old house may be used again, some of the rooms may be
WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS constructed the same, but this does not alter the fact that you have
CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS altogether another or a new house. We conclude that the instrument as
THEREAFTER. contained in Ga.L. 1945, pp. 8 to 89, inclusive, is not an amendment to
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE the constitution of 1877; but on the contrary it is a completely revised or
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT. new constitution.40
Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII as eventually worded read: Fairly recently, Fr. Joaquin Bernas, SJ, a member of the Constitutional
Article XVII Commission, expounded on the distinction between the two terms thus:
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and
be proposed by: separable provisions. The guiding original intention of an amendment
(3) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions deemed necessary
(4) A constitutional convention. to meet new conditions or to suppress specific portions that may have
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly become obsolete or that are judged to be dangerous. In revision,
proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition of at least however, the guiding original intention and plan contemplate a re-
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which examination of the entire document – or of provisions of the document
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per (which have overall implications for the entire document or for the
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the document) – to
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of determine how and to what extent it should be altered. Thus, for
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. instance, a switch from the presidential system to a parliamentary
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. system would be a revision because of its overall impact on the entire
The final text of Article XVII on Amendments or Revisions clearly makes a constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to
substantial differentiation not only between the two terms but also between two a unicameral system because of its effect on other important provisions
procedures and their respective fields of application. Ineluctably, the system of of the Constitution.
initiative under Section 2, Article XVII as a mode of effecting changes in the It is thus clear that what distinguishes revision from amendment is not
Constitution is strictly limited to amendments – not to a revision – thereof. the quantum of change in the document. Rather, it is the fundamental
As opined earlier, the framers of the Constitution, in providing for "amendment" qualitative alteration that effects revision. Hence, I must reject the
and "revision" as different modes of changing the fundamental law, were puerile argument that the use of the plural form of "amendments"
cognizant of the distinction between the two terms. They particularly relied on the means that a revision can be achieved by the introduction of a
distinction made by Justice Felix Antonio in his concurring opinion in Javellana v. multiplicity of amendments! 41
Executive Secretary,35 the controversial decision which gave imprimatur to the Given that revision necessarily entails a more complex, substantial and far-
1973 Constitution of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos, as follows: reaching effects on the Constitution, the framers thereof wisely withheld the said
There is clearly a distinction between revision and amendment of an mode from the system of initiative. It should be recalled that it took the framers of
existing constitution. Revision may involve a rewriting of the whole the present Constitution four months from June 2, 1986 until October 15, 1986 to
constitution. The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, come up with the draft Constitution which, as described by the venerable Justice
envisages a change of only specific provisions. The intention of an act Cecilia Muñoz Palma, the President of the Constitutional Commission of 1986,
to amend is not the change of the entire constitution, but only the "gradually and painstakingly took shape through the crucible of sustained
improvement of specific parts of the existing constitution of the addition sometimes passionate and often exhilarating debates that intersected all
of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or dimensions of the national life."42
the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to Evidently, the framers of the Constitution believed that a revision thereof should,
the needs of the times. The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment in like manner, be a product of the same extensive and intensive study and
to the 1935 Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental charter debates. Consequently, while providing for a system of initiative where the people
embodying new political, social and economic concepts. 36 would directly propose amendments to the Constitution, they entrusted the
Other elucidation on the distinction between "amendment" and "revision" is formidable task of its revision to a deliberative body, the Congress or Constituent
enlightening. For example, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, an eminent authority on Assembly.
political law, distinguished the two terms in this manner: The Constitution is the fundamental law of the state, containing the principles
Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations upon which the government is founded, and regulating the division of sovereign
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting powers, directing to what persons each of those powers is to be confided and the
either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps manner in which it is to be exercised.43 The Philippines has followed the American
constitutional legal system in the sense that the term constitution is given a more - Section 8 on the composition of Judicial Bar Council (JBC)
restricted meaning, i.e., as a written organic instrument, under which which includes representatives of Congress as ex officio
governmental powers are both conferred and circumscribed. 44 members and on the power of the President to appoint the
The Constitution received its force from the express will of the people. An regular members of the JBC;
overwhelming 16,622,111, out of 21,785,216 votes cast during the plebiscite, - Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the
or 76.30% ratified the present Constitution on February 2, 1987.45 In members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts;
expressing that will, the Filipino people have incorporated therein the method and - Section 16 on duty of Supreme Court to make annual report
manner by which the same can be amended and revised, and when the electorate to the President and Congress.
have incorporated into the fundamental law the particular manner in which the 6. The following Sections of Article IX (Constitutional Commissions);
same may be altered or changed, then any course which disregards that express - (B) Section 3 on duty of Civil Service Commission to make
will is a direct violation of the fundamental law.46 annual report to the President and Congress;
Further, these provisions having been incorporated in the Constitution, where the - (B) Section 5 on power of Congress to provide by law for
validity of a constitutional amendment or revision depends upon whether such the standardization of compensation of government officials;
provisions have been complied with, such question presents for consideration and - (B) Section 8 which provides in part that "no public officer
determination a judicial question, and the courts are the only tribunals vested with shall accept, without the consent of Congress, any present,
power under the Constitution to determine such question. 47 emolument, etc. x x x"
Earlier, it was mentioned that Article XVII, by the use of the terms "amendment" - (C) Section 1 on the power of the President to appoint the
and "revision," clearly makes a differentiation not only between the two terms but Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on
also between two procedures and their respective fields of application. On this Elections with the consent of the Commission on
point, the case of McFadden v. Jordan48 is instructive. In that case, a "purported Appointments;
initiative amendment" (referred to as the proposed measure) to the State - (C) Section 2 (7) on the power of the COMELEC to
Constitution of California, then being proposed to be submitted to the electors for recommend to Congress measures to minimize election
ratification, was sought to be enjoined. The proposed measure, denominated as spending x x x;
"California Bill of Rights," comprised a single new article with some 208 - (C) Section 2 (8) on the duty of the COMELEC to
subsections which would repeal or substantially alter at least 15 of the 25 articles recommend to the President the removal of any officer or
of the California State Constitution and add at least four new topics. Among the employee it has deputized, or the imposition of any other
likely effects of the proposed measure were to curtail legislative and judicial disciplinary action x x x;
functions, legalize gaming, completely revise the taxation system and reduce the - (C) Section 2 (9) on the duty of the COMELEC to submit to
powers of cities, counties and courts. The proposed measure also included the President and Congress a report on the conduct of
diverse matters as ministers, mines, civic centers, liquor control and naturopaths. election, plebiscite, etc.;
The Supreme Court of California enjoined the submission of the proposed - (C) Section 5 on the power of the President, with the
measure to the electors for ratification because it was not an "amendment" but a favorable recommendation of the COMELEC, to grant
"revision" which could only be proposed by a convention. It held that from an pardon, amnesty, parole, or suspension of sentence for
examination of the proposed measure itself, considered in relation to the terms of violation of election laws, rules and regulations;
the California State Constitution, it was clear that the proposed initiative - (C) Section 7 which recognizes as valid votes cast in favor
enactment amounted substantially to an attempted revision, rather than of organization registered under party-list system;
amendment, thereof; and that inasmuch as the California State Constitution - (C) Section 8 on political parties, organizations or coalitions
specifies (Article XVIII §2 thereof) that it may be revised by means of constitutional under the party-list system;
convention but does not provide for revision by initiative measure, the submission - (D) Section 1 (2) on the power of the President to appoint
of the proposed measure to the electorate for ratification must be enjoined. the Chairman and Commissioners of the Commission on
As piercingly enunciated by the California State Supreme Court in McFadden, the Audit (COA) with the consent of the Commission of
differentiation required (between amendment and revision) is not merely between Appointments;
two words; more accurately it is between two procedures and between their - Section 4 on duty of the COA to make annual report to the
respective fields of application. Each procedure, if we follow elementary principles President and Congress.
of statutory construction, must be understood to have a substantial field of 7. The following Sections of Article X (Local Government):
application, not to be a mere alternative procedure in the same field. Each of the - Section 3 on the power of Congress to enact a local
two words, then, must be understood to denote, respectively, not only a procedure government code;
but also a field of application appropriate to its procedure.49 - Section 4 on the power of the President to exercise general
Provisions regulating the time and mode of effecting organic changes are in the supervision over local government units (LGUs);
nature of safety-valves – they must not be so adjusted as to discharge their - Section 5 on the power of LGUs to create their own sources
peculiar function with too great facility, lest they become the ordinary escape- of income x x x, subject to such guidelines as Congress may
pipes of party passion; nor, on the other hand, must they discharge it with such provide;
difficulty that the force needed to induce action is sufficient also to explode the - Section 11 on the power of Congress to create special
machine. Hence, the problem of the Constitution maker is, in this particular, one metropolitan political subdivisions;
of the most difficult in our whole system, to reconcile the requisites for progress - Section 14 on the power of the President to provide for
with the requisites for safety.50 regional development councils x x x;
Like in McFadden, the present petition for initiative on amendments to the - Section 16 on the power of the President to exercise general
Constitution is, despite its denomination, one for its revision. It purports to seek supervision over autonomous regions;
the amendment only of Articles VI and VII of the Constitution as well as to provide - Section 18 on the power of Congress to enact organic act
transitory provisions. However, as will be shown shortly, the amendment of these for each autonomous region as well as the power of the
two provisions will necessarily affect other numerous provisions of the President to appoint the representatives to the regional
Constitution particularly those pertaining to the specific powers of Congress and consultative commission;
the President. These powers would have to be transferred to the Parliament and - Section 19 on the duty of the first Congress elected under
the Prime Minister and/or President, as the case may be. More than one hundred the Constitution to pass the organic act for autonomous
(100) sections will be affected or altered thereby: regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
1. Section 19 of Article III (Bill of Rights) on the power of Congress to 8. The following Sections of Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers):
impose the death penalty for compelling reasons involving heinous - Section 2 on the impeachable officers (President, Vice-
crimes; President, etc.);
2. Section 2 of Article V (Suffrage) on the power of Congress to provide - Section 3 on impeachment proceedings (exclusive power of
for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system the House to initiate complaint and sole power of the Senate
for absentee voting; to try and decide impeachment cases);
3. All 32 Sections of Article VI on the Legislative Department; - Section 9 on the power of the President to appoint the
4. All 23 Sections of Article VII on the Executive Department; Ombudsman and his deputies;
5. The following Sections of Article VIII (Judicial Department): - Section 16 which provides in part that "x x x no loans or
- Section 2 on power of Congress to define, prescribe and guaranty shall be granted to the President, Vice-President,
apportion the jurisdiction of various courts; etc.
- Section 7 on the power of Congress to prescribe the - Section 17 on mandatory disclosure of assets and liabilities
qualifications of judges of lower courts; by public officials including the President, Vice-President,
etc.
 9. The following Sections of Article XII (National Economy and I am not impervious to the commentary of Dean Vicente G. Sinco that the revision
Patrimony): of a constitution, in its strict sense, refers to a consideration of the entire
- Section 2 on the power of Congress to allow, by law, small- constitution and the procedure for effecting such change; while amendment
scale utilization of natural resources and power of the refers only to particular provisions to be added to or to be altered in a
President to enter into agreements with foreign-owned constitution.52
corporations and duty to notify Congress of every contract; For clarity and accuracy, however, it is necessary to reiterate below Dean Sinco's
- Section 3 on the power of Congress to determine size of more comprehensive differentiation of the terms:
lands of public domain; Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to determine specific of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting
limits of forest lands; either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps
- Section 5 on the power of Congress to provide for only some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revisions
applicability of customary laws; may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the
- Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish an original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention
independent economic and planning agency to be headed by and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the
the President; constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or
- Section 10 on the power of Congress to reserve to Filipino whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new
citizens or domestic corporations(at least 60% Filipino- one.
owned) certain areas of investment; The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a
- Section 11 on the sole power of Congress to grant franchise change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to
for public utilities; amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire
- Section 15 on the power of Congress to create an agency constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to
to promote viability of cooperatives; improve the specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it
- Section 16 which provides that Congress shall not, except provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to
by general law, form private corporations; suppress portions of it that seemed obsolete, or dangerous, or
- Section 17 on the salaries of the President, Vice-President, misleading in their effect.53
etc. and the power of Congress to adjust the same; A change in the form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-
- Section 20 on the power of Congress to establish central parliamentary, following the above distinction, entails a revision of the Constitution
monetary authority. as it will involve "alteration of different portions of the entire document" and "may
10. The following Sections of Article XIII (Social Justice and Human result in the rewriting of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or
Rights): perhaps only some of its important provisions."
- Section 1 on the mandate of Congress to give highest More importantly, such shift in the form of government will, without doubt,
priority to enactment of measures that protect and enhance fundamentally change the basic plan and substance of the present Constitution.
the right of people x x x The tripartite system ordained by our fundamental law divides governmental
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to prescribe retention powers into three distinct but co-equal branches: the legislative, executive and
limits in agrarian reform; judicial. Legislative power, vested in Congress which is a bicameral body
- Section 18 (6) on the duty of the Commission on Human consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, is the power to make
Rights to recommend to Congress effective measures to laws and to alter them at discretion. Executive power, vested in the President who
promote human rights; is directly elected by the people, is the power to see that the laws are duly
- Section 19 on the power of Congress to provide for other executed and enforced. Judicial power, vested in the Supreme Court and the
cases to fall within the jurisdiction of the Commission on lower courts, is the power to construe and apply the law when controversies arise
Human Rights. concerning what has been done or omitted under it. This separation of powers
11. The following Sections of Article XIV (Education, Science and furnishes a system of checks and balances which guards against the
Technology, etc.): establishment of an arbitrary or tyrannical government.
- Section 4 on the power of Congress to increase Filipino Under a unicameral-parliamentary system, however, the tripartite separation of
equity participation in educational institutions; power is dissolved as there is a fusion between the executive and legislative
- Section 6 which provides that subject to law and as powers. Essentially, the President becomes a mere "symbolic head of State" while
Congress may provide, the Government shall sustain the use the Prime Minister becomes the head of government who is elected, not by direct
of Filipino as medium of official communication; vote of the people, but by the members of the Parliament. The Parliament is a
- Section 9 on the power of Congress to establish a national unicameral body whose members are elected by legislative districts. The Prime
language commission; Minister, as head of government, does not have a fixed term of office and may
- Section 11 on the power of Congress to provide for only be removed by a vote of confidence of the Parliament. Under this form of
incentives to promote scientific research. government, the system of checks and balances is emasculated.
12. The following Sections of Article XVI (General Provisions): Considering the encompassing scope and depth of the changes that would be
- Section 2 on the power of Congress to adopt new name for effected, not to mention that the Constitution's basic plan and substance of a
the country, new national anthem, etc.; tripartite system of government and the principle of separation of powers
- Section 5 (7) on the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff which underlying the same would be altered, if not entirely destroyed, there can be no
may be extended by the President in times of war or national other conclusion than that the proposition of petitioners Lambino, et al. would
emergency declared by Congress; constitute a revision of the Constitution rather than an amendment or "such an
- Section 11 on the power of Congress to regulate or prohibit addition or change within the lines of the original instrument as will effect an
monopolies in mass media; improvement or better carry out the purpose for which it was framed." 54 As has
- Section 12 on the power of Congress to create consultative been shown, the effect of the adoption of the petitioners' proposition, rather than
body to advise the President on indigenous cultural to "within the lines of the original instrument" constitute "an improvement or better
communities. carry out the purpose for which it was framed," is to "substantially alter the purpose
13. The following Sections of Article XVII (Amendments or Revisions): and to attain objectives clearly beyond the lines of the Constitution as now cast."55
- Section 1 on the amendment or revision of Constitution by To paraphrase McFadden, petitioners' contention that any change less than a total
Congress; one is amendatory would reduce to the rubble of absurdity the bulwark so carefully
- Section 2 on the duty of Congress to provide for the erected and preserved. A case might, conceivably, be presented where the
implementation of the system of initiative; question would be occasion to undertake to define with nicety the line of
- Section 3 on the power of Congress to call constitutional demarcation; but we have no case or occasion here.
convention to amend or revise the Constitution. As succinctly by Fr. Joaquin Bernas, "a switch from the presidential system to a
14. All 27 Sections of Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions). parliamentary system would be a revision because of its overall impact on the
The foregoing enumeration negates the claim that "the big bulk of the 1987 entire constitutional structure. So would a switch from a bicameral system to a
Constitution will not be affected."51 Petitioners' proposition, while purportedly unicameral system because of its effect on other important provisions of the
seeking to amend only Articles VI and VII of the Constitution and providing Constitution. It is thus clear that what distinguishes revision from amendment is
transitory provisions, will, in fact, affect, alter, replace or repeal other numerous not the quantum of change in the document. Rather, it is the fundamental
articles and sections thereof. More than the quantitative effects, however, the qualitative alteration that effects revision."56
revisory character of petitioners' proposition is apparent from the qualitative The petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution filed by petitioners
effects it will have on the fundamental law. Lambino, et al., being in truth and in fact a proposal for the revision thereof, is
barred from the system of initiative upon any legally permissible construction of Petitioners cannot disclaim the veracity of these damaging certifications because
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. they themselves submitted the same to the COMELEC and to the Court in the
The Petition for Initiative on present case to support their contention that the requirements of RA 6735 had
Amendments to the Constitution been complied with and that their petition for initiative is on its face sufficient in
is, on its Face, Insufficient in form and substance. They are in the nature of judicial admissions which are
Form and Substance conclusive and binding on petitioners.97 This being the case, the Court must
Again, even granting arguendo RA 6735 is declared sufficient to implement the forthwith order the dismissal of the petition for initiative for being, on its face,
system of initiative and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, as it prescribed rules insufficient in form and substance. The Court should make the adjudication
and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is entailed by the facts here and now, without further proceedings, as it has done in
valid, still, the petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution must be other cases.98
dismissed for being insufficient in form and substance. It is argued by petitioners that, assuming arguendo that the COMELEC is correct
Section 5 of RA 6735 requires that a petition for initiative on the Constitution must in relying on Santiago that RA 6735 is inadequate to cover initiative to the
state the following: Constitution, this cannot be used to legitimize its refusal to heed the people's will.
1. Contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, approved The fact that there is no enabling law should not prejudice the right of the
or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be; sovereign people to propose amendments to the Constitution, which right has
2. The proposition; already been exercised by 6,327,952 voters. The collective and resounding act of
3. The reason or reasons therefor; the particles of sovereignty must not be set aside. Hence, the COMELEC should
4. That it is not one of the exceptions provided herein; be ordered to comply with Section 4, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution via a
5. Signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and writ of mandamus. The submission of petitioners, however, is unpersuasive.
6. An abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred Mandamus is a proper recourse for citizens who act to enforce a public right and
(100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every to compel the persons of a public duty most especially when mandated by the
page of the petition. Constitution.99 However, under Section 3, Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court, for
Section 7 thereof requires that the signatures be verified in this wise: a petition for mandamus to prosper, it must be shown that the subject of the
SEC. 7. Verification of Signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify petition is a ministerial act or duty and not purely discretionary on the part of the
the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits board, officer or person, and that petitioner has a well-defined, clear and certain
and voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding right to warrant the grant thereof. A purely ministerial act or duty is one which an
election. officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in
The law mandates upon the election registrar to personally verify the signatures. obedience to the mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of
This is a solemn and important duty imposed on the election registrar which he his own judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law
cannot delegate to any other person, even to barangay officials. Hence, a imposes a duty upon a public official and gives him the right to decide how or
verification of signatures made by persons other than the election registrars has when the duty should be performed, such duty is discretionary and not ministerial.
no legal effect. The duty is ministerial only when the discharge of the same requires neither the
In patent violation of the law, several certifications submitted by petitioners exercise of an official discretion nor judgment.100
showed that the verification of signatures was made, not by the election registrars, To stress, in a petition for mandamus, petitioner must show a well defined, clear
but by barangay officials. For example, the certification of the election officer in and certain right to warrant the grant thereof.101 In this case, petitioners failed to
Lumbatan, Lanao del Sur reads in full: establish their right to a writ of mandamus as shown by the foregoing disquisitions.
LOCAL ELECTION OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION57 Remand of the Case to the
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that based on the verifications made by the COMELEC is Not Authorized by
Barangay Officials in this City/Municipality, as attested to by two (2) RA 6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300
witnesses from the same Barangays, which is part of the 2nd Legislative The dissenting opinion posits that the issue of whether or not the petition for
District of the Province of Lanao del Sur, the names appearing on the initiative has complied with the requisite number of signatures of at least twelve
attached signature sheets relative to the proposed initiative on percent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative
Amendments to the 1987 Constitution, are those of bonafide resident district must be represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters
of the said Barangays and correspond to the names found in the official therein, involves contentious facts. The dissenting opinion cites the petitioners'
list of registered voters of the Commission on Elections and/or voters' claim that they have complied with the same while the oppositors-intervenors
affidavit and/or voters' identification cards. have vigorously refuted this claim by alleging, inter alia, that the signatures were
It is further certified that the total number of signatures of the registered not properly verified or were not verified at all. Other oppositors-intervenors have
voters for the City/Municipality of LUMBATAN, LANAO DEL SUR as alleged that the signatories did not fully understand what they have signed as they
appearing in the affixed signatures sheets is ONE THOUSAND ONE were misled into signing the signature sheets.
HUNDRED EIGHTY (1,180). According to the dissenting opinion, the sufficiency of the petition for initiative and
April 2, 2006 its compliance with the requirements of RA 6735 on initiative and its implementing
IBRAHIM M. MACADATO rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at the first instance.
Election Officer It thus remands the case to the COMELEC for further proceedings.
(Underscoring supplied) To my mind, the remand of the case to the COMELEC is not warranted. There is
The ineffective verification in almost all the legislative districts in the Autonomous nothing in RA 6735, as well as in COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, granting that
Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) alone is shown by the certifications, similarly it is valid to implement the former statute, that authorizes the COMELEC to
worded as above-quoted, of the election registrars of Buldon, Maguindanao;58 conduct any kind of hearing, whether full-blown or trial-type hearing, summary
Cotabato City (Special Province);59 Datu Odin Sinsuat, Maguindanao;60 Matanog, hearing or administrative hearing, on a petition for initiative.
Maguindanao;61 Parang, Maguindanao;62 Kabantalan, Maguindanao;63 Upi, Section 41 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 provides that "[a]n initiative shall
Maguinadano;64 Barira, Maguindanao;65 Sultan, Mastura;66 Ampatuan, be conducted under the control and supervision of the Commission in accordance
Maguindanao;67 Buluan, Maguindanao;68 Datu Paglas, Maguindanao;69 Datu with Article III hereof." Pertinently, Sections 30, 31 and 32 of Article III of the said
Piang, Maguindanao;70 Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao;71 Pagalungan, implementing rules provide as follows:
Maguindanao;72 Talayan, Maguindanao;73 Gen. S.K. Pendatun, Maguindanao;74 Sec. 30. Verification of signatures. – The Election Registrar shall verify
Mamasapano, Maguindanao;75 Talitay, Maguindanao;76 Guindulungan, the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits
Maguindanao;77 Datu Saudi Ampatuan, Maguindanao;78 Datu Unsay, and voters' identification cards used in the immediately preceding
Maguindanao;79 Pagagawan, Maguindanao;80 Rajah Buayan, Maguindanao;81 election.
Indanan, Sulu;82 Jolo, Sulu;83 Maimbung, Sulu;84 Hadji Panglima, Sulu;85 Sec. 31. Determination by the Commission. – The Commission shall
Pangutaran, Sulu;86 Parang, Sulu;87 Kalingalan Caluang, Sulu;88 Luuk, Sulu;89 act on the findings of the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for
Panamao, Sulu;90 Pata, Sulu;91 Siasi, Sulu;92 Tapul, Sulu;93 Panglima Estino, initiative or referendum.
Sulu;94 Lugus, Sulu;95 and Pandami, Sulu. 96 If it should appear that the required number of signatures has not been
Section 7 of RA 6735 is clear that the verification of signatures shall be done by obtained, the petition shall be deemed defeated and the Commission
the election registrar, and by no one else, including the barangay officials. The shall issue a declaration to that effect.
foregoing certifications submitted by petitioners, instead of aiding their cause, If it should appear that the required number of signatures has been
justify the outright dismissal of their petition for initiative. Because of the illegal obtained, the Commission shall set the initiative or referendum in
verifications made by barangay officials in the above-mentioned legislative accordance with the succeeding sections.
districts, it necessarily follows that the petition for initiative has failed to comply Sec. 32. Appeal. – The decision of the Commission on the findings of
with the requisite number of signatures, i.e., at least twelve percent (12%) of the the sufficiency and insufficiency of the petition for initiative or
total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be referendum may be appealed to the Supreme Court within thirty (30)
represented by at least three percent (3%) of the registered voters therein. days from notice hereof.
Clearly, following the foregoing procedural rules, the COMELEC is not authorized I strongly take exception to the view that the people, in their sovereign capacity,
to conduct any kind of hearing to receive any evidence for or against the can disregard the Constitution altogether. Such a view directly contravenes the
sufficiency of the petition for initiative. Rather, the foregoing rules require of the fundamental constitutional theory that while indeed "the ultimate sovereignty is in
COMELEC to determine the sufficiency or insufficiency of the petition for initiative the people, from whom springs all legitimate authority"; nonetheless, "by the
on its face. And it has already been shown, by the annexes submitted by the Constitution which they establish, they not only tie up the hands of their official
petitioners themselves, their petition is, on its face, insufficient in form and agencies, but their own hands as well; and neither the officers of the state, nor the
substance. The remand of the case to the COMELEC for reception of evidence of whole people as an aggregate body, are at liberty to take action in opposition to
the parties on the contentious factual issues is, in effect, an amendment of the this fundamental law."113 The Constitution, it should be remembered, "is the
abovequoted rules of the COMELEC by this Court which the Court is not protector of the people, placed on guard by them to save the rights of the people
empowered to do. against injury by the people."114 This is the essence of constitutionalism:
The Present Petition Presents a Through constitutionalism we placed limits on both our political
Justiciable Controversy; Hence, institutions and ourselves, hoping that democracies, historically always
a Non-Political Question. Further, turbulent, chaotic and even despotic, might now become restrained,
the People, Acting in their Sovereign principled, thoughtful and just. So we bound ourselves over to a law that
Capacity, Have Bound Themselves we made and promised to keep. And though a government of laws did
to Abide by the Constitution not displace governance by men, it did mean that now men, democratic
Political questions refer to those questions which, under the Constitution, are to men, would try to live by their word.115
be decided by the people in their sovereign capacity, or in regard to which full Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on the system of initiative is limited only
discretionary authority has been delegated to the legislative or executive branch to proposals to amend to the Constitution, and does not extend to its revision. The
of government.102 A political question has two aspects: (1) those matters that are Filipino people have bound themselves to observe the manner and method to
to be exercised by the people in their primary political capacity; and (2) matters effect the changes of the Constitution. They opted to limit the exercise of the right
which have been specifically designated to some other department or particular to directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, but did not
office of the government, with discretionary power to act. 103 extend the same to the revision thereof. The petition for initiative, as it proposes
In his concurring and dissenting opinion in Arroyo v. De Venecia,104 Senior to effect the revision thereof, contravenes the Constitution. The fundamental law
Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno explained the doctrine of political question vis- of the state prescribes the limitations under which the electors of the state may
à-vis the express mandate of the present Constitution for the courts to determine change the same, and, unless such course is pursued, the mere fact that a
whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion on the part of any majority of the electors are in favor of a change and have so expressed
branch or instrumentality of the Government: themselves, does not work a change. Such a course would be revolutionary, and
In the Philippine setting, there is more compelling reason for courts to the Constitution of the state would become a mere matter of form. 116
categorically reject the political question defense when its interposition The very term Constitution implies an instrument of a permanent and abiding
will cover up abuse of power. For Section 1, Article VIII of our nature, and the provisions contained therein for its revision indicated the will of
Constitution was intentionally cobbled to empower courts "... to the people that the underlying principles upon which it rests, as well as the
determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion substantial entirety of the instrument, shall be of a like permanent and abiding
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or nature.117
instrumentality of the government." This power is new and was not The Filipino people have incorporated the safety valves of amendment and
granted to our courts in the 1935 and 1972 Constitutions. It was also revision in Article XVII of the Constitution. The Court is mandated to ensure that
not xeroxed from the US Constitution or any foreign state constitution. these safety valves embodied in the Constitution to guard against improvident and
The CONCOM [Constitutional Commission] granted this enormous hasty changes thereof are not easily trifled with. To be sure, by having
power to our courts in view of our experience under martial law where overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution, the Filipino people believed that it is "a
abusive exercises of state power were shielded from judicial scrutiny by good Constitution" and in the words of the learned Judge Cooley:
the misuse of the political question doctrine. Led by the eminent former x x x should be beyond the reach of temporary excitement and popular
Chief Justice Roberto Concepcion, the CONCOM expanded and caprice or passion. It is needed for stability and steadiness; it must yield
sharpened the checking powers of the judiciary vis-à-vis the Executive to the thought of the people; not to the whim of the people, or the
and the Legislative departments of government. In cases involving the thought evolved in excitement or hot blood, but the sober second
proclamation of martial law and suspension of the privilege of habeas thought, which alone, if the government is to be safe, can be allowed
corpus, it is now beyond dubiety that the government can no longer efficiency. Changes in government are to be feared unless the benefit
invoke the political question defense. is certain. As Montaign says: "All great mutations shake and disorder a
xxxx state. Good does not necessarily succeed evil; another evil may
To a great degree, it diminished its [political question doctrine] use as a succeed and worse.118
shield to protect other abuses of government by allowing courts to Indisputably, the issues posed in the present case are of transcendental
penetrate the shield with new power to review acts of any branch or importance. Accordingly, I have approached and grappled with them with full
instrumentality of the government ". . . to determine whether or not there appreciation of the responsibilities involved in the present case, and have given
has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of to its consideration the earnest attention which its importance demands. I have
jurisdiction." sought to maintain the supremacy of the Constitution at whatever hazard. I share
Even if the present petition involves the act, not of a governmental body, but of the concern of Chief Justice Day in Koehler v. Hill:119 "it is for the protection of
purportedly more than six million registered voters who have signified their assent minorities that constitutions are framed. Sometimes constitutions must be
to the proposal to amend the Constitution, the same still constitutes a justiciable interposed for the protection of majorities even against themselves. Constitutions
controversy, hence, a non-political question. There is no doubt that the are adopted in times of public repose, when sober reason holds her citadel, and
Constitution, under Article XVII, has explicitly provided for the manner or method are designed to check the surging passions in times of popular excitement. But if
to effect amendments thereto, or revision thereof. The question, therefore, of courts could be coerced by popular majorities into a disregard of their provisions,
whether there has been compliance with the terms of the Constitution is for the constitutions would become mere 'ropes of sand,' and there would be an end of
Court to pass upon.105 social security and of constitutional freedom. The cause of temperance can
In the United States, in In re McConaughy,106 the State Supreme Court of sustain no injury from the loss of this amendment which would be at all
Minnesota exercised jurisdiction over the petition questioning the result of the comparable to the injury to republican institutions which a violation of the
general election holding that "an examination of the decisions shows that the constitution would inflict. That large and respectable class of moral reformers
courts have almost uniformly exercised the authority to determine the validity of which so justly demands the observance and enforcement of law, cannot afford
the proposal, submission, or ratification of constitutional amendments." The cases to take its first reformatory step by a violation of the constitution. How can it
cited were Dayton v. St. Paul,107 Rice v. Palmer,108 Bott v. Wurtz,109 State v. consistently demand of others obedience to a constitution which it violates itself?
Powell,110 among other cases. The people can in a short time re-enact the amendment. In the manner of a great
There is no denying that "the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. moral reform, the loss of a few years is nothing. The constitution is the palladium
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from of republican freedom. The young men coming forward upon the stage of political
them."111 However, I find to be tenuous the asseveration that "the argument that action must be educated to venerate it; those already upon the stage must be
the people through initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to change taught to obey it. Whatever interest may be advanced or may suffer, whoever or
the Constitution turns sovereignty in its head. At the very least, the submission whatever may be 'voted up or voted down,' no sacrilegious hand must be laid
constricts the democratic space for the exercise of the direct sovereignty of the upon the constitution."120
people."112 In effect, it is theorized that despite the unambiguous text of Section WHEREFORE, I vote to DISMISS the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and to GRANT
2, Article XVII of the Constitution withholding the power to revise it from the system the petition in G.R. No. 174299.
of initiative, the people, in their sovereign capacity, can conveniently disregard the
said provision.
 This next point to address, there being a sufficient law, is whether the petition for
OMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
initiative herein involved complies with the requirements of that law as well as
sociate Justice those stated in Article XVII of the Constitution.
____________________ True it is that ours is a democratic state, as explicitated in the Declaration of
EN BANC Principles, to emphasize precisely that there are instances recognized and
G.R. No. 174153 (RAUL LAMBINO, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, provided for in the Constitution where our people directly exercise their sovereign
ET AL.) and powers, new features set forth in this People Power Charter, namely, the powers
G.R. No. 174299 (MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, ET AL. vs. COMMISSION ON of recall, initiative and referendum.
ELECTIONS, ET AL.). Nevertheless, this democratic nature of our polity is that of a democracy under the
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x rule of law. This equally important point is emphasized in the very Preamble to the
SEPARATE OPINION Constitution, which states:
AZCUNA, J.: ". . . the blessings of . . . democracy under the rule of law . . . ."
"Why, friends, you go to do you know not what." Such is the case with respect to the power to initiate changes in the Constitution.
-- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2. The power is subject to limitations under the Constitution itself, thus: The power
Article XVII of the Constitution states: could not be exercised for the first five years after the Constitution took effect and
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS thereafter can only be exercised once every five years; the power only extends to
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposing amendments but not revisions; and the power needs an act of
proposed by: Congress providing for its implementation, which act is directed and mandated.
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or The question, therefore, arises whether the proposed changes in the Constitution
(2) A constitutional convention. set forth in the petition for initiative herein involved are mere amendments or rather
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly are revisions.
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least Revisions are changes that affect the entire Constitution and not mere parts of it.
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which The reason why revisions are not allowed through direct proposals by the people
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per through initiative is a practical one, namely, there is no one to draft such extensive
centum of the registered votes therein. No amendment under this changes, since 6.3 million people cannot conceivably come up with a single
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of extensive document through a direct proposal from each of them. Someone would
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. have to draft it and that is not authorized as it would not be a direct proposal from
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of the people. Such indirect proposals can only take the form of proposals from
this right. Congress as a Constituent Assembly under Article XVII, or a Constitutional
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, Convention created under the same provision. Furthermore, there is a need for
call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, such deliberative bodies for revisions because their proceedings and debates are
submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. duly and officially recorded, so that future cases of interpretations can be properly
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under aided by resort to the record of their proceedings.
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes Even a cursory reading of the proposed changes contained in the petition for
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor initiative herein involved will show on its face that the proposed changes constitute
later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. a revision of the Constitution. The proposal is to change the system of government
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by from that which is bicameral-presidential to one that is unicameral-parliamentary.
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier While purportedly only Articles VI, VII, and XVIII are involved, the fact is, as the
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the petition and text of the proposed changes themselves state, every provision of the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. Constitution will have to be examined to see if they conform to the nature of a
This Article states the procedure for changing the Constitution. unicameral-parliamentary form of government and changed accordingly if they do
Constitutions have three parts – the Constitution of Liberty, which states the not so conform to it. For example, Article VIII on Judicial Department cannot stand
fundamental rights of the people; the Constitution of Government, which as is, in a parliamentary system, for under such a system, the Parliament is
establishes the structure of government, its branches and their operation; and the supreme, and thus the Court's power to declare its act a grave abuse of discretion
Constitution of Sovereignty, which provides how the Constitution may be and thus void would be an anomaly.
changed. Now, who is to do such examination and who is to do such changes and how
Article XVII is the Constitution of Sovereignty. should the changes be worded? The proposed initiative does not say who nor
As a result, the powers therein provided are called constituent powers. So when how.
Congress acts under this provision, it acts not as a legislature exercising Not only, therefore, is the proposed initiative, on this score, a prohibited revision
legislative powers. It acts as a constituent body exercising constituent powers. but it also suffers from being incomplete and insufficient on its very face.
The rules, therefore, governing the exercise of legislative powers do not apply, or It, therefore, in that form, cannot pass muster the very limits contained in providing
do not apply strictly, to the actions taken under Article XVII. for the power under the Constitution.
Accordingly, since Article XVII states that Congress shall provide for the Neither does it comply with Republic Act No. 6735, which states in Section 10 that
implementation of the exercise of the people's right directly to propose not more than one subject shall be proposed as an amendment or amendments
amendments to the Constitution through initiative, the act of Congress pursuant to the Constitution. The petition herein would propose at the very least two
thereto is not strictly a legislative action but partakes of a constituent act. subjects – a unicameral legislature and a parliamentary form of government.
As a result, Republic Act No. 6735, the act that provides for the exercise of the Again, for this clear and patent violation of the very act that provides for the
people of the right to propose a law or amendments to the Constitution is, with exercise of the power, the proposed initiative cannot lie.
respect to the right to propose amendments to the Constitution, a constituent This does not mean, however, that all is lost for petitioners.
measure, not a mere legislative one. For the proposed changes can be separated and are, in my view, separable in
The consequence of this special character of the enactment, insofar as it relates nature – a unicameral legislature is one; a parliamentary form of government is
to proposing amendments to the Constitution, is that the requirements for another. The first is a mere amendment and contains only one subject matter. The
statutory enactments, such as sufficiency of standards and the like, do not and second is clearly a revision that affects every article and every provision in the
should not strictly apply. As long as there is a sufficient and clear intent to provide Constitution to an extent not even the proponents could at present fully articulate.
for the implementation of the exercise of the right, it should be sustained, as it is Petitioners Lambino, et al. thus go about proposing changes the nature and extent
simply a compliance of the mandate placed on Congress by the Constitution. of which they do not as yet know exactly what.
Seen in this light, the provisions of Republic Act No. 6735 relating to the procedure The proposal, therefore, contained in the petition for initiative, regarding a change
for proposing amendments to the Constitution, can and should be upheld, despite in the legislature from a bicameral or two-chamber body to that of a unicameral or
shortcomings perhaps in legislative headings and standards. one-chamber body, is sustainable. The text of the changes needed to carry it out
For this reason, I concur in the view that Santiago v. Comelec1 should be re- are perfunctory and ministerial in nature. Once it is limited to this proposal, the
examined and, after doing so, that the pronouncement therein regarding the changes are simply one of deletion and insertions, the wordings of which are
insufficiency or inadequacy of the measure to sustain a people's initiative to practically automatic and non-discretionary.
amend the Constitution should be reconsidered in favor of allowing the exercise As an example, I attach to this opinion an Appendix "A" showing how the
of this sovereign right. Constitution would read if we were to change Congress from one consisting of the
And applying the doctrine stated in Senarillos v. Hermosisima,2 penned by Justice Senate and the House of Representatives to one consisting only of the House of
J.B.L. Reyes, in relation to Article 8 of the Civil Code, that a decision of this Court Representatives. It only affects Article VI on the Legislative Department, some
interpreting a law forms part of the law interpreted as of the time of its enactment, provisions on Article VII on the Executive Department, as well as Article XI on the
Republic Act No. 6735 should be deemed sufficient and adequate from the start. Accountability of Public Officers, and Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions. These
 are mere amendments, substantial ones indeed but still only amendments, and They argued that the constitutional provision on people's initiative may only be
they address only one subject matter. implemented by a law passed by Congress; that no such law has yet been
Such proposal, moreover, complies with the intention and rationale behind the enacted by Congress; that Republic Act No. 6735 relied upon by Delfin does not
present initiative, which is to provide for simplicity and economy in government cover the initiative to amend the Constitution; and that COMELEC Resolution No.
and reduce the stalemates that often prevent needed legislation. 2300, the implementing rules adopted by the COMELEC on the conduct of
For the nonce, therefore, I vote to DISMISS the petition, without prejudice to the initiative, was ultra vires insofar as the initiative to amend the Constitution was
filing of an appropriate initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution to concerned. The case was docketed as G.R. No. 127325, entitled Santiago v.
change Congress into a unicameral body. This is not say that I favor such a Commission on Elections.3
change. Rather, such a proposal would come within the purview of an initiative Pending resolution of the case, the Court issued a temporary restraining order
allowed under Article XVII of the Constitution and its implementing Republic Act, enjoining the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and the
and should, therefore, be submitted to our people in a plebiscite for them to decide Pedrosas from conducting a signature drive for people's initiative to amend the
in their sovereign capacity. After all is said and done, this is what democracy under Constitution.
the rule of law is about. On March 19, 1997, the Court rendered its decision on the petition for
prohibition. The Court ruled that the constitutional provision granting the people
DOLFO S. AZCUNA
the power to directly amend the Constitution through initiative is not self-
sociate Justice executory. An enabling law is necessary to implement the exercise of the people's
____________________ right. Examining the provisions of R.A. 6735, a majority of eight (8) members of
EN BANC the Court held that said law was "incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in
G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 Constitution is concerned,"4 and thus voided portions of COMELEC Resolution
REGISTERED VOTERS No. 2300 prescribing rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on
vs. amendments to the Constitution. It was also held that even if R.A. 6735 sufficiently
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS covered the initiative to amend the Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No.
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 2300 was valid, the Delfin Petition should still be dismissed as it was not the
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. proper initiatory pleading contemplated by law. Under Section 2, Article VII of
SAGUISAG the 1987 Constitution and Section 5(b) of R.A. 6735, a petition for initiative on the
vs. Constitution must be signed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. of registered voters, of which every legislative district is represented by at least
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, three per cent (3%) of the registered voters therein. The Delfin Petition did not
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. contain signatures of the required number of voters. The decision stated:
SARMIENTO, and NICODEMO T. FERRER, and John Doe and Peter Doe CONCLUSION
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
"It is a Constitution we are expounding…"1 permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
– Chief Justice John Marshall petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
DISSENTING OPINION law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation
PUNO, J.: of the system.
The petition at bar is not a fight over molehills. At the crux of the controversy is We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments
the critical understanding of the first and foremost of our constitutional principles to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be
— "the Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry
the people and all government authority emanates from them."2 Constitutionalism any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for
dictates that this creed must be respected with deeds; our belief in its validity must the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
be backed by behavior. WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
This is a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus to set aside the resolution of a) GRANTING the instant petition;
respondent Commission on Elections (COMELEC) dated August 31, 2006, b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the
denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by petitioners Raul L. Lambino system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and
and Erico B. Aumentado in their own behalf and together with some 6.3 million to have failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate
registered voters who have affixed their signatures thereon, and praying for the legislation;
issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel respondent COMELEC to set the date c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of
of the plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendments to the the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and
Constitution in accordance with Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. regulations on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the
First, a flashback of the proceedings of yesteryears. In 1996, the Movement Constitution; and
for People's Initiative sought to exercise the sovereign people's power to directly d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith
propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative under Section 2, Article DISMISS the DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Its founding member, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, filed with The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is
the COMELEC on December 6, 1996, a "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to made permanent against the Commission on Elections, but is LIFTED
Lift Term Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" (Delfin Petition). It as against private respondents.5
proposed to amend Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Eight (8) members of the Court, namely, then Associate Justice Hilario G.
Section 8 of Article X of the 1987 Constitution by deleting the provisions on the Davide, Jr. (ponente), Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, and Associate Justices
term limits for all elective officials. Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M.
The Delfin Petition stated that the Petition for Initiative would first be submitted Kapunan, Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres, fully concurred in the
to the people and would be formally filed with the COMELEC after it is signed by majority opinion.
at least twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters in the While all the members of the Court who participated in the deliberation6 agreed
country. It thus sought the assistance of the COMELEC in gathering the that the Delfin Petition should be dismissed for lack of the required signatures,
required signatures by fixing the dates and time therefor and setting up five (5) members, namely, Associate Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno,
signature stations on the assigned dates and time. The petition prayed that Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo J. Francisco and Artemio V. Panganiban, held that
the COMELEC issue an Order (1) fixing the dates and time for signature gathering R.A. 6735 was sufficient and adequate to implement the people's right to amend
all over the country; (2) causing the publication of said Order and the petition for the Constitution through initiative, and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 validly
initiative in newspapers of general and local circulation; and, (3) instructing the provided the details for the actual exercise of such right. Justice Jose C. Vitug,
municipal election registrars in all the regions of the Philippines to assist petitioner on the other hand, opined that the Court should confine itself to resolving the issue
and the volunteers in establishing signing stations on the dates and time of whether the Delfin Petition sufficiently complied with the requirements of the
designated for the purpose. law on initiative, and there was no need to rule on the adequacy of R.A. 6735.
The COMELEC conducted a hearing on the Delfin Petition. The COMELEC, Delfin and the Pedrosas filed separate motions for
On December 18, 1996, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla reconsideration of the Court's decision.
and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a special civil action for prohibition before this Court, After deliberating on the motions for reconsideration, six (6)7 of the eight (8)
seeking to restrain the COMELEC from further considering the Delfin Petition. majority members maintained their position that R.A. 6735 was inadequate to
They impleaded as respondents the COMELEC, Delfin, and Alberto and Carmen implement the provision on the initiative on amendments to the Constitution.
Pedrosa (Pedrosas) in their capacities as founding members of the People's Justice Torres filed an inhibition, while Justice Hermosisima submitted a Separate
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) which was likewise Opinion adopting the position of the minority that R.A. 6735 sufficiently covers the
engaged in signature gathering to support an initiative to amend the Constitution. initiative to amend the Constitution. Hence, of the thirteen (13) members of the
Court who participated in the deliberation, six (6) members, namely, Chief Justice the election, a resident of his district for at least one year prior
Narvasa and Associate Justices Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo and thereto, and shall be elected by the qualified voters of his
Kapunan voted to deny the motions for lack of merit; and six (6) members, namely, district for a term of five years without limitation as to the
Associate Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Francisco, Hermosisima and number thereof, except those under the party-list system
Panganiban voted to grant the same. Justice Vitug maintained his opinion that the which shall be provided for by law and whose number shall
matter was not ripe for judicial adjudication. The motions for reconsideration were be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership
therefore denied for lack of sufficient votes to modify or reverse the decision of coming from the parliamentary districts.
March 19, 1997.8 B. Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution are
On June 23, 1997, PIRMA filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to hereby amended to read, as follows:
Propose Amendments to the Constitution (PIRMA Petition). The PIRMA Petition Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head
was supported by around five (5) million signatures in compliance with R.A. 6735 of State. The executive power shall be exercised by a Prime
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, and prayed that the COMELEC, among Minister, with the assistance of the Cabinet. The Prime
others: (1) cause the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of
twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; (2) order all election officers Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible
to verify the signatures collected in support of the petition and submit these to the to the Parliament for the program of government.
Commission; and (3) set the holding of a plebiscite where the following proposition C. For the purpose of insuring an orderly transition from the
would be submitted to the people for ratification: bicameral-Presidential to a unicameral-Parliamentary form of
Do you approve amendments to the 1987 Constitution giving the government, there shall be a new Article XVIII, entitled "Transitory
President the chance to be reelected for another term, similarly with the Provisions," which shall read, as follows:
Vice-President, so that both the highest officials of the land can serve Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President
for two consecutive terms of six years each, and also to lift the term shall serve until the expiration of their term at noon on the
limits for all other elective government officials, thus giving Filipino thirtieth day of June 2010 and shall continue to exercise their
voters the freedom of choice, amending for that purpose, Section 4 of powers under the 1987 Constitution unless impeached by a
Article VII, Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI and Section 8 of Article X, vote of two thirds of all the members of the interim parliament.
respectively? (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or
The COMELEC dismissed the PIRMA Petition in view of the permanent removal from office of the incumbent President, the
restraining order issued by the Court in Santiago v. COMELEC. incumbent Vice President shall succeed as President. In
PIRMA filed with this Court a Petition for Mandamus and Certiorari seeking to case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal
set aside the COMELEC Resolution dismissing its petition for initiative. PIRMA from office of both the incumbent President and Vice
argued that the Court's decision on the Delfin Petition did not bar the COMELEC President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the
from acting on the PIRMA Petition as said ruling was not definitive based on the powers and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII
deadlocked voting on the motions for reconsideration, and because there was no as amended.
identity of parties and subject matter between the two petitions. PIRMA also urged Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
the Court to reexamine its ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC. President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections
The Court dismissed the petition for mandamus and certiorari in its resolution 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution
dated September 23, 1997. It explained: which shall hereby be amended and Sections 18 and 24
The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of which shall be deleted, all other Sections of Article VI are
discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2,
dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
complied with the dispositions in the Decision of this Court in G.R. No. Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they
127325 promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of June 10, shall be amended to conform with a unicameral
1997. parliamentary form of government; provided, however, that
The Court next considered the question of whether there was need to any and all references therein to "Congress," "Senate,"
resolve the second issue posed by the petitioners, namely, that the "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall
Court re-examine its ruling as regards R.A. 6735. On this issue, the be changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all references
Chief Justice and six (6) other members of the Court, namely, therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or
Regalado, Davide, Romero, Bellosillo, Kapunan and Torres, JJ., voted "Member(s) of the House of Representatives" shall be
that there was no need to take it up. Vitug, J., agreed that there was no changed to read as "Member(s) of Parliament" and any and
need for re-examination of said second issue since the case at bar is all references to the "President" and/or "Acting President"
not the proper vehicle for that purpose. Five (5) other members of the shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
Court, namely, Melo, Puno, Francisco, Hermosisima, and Panganiban, Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent
JJ., opined that there was a need for such a re-examination x x x x9 President and Vice President, with the exception of Sections
In their Separate Opinions, Justice (later Chief Justice) Davide and Justice 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are
Bellosillo stated that the PIRMA petition was dismissed on the ground of res hereby amended and Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which
judicata. are hereby deleted, all other Sections of Article VII shall be
Now, almost a decade later, another group, Sigaw ng Bayan, seeks to utilize retained and renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad
anew the system of initiative to amend the Constitution, this time to change the seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with
form of government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed
system. amended so as to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary
Let us look at the facts of the petition at bar with clear eyes. System of government; provided, however, that any all
On February 15, 2006, Sigaw ng Bayan, in coordination with Union of Local references therein to "Congress," "Senate," "House of
Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP), embarked on a nationwide drive to gather Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall be
signatures to support the move to adopt the parliamentary form of government in changed to read "Parliament;" that any and all references
the country through charter change. They proposed to amend the Constitution as therein to "Member(s) of Congress," "Senator(s)" or
follows: "Member(s) of the House of Representatives" shall be
A. Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI shall be amended to changed to read as "Member(s) of Parliament" and any and
read as follows: all references to the "President" and or "Acting President"
Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be shall be changed to read "Prime Minister."
vested in a unicameral Parliament which shall be composed Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
of as many members as may be provided by law, to be amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until
apportioned among the provinces, representative districts, the Members of the regular Parliament shall have been
and cities in accordance with the number of their respective elected and shall have qualified. It shall be composed of the
inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand inhabitants incumbent Members of the Senate and the House of
per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive Representatives and the incumbent Members of the Cabinet
ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, who are heads of executive departments.
contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, and each (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a
province must have at least one member. Member of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June
(2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen 2010. He shall also be a member of the cabinet and shall
of the Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of head a ministry. He shall initially convene the interim
 Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for the election Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc., Senate Minority Leader
of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall have Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal,
been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada;
interim Parliament from among themselves. Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana Theresia
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Hontiveros-Baraquel; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops Forum,
Members of Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino
2010. Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda, Drs. Darby Santiago and Reginald
(4) Within forty-five days from ratification of these Pamugas; Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar,
amendments, the interim Parliament shall convene to Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong.
propose amendments to, or revisions of, this Constitution On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the Petition for
consistent with the principles of local autonomy, Initiative. It cited this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC11 permanently
decentralization and a strong bureaucracy. enjoining the Commission from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition
Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have
Executive, shall nominate, from among the members of the been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.
interim Parliament, an interim Prime Minister, who shall be Forthwith, petitioners filed with this Court the instant Petition for Certiorari and
elected by a majority vote of the members thereof. The Mandamus praying that the Court set aside the August 31, 2006 resolution of the
interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various ministries COMELEC, direct respondent COMELEC to comply with Section 4, Article XVII
and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may of the Constitution, and set the date of the plebiscite. They state the following
be delegated to him by the incumbent President." grounds in support of the petition:
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the I.
members of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse
held simultaneously with the election of all local government of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and to give due course
officials. The duly elected Prime Minister shall continue to to the petition for initiative, because the cited Santiago ruling of 19
exercise and perform the powers, duties and responsibilities March 1997 cannot be considered the majority opinion of the Supreme
of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the term of Court en banc, considering that upon its reconsideration and final voting
the incumbent President and Vice President.10 on 10 June 1997, no majority vote was secured to declare Republic Act
Sigaw ng Bayan prepared signature sheets, on the upper portions of which were No. 6735 as inadequate, incomplete and insufficient in standard.
written the abstract of the proposed amendments, to wit: II.
Abstract: Do you approve of the amendment of Articles VI and VII of The 1987 Constitution, Republic Act No. 6735, Republic Act No. 8189
the 1987 Constitution, changing the form of government from the and existing appropriation of the COMELEC provide for sufficient
present bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system of details and authority for the exercise of people's initiative, thus, existing
government, in order to achieve greater efficiency, simplicity and laws taken together are adequate and complete.
economy in government; and providing an Article XVIII as Transitory III.
Provisions for the orderly shift from one system to another? The Honorable public respondent COMELEC committed grave abuse
The signature sheets were distributed nationwide to affiliated non-government of discretion in refusing to take cognizance of, and in refusing to give
organizations and volunteers of Sigaw ng Bayan, as well as to the local officials. due course to the petition for initiative, thereby violating an express
Copies of the draft petition for initiative containing the proposition were also constitutional mandate and disregarding and contravening the will of
circulated to the local officials and multi-sectoral groups. the people.
Sigaw ng Bayan alleged that it also held barangay assemblies which culminated A.
on March 24, 25 and 26, 2006, to inform the people and explain to them the Assuming in arguendo that there is no enabling law,
proposed amendments to the Constitution. Thereafter, they circulated the respondent COMELEC cannot ignore the will of the
signature sheets for signing. sovereign people and must accordingly act on the petition for
The signature sheets were then submitted to the local election officers for initiative.
verification based on the voters' registration record. Upon completion of the 1.
verification process, the respective local election officers issued certifications The framers of the Constitution intended to give the
to attest that the signature sheets have been verified. The verified signature people the power to propose amendments and the
sheets were subsequently transmitted to the office of Sigaw ng Bayan for the people themselves are now giving vibrant life to
counting of the signatures. this constitutional provision.
On August 25, 2006, herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado 2.
filed with the COMELEC a Petition for Initiative to Amend the Constitution entitled Prior to the questioned Santiago ruling of 19 March
"In the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution through a 1997, the right of the people to exercise the
People's Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral Presidential to a Unicameral sovereign power of initiative and recall has been
Parliamentary Government by Amending Articles VI and VII; and Providing invariably upheld.
Transitory Provisions for the Orderly Shift from the Presidential to the 3.
Parliamentary System." They filed an Amended Petition on August 30, 2006 to The exercise of the initiative to propose
reflect the text of the proposed amendment that was actually presented to the amendments is a political question which shall be
people. They alleged that they were filing the petition in their own behalf and determined solely by the sovereign people.
together with some 6.3 million registered voters who have affixed their signatures 4.
on the signature sheets attached thereto. Petitioners appended to the petition By signing the signature sheets attached to the
signature sheets bearing the signatures of registered voters which they claimed petition for initiative duly verified by the election
to have been verified by the respective city or municipal election officers, and officers, the people have chosen to perform this
allegedly constituting at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered voters in the sacred exercise of their sovereign power.
country, wherein each legislative district is represented by at least three per cent B.
(3%) of all the registered voters therein. The Santiago ruling of 19 March 1997 is not applicable to the
As basis for the filing of their petition for initiative, petitioners averred instant petition for initiative filed by the petitioners.
that Section 5 (b) and (c), together with Section 7 of R.A. 6735, provide C.
sufficient enabling details for the people's exercise of the power. Hence, The permanent injunction issued in Santiago vs. COMELEC
petitioners prayed that the COMELEC issue an Order: only applies to the Delfin petition.
1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII 1.
of the 1987 Constitution; It is the dispositive portion of the decision and not
2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least other statements in the body of the decision that
twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and governs the rights in controversy.
3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than IV.
ninety days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency The Honorable public respondent failed or
of the petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will neglected to act or perform a duty mandated by
on the proposition. law.
Several groups filed with the COMELEC their respective oppositions to the A.
petition for initiative, among them ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene The ministerial duty of the COMELEC is
B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and to set the initiative for plebiscite.12
The oppositors-intervenors, ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. 5.2 Whether the proposed changes embrace more than one
Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos subject matter.
P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Groups, Inc.; Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, 6. Whether the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision
Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante Gabriela, Gabriela Women's Party, of the Constitution.
Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Jose, Jojo Pineda, Dr. 6.1 Whether the proposed changes are the proper subject of
Darby Santiago, and Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. an initiative.
Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. 7. Whether the exercise of an initiative to propose amendments to the
Lim, Panfilo M. Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada; Constitution is a political question to be determined solely by the
Representatives Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana Theresia sovereign people.
Hontiveros-Baraquel; and Attys. Pete Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, 8. Whether the Commission on Elections committed grave abuse of
Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. discretion in dismissing the Petitions for Initiative filed before it.
Tabayoyong moved to intervene in this case and filed their respective With humility, I offer the following views to these issues as profiled:
Oppositions/Comments-in-Intervention. I
The Philippine Constitution Association, Conrado F. Estrella, Tomas C. Toledo, Petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to file the
Mariano M. Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., Fortunato P. present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who
Aguas, and Amado Gat Inciong; the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu City allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution.
and Cebu Province Chapters; former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Oppositors-intervenors contend that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are not
Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino; and the Senate of the Philippines, represented by the proper parties to file the instant petition as they were not authorized by the
Senate President Manuel Villar, Jr., also filed their respective motions for signatories in the petition for initiative.
intervention and Comments-in-Intervention. The argument deserves scant attention. The Constitution requires that the petition
The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines, Sulongbayan Movement for initiative should be filed by at least twelve per cent (12%) of all registered
Foundation, Inc., Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo Baya, voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization, and Victorino F. Balais cent (3%) of all the registered voters therein. The petition for initiative filed by
likewise moved to intervene and submitted to the Court a Petition-in-Intervention. Lambino and Aumentado before the COMELEC was accompanied by voluminous
All interventions and oppositions were granted by the Court. signature sheets which prima facie show the intent of the signatories to support
The oppositors-intervenors essentially submit that the COMELEC did not the filing of said petition. Stated above their signatures in the signature sheets is
commit grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the petition for initiative the following:
as it merely followed this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC as affirmed in x x x My signature herein which shall form part of the petition for
the case of PIRMA v. COMELEC, based on the principle of stare decisis; that initiative to amend the Constitution signifies my support for the filing
there is no sufficient law providing for the authority and the details for the exercise thereof.14
of people's initiative to amend the Constitution; that the proposed changes to the There is thus no need for the more than six (6) million signatories to execute
Constitution are actually revisions, not mere amendments; that the petition for separate documents to authorize petitioners to file the petition for initiative in their
initiative does not meet the required number of signatories under Section 2, Article behalf.
XVII of the 1987 Constitution; that it was not shown that the people have been Neither is it necessary for said signatories to authorize Lambino and Aumentado
informed of the proposed amendments as there was disparity between the to file the petition for certiorari and mandamus before this Court. Rule 65 of the
proposal presented to them and the proposed amendments attached to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides who may file a petition for certiorari and
petition for initiative, if indeed there was; that the verification process was done ex mandamus. Sections 1 and 3 of Rule 65 read:
parte, thus rendering dubious the signatures attached to the petition for initiative; SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari.—When any tribunal, board or
and that petitioners Lambino and Aumentado have no legal capacity to represent officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or
the signatories in the petition for initiative. in excess of his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), in compliance with the Court's to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, nor any plain,
resolution of September 5, 2006, filed its Comment to the petition. Affirming the speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, a person
position of the petitioners, the OSG prayed that the Court grant the petition at bar aggrieved thereby may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x
and render judgment: (1) declaring R.A. 6735 as adequate to cover or as x.
reasonably sufficient to implement the system of initiative on amendments to the SEC. 3. Petition for mandamus.—When any tribunal, corporation,
Constitution and as having provided sufficient standards for subordinate board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act
legislation; (2) declaring as valid the provisions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office,
on the conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; (3) setting aside trust, or station x x x and there is no other plain, speedy and adequate
the assailed resolution of the COMELEC for having been rendered with grave remedy in the ordinary course of law, the person aggrieved thereby
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction; and, (4) directing may file a verified petition in the proper court x x x x.
the COMELEC to grant the petition for initiative and set the corresponding Thus, any person aggrieved by the act or inaction of the respondent tribunal,
plebiscite pursuant to R.A. 6735, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, and other board or officer may file a petition for certiorari or mandamus before the
pertinent election laws and regulations. appropriate court. Certainly, Lambino and Aumentado, as among the proponents
The COMELEC filed its own Comment stating that its resolution denying the of the petition for initiative dismissed by the COMELEC, have the standing to file
petition for initiative is not tainted with grave abuse of discretion as it merely the petition at bar.
adhered to the ruling of this Court in Santiago v. COMELEC which declared that II
R.A. 6735 does not adequately implement the constitutional provision on initiative The doctrine of stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of
to amend the Constitution. It invoked the permanent injunction issued by the Court Santiago.
against the COMELEC from taking cognizance of petitions for initiative on The latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere means "stand by the thing
amendments to the Constitution until a valid enabling law shall have been passed and do not disturb the calm." The doctrine started with the English Courts. 15
by Congress. It asserted that the permanent injunction covers not only the Delfin Blackstone observed that at the beginning of the 18th century, "it is an
Petition, but also all other petitions involving constitutional initiatives. established rule to abide by former precedents where the same points come again
On September 26, 2006, the Court heard the case. The parties were required to in litigation."16 As the rule evolved, early limits to its application were
argue on the following issues:13 recognized: (1) it would not be followed if it were "plainly unreasonable;" (2)
1. Whether petitioners Lambino and Aumentado are proper parties to where courts of equal authority developed conflicting decisions; and, (3) the
file the present Petition in behalf of the more than six million voters who binding force of the decision was the "actual principle or principles necessary for
allegedly signed the proposal to amend the Constitution. the decision; not the words or reasoning used to reach the decision."17
2. Whether the Petitions for Initiative filed before the Commission on The doctrine migrated to the United States. It was recognized by the framers of
Elections complied with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. the U.S. Constitution.18 According to Hamilton, "strict rules and precedents" are
3. Whether the Court's decision in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. necessary to prevent "arbitrary discretion in the courts."19 Madison agreed but
127325, March 19, 1997) bars the present petition. stressed that "x x x once the precedent ventures into the realm of altering or
4. Whether the Court should re-examine the ruling in Santiago v. repealing the law, it should be rejected."20 Prof. Consovoy well noted that
COMELEC that there is no sufficient law implementing or authorizing Hamilton and Madison "disagree about the countervailing policy considerations
the exercise of people's initiative to amend the Constitution. that would allow a judge to abandon a precedent."21 He added that their ideas
5. Assuming R.A. 6735 is sufficient, whether the Petitions for Initiative "reveal a deep internal conflict between the concreteness required by the rule of
filed with the COMELEC have complied with its provisions. law and the flexibility demanded in error correction. It is this internal conflict
5.1 Whether the said petitions are sufficient in form and that the Supreme Court has attempted to deal with for over two centuries."22
substance. Indeed, two centuries of American case law will confirm Prof. Consovoy's
observation although stare decisis developed its own life in the United States.
Two strains of stare decisis have been isolated by legal scholars.23 The first, is insufficient is intolerable for it rendered lifeless the sovereign right of the people
known as vertical stare decisis deals with the duty of lower courts to apply the to amend the Constitution via an initiative.
decisions of the higher courts to cases involving the same facts. The second, On the factor of reliance, the ruling of the six (6) justices in Santiago did not
known as horizontal stare decisis requires that high courts must follow its induce any expectation from the people. On the contrary, the ruling smothered the
own precedents. Prof. Consovoy correctly observes that vertical stare decisis hope of the people that they could amend the Constitution by direct action.
has been viewed as an obligation, while horizontal stare decisis, has been Moreover, reliance is a non-factor in the case at bar for it is more appropriate to
viewed as a policy, imposing choice but not a command.24 Indeed, stare decisis consider in decisions involving contracts where private rights are adjudicated. The
is not one of the precepts set in stone in our Constitution. case at bar involves no private rights but the sovereignty of the people.
It is also instructive to distinguish the two kinds of horizontal stare decisis — On the factor of changes in law and in facts, certain realities on ground cannot
constitutional stare decisis and statutory stare decisis.25 Constitutional stare be blinked away. The urgent need to adjust certain provisions of the 1987
decisis involves judicial interpretations of the Constitution while statutory stare Constitution to enable the country to compete in the new millennium is given. The
decisis involves interpretations of statutes. The distinction is important for only point of contention is the mode to effect the change - - - whether through
courts enjoy more flexibility in refusing to apply stare decisis in constitutional constituent assembly, constitutional convention or people's initiative. Petitioners
litigations. Justice Brandeis' view on the binding effect of the doctrine in claim that they have gathered over six (6) million registered voters who want to
constitutional litigations still holds sway today. In soothing prose, Brandeis stated: amend the Constitution through people's initiative and that their signatures have
"Stare decisis is not . . . a universal and inexorable command. The rule of been verified by registrars of the COMELEC. The six (6) justices who ruled that
stare decisis is not inflexible. Whether it shall be followed or departed from, is a R.A. 6735 is insufficient to implement the direct right of the people to amend
question entirely within the discretion of the court, which is again called upon the Constitution through an initiative cannot waylay the will of 6.3 million
to consider a question once decided."26 In the same vein, the venerable Justice people who are the bearers of our sovereignty and from whom all
Frankfurter opined: "the ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the government authority emanates. New developments in our internal and
Constitution itself and not what we have said about it."27 In contrast, the external social, economic, and political settings demand the reexamination of the
application of stare decisis on judicial interpretation of statutes is more inflexible. Santiago case. The stare decisis rule is no reason for this Court to allow the
As Justice Stevens explains: "after a statute has been construed, either by this people to step into the future with a blindfold.
Court or by a consistent course of decision by other federal judges and agencies, III
it acquires a meaning that should be as clear as if the judicial gloss had been A reexamination of R.A. 6735 will show that it is sufficient to
drafted by the Congress itself."28 This stance reflects both respect for Congress' implement the people's initiative.
role and the need to preserve the courts' limited resources. Let us reexamine the validity of the view of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 is
In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of reasons,29 viz: insufficient to implement Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution allowing
(1) it legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it promotes judicial economy; and, (3) it amendments to the Constitution to be directly proposed by the people through
allows for predictability. Contrariwise, courts refuse to be bound by the stare initiative.
decisis rule where30 (1) its application perpetuates illegitimate and When laws are challenged as unconstitutional, courts are counseled to give life to
unconstitutional holdings; (2) it cannot accommodate changing social and political the intent of legislators. In enacting R.A. 6735, it is daylight luminous that
understandings; (3) it leaves the power to overturn bad constitutional law solely in Congress intended the said law to implement the right of the people, thru initiative,
the hands of Congress; and, (4) activist judges can dictate the policy for future to propose amendments to the Constitution by direct action. This all-important
courts while judges that respect stare decisis are stuck agreeing with them. intent is palpable from the following:
In its 200-year history, the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to follow the stare First. The text of R.A. 6735 is replete with references to the right of the people to
decisis rule and reversed its decisions in 192 cases.31 The most famous of these initiate changes to the Constitution:
reversals is Brown v. Board of Education32 which junked Plessy v. The policy statement declares:
Ferguson's33 "separate but equal doctrine." Plessy upheld as constitutional a Sec. 2. Statement of Policy. -- The power of the people under a system
state law requirement that races be segregated on public transportation. In of initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject,
Brown, the U.S. Supreme Court, unanimously held that "separate . . . is in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions
inherently unequal." Thus, by freeing itself from the shackles of stare decisis, passed by any legislative body upon compliance with the requirements
the U.S. Supreme Court freed the colored Americans from the chains of inequality. of this Act is hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. (emphasis
In the Philippine setting, this Court has likewise refused to be straitjacketed by the supplied)
stare decisis rule in order to promote public welfare. In La Bugal-B'laan Tribal It defines "initiative" as "the power of the people to propose amendments to
Association, Inc. v. Ramos,34 we reversed our original ruling that certain provisions the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called
of the Mining Law are unconstitutional. Similarly, in Secretary of Justice v. for the purpose," and "plebiscite" as "the electoral process by which an initiative
Lantion,35 we overturned our first ruling and held, on motion for reconsideration, on the Constitution is approved or rejected by the people."
that a private respondent is bereft of the right to notice and hearing during the It provides the requirements for a petition for initiative to amend the Constitution,
evaluation stage of the extradition process. viz:
An examination of decisions on stare decisis in major countries will show (1) That "(a) petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have
that courts are agreed on the factors that should be considered before at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered
overturning prior rulings. These are workability, reliance, intervening voters as signatories, of which every legislative district must be
developments in the law and changes in fact. In addition, courts put in the represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters
balance the following determinants: closeness of the voting, age of the prior therein;"38 and
decision and its merits.36 (2) That "(i)nitiative on the Constitution may be exercised only after five
The leading case in deciding whether a court should follow the stare decisis rule (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once
in constitutional litigations is Planned Parenthood v. Casey.37 It established a 4- every five (5) years thereafter."39
pronged test. The court should (1) determine whether the rule has proved to be It fixes the effectivity date of the amendment under Section 9(b) which provides
intolerable simply in defying practical workability; (2) consider whether the rule is that "(t)he proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by a majority of
subject to a kind of reliance that would lend a special hardship to the the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day of the
consequences of overruling and add inequity to the cost of repudiation; (3) plebiscite."
determine whether related principles of law have so far developed as to have Second. The legislative history of R.A. 6735 also reveals the clear intent of the
the old rule no more than a remnant of an abandoned doctrine; and, (4) find out lawmakers to use it as the instrument to implement people's initiative. No less
whether facts have so changed or come to be seen differently, as to have robbed than former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., the ponente in Santiago,
the old rule of significant application or justification. concedes:40
Following these guidelines, I submit that the stare decisis rule should not We agree that R.A. No. 6735 was, as its history reveals, intended to
bar the reexamination of Santiago. On the factor of intolerability, the six (6) cover initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Act is
justices in Santiago held R.A. 6735 to be insufficient as it provided no standard a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17 x x x x
to guide COMELEC in issuing its implementing rules. The Santiago ruling that The Bicameral Conference Committee consolidated Senate Bill No. 17
R.A. 6735 is insufficient but without striking it down as unconstitutional is an and House Bill No. 21505 into a draft bill, which was subsequently
intolerable aberration, the only one of its kind in our planet. It improperly assails approved on 8 June 1989 by the Senate and by the House of
the ability of legislators to write laws. It usurps the exclusive right of legislators to Representatives. This approved bill is now R.A. No. 6735.
determine how far laws implementing constitutional mandates should be crafted. Third. The sponsorship speeches by the authors of R.A. 6735 similarly
It is elementary that courts cannot dictate on Congress the style of writing good demonstrate beyond doubt this intent. In his sponsorship remarks, the late
laws, anymore than Congress can tell courts how to write literate decisions. The Senator Raul Roco (then a Member of the House of Representatives)
doctrine of separation of powers forbids this Court to invade the exclusive emphasized the intent to make initiative as a mode whereby the people can
lawmaking domain of Congress for courts can construe laws but cannot propose amendments to the Constitution. We quote his relevant remarks: 41
construct them. The end result of the ruling of the six (6) justices that R.A. 6735 SPONSORSHIP REMAKRS OF REP. ROCO
MR. ROCO. Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the committee, we There are variations of initiative and referendum. The barangay
wish to speak in support of House Bill No. 497, entitled: INITIATIVE assembly is composed of all persons who have been actual residents
AND REFERENDUM ACT OF 1987, which later on may be called of the barangay for at least six months, who are at least 15 years of age
Initiative and Referendum Act of 1989. and citizens of the Philippines. The holding of barangay plebiscites and
As a background, we want to point out the constitutional basis of this referendum is also provided in Sections 100 and 101 of the same Code.
particular bill. The grant of plenary legislative power upon the Philippine Mr. Speaker, for brevity I will not read the pertinent quotations but will
Congress by the 1935, 1973 and 1987 Constitutions, Mr. Speaker, was just submit the same to the Secretary to be incorporated as part of my
based on the principle that any power deemed to be legislative by speech.
usage and tradition is necessarily possessed by the Philippine To continue, Mr. Speaker these same principles are extensively applied
Congress unless the Organic Act has lodged it elsewhere. This was a by the Local Government Code as it is now mandated by the 1987
citation from Vera vs. Avelino (1946). Constitution.
The presidential system introduced by the 1935 Constitution saw the In other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, we have ample examples of initiative
application of the principle of separation of powers. While under the and referendum similar to what is now contained in House Bill No.
parliamentary system of the 1973 Constitution the principle remained 21505. As in the 1987 Constitutions and House Bill No. 21505, the
applicable, Amendment 6 or the 1981 amendments to the 1973 various constitutions of the states in the United States recognize the
Constitution ensured presidential dominance over the Batasang right of registered voters to initiate the enactment of any statute or to
Pambansa. reject any existing law or parts thereof in a referendum. These states
Our constitutional history saw the shifting and sharing of legislative are Alaska, Alabama, Montana, Massachusetts, Dakota, Oklahoma,
power between the legislature and the executive. Oregon, and practically all other states.
Transcending such changes in the exercise of legislative power is the In certain American states, the kind of laws to which initiative and
declaration in the Philippine Constitution that he Philippines is a referendum applies is also without ay limitation, except for emergency
Republican State where sovereignty resides in the people and all measures, which is likewise incorporated in Section 7(b) of House Bill
government authority emanates from them. No. 21505.
In a Republic, Mr. Speaker, the power to govern is vested in its citizens The procedure provided by the House bill – from the filing of the petition,
participating through the right of suffrage and indicating thereby their the requirement of a certain percentage of supporters to present a
choice of lawmakers. proposition to submission to electors – is substantially similar to those
Under the 1987 Constitution, lawmaking power is still preserved in of many American laws. Mr. Speaker, those among us who may have
Congress. However, to institutionalize direct action of the people as been in the United States, particularly in California, during election time
exemplified in the 1986 Revolution, there is a practical recognition of or last November during the election would have noticed different
what we refer to as people's sovereign power. This is the recognition of propositions posted in the city walls. They were propositions submitted
a system of initiative and referendum. by the people for incorporation during the voting. These were in the
Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution provides, and I quote: nature of initiative, Mr. Speaker.
The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the Although an infant then in Philippine political structure, initiative and
Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and House of referendum is a tried and tested system in other jurisdictions, and
Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people House Bill No. 21505 through the various consolidated bills is patterned
by the provision on initiative and referendum. after American experience in a great respect.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, under the 1987 Constitution, Congress What does the bill essentially say, Mr. Speaker? Allow me to try to bring
does not have plenary powers. There is a reserved legislative power our colleagues slowly through the bill. The bill has basically only 12
given to the people expressly. sections. The constitutional Commissioners, Mr. Speaker, saw this
Section 32, the implementing provision of the same article of the system of initiative and referendum as an instrument which can be used
Constitution provides, and I quote: should the legislature show itself indifferent to the needs of the people.
The Congress shall, as early as possible, provide for a That is why, Mr. Speaker, it may be timely, since we seem to be amply
system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions criticized, as regards our responsiveness, to pass this bill on
therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and referendum and initiative now. While indifference would not be an
enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof appropriate term to use at this time, and surely it is not the case
passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the although we are so criticized, one must note that it is a felt necessity of
registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten per our times that laws need to be proposed and adopted at the soonest
centum of the total number of registered voters, or which possible time to spur economic development, safeguard individual
every legislative district must be represented by at least three rights and liberties, and share governmental power with the people.
per centum of the registered voters thereof. With the legislative powers of the President gone, we alone, together
In other words, Mr. Speaker, in Section 1 of Article VI which describes with the Senators when they are minded to agree with us, are left with
legislative power, there are reserved powers given to the people. In the burden of enacting the needed legislation.
Section 32, we are specifically told to pass at the soonest possible time Let me now bring our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, to the process
a bill on referendum and initiative. We are specifically mandated to advocated by the bill.
share the legislative powers of Congress with the people. First, initiative and referendum, Mr. Speaker, is defined. Initiative
Of course, another applicable provision in the Constitution is Section 2, essentially is what the term connotes. It means that the people, on their
Article XVII, Mr. Speaker. Under the provision on amending the own political judgment, submit fore the consideration and voting of the
Constitution, the section reads, and I quote: general electorate a bill or a piece of legislation.
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly Under House Bill No. 21505, there are three kinds of initiative. One is
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at an initiative to amend the Constitution. This can occur once every five
least twelve per centum of the total number of registered years. Another is an initiative to amend statutes that we may have
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented approved. Had this bill been an existing law, Mr. Speaker, it is most
by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. likely that an overwhelming majority of the barangays in the Philippines
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within would have approved by initiative the matter of direct voting.
five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor The third mode of initiative, Mr. Speaker, refers to a petition proposing
oftener than once every five years thereafter. to enact regional, provincial, city, municipal or barangay laws or
We in Congress therefore, Mr. Speaker, are charged with the duty to ordinances. It comes from the people and it must be submitted directly
implement the exercise by the people of the right of initiative and to the electorate. The bill gives a definite procedure and allows the
referendum. COMELEC to define rules and regulations to give teeth to the power of
House Bill No. 21505, as reported out by the Committee on Suffrage initiative.
and Electoral Reforms last December 14, 1988, Mr. Speaker, is the On the other hand, referendum, Mr. Speaker, is the power of the people
response to such a constitutional duty. to approve or reject something that Congress has already approved.
Mr. Speaker, if only to allay apprehensions, allow me to show where For instance, Mr. Speaker, when we divide the municipalities or the
initiative and referendum under Philippine law has occurred. barangays into two or three, we must first get the consent of the people
Mr. Speaker, the system of initiative and referendum is not new. In a affected through plebiscite or referendum.
very limited extent, the system is provided for in our Local Government Referendum is a mode of plebiscite, Mr. Speaker. However,
Code today. On initiative, for instance, Section 99 of the said code vests referendum can also be petitioned by the people if, for instance, they
in the barangay assembly the power to initiate legislative processes, to do not life the bill on direct elections and it is approved subsequently by
hold plebiscites and to hear reports of the sangguniang barangay. the Senate. If this bill had already become a law, then the people could
 petition that a referendum be conducted so that the acts of Congress Representatives fail to live up to their expectations. That reserve power
can be appropriately approved or rebuffed. known as initiative is explicitly recognized in three articles and four
The initial stage, Mr. Speaker, is what we call the petition. As envisioned sections of the 1987 Constitution, namely: Article VI Section 1; the
in the bill, the initiative comes from the people, from registered voters same article, Section 312; Article X, Section 3; and Article XVII, Section
of the country, by presenting a proposition so that the people can then 2. May I request that he explicit provisions of these three articles and
submit a petition, which is a piece of paper that contains the proposition. four sections be made part of my sponsorship speech, Mr. Speaker.
The proposition in the example I have been citing is whether there These constitutional provisions are, however, not self-executory. There
should be direct elections during the barangay elections. So the petition is a need for an implementing law that will give meaning and substance
must be filed in the appropriate agency and the proposition must be to the process of initiative and referendum which are considered
clear stated. It can be tedious but that is how an effort to have direct valuable adjuncts to representative democracy. It is needless to state
democracy operates. that this bill when enacted into law will probably open the door to strong
Section 4 of the bill gives requirements, Mr. Speaker. It will not be all competition of the people, like pressure groups, vested interests,
that easy to have referendum or initiative petitioned by the people. farmers' group, labor groups, urban dwellers, the urban poor and the
Under Section 4 of the committee report, we are given certain like, with Congress in the field of legislation.
limitations. For instance, to exercise the power of initiative or Such probability, however, pales in significance when we consider that
referendum, at least 10 percent of the total number of registered voters, through this bill we can hasten the politization of the Filipino which in
of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3 percent of turn will aid government in forming an enlightened public opinion, and
the registered voters thereof, shall sign a petition. These numbers, Mr. hopefully produce better and more responsive and acceptable
Speaker, are not taken from the air. They are mandated by the legislations.
Constitution. There must be a requirement of 10 percent for ordinary Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this would give the parliamentarians of the
laws and 3 percent representing all districts. The same requirement is streets and cause-oriented groups an opportunity to articulate their
mutatis mutandis or appropriately modified and applied to the different ideas in a truly democratic forum, thus, the competition which they will
sections. So if it is, for instance, a petition on initiative or referendum for offer to Congress will hopefully be a healthy one. Anyway, in an
a barangay, there is a 10 percent or a certain number required of the atmosphere of competition there are common interests dear to all
voters of the barangay. If it is for a district, there is also a certain number Filipinos, and the pursuit of each side's competitive goals can still take
required of all towns of the district that must seek the petition. If it is for place in an atmosphere of reason and moderation.
a province then again a certain percentage of the provincial electors is Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues, when the distinguished
required. All these are based with reference to the constitutional Gentleman from Camarines Sur and this Representation filed our
mandate. respective versions of the bill in 1987, we were hoping that the bill would
The conduct of the initiative and referendum shall be supervised and be approved early enough so that our people could immediately use the
shall be upon the call of the Commission on Elections. However, within agrarian reform bill as an initial subject matter or as a take-off point.
a period of 30 days from receipt of the petition, the COMELEC shall However, in view of the very heavy agenda of the Committee on Local
determine the sufficiency of the petition, publish the same and set the Government, it took sometime before the committee could act on these.
date of the referendum which shall not be earlier than 45 days but not But as they say in Tagalog, huli man daw at magaling ay naihahabol
later than 90 days from the determination by the commission of the din. The passage of this bill therefore, my dear colleagues, could be
sufficiency of the petition. Why is this so, Mr. Speaker? The petition one of our finest hours when we can set aside our personal and political
must first be determined by the commission as to its sufficiency consideration for the greater good of our people. I therefore respectfully
because our Constitution requires that no bill can be approved unless urge and plead that this bill be immediately approved.
it contains one subject matter. It is conceivable that in the fervor of an Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
initiative or referendum, Mr. Speaker, there may be more than two We cannot dodge the duty to give effect to this intent for the "[c]ourts have
topics sought to be approved and that cannot be allowed. In fact, that the duty to interpret the law as legislated and when possible, to honor the clear
is one of the prohibitions under this referendum and initiative bill. When meaning of statutes as revealed by its language, purpose and history."43
a matter under initiative or referendum is approved by the required The tragedy is that while conceding this intent, the six (6) justices,
number of votes, Mr. Speaker, it shall become effective 15 days nevertheless, ruled that "x x x R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting
following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette. in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Effectively then, Mr. Speaker, all the bill seeks to do is to enlarge and Constitution is concerned" for the following reasons: (1) Section 2 of the Act does
recognize the legislative powers of the Filipino people. not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution; (2) the Act does
Mr. Speaker, I think this Congress, particularly this House, cannot not provide for the contents of the petition for initiative on the Constitution; and
ignore or cannot be insensitive to the call for initiative and referendum. (3) while the Act provides subtitles for National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle
We should have done it in 1987 but that is past. Maybe we should have II) and for Local Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is provided for
done it in 1988 but that too had already passed, but it is only February initiative on the Constitution.
1989, Mr. Speaker, and we have enough time this year at least to To say the least, these alleged omissions are too weak a reason to throttle the
respond to the need of our people to participate directly in the work of right of the sovereign people to amend the Constitution through initiative. R.A.
legislation. 6735 clearly expressed the legislative policy for the people to propose
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, we urge and implore our colleagues to amendments to the Constitution by direct action. The fact that the legislature may
approve House Bill No. 21505 as incorporated in Committee Report No. have omitted certain details in implementing the people's initiative in R.A. 6735,
423 of the Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms. does not justify the conclusion that, ergo, the law is insufficient. What were
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I also request that the prepared text of my omitted were mere details and not fundamental policies which Congress
speech, together with the footnotes since they contain many references alone can and has determined. Implementing details of a law can be delegated
to statutory history and foreign jurisdiction, be reproduced as part of the to the COMELEC and can be the subject of its rule-making power. Under Section
Record for future purposes. 2(1), Article IX-C of the Constitution, the COMELEC has the power to enforce and
Equally unequivocal on the intent of R.A. 6735 is the sponsorship speech of administer all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of initiatives. Its rule-
former Representative Salvador Escudero III, viz:42 making power has long been recognized by this Court. In ruling R.A. 6735
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF REP. ESCUDERO insufficient but without striking it down as unconstitutional, the six (6) justices
MR. ESCUDERO. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. failed to give due recognition to the indefeasible right of the sovereign people to
Mr. Speaker and my dear colleagues: Events in recent years amend the Constitution.
highlighted the need to heed the clamor of the people for a truly popular IV
democracy. One recalls the impatience of those who actively The proposed constitutional changes, albeit substantial, are mere
participated in the parliament of the streets, some of whom are now amendments and can be undertaken through people's initiative.
distinguished Members of this Chamber. A substantial segment of the Oppositors-intervenors contend that Sections 1 and 2, Article XVII of the 1987
population feel increasingly that under the system, the people have the Constitution, only allow the use of people's initiative to amend and not to revise
form but not the reality or substance of democracy because of the the Constitution. They theorize that the changes proposed by petitioners are
increasingly elitist approach of their chosen Representatives to many substantial and thus constitute a revision which cannot be done through people's
questions vitally affecting their lives. There have been complaints, not initiative.
altogether unfounded, that many candidates easily forge their In support of the thesis that the Constitution bars the people from proposing
campaign promises to the people once elected to office. The 1986 substantial amendments amounting to revision, the oppositors-intervenors cite
Constitutional Commission deemed it wise and proper to provide for a the following deliberations during the Constitutional Commission, viz:44
means whereby the people can exercise the reserve power to legislate MR. SUAREZ: x x x x This proposal was suggested on the theory that
or propose amendments to the Constitution directly in case their chose this matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary
 developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes Revisions). In fine, we stand on unsafe ground if we use simple arithmetic to
of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The Committee determine whether the proposed changes are "simple" or "substantial."
members felt that this system of initiative should not extend to the Nor can this Court be surefooted if it applies the qualitative test to determine
revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation whether the said changes are "simple" or "substantial" as to amount to a
of Section 1 of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. revision of the Constitution. The well-regarded political scientist, Garner, says that
xxxxxxxxxxxx a good constitution should contain at least three (3) sets of provisions: the
MS. AQUINO. In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this constitution of liberty which sets forth the fundamental rights of the people and
process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. imposes certain limitations on the powers of the government as a means of
Would the sponsor be amenable to accepting an amendment in terms securing the enjoyment of these rights; the constitution of government which
of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, deals with the framework of government and its powers, laying down certain rules
instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self- for its administration and defining the electorate; and, the constitution of
executing provision? sovereignty which prescribes the mode or procedure for amending or revising
MR. SUAREZ. We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a the constitution.49 It is plain that the proposed changes will basically affect
while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment only the constitution of government. The constitutions of liberty and
and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total sovereignty remain unaffected. Indeed, the proposed changes will not change
overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by the fundamental nature of our state as "x x x a democratic and republican
the Committee. state."50 It is self-evident that a unicameral-parliamentary form of government will
MS. AQUINO. In other words, the Committee was attempting to not make our State any less democratic or any less republican in character.
distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include Hence, neither will the use of the qualitative test resolve the issue of whether
the process of revision; whereas the process of initiation to amend, the proposed changes are "simple" or "substantial."
which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments? For this reason and more, our Constitutions did not adopt any quantitative or
MR. SUAREZ. That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the qualitative test to determine whether an "amendment" is "simple" or
Committee. "substantial." Nor did they provide that "substantial" amendments are
Commissioner (later Chief Justice) Hilario G. Davide, Jr., espoused the same beyond the power of the people to propose to change the Constitution.
view:45 Instead, our Constitutions carried the traditional distinction between
MR. DAVIDE. x x x x We are limiting the right of the people, by initiative, "amendment" and "revision," i.e., "amendment" means change, including
to submit a proposal for amendment only, not for revision, only once complex changes while "revision" means complete change, including the
every five years x x x x adoption of an entirely new covenant. The legal dictionaries express this
MR. MAAMBONG. My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed traditional difference between "amendment" and "revision." Black's Law
amendment on line 1 refers to "amendment." Does it cover the word Dictionary defines "amendment" as "[a] formal revision or addition proposed or
"revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the made to a statute, constitution, pleading, order, or other instrument; specifically,
distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision?" a change made by addition, deletion, or correction." 51 Black's also refers to
MR. DAVIDE. No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" "amendment" as "the process of making such a revision."52 Revision, on the other
should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it hand, is defined as "[a] reexamination or careful review for correction or
can only relate to "amendments" not "revision." improvement."53 In parliamentary law, it is described as "[a] general and thorough
Commissioner (now a distinguished Associate Justice of this Court) Adolfo S. rewriting of a governing document, in which the entire document is open to
Azcuna also clarified this point46 - amendment."54 Similarly, Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines "amendment" – as
MR. OPLE. To more closely reflect the intent of Section 2, may I "[a] correction or revision of a writing to correct errors or better to state its intended
suggest that we add to "Amendments" "OR REVISIONS OF" to read: purpose"55 and "amendment of constitution" as "[a] process of proposing, passing,
"Amendments OR REVISION OF this Constitution." and ratifying amendments to the x x x constitution."56 In contrast, "revision," when
MR. AZCUNA. I think it was not allowed to revise the Constitution by applied to a statute (or constitution), "contemplates the re-examination of the
initiative. same subject matter contained in the statute (or constitution), and the substitution
MR. OPLE. How is that again? of a new, and what is believed to be, a still more perfect rule." 57
MR. AZCUNA. It was not our intention to allow a revision of the One of the most authoritative constitutionalists of his time to whom we owe a lot
Constitution by initiative but merely by amendments. of intellectual debt, Dean Vicente G. Sinco, of the University of the Philippines
MR. BENGZON. Only by amendments. College of Law, (later President of the U.P. and delegate to the Constitutional
MR. AZCUNA. I remember that was taken on the floor. Convention of 1971) similarly spelled out the difference between "amendment"
MR. RODRIGO. Yes, just amendments. and "revision." He opined: "the revision of a constitution, in its strict sense, refers
The oppositors-intervenors then point out that by their proposals, petitioners will to a consideration of the entire constitution and the procedure for effecting such
"change the very system of government from presidential to parliamentary, and change; while amendment refers only to particular provisions to be added to or
the form of the legislature from bicameral to unicameral," among others. They to be altered in a constitution."58
allegedly seek other major revisions like the inclusion of a minimum number of Our people were guided by this traditional distinction when they effected
inhabitants per district, a change in the period for a term of a Member of changes in our 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. In 1940, the changes to the 1935
Parliament, the removal of the limits on the number of terms, the election of a Constitution which included the conversion from a unicameral system to a
Prime Minister who shall exercise the executive power, and so on and so forth.47 bicameral structure, the shortening of the tenure of the President and Vice-
In sum, oppositors-intervenors submit that "the proposed changes to the President from a six-year term without reelection to a four-year term with one
Constitution effect major changes in the political structure and system, the reelection, and the establishment of the COMELEC, together with the
fundamental powers and duties of the branches of the government, the political complementary constitutional provisions to effect the changes, were considered
rights of the people, and the modes by which political rights may be exercised." 48 amendments only, not a revision.
They conclude that they are substantial amendments which cannot be done The replacement of the 1935 Constitution by the 1973 Constitution was,
through people's initiative. In other words, they posit the thesis that only simple however, considered a revision since the 1973 Constitution was "a completely
but not substantial amendments can be done through people's initiative. new fundamental charter embodying new political, social and economic
With due respect, I disagree. To start with, the words "simple" and concepts."59 Among those adopted under the 1973 Constitution were: the
"substantial" are not subject to any accurate quantitative or qualitative test. parliamentary system in place of the presidential system, with the leadership in
Obviously, relying on the quantitative test, oppositors-intervenors assert that the legislation and administration vested with the Prime Minister and his Cabinet; the
amendments will result in some one hundred (100) changes in the Constitution. reversion to a single-chambered lawmaking body instead of the two-chambered,
Using the same test, however, it is also arguable that petitioners seek to which would be more suitable to a parliamentary system of government; the
change basically only two (2) out of the eighteen (18) articles of the 1987 enfranchisement of the youth beginning eighteen (18) years of age instead of
Constitution, i.e. Article VI (Legislative Department) and Article VII (Executive twenty-one (21), and the abolition of literacy, property, and other substantial
Department), together with the complementary provisions for a smooth transition requirements to widen the basis for the electorate and expand democracy; the
from a presidential bicameral system to a parliamentary unicameral structure. The strengthening of the judiciary, the civil service system, and the Commission on
big bulk of the 1987 Constitution will not be affected including Articles I Elections; the complete nationalization of the ownership and management of
(National Territory), II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies), III (Bill of mass media; the giving of control to Philippine citizens of all telecommunications;
Rights), IV (Citizenship), V (Suffrage), VIII (Judicial Department), IX the prohibition against alien individuals to own educational institutions, and the
(Constitutional Commissions), X (Local Government), XI (Accountability of Public strengthening of the government as a whole to improve the conditions of the
Officers), XII (National Economy and Patrimony), XIII (Social Justice and Human masses.60
Rights), XIV (Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture, and Sports), XV The 1973 Constitution in turn underwent a series of significant changes in
(The Family), XVI (General Provisions), and even XVII (Amendments or 1976, 1980, 1981, and 1984. The two significant innovations introduced in
1976 were (1) the creation of an interim Batasang Pambansa, in place of the
interim National Assembly, and (2) Amendment No. 6 which conferred on the So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two
President the power to issue decrees, orders, or letters of instruction, whenever terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing
the Batasang Pambansa fails to act adequately on any matter for any reason that amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.
in his judgment requires immediate action, or there is grave emergency or threat To further explain "revision," former Justice Antonio, in his concurring opinion,
or imminence thereof, with such decrees, or letters of instruction to form part of used an analogy – "When a house is completely demolished and another is
the law of the land. In 1980, the retirement age of seventy (70) for justices and erected on the same location, do you have a changed, repaired and altered house,
judges was restored. In 1981, the presidential system with parliamentary features or do you have a new house? Some of the material contained in the old house
was installed. The transfer of private land for use as residence to natural-born may be used again, some of the rooms may be constructed the same, but this
citizens who had lost their citizenship was also allowed. Then, in 1984, the does not alter the fact that you have altogether another or a new house." 67
membership of the Batasang Pambansa was reapportioned by provinces, cities, Hence, it is arguable that when the framers of the 1987 Constitution used the word
or districts in Metro Manila instead of by regions; the Office of the Vice-President "revision," they had in mind the "rewriting of the whole Constitution," or the
was created while the executive committee was abolished; and, urban land reform "total overhaul of the Constitution." Anything less is an "amendment" or just
and social housing programs were strengthened. 61 These substantial changes "a change of specific provisions only," the intention being "not the change of the
were simply considered as mere amendments. entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of
In 1986, Mrs. Corazon C. Aquino assumed the presidency, and repudiated the provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the
1973 Constitution. She governed under Proclamation No. 3, known as the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of
Freedom Constitution. the times." Under this view, "substantial" amendments are still "amendments" and
In February 1987, the new constitution was ratified by the people in a plebiscite thus can be proposed by the people via an initiative.
and superseded the Provisional or Freedom Constitution. Retired Justice Isagani As we cannot be guided with certainty by the inconclusive opinions of the
Cruz underscored the outstanding features of the 1987 Constitution which Commissioners on the difference between "simple" and "substantial"
consists of eighteen articles and is excessively long compared to the Constitutions amendments or whether "substantial" amendments amounting to revision are
of 1935 and 1973, on which it was largely based. Many of the original provisions covered by people's initiative, it behooves us to follow the cardinal rule in
of the 1935 Constitution, particularly those pertaining to the legislative and interpreting Constitutions, i.e., construe them to give effect to the intention of
executive departments, have been restored because of the revival of the the people who adopted it. The illustrious Cooley explains its rationale well,
bicameral Congress of the Philippines and the strictly presidential system. The viz:68
independence of the judiciary has been strengthened, with new provisions for x x x the constitution does not derive its force from the convention which
appointment thereto and an increase in its authority, which now covers even framed, but from the people who ratified it, the intent to be arrived at is
political questions formerly beyond its jurisdiction. While many provisions of the that of the people, and it is not to be supposed that they have looked
1973 Constitution were retained, like those on the Constitutional Commissions for any dark or abstruse meaning in the words employed, but rather that
and local governments, still the new 1987 Constitution was deemed as a revision they have accepted them in the sense most obvious to the common
of the 1973 Constitution. understanding, and ratified the instrument in the belief that that was the
It is now contended that this traditional distinction between amendment and sense designed to be conveyed. These proceedings therefore are less
revision was abrogated by the 1987 Constitution. It is urged that Section 1 of conclusive of the proper construction of the instrument than are
Article XVII gives the power to amend or revise to Congress acting as a legislative proceedings of the proper construction of a statute; since in
constituent assembly, and to a Constitutional Convention duly called by Congress the latter case it is the intent of the legislature we seek, while in the
for the purpose. Section 2 of the same Article, it is said, limited the people's right former we are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of the people through
to change the Constitution via initiative through simple amendments. In other the discussion and deliberations of their representatives. The history of
words, the people cannot propose substantial amendments amounting to the calling of the convention, the causes which led to it, and the
revision. discussions and issues before the people at the time of the election of
With due respect, I do not agree. As aforestated, the oppositors-intervenors who the delegates, will sometimes be quite as instructive and satisfactory as
peddle the above proposition rely on the opinions of some Commissioners anything to be gathered form the proceedings of the convention.
expressed in the course of the debate on how to frame the amendment/revision Corollarily, a constitution is not to be interpreted on narrow or technical principles,
provisions of the 1987 Constitution. It is familiar learning, however, that opinions but liberally and on broad general lines, to accomplish the object of its
in a constitutional convention, especially if inconclusive of an issue, are of very establishment and carry out the great principles of government – not to
limited value as explaining doubtful phrases, and are an unsafe guide (to the defeat them.69 One of these great principles is the sovereignty of the people.
intent of the people) since the constitution derives its force as a fundamental law, Let us now determine the intent of the people when they adopted initiative as a
not from the action of the convention but from the powers (of the people) who mode to amend the 1987 Constitution. We start with the Declaration of Principles
have ratified and adopted it.62 "Debates in the constitutional convention 'are of and State Policies which Sinco describes as "the basic political creed of the
value as showing the views of the individual members, and as indicating the nation"70 as it "lays down the policies that government is bound to observe." 71
reasons for their votes, but they give us no light as to the views of the large Section 1, Article II of the 1935 Constitution and Section 1, Article II of the 1973
majority who did not talk, much less of the mass of our fellow citizens whose Constitution, similarly provide that "the Philippines is a republican state.
votes at the polls gave that instrument the force of fundamental law.'"63 Indeed, a Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from
careful perusal of the debates of the Constitutional Commissioners can them." In a republican state, the power of the sovereign people is exercised
likewise lead to the conclusion that there was no abandonment of the and delegated to their representatives. Thus in Metropolitan Transportation
traditional distinction between "amendment" and "revision." For during the Service v. Paredes, this Court held that "a republican state, like the Philippines x
debates, some of the commissioners referred to the concurring opinion of former x x (is) derived from the will of the people themselves in freely creating a
Justice Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. The Executive Secretary,64 that government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people' – a representative
stressed the traditional distinction between amendment and revision, thus:65 government through which they have agreed to exercise the powers and
MR. SUAREZ: We mentioned the possible use of only one term and discharge the duties of their sovereignty for the common good and general
that is, "amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the welfare."72
terms – "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the In both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the sovereign people delegated to
honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the Congress or to a convention, the power to amend or revise our fundamental
connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of our law. History informs us how this delegated power to amend or revise the
research, we came up with the observations made in the famous – or Constitution was abused particularly during the Marcos regime. The
notorious – Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered by Constitution was changed several times to satisfy the power requirements of the
Honorable Justice Makasiar,66 wherein he made the following regime. Indeed, Amendment No. 6 was passed giving unprecedented legislative
distinction between "amendment" and "revision" of an existing powers to then President Ferdinand E. Marcos. A conspiracy of circumstances
Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole from above and below, however, brought down the Marcos regime through an
Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution extra constitutional revolution, albeit a peaceful one by the people. A main
envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act reason for the people's revolution was the failure of the representatives of
to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the the people to effectuate timely changes in the Constitution either by acting
improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed as a constituent assembly or by calling a constitutional convention. When
essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts the representatives of the people defaulted in using this last peaceful process
already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times. of constitutional change, the sovereign people themselves took matters in
The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 their own hands. They revolted and replaced the 1973 Constitution with the 1987
Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Charter embodying Constitution.
new political, social and economic concepts. It is significant to note that the people modified the ideology of the 1987
Constitution as it stressed the power of the people to act directly in their
capacity as sovereign people. Correspondingly, the power of the legislators
to act as representatives of the people in the matter of amending or revising be, and the required number of votes could not be obtained, we would
the Constitution was diminished for the spring cannot rise above its source. have to provide for a safety valve in order that the people could
To reflect this significant shift, Section 1, Article II of the 1987 Constitution was ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire for amendment to the
reworded. It now reads: "the Philippines is a democratic and republican state. Constitution.
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the
them." The commissioners of the 1986 Constitutional Commission explained the National Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly
addition of the word "democratic," in our first Declaration of Principles, viz: or to call a constitutional convention, the members thereof would
MR. NOLLEDO. I am putting the word "democratic" because of the provisions that not heed the people's desire and clamor. So this is a third avenue
we are now adopting which are covering consultations with the people. For that we are providing for the implementation of what is now popularly
example, we have provisions on recall, initiative, the right of the people even to known as people's power. (emphasis supplied)
participate in lawmaking and other instances that recognize the validity of Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong opined that the people's initiative
interference by the people through people's organizations x x x x73 could avert a revolution, viz:78
MR. OPLE. x x x x The Committee added the word "democratic" to MR. MAAMBONG. x x x x the amending process of the Constitution
"republican," and, therefore, the first sentence states: "The Philippines could actually avert a revolution by providing a safety valve in
is a republican and democratic state x x x x bringing about changes in the Constitution through pacific means. This,
May I know from the committee the reason for adding the word in effect, operationalizes what political law authors call the "prescription
"democratic" to "republican"? The constitutional framers of the 1935 of sovereignty." (emphasis supplied)
and 1973 Constitutions were content with "republican." Was this done The end result is Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution which expressed
merely for the sake of emphasis? the right of the sovereign people to propose amendments to the Constitution by
MR. NOLLEDO. x x x x "democratic" was added because of the need direct action or through initiative. To that extent, the delegated power of
to emphasize people power and the many provisions in the Congress to amend or revise the Constitution has to be adjusted downward.
Constitution that we have approved related to recall, people's Thus, Section 1, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution has to be reminted and now
organizations, initiative and the like, which recognize the provides: "The legislative power shall be vested in the Congress of the
participation of the people in policy-making in certain Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives,
circumstances x x x x except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and
MR. OPLE. I thank the Commissioner. That is a very clear answer and referendum."
I think it does meet a need x x x x Prescinding from these baseline premises, the argument that the people
MR. NOLLEDO. According to Commissioner Rosario Braid, through initiative cannot propose substantial amendments to change the
"democracy" here is understood as participatory democracy. 74 Constitution turns sovereignty on its head. At the very least, the submission
(emphasis supplied) constricts the democratic space for the exercise of the direct sovereignty of the
The following exchange between Commissioners Rene V. Sarmiento and Adolfo people. It also denigrates the sovereign people who they claim can only be trusted
S. Azcuna is of the same import:75 with the power to propose "simple" but not "substantial" amendments to the
MR. SARMIENTO. When we speak of republican democratic state, are Constitution. According to Sinco, the concept of sovereignty should be strictly
we referring to representative democracy? understood in its legal meaning as it was originally developed in law. 79 Legal
MR. AZCUNA. That is right. sovereignty, he explained, is "the possession of unlimited power to make laws.
MR. SARMIENTO. So, why do we not retain the old formulation under Its possessor is the legal sovereign. It implies the absence of any other party
the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions which used the words "republican endowed with legally superior powers and privileges. It is not subject to law 'for
state" because "republican state" would refer to a democratic state it is the author and source of law.' Legal sovereignty is thus the equivalent of
where people choose their representatives? legal omnipotence."80
MR. AZCUNA. We wanted to emphasize the participation of the people To be sure, sovereignty or popular sovereignty, emphasizes the supremacy of the
in government. people's will over the state which they themselves have created. The state is
MR. SARMIENTO. But even in the concept "republican state," we are created by and subject to the will of the people, who are the source of all political
stressing the participation of the people x x x x So the word "republican" power. Rightly, we have ruled that "the sovereignty of our people is not a kabalistic
will suffice to cover popular representation. principle whose dimensions are buried in mysticism. Its metes and bounds are
MR. AZCUNA. Yes, the Commissioner is right. However, the committee familiar to the framers of our Constitutions. They knew that in its broadest sense,
felt that in view of the introduction of the aspects of direct democracy sovereignty is meant to be supreme, the jus summi imperu, the absolute right to
such as initiative, referendum or recall, it was necessary to emphasize govern."81
the democratic portion of republicanism, of representative democracy James Wilson, regarded by many as the most brilliant, scholarly, and visionary
as well. So, we want to add the word "democratic" to emphasize lawyer in the United States in the 1780s, laid down the first principles of popular
that in this new Constitution there are instances where the people sovereignty during the Pennsylvania ratifying convention of the 1787 Constitution
would act directly, and not through their representatives. of the United States:82
(emphasis supplied) There necessarily exists, in every government, a power from which
Consistent with the stress on direct democracy, the systems of initiative, there is no appeal, and which, for that reason, may be termed supreme,
referendum, and recall were enthroned as polestars in the 1987 Constitution. absolute, and uncontrollable.
Thus, Commissioner Blas F. Ople who introduced the provision on people's x x x x Perhaps some politician, who has not considered with sufficient
initiative said:76 accuracy our political systems, would answer that, in our governments,
MR. OPLE. x x x x I think this is just the correct time in history when we the supreme power was vested in the constitutions x x x x This opinion
should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to the approaches a step nearer to the truth, but does not reach it. The truth
Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the right to is, that in our governments, the supreme, absolute, and
formulate and propose their own amendments and revisions of the uncontrollable power remains in the people. As our constitutions are
Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the government. It superior to our legislatures, so the people are superior to our
is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for amending constitutions. Indeed the superiority, in this last instance, is much
a constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good to greater; for the people possess over our constitution, control in act, as
know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon well as right. (emphasis supplied)
the people and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose I wish to reiterate that in a democratic and republican state, only the people
amendments or revision to the Constitution. (emphasis supplied) is sovereign - - - not the elected President, not the elected Congress, not this
Commissioner Jose E. Suarez also explained the people's initiative as a safety unelected Court. Indeed, the sovereignty of the people which is indivisible cannot
valve, as a peaceful way for the people to change their Constitution, by citing our be reposed in any organ of government. Only its exercise may be delegated to
experiences under the Marcos government, viz:77 any of them. In our case, the people delegated to Congress the exercise of
MR. SUAREZ. We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular the sovereign power to amend or revise the Constitution. If Congress, as
provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the delegate, can exercise this power to amend or revise the Constitution, can it be
sovereign will of the people through this initiative system. argued that the sovereign people who delegated the power has no power to
MR. BENGZON. Is Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), not sufficient substantially amend the Constitution by direct action? If the sovereign people do
channel for expression of the will of the people, particularly in the not have this power to make substantial amendments to the Constitution, what did
amendment or revision of the Constitution? it delegate to Congress? How can the people lack this fraction of a power to
MR. SUAREZ. Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what substantially amend the Constitution when by their sovereignty, all power
happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. emanates from them? It will take some mumbo jumbo to argue that the whole is
So, if the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating lesser than its part. Let Sinco clinch the point:83
under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case may
 But although possession may not be delegated, the exercise of ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter." 90
sovereignty often is. It is delegated to the organs and agents of the state Compliance with these requirements is clearly a justiciable and not a political
which constitute its government, for it is only through this instrumentality question. Be that as it may, how the issue will be resolved by the people is
that the state ordinarily functions. However ample and complete this addressed to them and to them alone.
delegation may be, it is nevertheless subject to withdrawal at any VI
time by the state. On this point Willoughby says: Whether the Petition for Initiative filed before the COMELEC complied with
Thus, States may concede to colonies almost complete Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution and R.A. 6735 involves
autonomy of government and reserve to themselves a right contentious issues of fact which should first be resolved by the COMELEC.
to control of so slight and so negative a character as to make Oppositors-intervenors impugn the Petition for Initiative as it allegedly lacks the
its exercise a rare and improbable occurrence; yet so long as required number of signatures under Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution.
such right of control is recognized to exist, and the autonomy Said provision requires that the petition for initiative be supported by at least
of the colonies is conceded to be founded upon a grant and twelve per cent (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every
continuing consent of the mother countries the sovereignty of legislative district must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the
those mother countries over them is complete and they are registered voters therein. Oppositors-intervenors contend that no proper
to be considered as possessing only administrative verification of signatures was done in several legislative districts. They assert
autonomy and not political independence. that mere verification of the names listed on the signature sheets without verifying
At the very least, the power to propose substantial amendments to the the signatures reduces the signatures submitted for their respective legislative
Constitution is shared with the people. We should accord the most benign districts to mere scribbles on a piece of paper.
treatment to the sovereign power of the people to propose substantial Oppositor-intervenor ONEVOICE, Inc., submitted to this Court a certification
amendments to the Constitution especially when the proposed dated August 23, 2006 issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, Election Officer IV,
amendments will adversely affect the interest of some members of Third District and OIC, First and Second District, Davao City, stating that his office
Congress. A contrary approach will suborn the public weal to private has not verified the signatures submitted by the proponents of the people's
interest and worse, will enable Congress (the delegate) to frustrate the initiative. The certification reads:
power of the people to determine their destiny (the principal). This is to CERTIFY that this office (First, Second and Third District,
All told, the teaching of the ages is that constitutional clauses acknowledging the Davao City) HAS NOT VERIFIED the signatures of registered voters as
right of the people to exercise initiative and referendum are liberally and per documents submitted in this office by the proponents of the People's
generously construed in favor of the people.84 Initiative and referendum Initiative. Consequently, NO ELECTION DOCUMENTS AND/OR
powers must be broadly construed to maintain maximum power in the people.85 ORDER ISSUED BY HIGHER SUPERIORS used as basis for such
We followed this orientation in Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority v. Commission verification of signatures.91
on Elections.86 There is not an iota of reason to depart from it. Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., among others, further clarified that
V although Atty. Casquejo and Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Acting Election Officer IV,
The issues at bar are not political questions. First District, Davao City, later issued certifications stating that the Office of the
Petitioners submit that "[t]he validity of the exercise of the right of the sovereign City Election Officer has examined the list of individuals appearing in the signature
people to amend the Constitution and their will, as expressed by the fact that over sheets,92 the certifications reveal that the office had verified only the names of the
six million registered voters indicated their support of the Petition for Initiative, is signatories, but not their signatures. Oppositors-intervenors submit that not only
a purely political question which is beyond even the very long arm of this the names of the signatories should be verified, but also their signatures to ensure
Honorable Court's power of judicial review. Whether or not the 1987 Constitution the identities of the persons affixing their signatures on the signature sheets.
should be amended is a matter which the people and the people alone must Oppositor-intervenor Luwalhati Antonino also alleged that petitioners failed to
resolve in their sovereign capacity."87 They argue that "[t]he power to propose obtain the signatures of at least three per cent (3%) of the total number of
amendments to the Constitution is a right explicitly bestowed upon the sovereign registered voters in the First Legislative District of South Cotabato. For the First
people. Hence, the determination by the people to exercise their right to propose District of South Cotabato, petitioners submitted 3,182 signatures for General
amendments under the system of initiative is a sovereign act and falls squarely Santos City, 2,186 signatures for Tupi, 3,308 signatures for Tampakan and 10,301
within the ambit of a 'political question.'"88 signatures for Polomolok, or 18,977 signatures out of 359,488 registered voters
The petitioners cannot be sustained. This issue has long been interred by of said district. Antonino, however, submitted to this Court a copy of the
Sanidad v. Commission on Elections, viz:89 certification by Glory D. Rubio, Election Officer III, Polomolok, dated May 8, 2006,
Political questions are neatly associated with the wisdom, not the showing that the signatures from Polomolok were not verified because the Book
legality of a particular act. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to of Voters for the whole municipality was in the custody of the Clerk of Court of the
the legality or validity of the contested act, that matter is definitely Regional Trial Court, Branch 38, Polomolok, South Cotabato. 93 Excluding the
justiciable or non-political. What is in the heels of the Court is not the signatures from Polomolok from the total number of signatures from the First
wisdom of the act of the incumbent President in proposing amendments District of South Cotabato would yield only a total of 8,676 signatures which falls
to the Constitution, but his constitutional authority to perform such act short of the three per cent (3%) requirement for the district.
or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. Whether the Former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino
amending process confers on the President that power to propose likewise submitted to this Court a certification issued by Atty. Stalin A. Baguio,
amendments is therefore a downright justiciable question. Should the City Election Officer IV, Cagayan de Oro City, stating that the list of names
contrary be found, the actuation of the President would merely be a appearing on the signature sheets corresponds to the names of registered voters
brutum fulmen. If the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the in the city, thereby implying that they have not actually verified the signatures.94
judiciary as the interpreter of that Constitution, can declare whether the The argument against the sufficiency of the signatures is further bolstered by
procedure followed or the authority assumed was valid or not. Alternative Law Groups, Inc., which submitted copies of similarly worded
We cannot accept the view of the Solicitor General, in pursuing his certifications from the election officers from Zamboanga del Sur95 and from
theory of non-justiciability, that the question of the President's authority Compostela Valley.96 Alternative Law Groups, Inc., further assails the regularity
to propose amendments and the regularity of the procedure adopted for of the verification process as it alleged that verification in some areas were
submission of the proposals to the people ultimately lie in the judgment conducted by Barangay officials and not by COMELEC election officers. It filed
of the latter. A clear Descartes fallacy of vicious cycle. Is it not that the with this Court copies of certifications from Sulu and Sultan Kudarat showing that
people themselves, by their sovereign act, provided for the authority the verification was conducted by local officials instead of COMELEC personnel. 97
and procedure for the amending process when they ratified the present Petitioners, on the other hand, maintain that the verification conducted by the
Constitution in 1973? Whether, therefore, that constitutional provision election officers sufficiently complied with the requirements of the Constitution and
has been followed or not is indisputably a proper subject of inquiry, not the law on initiative.
by the people themselves – of course – who exercise no power of Contravening the allegations of oppositors-intervenors on the lack of verification
judicial review, but by the Supreme Court in whom the people in Davao City and in Polomolok, South Cotabato, petitioner Aumentado claimed
themselves vested that power, a power which includes the competence that the same election officers cited by the oppositors-intervenors also issued
to determine whether the constitutional norms for amendments have certifications showing that they have verified the signatures submitted by the
been observed or not. And, this inquiry must be done a priori not a proponents of the people's initiative. He presented copies of the certifications
posteriori, i.e., before the submission to and ratification by the people. issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo for the Second and Third Legislative Districts
In the instant case, the Constitution sets in black and white the requirements for of Davao City stating that he verified the signatures of the proponents of the
the exercise of the people's initiative to amend the Constitution. The amendments people's initiative. His certification for the Second District states:
must be proposed by the people "upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of This is to CERTIFY that this Office has examined the list of individuals
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be as appearing in the Signature Sheets of the Registered Voters of
represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein. No District II, Davao City, submitted on April 7, 2006 by MR. NONATO
amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the BOLOS, Punong Barangay, Centro, Davao City for verification which
 consists of THIRTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (30,662) in the stability of records, so to speak, that no one should commit herself or himself
signatures. to something in writing unless she or he is fully aware and cognizant of the effect
Anent thereto, it appears that of the THIRTY THOUSAND SIX it may have upon her on him.102 In the same vein, we have held that a person is
HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO (30,662) individuals, only TWENTY-TWO presumed to have knowledge of the contents of a document he has signed.103 But
THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY-EIGHT (22,668) individuals were as this Court is not a trier of facts, it cannot resolve the issue.
found to be REGISTERED VOTERS, in the Computerized List of Voters In sum, the issue of whether the petitioners have complied with the constitutional
of SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, DAVAO CITY.98 requirement that the petition for initiative be signed by at least twelve per cent
It was also shown that Atty. Casquejo had issued a clarificatory certification (12%) of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
regarding the verification process conducted in Davao City. It reads: must be represented by at least three per cent (3%) of the registered voters
Regarding the verification of the signatures of registered voters, this therein, involves contentious facts. Its resolution will require presentation of
Office has previously issued two (2) separate certifications for the 2nd evidence and their calibration by the COMELEC according to its rules.
and 3rd Districts of Davao City on April 20, 2006 and April 26, 2006, During the oral argument on this case, the COMELEC, through Director Alioden
respectively, specifically relating to the voters who supported the Dalaig of its Law Department, admitted that it has not examined the documents
people's initiative. It was stated therein that the names submitted, submitted by the petitioners in support of the petition for initiative, as well as the
comprising 22,668 individual voters in the 2nd District and 18,469 documents filed by the oppositors to buttress their claim that the required number
individual voters in the 3rd District, were found [to] be registered voters of signatures has not been met. The exchanges during the oral argument likewise
of the respective districts mentioned as verified by this Office based on clearly show the need for further clarification and presentation of evidence to
the Computerized List of Voters. prove certain material facts.104
It must be clarified that the August 23, 2006 Certification was issued in The only basis used by the COMELEC to dismiss the petition for initiative was
error and by mistake for the reason that the signature verification has this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC that R.A. 6735 was insufficient. It
not been fully completed as of that date. has yet to rule on the sufficiency of the form and substance of the petition.
I hereby CERTIFY that this Office has examined the signatures of the I respectfully submit that this issue should be properly litigated before the
voters as appearing in the signature sheets and has compared these COMELEC where both parties will be given full opportunity to prove their
with the signatures appearing in the book of voters and computerized allegations.
list of voters x x x 99 For the same reasons, the sufficiency of the Petition for Initiative and its
Petitioner Aumentado also submitted a copy of the certification dated May 8, 2006 compliance with the requirements of R.A. 6735 on initiative and its
issued by Polomolok Election Officer Glory D. Rubio to support their claim that implementing rules is a question that should be resolved by the COMELEC at the
said officer had conducted a verification of signatures in said area. The first instance, as it is the body that is mandated by the Constitution to administer
certification states: all laws and regulations relative to the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative,
This is to certify further, that the total 68,359 registered voters of this referendum and recall.105
municipality, as of the May 10, 2004 elections, 10,804 names with VII
signatures were submitted for verification and out of which 10,301 were COMELEC gravely abused its discretion when it denied due
found to be legitimate voters as per official list of registered voters, course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition.
which is equivalent to 15.07% of the total number of registered voters In denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition, COMELEC relied
of this Municipality.100 on this Court's ruling in Santiago permanently enjoining it from entertaining or
In addition to the lack of proper verification of the signatures in numerous taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution
legislative districts, allegations of fraud and irregularities in the collection of until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the
signatures in Makati City were cited by Senator Pimentel, among others, to wit: implementation of the system.
(1) No notice was given to the public, for the benefit of those who may Again, I respectfully submit that COMELEC's reliance on Santiago constitutes
be concerned, by the Makati COMELEC Office that signature sheets grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The Santiago case
have already been submitted to it for "verification." The camp of Mayor did not establish the firm doctrine that R.A. 6735 is not a sufficient law to
Binay was able to witness the "verification process" only because of implement the constitutional provision allowing people's initiative to amend the
their pro-active stance; Constitution. To recapitulate, the records show that in the original decision,
(2) In District 1, the proponents of charter change submitted 43,405 eight (8) justices106 voted that R.A. 6735 was not a sufficient law; five (5)
signatures for verification. 36,219 alleged voters' signatures (83% of the justices107 voted that said law was sufficient; and one (1) justice108 abstained from
number of signatures submitted) were rejected outright. 7,186 voting on the issue holding that unless and until a proper initiatory pleading is filed,
signatures allegedly "passed" COMELEC's initial scrutiny. However, the said issue is not ripe for adjudication.109
upon examination of the signature sheets by Atty. Mar-len Abigail Within the reglementary period, the respondents filed their motion for
Binay, the said 7,186 signatures could not be accounted for. Atty. Binay reconsideration. On June 10, 1997, the Court denied the motion. Only thirteen
manually counted 2,793 signatures marked with the word "OK" and (13) justices resolved the motion for Justice Torres inhibited himself. 110 Of the
3,443 signatures marked with a check, giving only 6,236 "apparently original majority of eight (8) justices, only six (6) reiterated their ruling that
verified signatures." Before the COMELEC officer issued the R.A. 6735 was an insufficient law. Justice Hermosisima, originally part of the
Certification, Atty. Binay already submitted to the said office not less majority of eight (8) justices, changed his vote and joined the minority of five (5)
than 55 letters of "signature withdrawal," but no action was ever taken justices. He opined without any equivocation that R.A. 6735 was a sufficient law,
thereon; thus:
(3) In District 2, 29,411 signatures were submitted for verification. It is one thing to utter a happy phrase from a protected cluster; another
23,521 alleged voters' signatures (80% of those submitted) were to think under fire – to think for action upon which great interests
rejected outright. Of the 5,890 signatures which allegedly passed the depend." So said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, and so I am guided
COMELEC's initial scrutiny, some more will surely fail upon closer as I reconsider my concurrence to the holding of the majority that "R.A.
examination; No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments
(4) In the absence of clear, transparent, and uniform rules the to the Constitution and to have failed to provide sufficient standard for
COMELEC personnel did not know how to treat the objections and subordinate legislation" and now to interpose my dissent thereto.
other observations coming from the camp of Mayor Binay. The xxx
oppositors too did not know where to go for their remedy when the WHEREFORE, I vote to dismiss the Delfin petition.
COMELEC personnel merely "listened" to their objections and other I vote, however, to declare R.A. No. 6735 as adequately providing
observations. As mentioned earlier, the COMELEC personnel did not the legal basis for the exercise by the people of their right to
even know what to do with the many "letters of signature withdrawal" amend the Constitution through initiative proceedings and to
submitted to it; uphold the validity of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 insofar as it does
(5) Signatures of people long dead, in prison, abroad, and other not sanction the filing of the initiatory petition for initiative proceedings
forgeries appear on the Sigaw ng Bayan Signature Sheets. There is to amend the Constitution without the required names and/or signatures
even a 15-year old alleged signatory; of at least 12% of all the registered voters, of which every legislative
(6) There are Signature Sheets obviously signed by one person; district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
(7) A Calara M. Roberto and a Roberto M. Calara both allegedly signed therein. (emphasis supplied)
the Signature Sheets.101 Justice Vitug remained steadfast in refusing to rule on the sufficiency of R.A. 6735.
Also, there are allegations that many of the signatories did not understand what In fine, the final vote on whether R.A. 6735 is a sufficient law was 6-6 with one
they have signed as they were merely misled into signing the signature sheets. (1) justice inhibiting himself and another justice refusing to rule on the ground that
Opposed to these allegations are rulings that a person who affixes his signature the issue was not ripe for adjudication.
on a document raises the presumption that the person so signing has knowledge It ought to be beyond debate that the six (6) justices who voted that R.A. 6735 is
of what the document contains. Courts have recognized that there is great value an insufficient law failed to establish a doctrine that could serve as a precedent.
Under any alchemy of law, a deadlocked vote of six (6) is not a majority and a concurring justice on the standing issue.116 Because a majority of the participating
non-majority cannot write a rule with precedential value. The opinion of the late justices in T.N.F. did not agree on any one ground for affirmance, it was not
Justice Ricardo J. Francisco is instructive, viz: accorded stare decisis effect by the state Supreme Court.
As it stands, of the thirteen justices who took part in the deliberations The Supreme Court of Michigan likewise ruled that the doctrine of stare decisis
on the issue of whether the motion for reconsideration of the March 19, does not apply to plurality decisions in which no majority of the justices
1997 decision should be granted or not, only the following justices sided participating agree to the reasoning and as such are not authoritative
with Mr. Justice Davide, namely: Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices interpretations binding on the Supreme Court.117
Regalado, Romero, Bellosillo and Kapunan. Justices Melo, Puno, In State ex rel. Landis v. Williams,118 the Supreme Court of Florida, in an equally
Mendoza, Hermosisima, Panganiban and the undersigned voted to divided opinion on the matter,119 held that chapter 15938, Acts of 1933 must be
grant the motion; while Justice Vitug "maintained his opinion that the allowed to stand, dismissing a quo warranto suit without prejudice. The Court held:
matter was not ripe for judicial adjudication." In other words, only five, In a cause of original jurisdiction in this court a statute cannot be
out of the other twelve justices, joined Mr. Justice Davide's June 10, declared unconstitutional nor its enforcement nor operation judicially
1997 ponencia finding R.A. No. 6735 unconstitutional for its failure to interfered with, except by the concurrence of a majority of the members
pass the so called "completeness and sufficiency standards" tests. The of the Supreme Court sitting in the cause wherein the constitutionality
"concurrence of a majority of the members who actually took part in the of the statute is brought in question or judicial relief sought against its
deliberations" which Article VII, Section 4(2) of the Constitution requires enforcement. Section 4 of Article 5, state Constitution.
to declare a law unconstitutional was, beyond dispute, not complied Therefore in this case the concurrence of a majority of the members of
with. And even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the this court in holding unconstitutional said chapter 15938, supra, not
constitutional requirement on the concurrence of the "majority" was having been had, it follows that the statute in controversy must be
initially reached in the March 19, 1997 ponencia, the same is allowed to stand and accordingly be permitted to be enforced as a
inconclusive as it was still open for review by way of a motion for presumptively valid act of the Legislature, and that this proceeding in
reconsideration. It was only on June 10, 1997 that the constitutionality quo warranto must be dismissed without prejudice. Spencer v. Hunt
of R.A. No. 6735 was settled with finality, sans the constitutionally (Fla.) 147 So. 282. This decision is not to be regarded as a judicial
required "majority." The Court's declaration, therefore, is manifestly precedent on the question of constitutional law involved concerning the
grafted with infirmity and wanting in force necessitating, in my view, the constitutionality vel non of chapter 15938. State ex rel. Hampton v.
reexamination of the Court's decision in G.R. No. 127325. It behooves McClung, 47 Fla. 224, 37 So. 51.
the Court "not to tarry any longer" nor waste this opportunity accorded Quo warranto proceeding dismissed without prejudice by equal division
by this new petition (G.R. No. 129754) to relieve the Court's of the court on question of constitutionality of statute involved.
pronouncement from constitutional infirmity. In U.S. v. Pink,120 the Court held that the affirmance by the U.S. Supreme Court
The jurisprudence that an equally divided Court can never set a precedent is well- by an equally divided vote of a decision of the New York Court of Appeals that
settled. Thus, in the United States, an affirmance in the Federal Supreme Court property of a New York branch of a Russian insurance company was outside the
upon equal division of opinion is not an authority for the determination of other scope of the Russian Soviet government's decrees terminating existence of
cases, either in that Court or in the inferior federal courts. In Neil v. Biggers,111 insurance companies in Russia and seizing their assets, while conclusive and
which was a habeas corpus state proceeding by a state prisoner, the U.S. binding upon the parties as respects the controversy in that action, did not
Supreme Court held that its equally divided affirmance of petitioner's state constitute an authoritative "precedent."
court conviction was not an "actual adjudication" barring subsequent In Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc.,121 the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit,
consideration by the district court on habeas corpus. In discussing the non- in holding that printed lyrics which had the same meter as plaintiffs' lyrics, but
binding effect of an equal division ruling, the Court reviewed the history of which were in form a parody of the latter, did not constitute infringement of
cases explicating the disposition "affirmed by an equally divided Court:" plaintiffs' copyrights, ruled that the prior case of Benny v. Loew's, Inc.,122 which
In this light, we review our cases explicating the disposition "affirmed by was affirmed by an equally divided court, was not binding upon it, viz:
an equally divided Court." On what was apparently the first occasion Under the precedents of this court, and, as seems justified by reason
of an equal division, The Antelope, 10 Wheat, 66, 6 L. Ed. 268 (1825), as well as by authority, an affirmance by an equally divided court is as
the Court simply affirmed on the point of division without much between the parties, a conclusive determination and adjudication of the
discussion. Id., at 126-127. Faced with a similar division during the next matter adjudged; but the principles of law involved not having been
Term, the Court again affirmed, Chief Justice Marshall explaining that agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting prevents the case from
"the principles of law which have been argued, cannot be settled; but becoming an authority for the determination of other cases, either in this
the judgment is affirmed, the court being divided in opinion upon it." or in inferior courts.123
Etting v. Bank of United States, 11 Wheat. 59, 78, 6 L. Ed. 419 In Perlman v. First National Bank of Chicago,124 the Supreme Court of Illinois
(1826). As was later elaborated in such cases, it is the appellant or dismissed the appeal as it was unable to reach a decision because two judges
petitioner who asks the Court to overturn a lower court's decree. "If the recused themselves and the remaining members of the Court were so divided, it
judges are divided, the reversal cannot be had, for no order can be was impossible to secure the concurrence of four judges as is constitutionally
made. The judgment of the court below, therefore, stands in full force. required. The Court followed the procedure employed by the U.S. Supreme Court
It is indeed, the settled practice in such case to enter a judgment of when the Justices of that Court are equally divided, i.e. affirm the judgment of the
affirmance; but this is only the most convenient mode of expressing the court that was before it for review. The affirmance is a conclusive determination
fact that the cause is finally disposed of in conformity with the action of and adjudication as between the parties to the immediate case, it is not authority
the court below, and that that court can proceed to enforce its judgment. for the determination of other cases, either in the Supreme Court or in any other
The legal effect would be the same if the appeal, or writ of error, were court. It is not "entitled to precedential weight." The legal effect of such an
dismissed." Durant v. Essex Co., 7 Wall. 107, 112, 19 L. Ed. 154 affirmance is the same as if the appeal was dismissed. 125
(1869). Nor is an affirmance by an equally divided Court entitled to The same rule is settled in the English Courts. Under English precedents,126 an
precedential weight. Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 364 U.S. 263, 264, affirmance by an equally divided Court is, as between the parties, a conclusive
80 S. Ct. 1463, 1464, 4 L. Ed. 2d 1708 (1960).xxx" determination and adjudication of the matter adjudged; but the principles of law
This doctrine established in Neil has not been overturned and has been cited involved not having been agreed upon by a majority of the court sitting prevents
with approval in a number of subsequent cases,112 and has been applied in the case from becoming an authority for the determination of other cases, either
various state jurisdictions. in that or in inferior courts.
In the case of In the Matter of the Adoption of Erin G., a Minor Child,113 wherein After a tour of these cases, we can safely conclude that the prevailing doctrine is
a putative father sought to set aside a decree granting petition for adoption of an that, the affirmance by an equally divided court merely disposes of the present
Indian child on grounds of noncompliance with the requirements of Indian Child controversy as between the parties and settles no issue of law; the affirmance
Welfare Act (ICWA), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that its decision in In re leaves unsettled the principle of law presented by the case and is not entitled to
Adoption of T.N.F. (T.N.F.),114 which lacked majority opinion supporting precedential weight or value. In other words, the decision only has res judicata
holding that an action such as the putative father's would be governed by the and not stare decisis effect. It is not conclusive and binding upon other parties as
state's one-year statute of limitations, was not entitled to stare decisis effect. In respects the controversies in other actions.
T.N.F., a majority of the justices sitting did not agree on a common rationale, Let us now examine the patent differences between the petition at bar and the
as two of four participating justices agreed that the state's one-year statute of Delfin Petition in the Santiago case which will prevent the Santiago ruling from
limitations applied, one justice concurred in the result only, and one justice binding the present petitioners. To start with, the parties are different. More
dissented. There was no "narrower" reasoning agreed upon by all three affirming importantly, the Delfin Petition did not contain the signatures of the required
justices. The concurring justice expressed no opinion on the statute of limitations number of registered voters under the Constitution: the requirement that twelve
issue, and in agreeing with the result, he reasoned that ICWA did not give the per cent (12%) of all the registered voters in the country wherein each legislative
plaintiff standing to sue.115 The two-justice plurality, though agreeing that the district is represented by at least three per cent (3%) of all the registered voters
state's one-year statute of limitations applied, specifically disagreed with the therein was not complied with. For this reason, we ruled unanimously that it was
not the initiatory petition which the COMELEC could properly take cognizance of. Pedrosa were joined by several others who were made parties to the
In contrast, the present petition appears to be accompanied by the signatures of petition. In other words, what petitioners did was to make it appear that
the required number of registered voters. Thus, while the Delfin Petition prayed the PIRMA Petition was filed by an entirely separate and distinct group
that an Order be issued fixing the time and dates for signature gathering all over by removing some of the parties involved in Santiago v. COMELEC and
the country, the Lambino and Aumentado petition, prayed for the calling of a adding new parties. But as we said in Geralde v. Sabido128-
plebiscite to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will on the A party may not evade the application of the rule of res
proposition. COMELEC cannot close its eyes to these material differences. judicata by simply including additional parties in the
Plainly, the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of subsequent case or by not including as parties in the later
jurisdiction in denying due course to the Lambino and Aumentado petition on the case persons who were parties in the previous suit. The
basis of its mistaken notion that Santiago established the doctrine that R.A. 6735 joining of new parties does not remove the case from the
was an insufficient law. As aforestressed, that ruling of six (6) justices who do not operation of the rule on res judicata if the party against whom
represent the majority lacks precedential status and is non-binding on the present the judgment is offered in evidence was a party in the first
petitioners. action; otherwise, the parties might renew the litigation by
The Court's dismissal of the PIRMA petition is of no moment. Suffice it to say that simply joining new parties.
we dismissed the PIRMA petition on the principle of res judicata. This was The fact that some persons or entities joined as parties in the PIRMA
stressed by former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., viz: petition but were not parties in Santiago v. COMELEC does not affect
The following are my reasons as to why this petition must be summarily dismissed: the operation of the prior judgment against those parties to the PIRMA
First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed Petition who were likewise parties in Santiago v. COMELEC, as they
here and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997) are bound by such prior judgment.
may plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially identical Needless to state, the dismissal of the PIRMA petition which was based on res
to the latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the principal judicata binds only PIRMA but not the petitioners.
parties and inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable, parties in the VIII
present petition. But plainly, the same issues and reliefs are raised and Finally, let the people speak.
prayed for in both cases. "It is a Constitution we are expounding" solemnly intoned the great Chief
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR Justice John Marshall of the United States in the 1819 case of M'cCulloch v.
REFORM, MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and spouses Maryland.129 Our Constitution is not a mere collection of slogans. Every syllable
ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self- of our Constitution is suffused with significance and requires our full fealty. Indeed,
described as "a non-stock, non-profit organization duly organized and the rule of law will wither if we allow the commands of our Constitution to underrule
existing under Philippine laws with office address at Suite 403, Fedman us.
Suites, 199 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City," with The first principle enthroned by blood in our Constitution is the sovereignty of
"ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA" as among its the people. We ought to be concerned with this first principle, i.e., the inherent
"officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were made respondents as right of the sovereign people to decide whether to amend the Constitution.
founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the body of the Stripped of its abstractions, democracy is all about who has the sovereign right
petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a to make decisions for the people and our Constitution clearly and categorically
people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the says it is no other than the people themselves from whom all government authority
PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of emanates. This right of the people to make decisions is the essence of
PIRMA. sovereignty, and it cannot receive any minimalist interpretation from this
The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly Court. If there is any principle in the Constitution that cannot be diluted and is
represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In non-negotiable, it is this sovereign right of the people to decide.
short, PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his This Court should always be in lockstep with the people in the exercise of
petition that he was a founding member of the Movement for People's their sovereignty. Let them who will diminish or destroy the sovereign right of the
Initiative, and under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that said people to decide be warned. Let not their sovereignty be diminished by those who
movement was "[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for Reforms, belittle their brains to comprehend changes in the Constitution as if the people
Modernization and Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their Comment to themselves are not the source and author of our Constitution. Let not their
the petition in Santiago, the PEDROSAS did not deny that they were sovereignty be destroyed by the masters of manipulation who misrepresent
founding members of PIRMA, and by their arguments, demonstrated themselves as the spokesmen of the people.
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had joined Delfin or his cause. Be it remembered that a petition for people's initiative that complies with the
No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA and requirement that it "must be signed by at least 12% of the total number of
the PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the operation registered voters of which every legislative district is represented by at least 3%
of the principle of res judicata, which needs no further elaboration. of the registered voters therein" is but the first step in a long journey towards
(emphasis supplied) the amendment of the Constitution. Lest it be missed, the case at bar involves but
Justice Josue N. Bellosillo adds: a proposal to amend the Constitution. The proposal will still be debated by the
The essential requisites of res judicata are: (1) the former judgment people and at this time, there is yet no fail-safe method of telling what will be the
must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having result of the debate. There will still be a last step to the process of amendment
jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties; (3) it must be a which is the ratification of the proposal by a majority of the people in a plebiscite
judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be between the first and called for the purpose. Only when the proposal is approved by a majority of
second actions identity of parties, identity of subject matter, and identity the people in the plebiscite will it become an amendment to the Constitution.
of causes of action.127 All the way, we cannot tie the tongues of the people. It is the people who
Applying these principles in the instant case, we hold that all the decide for the people are not an obscure footnote in our Constitution.
elements of res judicata are present. For sure, our Decision in Santiago The people's voice is sovereign in a democracy. Let us hear them. Let us
v. COMELEC, which was promulgated on 19 March 1997, and the heed them. Let us not only sing paens to the people's sovereignty. Yes, it is
motions for reconsideration thereof denied with finality on 10 June neither too soon nor too late to let the people speak.
1997, is undoubtedly final. The said Decision was rendered by this IN VIEW WHEREOF, I vote to REVERSE and SET ASIDE the resolution of the
Court which had jurisdiction over the petition for prohibition under Rule Commission on Elections dated August 31, 2006, denying due course to the
65. Our judgment therein was on the merits, i.e., rendered only after Petition for Initiative filed by Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado in their own
considering the evidence presented by the parties as well as their behalf and together with some 6.3 million registered voters who affixed their
arguments in support of their respective claims and defenses. And, as signatures thereon and to REMAND the petition at bar to the Commission on
between Santiago v. COMELEC case and COMELEC Special Matter Elections for further proceedings.
No. 97-001 subject of the present petition, there is identity of parties,
REYNATO S. PUNO
subject matter and causes of action.
Petitioners contend that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC are Associate
not Justice
identical to the parties in the instant case as some of the petitioners in ____________________
the latter case were not parties to the former case. However, a perusal EN BANC
of the records reveals that the parties in Santiago v. COMELEC G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
included the COMELEC, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, spouses Alberto and RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
Carmen Pedrosa, in their capacities as founding members of PIRMA, REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners
as well as Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra, another founding member of vs.
PIRMA, representing PIRMA, as respondents. In the instant case, Atty. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent; TRADE UNION CONGRESS
Delfin was never removed, and the spouses Alberto and Carmen OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL
RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., meet the required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters",
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION the COMELEC could not give the Petition due course because of our view that
(PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. BALAIS, Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE R.A. No. 6735 was inadequate. That, however, is now refuted by Mr. Justice
INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, Puno's scholarly ponencia. Now that we have revisited the Santiago v. COMELEC
BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., decision, there is only one clear task for COMELEC. In my view, the only doable
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC., ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, option left for the COMELEC, once factual issues are heard and resolved, is to
BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL give due course to the petition for the initiative to amend our Constitution so that
BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA, GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, the sovereign people can vote on whether a parliamentary system of government
ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, should replace the present presidential system.
JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO, and DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, 5. I am therefore in favor of letting the sovereign people speak on their choice of
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO AGUJA, ANA THERESIA the form of government as a political question soonest. (This I say without fear of
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI ANTONINO, PHILIPPINE media opinion that our judicial independence has been tainted or imperiled, for it
CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, is not.) Thus I vote for the remand of the petition. Thereafter, as prayed for,
TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, COMELEC should forthwith certify the Petition as sufficient in form and substance
JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO GAT and call for the holding of a plebiscite within the period mandated by the basic
INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P. PIMENTEL, JR., and law, not earlier than sixty nor later than ninety days from said certification. Only a
SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S. MADRIGAL, LUISA P. credible plebiscite itself, conducted peacefully and honestly, can bring closure to
EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA, ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO the instant political controversy.
M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA and PWERSA NG MASANG
PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, Associate
MA. Justice
TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANTONIO L. SALVADOR and RANDALL C. ____________________
TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Represented by its EN BANC
President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR., Oppositors-Intervenors; G. R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006 RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners,
SAGUISAG, Petitioners vs.
vs. THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, respondent.
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. G. R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR. and RENE A.Q.
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. SAGUISAG, petitioners,
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents. vs.
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x HE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
SEPARATE OPINION ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESURRECCION Z. BORRA,
QUISUMBING, J.: FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
1. With due respect to the main opinion written by J. Antonio T. Carpio, and the SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, respondents.
dissent of J. Reynato S. Puno, I view the matter before us in this petition as one x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
mainly involving a complex political question.1 While admittedly the present DISSENTING OPINION
Constitution lays down certain numerical requirements for the conduct of a CORONA, J.:
People's Initiative, such as the percentages of signatures – being 12% of the total The life of the law is not logic but experience. 1 Our collective experience as a
number of registered voters, provided each legislative district is represented by at nation breathes life to our system of laws, especially to the Constitution. These
least 3% – they are not the main points of controversy. Stated in simple terms, cases promise to significantly contribute to our collective experience as a nation.
what this Court must decide is whether the Commission on Elections gravely Fealty to the primary constitutional principle that the Philippines is not merely a
abused its discretion when it denied the petition to submit the proposed changes republican State but a democratic one as well behooves this Court to affirm the
to the Constitution directly to the vote of the sovereign people in a plebiscite. right of the people to participate directly in the process of introducing changes to
Technical questions, e.g. whether petitioners should have filed a Motion for their fundamental law. These petitions present such an opportunity. Thus, this is
Reconsideration before coming to us, are of no moment in the face of the an opportune time for this Court to uphold the sovereign rights of the people.
transcendental issue at hand. What deserve our full attention are the issues I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Reynato Puno who has sufficiently
concerning the applicable rules as well as statutory and constitutional limitations explained the rationale for upholding the people's initiative. However, I wish to
on the conduct of the People's Initiative. share my own thoughts on certain matters I deem material and significant.
2. It must be stressed that no less than the present Constitution itself empowers Santiago Does Not Apply to This Case But Only to the 1997 Delfin Petition
the people to "directly" propose amendments through their own "initiative." The The COMELEC denied the petition for initiative filed by petitioners purportedly on
subject of the instant petition is by way of exercising that initiative in order to the basis of this Court's ruling in Santiago v. COMELEC2 that: (1) RA 6753 was
change our form of government from presidential to parliamentary. Much has inadequate to cover the system of initiative regarding amendments to the
been written about the fulsome powers of the people in a democracy. But the most Constitution and (2) the COMELEC was permanently enjoined from entertaining
basic concerns the idea that sovereignty resides in the people and that all or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative regarding amendments to the
government authority emanates from them. Clearly, by the power of popular Constitution until a sufficient law was validly enacted to provide for the
initiative, the people have the sovereign right to change the present Constitution. implementation of the initiative provision.
Whether the initial moves are done by a Constitutional Convention, a However, Santiago should not apply to this case but only to the petition of Delfin
Constitutional Assembly, or a People's Initiative, in the end every amendment -- in 1997. It would be unreasonable to make it apply to all petitions which were yet
however insubstantial or radical -- must be submitted to a plebiscite. Thus, it is unforeseen in 1997. The fact is that Santiago was focused on the Delfin petition
the ultimate will of the people expressed in the ballot, that matters. 2 alone.
3. I cannot fault the COMELEC, frankly, for turning down the petition of Messrs. Those who oppose the exercise of the people's right to initiate changes to the
Lambino, et al. For the COMELEC was just relying on precedents, with the Constitution via initiative claim that Santiago barred any and all future petitions for
common understanding that, pursuant to the cases of Santiago v. COMELEC3 initiative by virtue of the doctrines of stare decisis and res judicata. The argument
and PIRMA v. COMELEC,4 the COMELEC had been permanently enjoined from is flawed.
entertaining any petition for a people's initiative to amend the Constitution by no The ponencia of Mr. Justice Puno has amply discussed the arguments relating to
less than this Court. In denying due course below to Messrs. Lambino and stare decisis. Hence, I will address the argument from the viewpoint of res
Aumentado's petition, I could not hold the COMELEC liable for grave abuse of judicata.
discretion when they merely relied on this Court's unequivocal rulings. Of course, Res judicata is the rule that a final judgment rendered by a court of competent
the Santiago and the PIRMA decisions could be reviewed and reversed by this jurisdiction on the merits is conclusive as to the rights of the parties and their
Court, as J. Reynato S. Puno submits now. But until the Court does so, the privies and, as to them, constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent action
COMELEC was duty bound to respect and obey this Court's mandate, for the rule involving the same claim, demand or cause of action.3 It has the following
of law to prevail. requisites: (1) the former judgment or order must be final; (2) it must have been
4. Lastly, I see no objection to the remand to the COMELEC of the petition of rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the parties; (3)
Messrs. Lambino and Aumentado and 6.327 million voters, for further examination it must be a judgment or order on the merits and (4) there must be identity of
of the factual requisites before a plebiscite is conducted. On page 4 of the assailed parties, of subject matter, and of cause of action between the first and second
Resolution of the respondent dated August 31, 2006, the COMELEC tentatively actions.4
expressed its view that "even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to
 There is no identity of parties in Santiago and the instant case. While the AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V.
COMELEC was also the respondent in Santiago, the petitioners in that case and OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
those in this case are different. More significantly, there is no identity of causes of ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO
action in the two cases. Santiago involved amendments to Sections 4 and 7 of UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA,
Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
while the present petition seeks to amend Sections 1to 7 of Article VI and Sections STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO,
1 to 4 of the 1987 Constitution. Clearly, therefore, the COMELEC committed grave and DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO
abuse of discretion when it ruled that the present petition for initiative was barred AGUJA, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI
by Santiago and, on that ground, dismissed the petition. ANTONINO, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA),
The present petition and that in Santiago are materially different from each other. CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON,
They are not based on the same facts. There is thus no cogent reason to frustrate FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS,
and defeat the present direct action of the people to exercise their sovereignty by and AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P.
proposing changes to their fundamental law. PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S.
People's Initiative Should Not MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
Be Subjected to Conditions ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
People's initiative is an option reserved by the people for themselves exclusively. and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE
Neither Congress nor the COMELEC has the power to curtail or defeat this PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO
exclusive power of the people to change the Constitution. Neither should the I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANOTNIO L.
exercise of this power be made subject to any conditions, as some would have us SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF THE
accept. PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Oppositors to the people's initiative point out that this Court ruled in Santiago that Oppositors-Intervenors;
RA 6735 was inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the G.R. No. 174299 entitled
Constitution and, thus, no law existed to enable the people to directly propose MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
changes to the Constitution. This reasoning is seriously objectionable. SAGUISAG, Petitioners
The pronouncement on the insufficiency of RA 6735 was, to my mind, out of place. vs.
It was unprecedented and dangerously transgressed the domain reserved to the COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S.
legislature. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA,
While the legislature is authorized to establish procedures for determining the FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V.
validity and sufficiency of a petition to amend the constitution,5 that procedure SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents.
cannot unnecessarily restrict the initiative privilege. 6 In the same vein, this Court x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
cannot unnecessarily and unreasonably restrain the people's right to directly SEPARATE OPINION
propose changes to the Constitution by declaring a law inadequate simply for lack TINGA, J:
of a sub-heading and other grammatical but insignificant omissions. Otherwise, I join in full the opinion of Senior Associate Justice Puno. Its enviable sang-froid,
the constitutional intent to empower the people will be severely emasculated, if inimitable lucidity, and luminous scholarship are all so characteristic of the author
not rendered illusory. that it is hardly a waste of pen and ink to write separately if only to express my
People's Right and Power to Propose Changes to the Constitution Directly deep admiration for his disquisition. It is compelling because it derives from the
Should not be Unreasonably Curtailed fundamental democratic ordinance that sovereignty resides in the people, and it
If Congress and a constitutional convention, both of which are mere seeks to effectuate that principle through the actual empowerment of the
representative bodies, can propose changes to the Constitution, there is no sovereign people. Justice Puno's opinion will in the short term engender reactions
reason why the supreme body politic itself – the people – may not do so directly. on its impact on present attempts to amend the Constitution, but once the political
Resort to initiative to amend the constitution or enact a statute is an exercise of passion of the times have been shorn, it will endure as an unequivocal message
"direct democracy" as opposed to "representative democracy." The system of to the taongbayan that they are to be trusted to chart the course of their future.
initiative allows citizens to directly propose constitutional amendments for the Nothing that I inscribe will improve on Justice Puno's opinion. I only write
general electorate to adopt or reject at the polls, particularly in a plebiscite. While separately to highlight a few other points which also inform my vote to grant the
representative government was envisioned to "refine and enlarge the public petitions.
views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose I.
wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism I agree with Justice Puno that Santiago v. COMELEC1 and PIRMA v. COMELEC2
and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial had not acquired value as precedent and should be reversed in any case. I add
considerations,"7 the exercise of "direct democracy" through initiative reserves that the Court has long been mindful of the rule that it necessitates a majority, and
direct lawmaking power to the people by providing them a method to make new not merely a plurality, in order that a decision can stand as precedent. That
laws via the constitution, or alternatively by enacting statutes. 8 Efforts of the principle has informed the members of this Court as they deliberated and voted
represented to control their representatives through initiative have been described upon contentious petitions, even if this consideration is not ultimately reflected on
as curing the problems of democracy with more democracy. 9 the final draft released for promulgation.
The Constitution celebrates the sovereign right of the people and declares that The curious twist to Santiago and PIRMA is that for all the denigration heaped
"sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from upon Rep. Act No. 6735 in those cases, the Court did not invalidate any provision
them."10 Unless the present petition is granted, this constitutional principle will be of the statute. All the Court said then was that the law was "inadequate". Since
nothing but empty rhetoric, devoid of substance for those whom it seeks to this "inadequate" law was not annulled by the Court, or repealed by Congress, it
empower. remained part of the statute books.3
The right of the people to pass legislation and to introduce changes to the I maintain that even if Rep. Act No. 6735 is truly "inadequate", the Court in
Constitution is a fundamental right and must be jealously guarded. 11 The people Santiago should not have simply let the insufficiency stand given that it was not
should be allowed to directly seek redress of the problems of society and minded to invalidate the law itself. Article 9 of the Civil Code provides that "[n]o
representative democracy with the constitutional tools they have reserved for their judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity
use alone. or insufficiency of the laws."4 As explained by the Court recently in Reyes v. Lim,5
Accordingly, I vote to GRANT the petition in G.R. No. 174513. "[Article 9] calls for the application of equity, which[, in the revered Justice
Cardozo's words,] 'fills the open spaces in the law.'" 6 Certainly, any court that
ENATO C. CORONA
refuses to rule on an action premised on Rep. Act No. 6735 on the ground that
sociate Justice the law is "inadequate" would have been found in grave abuse of discretion. The
____________________ previous failure by the Court to "fill the open spaces" in Santiago further highlights
EN BANC that decision's status as an unfortunate aberration.
G. R. No. 174153 I am mindful of the need to respect stare decisis, to the point of having recently
RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952 decried a majority ruling that was clearly minded to reverse several precedents
REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners but refused to explicitly say so.7 Yet the principle is not immutable.8 The
vs. passionate words of Chief Justice Panganiban in Osmeña v. COMELEC9 bear
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent; quoting:
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L. Before I close, a word about stare decisis. In the present case, the Court
ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN is maintaining the ad ban to be consistent with its previous holding in
MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL NPC vs. Comelec. Thus, respondent urges reverence for the stability of
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. BALAIS, judicial doctrines. I submit, however, that more important than
Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B. consistency and stability are the verity, integrity and correctness of
 jurisprudence. As Dean Roscoe Pound explains, "Law must be stable different petition from that which would propose amendments to Article VI
but it cannot stand still." Verily, it must correct itself and move in (Legislative Branch), then the result would be two initiative petitions ─ both subject
cadence with the march of the electronic age. Error and illogic should to separate authentications, consideration and even plebiscites, all to effect one
not be perpetuated. After all, the Supreme Court, in many cases, has general proposition. This scenario, which entertains the possibility that one
deviated from stare decisis and reversed previous doctrines and petition would ultimately fail while the other succeeds, could thus allow for the risk
decisions.10 It should do no less in the present case.11 that the executive branch could be abolished without transferring executive power
Santiago established a tenet that the Supreme Court may affirm a law as to the legislative branch. An absurd result, indeed.
constitutional, yet declare its provisions as inadequate to accomplish the I am not even entirely comfortable with the theoretical underpinnings of Section
legislative purpose, then barred the enforcement of the law. That ruling is 10. The Constitution indubitably grants the people the right to seek amendment
erroneous, illogical, and should not be perpetuated. of the charter through initiative, and mandates Congress to "provide for the
II. implementation of the exercise of this right." In doing so, Congress may not restrict
Following Justice Puno's clear demonstration why Santiago should not be the right to initiative on grounds that are not provided for in the Constitution. If for
respected as precedent, I agree that the COMELEC's failure to take cognizance example the implementing law also provides that certain provisions of the
of the petitions as mandated by Rep. Act No. 6735 constitutes grave abuse of Constitution may not be amended through initiative, that prohibition should not be
discretion correctible through the petitions before this Court. sustained. Congress is tasked with the implementation, and not the restriction of
The Court has consistently held in cases such as Abes v. COMELEC12, Sanchez the right to initiative.
v. COMELEC13, and Sambarani v. COMELEC14 that "the functions of the The one-subject requirement under Section 10 is not provided for as a bar to
COMELEC under the Constitution are essentially executive and administrative in amendment under the Constitution. Arguments can be supplied for the merit of
nature".15 More pertinently, in Buac v. COMELEC16, the Court held that the such a requirement, since it would afford a measure of orderliness when the vital
jurisdiction of the COMELEC relative to the enforcement and administration of a question of amending the Constitution arises. The one-subject requirement does
law relative to a plebiscite fell under the jurisdiction of the poll body under its allow the voters focus when deliberating whether or not to vote for the
constitutional mandate "to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative amendments. These factors of desirability nonetheless fail to detract from the fact
to the conduct of a xxx plebiscite".17 that the one-subject requirement imposes an additional restriction on the right to
Rep. Act No. 6735 is a law relative to the conduct of a plebiscite. The primary task initiative not contemplated by the Constitution. Short of invalidating the
of the COMELEC under Rep. Act No. 6735 is to enforce and administer the said requirement, a better course of action would be to insist upon its liberal
law, functions that are essentially executive and administrative in nature. Even the interpretation. After all, the Court has consistently adhered to a liberal
subsequent duty of the COMELEC of determining the sufficiency of the petitions interpretation of the one-subject, one-title rule.22 There is no cause to adopt a
after they have been filed is administrative in character. By any measure, the stricter interpretative rule with regard to the one-subject rule under Section 10 of
COMELEC's failure to perform its executive and administrative functions under Rep. Act No. 6735.
Rep. Act No. 6735 constitutes grave abuse of discretion. IV.
III. During the hearing on the petitions, the argument was raised that provisions of
It has been argued that the subject petitions for initiative are barred under the Constitution amended through initiative would not have the benefit of a
Republic Act No. 6735 as they allegedly embrace more than one subject. Section reference source from the record of a deliberative body such as Congress or a
10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 classifies as a "prohibited measure," a petition submitted constitutional convention. It was submitted that this consideration influenced the
to the electorate that embraces more than one subject.18 On this point, reliance is Constitutional Commission as it drafted Section 2, Article XVII, which expressly
apparently placed on the array of provisions which are to be affected by the provided that only amendments, and not revisions, may be the subject of initiative
amendments proposed in the initiative petition. petitions.
Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735 is a reflection of the long-enshrined constitutional This argument clearly proceeds from a premise that accords supreme value to the
principle that the laws passed by Congress "shall embrace only one subject which record of deliberations of a constitutional convention or commission in the
shall be expressed in the title thereof".19 The one-subject requirement under the interpretation of the charter. Yet if the absence of a record of deliberations stands
Constitution is satisfied if all the parts of the statute are related, and are germane as so serious a flaw as to invalidate or constrict processes which change a
to the subject matter expressed in the title, or as long as they are not inconsistent constitution or its provisions, then the entire initiative process authorized by the
with or foreign to the general subject and title. 20 An act having a single general Constitution should be scarlet-marked as well.
subject, indicated in the title, may contain any number of provisions, no matter Even if this position can be given any weight in the consideration of these
how diverse they may be, so long as they are not inconsistent with or foreign to petitions, I would like to point out that resort to the records of deliberations is only
the general subject, and may be considered in furtherance of such subject by one of many aids to constitutional construction. For one, it should be abhorred if
providing for the method and means of carrying out the general object.21 the provision under study is itself clear, plain, and free from ambiguity. As the
The precedents governing the one-subject, one-title rule under the Constitution Court held in Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary:23
should apply as well in the interpretation of Section 10 of Rep. Act No. 6735. For While it is permissible in this jurisdiction to consult the debates and
as long as it can be established that an initiative petition embraces a single proceedings of the constitutional convention in order to arrive at the
general subject, the petition may be allowed no matter the number of reason and purpose of the resulting Constitution, resort thereto may be
constitutional provisions proposed for amendment if the amendments are had only when other guides fail as said proceedings are powerless to
germane to the subject of the petition. vary the terms of the Constitution when the meaning is clear. Debates
Both the Sigaw ng Bayan and the Lambino initiative petitions expressly propose in the constitutional convention "are of value as showing the views of
the changing of the form of government from bicameral-presidential to the individual members, and as indicating the reasons for their votes,
unicameral-parliamentary. Such a proposal may strike as comprehensive, but they give us no light as to the views of the large majority who did
necessitating as it will the reorganization of the executive and legislative branches not talk . . . We think it safer to construe the constitution from what
of government, nevertheless it ineluctably encompasses only a single general appears upon its face."24
subject still. Even if there is need to refer to extrinsic sources in aid of constitutional
The 1987 Constitution (or any constitution for that matter) is susceptible to division interpretation, the constitutional record does not provide the exclusive or definitive
into several general spheres. To cite the broadest of these spheres by way of answer on how to interpret the provision. The intent of a constitutional convention
example, Article III enumerates the guaranteed rights of the people under the Bill is not controlling by itself, and while the historical discussion on the floor of the
of Rights; Articles VI, VII and VIII provide for the organizational structure of constitutional convention is valuable, it is not necessarily decisive. The Court has
government; while Articles II, XII, XIII & XIV, XV and XVI enunciate policy even held in Vera v. Avelino25 that "the proceedings of the [constitutional]
principles of the State. What would clearly be prohibited under Section 10 of Rep. convention are less conclusive of the proper construction of the fundamental law
Act No. 6735 is an initiative petition that seeks to amend provisions which do not than are legislative proceedings of the proper construction of a statute, since in
belong to the same sphere. For example, had a single initiative petition sought not the latter case it is the intent of the legislature that courts seek, while in the former
only to change the form of government from presidential to parliamentary but also courts are endeavoring to arrive at the intent of the people through the discussions
to amend the Bill of Rights, said petition would arguably have been barred under and deliberations of their representatives."26 The proper interpretation of a
Section 10, as that petition ostensibly embraces more than one subject, with each constitution depends more on how it was understood by the people adopting it
subject bearing no functional relation to the other. But that is not the case with the than the framers' understanding thereof.27
present initiative petitions. If there is fear in the absence of a constitutional record as guide for interpretation
Neither can it be argued that the initiative petitions embrace more than one subject of any amendments adopted via initiative, such absence would not preclude the
since the proposed amendments seek to affect two separate branches of courts from interpreting such amendments in a manner consistent with how courts
government. The very purpose of the initiative petitions is to fuse the powers of generally construe the Constitution. For example, reliance will be placed on the
the executive and legislative branches of government; hence, the amendments other provisions of the Constitution to arrive at a harmonized and holistic
intended to effect such general intent necessarily affects the two branches. If it constitutional framework. The constitutional record is hardly the Rosetta Stone
required that to propose a shift in government from presidential to parliamentary, that unlocks the meaning of the Constitution.
the amendments to Article VII (Executive Branch) have to be segregated to a V.
I fully agree with Justice Puno that all issues relating to the sufficiency of the Unfortunately, given the highly politicized charge of the times, it has been peddled
initiative petitions should be remanded to the COMELEC. Rep. Act No. 6735 that an act or vote that assists the initiative process is one for the willful extinction
clearly reposes on the COMELEC the task of determining the sufficiency of the of democracy or democratic institutions. Such a consideration should of course
petitions, including the ascertainment of whether twelve percent (12%) of all properly play its course in the public debates and deliberations attendant to the
registered voters, including three percent (3%) of registered voters in every initiative process. Yet as a result of the harum-scarum, the temptation lies heavy
legislative district have indeed signed the initiative petitions. 28 It should be for a member of this Court perturbed with the prospect of constitutional change to
remembered that the COMELEC had dismissed the initiative petitions outright, relieve those anxieties by simply voting to enjoin any legal procedure that initiates
and had yet to undertake the determination of sufficiency as required by law. the amendment or revision of the fundamental law, even at the expense of the
It has been suggested to the end of leading the Court to stifle the initiative petitions people's will or what the Constitution allows. A vote so oriented takes the
that the Court may at this juncture pronounce the initiative petitions as insufficient. conservative path of least resistance, even as it may gain the admiration of those
The derivation of the factual predicates leading to the suggestion is uncertain, who do not want to see the Constitution amended.
considering that the trier of facts, the COMELEC in this instance, has yet to Still, the biases we should enforce as magistrates are those of the Constitution
undertake the necessary determination. Still, the premise has been floated that and the elements of democracy on which our rule of law is founded. Direct
petitioners have made sufficient admissions before this Court that purportedly democracy, as embodied in the initiative process, is but a culmination of the
established the petitions are insufficient. evolution over the centuries of democratic rights of choice and self-governance.
That premise is highly dubitable. Yet the more fundamental question that we The reemergence of the Athenian democratic ideal after centuries of tyrannical
should ask, I submit, is whether it serves well on the Court to usurp trier of facts rules arrived very slowly, the benefits parceled out at first only to favored classes.
even before the latter exercises its functions? If the Court, at this stage, were to The Magna Carta granted limited rights to self-determination and self-governance
declare the petitions as insufficient, it would be akin to the Court pronouncing an only to a few English nobles; the American Constitution was originally intended to
accused as guilty even before the lower court trial had began. give a meaningful voice only to free men, mostly Caucasian, who met the
Matugas v. COMELEC29 inveighs against the propriety of the Court property-holding requirements set by the states for voting. Yet even the very idea
uncharacteristically assuming the role of trier of facts, and resolving factual of popular voting, limited as it may have already been within the first few years of
questions not previously adjudicated by the lower courts or tribunals: the American Union, met resistance from no less a revered figure as Alexander
[P]etitioner in this case cannot "enervate" the COMELEC's findings by Hamilton, to whom the progressive historian Howard Zinn attributes these
introducing new evidence before this Court, which in any case is not disconcerting words:
a trier of facts, and then ask it to substitute its own judgment and The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and
discretion for that of the COMELEC. however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not
The rule in appellate procedure is that a factual question may not be true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge
raised for the first time on appeal, and documents forming no part of the or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent
proofs before the appellate court will not be considered in disposing of share in the government… Can a democratic assembly who annually
the issues of an action. This is true whether the decision elevated for revolve in the mass of the people be supposed steadily to pursue the
review originated from a regular court or an administrative agency or public good? Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence
quasi-judicial body, and whether it was rendered in a civil case, a of democracy…33
special proceeding, or a criminal case. Piecemeal presentation of This utterly paternalistic and bigoted view has not survived into the present age
evidence is simply not in accord with orderly justice. 30 of modern democracy where a person's poverty, color, or gender no longer
Any present determination by the Court on the sufficiency of the petitions impedes the exercise of full democratic rights. Yet a democracy that merely
constitutes in effect a trial de novo, the Justices of the Supreme Court virtually guarantees its citizens the right to live their lives freely is incomplete if there is no
descending to the level of trial court judges. This is an unbecoming recourse, and corresponding allowance for a means by which the people have a direct choice in
it simply is not done. determining their country's direction. Initiative as a mode of amending a
VI. constitution may seem incompatible with representative democracy, yet it
The worst position this Court could find itself in is to acquiesce to a plea that it embodies an even purer form of democracy. Initiative, which our 1987
make the choice whether to amend the Constitution or not. This is a matter which Constitution saw fit to grant to the people, is a progressive measure that is but a
should not be left to fifteen magistrates who have not been elected by the people continuation of the line of evolution of the democratic ideal.
to make the choice for them. By allowing the sovereign people to directly propose and enact constitutional
A vote to grant the petitions is not a vote to amend the 1987 Constitution. It is amendments, the initiative process should be acknowledged as the purest
merely a vote to allow the people to directly exercise that option. In fact, the implement of democratic rule under law. This right granted to over sixty million
position of Justice Puno which I share would not even guarantee that the Lambino Filipinos cannot be denied by the votes of less than eight magistrates for reasons
and Sigaw ng Bayan initiative petitions would be submitted to the people in a that bear no cogitation on the Constitution.
referendum. The COMELEC will still have to determine the sufficiency of the I VOTE to GRANT the petitions.
petition. Among the questions which still have to be determined by the poll body
DANTE O. TINGA
in considering the sufficiency of the petitions is whether twelve percent (12%) of
all registered voters nationwide, including three percent (3%) of registered Associate
voters Justice
in every legislative district, have indeed signed the initiative petitions.31 ____________________
And even should the COMELEC find the initiative petitions sufficient, the matter EN BANC
of whether the Constitution should be amended would still depend on the choice G. R. No. 174153
of the electorate. The oppositors are clearly queasy about some of the RAUL LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO together with 6,327,952
amendments proposed, or the imputed motives behind the amendments. A REGISTERED VOTERS, Petitioners
referendum, should the COMELEC find the petitions as sufficient, would allow vs.
them to convey their uneasiness to the public at large, as well as for the THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Respondent;
proponents of the amendment to defend their proposal. The campaign period TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES (TUCP), RONALD L.
alone would allow the public to be involved in the significant deliberation on the ADAMAT, ROLANDO MANUEL RIVERA, RUELO BAYA, SULONGBAYAN
course our nation should take, with the ensuing net benefit of a more informed, MOVEMENT FOUNDATION, INC., PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
more politically aware populace. And of course, the choice on whether the WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO) and VICTORINO F. BALAIS,
Constitution should be amended would lie directly with the people. The initiative Petitioners-Intervenors; ONE VOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S. MONSOD, RENE B.
process involves participatory democracy at its most elemental; wherein the AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V.
consequential debate would not be confined to the august halls of Congress or OPLE and CARLOS P. MEDINA, JR., ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
the hallowed chambers of this Court, as it would spill over to the public squares ATTY. PETE QUIRINO-QUADRA, BAYAN, BAYAN MUNA, KILUSANG MAYO
and town halls, the academic yards and the Internet blogosphere, the dining areas UNO, HEAD, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS FORUM, MIGRANTE, GABRIELA,
in the homes of the affluent and the impoverished alike. GABRIELA WOMEN'S PARTY, ANAKBAYAN, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
The prospect of informed and widespread discussion on constitutional change STUDENTS, LEONADO SAN JOSE, JOJO PINEDA, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO,
engaged in by a people who are actually empowered in having a say whether and DR. REGINALD PAMUGAS, LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MARIO JOYO
these changes should be enacted, gives fruition to the original vision of pure AGUJA, ANA THERESIA HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL, LUWALHATI
democracy, as formulated in Athens two and a half millennia ago. The great hero ANTONINO, PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA),
of Athenian democracy, Pericles, was recorded as saying in his famed Funeral CONRADO F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO, MARIANO M. TAJON,
Oration, "We differ from other states in regarding the man who keeps aloof from FROILAN M. BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR., FORTUNATO P. AGUAS,
public life not as 'private' but as useless; we decide or debate, carefully and in and AMADO GAT INCIONG, SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO P.
person all matters of policy, and we hold, not that words and deeds go ill PIMENTEL, JR., and SENATORS SERGIO R. OSMEÑA III, JAMBY A.S.
together, but that acts are foredoomed to failure when undertaken MADRIGAL, LUISA P. EJERCITO-ESTRADA, JINGGOY ESTRADA,
undiscussed."32 ALFREDO S. LIM and PANFILO M. LACSON, JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
and PWERSA NG MASANG PILIPINO, INTEGRATED BAR OF THE express their collective will, and when the people speak, we must be ready to
PHILIPPINES CEBU CITY CHAPTER and CEBU CHAPTER, JOSE ANSELMO listen. Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution recognizes and guarantees the
I. CADIZ, BYRON D. BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT, ANOTNIO L. sovereign people's right to initiative, rather than limits it. The enabling law which
SALVADOR and RANDALL C. TABAYOYONG, SENATE OF THE Congress has been tasked to enact must give life to the said provision and make
PHILIPPINES, Represented by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR., the exercise of the right to initiative possible, not regulate, limit, or restrict it in any
Oppositors-Intervenors; way that would render the people's option of resorting to initiative to amend the
G.R. No. 174299 Constitution more stringent, difficult, and less feasible, as compared to the other
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q. constitutional means to amend or revise the Constitution. In fact, it is worth
SAGUISAG, Petitioners recalling that under Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution, the legislative
vs. power of Congress is limited to the extent reserved to the people by the
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by Chairman BENJAMIN S. provisions on initiative and referendum.
ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners RESSURRECCION Z. BORRA, It is with this frame of mind that I review the issues raised in the instant Petitions,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A. BRAWNER, RENE V. and which has led me to the conclusions, in support of the dissent of Justice Puno,
SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe, Respondents. that (a) The Commission on Election (COMELEC) had indeed committed grave
x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x abuse of discretion in summarily dismissing the petition for initiative to amend the
DISSENTING OPINION Constitution filed by herein petitioners Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado;
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.: (b) The Court should revisit the pronouncements it made in Santiago v.
"The people made the constitution, and the people can unmake it. It is the creature Commission on Elections;3 (c) It is the sovereign people's inherent right to propose
of their will, and lives only by their will. But this supreme and irresistible power to changes to the Constitution, regardless of whether they constitute merely
make or unmake, resides only in the whole body of the people; not in any amendments or a total revision thereof; and (d) The COMELEC should take
subdivision of them." cognizance of Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative and, in the exercise
-- Marshall, C.J., Cohens v. Virginia (1821, US) 6 Wheat 264, 389, 5 L ed. 257, of its jurisdiction, determine the factual issues raised by the oppositors before this
287. Court.
I express my concurrence in the discussions and conclusions presented in the I
persuasive and erudite dissent of Justice Reynato S. Puno. However, I make The COMELEC had indeed committed grave abuse of discretion when it
some additional observations in connection with my concurrence. summarily dismissed Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative entirely on
While it is but proper to accord great respect and reverence to the Philippine the basis of the Santiago case which, allegedly, permanently enjoined it from
Constitution of 1987 for being the supreme law of the land, we should not lose entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative to amend the
sight of the truth that there is an ultimate authority to which the Constitution is also Constitution in the absence of a sufficient law.
subordinate – the will of the people. No less than its very first paragraph, the After a careful reading, however, of the Santiago case, I believe in earnest that
Preamble,1 expressly recognizes that the Constitution came to be because it was the permanent injunction actually issued by this Court against the COMELEC
ordained and promulgated by the sovereign Filipino people. It is a principle pertains only to the petition for initiative filed by Jesus S. Delfin, and not to all
reiterated yet again in Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution, which explicitly subsequent petitions for initiative to amend the Constitution.
declares that "[t]he Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty The Conclusion4 in the majority opinion in the Santiago case reads –
resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them." Thus, CONCLUSION
the resolution of the issues and controversies raised by the instant Petition should This petition must then be granted, and the COMELEC should be
be guided accordingly by the foregoing principle. permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any
If the Constitution is the expression of the will of the sovereign people, then, in the petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient
event that the people change their will, so must the Constitution be revised or law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation
amended to reflect such change. Resultantly, the right to revise or amend the of the system.
Constitution inherently resides in the sovereign people whose will it is supposed We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments
to express and embody. The Constitution itself, under Article XVII, provides for to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be
the means by which the revision or amendment of the Constitution may be given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry
proposed and ratified. any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for
Under Section 1 of the said Article, proposals to amend or revise the Constitution the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
may be made (a) by Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, or WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered
(b) by constitutional convention. The Congress and the constitutional convention a) GRANTING the instant petition;
possess the power to propose amendments to, or revisions of, the Constitution b) DECLARING R.A. No. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of
not simply because the Constitution so provides, but because the sovereign initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to
people had chosen to delegate their inherent right to make such proposals to their provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation;
representatives either through Congress or through a constitutional convention. c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolution No. 2300 of the
On the other hand, the sovereign people, well-inspired and greatly empowered by Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the
the People Power Revolution of 1986, reserved to themselves the right to directly conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and
propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, to wit – d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the
SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly DELFIN petition (UND-96-037).
proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per LIFTED as against private respondents.
centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of It is clear from the fallo, as it is reproduced above, that the Court made permanent
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) it issued on 18 December 1996 against
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of the COMELEC. The said TRO enjoined the COMELEC from proceeding with the
this right.2 Delfin Petition, and Alberto and Carmen Pedrosa from conducting a signature
The afore-quoted section does not confer on the Filipino people the right to amend drive for people's initiative.5 It was this restraining order, more particularly the
the Constitution because, as previously discussed, such right is inherent in them. portion thereof referring to the Delfin Petition, which was expressly made
The section only reduces into writing this right to initiate amendments to the permanent by the Court. It would seem to me that the COMELEC and all other
Constitution where they collectively and willfully agreed in the manner by which oppositors to Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative gave unwarranted
they shall exercise this right: (a) through the filing of a petition; (b) supported by significance and weight to the first paragraph of the Conclusion in the Santiago
at least twelve percent (12%) of the total number of registered voters nationwide; case. The first and second paragraphs of the Conclusion, preceding the
(c) with each legislative district represented by at least three percent (3%) of the dispositive portion, merely express the opinion of the ponente; while the
registered voters therein; (d) subject to the limitation that no such petition may be definite orders of the Court for implementation are found in the dispositive
filed within five years after the ratification of the Constitution, and not oftener than portion.
once every five years thereafter; and (e) a delegation to Congress of the authority We have previously held that –
to provide the formal requirements and other details for the implementation of the The dispositive portion or the fallo is what actually constitutes the
right. resolution of the court and which is the subject of execution, although
It is my earnest opinion that the right of the sovereign people to directly propose the other parts of the decision may be resorted to in order to determine
amendments to the Constitution through initiative is more superior than the power the ratio decidendi for such a resolution. Where there is conflict
they delegated to Congress or to a constitutional convention to amend or revise between the dispositive part and the opinion of the court contained in
the Constitution. The initiative process gives the sovereign people the voice to the text of the decision, the former must prevail over the latter on the
 theory that the dispositive portion is the final order while the opinion is 1. Finding the petition to be sufficient pursuant to Section 4, Article XVII
merely a statement ordering nothing. Hence execution must conform of the 1987 Constitution;
more particularly to that ordained or decreed in the dispositive portion 2. Directing the publication of the petition in Filipino and English at least
of the decision.6 twice in newspapers of general and local circulation; and
Is there a conflict between the first paragraph of the Conclusion and the dispositive 3. Calling a plebiscite to be held not earlier than sixty nor later than
portion of the Santiago case? Apparently, there is. The first paragraph of the ninety days after the Certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency
Conclusion states that the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from of the petition, to allow the Filipino people to express their sovereign will
entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to on the proposition.
the Constitution until the enactment of a valid law. On the other hand, the fallo Although both cases involve the right of the people to initiate amendments to the
only makes permanent the TRO7 against COMELEC enjoining it from proceeding Constitution, the personalities concerned and the other factual circumstances
with the Delfin Petition. While the permanent injunction contemplated in the attendant in the two cases differ. Also dissimilar are the particular prayer and
Conclusion encompasses all petitions for initiative on amendments to the reliefs sought by the parties from the COMELEC, as well as from this Court. For
Constitution, the fallo is expressly limited to the Delfin Petition. To resolve the these reasons, I find that the COMELEC acted with grave abuse of discretion
conflict, the final order of the Court as it is stated in the dispositive portion or the when it summarily dismissed the petition for initiative filed by Lambino and
fallo should be controlling. Aumentado. It behooves the COMELEC to accord due course to a petition which
Neither can the COMELEC dismiss Lambino and Aumentado's petition for on its face complies with the rudiments of the law. COMELEC was openly
initiative on the basis of this Court's Resolution, dated 23 September 1997, in the negligent in summarily dismissing the Lambino and Aumentado petition. The
case of People's Initiative for Reform, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v. The haste by which the instant Petition was struck down is characteristic of bad faith,
Commission on Elections, et al.8 The Court therein found that the COMELEC did which, to my mind, is a patent and gross evasion of COMELEC's positive duty. It
not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the PIRMA Petition for initiative has so obviously copped out of its duty and responsibility to determine the
to amend the Constitution for it only complied with the Decision in the Santiago sufficiency thereof and sought protection and justification for its craven decision
case. in the supposed permanent injunction issued against it by the Court in the
It is only proper that the Santiago case should also bar the PIRMA Petition on the Santiago case. The COMELEC had seemingly expanded the scope and
basis of res judicata because PIRMA participated in the proceedings of the said application of the said permanent injunction, reading into it more than what it
case, and had knowledge of and, thus, must be bound by the judgment of the actually states, which is surprising, considering that the Chairman and majority of
Court therein. As explained by former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in his the members of COMELEC are lawyers who should be able to understand and
separate opinion to the Resolution in the PIRMA case – appreciate, more than a lay person, the legal consequences and intricacies of the
First, it is barred by res judicata. No one aware of the pleadings filed pronouncements made by the Court in the Santiago case and the permanent
here and in Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997) injunction issued therein.
may plead ignorance of the fact that the former is substantially identical No less than the Constitution itself, under the second paragraph of Article XVII,
to the latter, except for the reversal of the roles played by the principal Section 4, imposes upon the COMELEC the mandate to set a date for plebiscite
parties and inclusion of additional, yet not indispensable, parties in the after a positive determination of the sufficiency of a petition for initiative on
present petition. But plainly, the same issues and reliefs are raised and amendments to the Constitution, viz –
prayed for in both cases. SEC. 4. x x x
The principal petitioner here is the PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE FOR Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by
REFORM, MODERNIZATION, AND ACTION (PIRMA) and Spouses a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier
ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA. PIRMA is self- than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
described as "a non-stock, non-profit organization duly organized and Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.
existing under Philippine laws with office address at Suite 403, Fedman As a rule, the word "shall" commonly denotes an imperative obligation and is
Suites, 199 Salcedo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City," with inconsistent with the idea of discretion, and that the presumption is that the word
"ALBERTO PEDROSA and CARMEN PEDROSA" as among its "shall" when used, is mandatory.11 Under the above-quoted constitutional
"officers." In Santiago, the PEDROSAS were made respondents as provision, it is the mandatory or imperative obligation of the COMELEC to (a)
founding members of PIRMA which, as alleged in the body of the determine the sufficiency of the petition for initiative on amendments to the
petition therein, "proposes to undertake the signature drive for a Constitution and issue a certification on its findings; and (b) in case such petition
people's initiative to amend the Constitution." In Santiago then, the is found to be sufficient, to set the date for the plebiscite on the proposed
PEDROSAS were sued in their capacity as founding members of amendments not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after its certification.
PIRMA. The COMELEC should not be allowed to shun its constitutional mandate under
The decision in Santiago specifically declared that PIRMA was duly the second paragraph of Article XVII, Section 4, through the summary dismissal
represented at the hearing of the Delfin petition in the COMELEC. In of the petition for initiative filed by Lambino and Aumentado, when such petition
short, PIRMA was intervenor-petitioner therein. Delfin alleged in his is supported by 6.3 million signatures of registered voters. Should all of these
petition that he was a founding member of the Movement for People's signatures be authentic and representative of the required percentages of
Initiative, and under footnote no. 6 of the decision, it was noted that said registered voters for every legislative district and the whole nation, then the
movement was "[l]ater identified as the People's Initiative for Reforms, initiative is a true and legitimate expression of the will of the people to amend the
Modernization and Action, or PIRMA for brevity." In their Comment to Constitution, and COMELEC had caused them grave injustice by silencing their
the petition in Santiago, the PEDROSA'S did not deny that they were voice based on a patently inapplicable permanent injunction.
founding members of PIRMA, and by their arguments, demonstrated II
beyond a shadow of a doubt that they had joined Delfin or his cause. We should likewise take the opportunity to revisit the pronouncements made by
No amount of semantics may then shield herein petitioners PIRMA and the Court in its Decision in the Santiago case, especially as regards the supposed
the PEDROSAS, as well as the others joining them, from the operation insufficiency or inadequacy of Republic Act No. 6735 as the enabling law for the
of the principle of res judicata, which needs no further elaboration.9 implementation of the people's right to initiative on amendments to the
While the Santiago case bars the PIRMA case because of res judicata, the same Constitution.
cannot be said to the Petition at bar. Res judicata is an absolute bar to a The declaration of the Court that Republic Act No. 6735 is insufficient or
subsequent action for the same cause; and its requisites are: (a) the former inadequate actually gave rise to more questions rather than answers, due to the
judgment or order must be final; (b) the judgment or order must be one on the fact that there has never been a judicial precedent wherein the Court invalidated
merits; (c) it must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the a law for insufficiency or inadequacy. The confusion over such a declaration
subject matter and parties; and (d) there must be between the first and second thereby impelled former Chief Justice Davide, Jr., the ponente in the Santiago
actions, identity of parties, of subject matter and of causes of action.10 case, to provide the following clarification in his separate opinion to the Resolution
Even though it is conceded that the first three requisites are present herein, the in the PIRMA case, thus –
last has not been complied with. Undoubtedly, the Santiago case and the present Simply put, Santiago did, in reality, declare as unconstitutional that
Petition involve different parties, subject matter, and causes of action, and the portion of R.A. No. 6735 relating to Constitutional initiatives for failure
former should not bar the latter. to comply with the "completeness and sufficient standard tests" with
In the Santiago case, the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution was filed respect to permissible delegation of legislative power or subordinate
by Delfin alone. His petition does not qualify as the initiatory pleading over which legislation. However petitioners attempt to twist the language in
the COMELEC can acquire jurisdiction, being unsupported by the required Santiago, the conclusion is inevitable; the portion of R.A. No. 6735 was
number of registered voters, and actually imposing upon the COMELEC the task held to be unconstitutional.
of gathering the voters' signatures. In the case before us, the petition for initiative It is important to note, however, that while the Decision in the Santiago case
to amend the Constitution was filed by Lambino and Aumentado, on behalf of the pronounced repeatedly that Republic Act No. 6735 was insufficient and
6.3 million registered voters who affixed their signatures on the signature sheets inadequate, there is no categorical declaration therein that the said statute was
attached thereto. Their petition prays that the COMELEC issue an Order – unconstitutional. The express finding that Republic Act No. 6735 is
unconstitutional can only be found in the separate opinion of former Chief Justice It will still be a representative government where officials continue to be
Davide to the Resolution in the PIRMA case, which was not concurred in by the accountable to the people and the people maintain control over the government
other members of the Court. through the election of members of the Parliament.
Even assuming arguendo that the declaration in the Santiago case, that Republic Furthermore, should the people themselves wish to change a substantial portion
Act No. 6735 is insufficient and inadequate, is already tantamount to a declaration or even the whole of the Constitution, what or who is to stop them? Article XVII,
that the statute is unconstitutional, it was rendered in violation of established rules Section 2 of the Constitution which, by the way it is worded, refers only to their
in statutory construction, which state that – right to initiative on amendments of the Constitution? The delegates to the
[A]ll presumptions are indulged in favor of constitutionality; one who Constitutional Convention who, according to their deliberations, purposely limited
attacks a statute, alleging unconstitutionality must prove its invalidity Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution to amendments? This Court which has
beyond a reasonable doubt (Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers' the jurisdiction to interpret the provision? Bearing in mind my earlier declaration
Union, 59 SCRA 54 [19741). In fact, this Court does not decide that the will of the sovereign people is supreme, there is nothing or no one that
questions of a constitutional nature unless that question is properly can preclude them from initiating changes to the Constitution if they choose to do
raised and presented in appropriate cases and is necessary to a so. To reiterate, the Constitution is supposed to be the expression and
determination of the case, i.e., the issue of constitutionality must be lis embodiment of the people's will, and should the people's will clamor for a revision
mota presented (Tropical Homes v. National Housing Authority, 152 of the Constitution, it is their will which should prevail. Even the fact that the people
SCRA 540 [1987]). ratified the 1987 Constitution, including Article XVII, Section 2 thereof, as it is
First, the Court, in the Santiago case, could have very well avoided the issue of worded, should not prevent the exercise by the sovereign people of their inherent
constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 by ordering the COMELEC to dismiss right to change the Constitution, even if such change would be tantamount to a
the Delfin petition for the simple reason that it does not constitute an initiatory substantial amendment or revision thereof, for their actual exercise of the said
pleading over which the COMELEC could acquire jurisdiction. And second, the right should be a clear renunciation of the limitation which the said provision
unconstitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735 has not been adequately shown. It imposes upon it. It is the inherent right of the people as sovereign to change the
was by and large merely inferred or deduced from the way Republic Act No. 6735 Constitution, regardless of the extent thereof.
was worded and the provisions thereof arranged and organized by Congress. The IV
dissenting opinions rendered by several Justices in the Santiago case reveal the Lastly, I fail to see the injustice in allowing the COMELEC to give due course to
other side to the argument, adopting the more liberal interpretation that would and take cognizance of Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative to amend
allow the Court to sustain the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 6735. It would the Constitution. I reiterate that it would be a greater evil if one such petition which
seem that the majority in the Santiago case failed to heed the rule that all is ostensibly supported by the required number of registered voters all over the
presumptions should be resolved in favor of the constitutionality of the statute. country, be summarily dismissed.
The Court, acting en banc on the Petition at bar, can revisit its Decision in the Giving due course and taking cognizance of the petition would not necessarily
Santiago case and again open to judicial review the constitutionality of Republic mean that the same would be found sufficient and set for plebiscite. The
Act No. 6735; in which case, I shall cast my vote in favor of its constitutionality, COMELEC still faces the task of reviewing the petition to determine whether it
having satisfied the completeness and sufficiency of standards tests for the valid complies with the requirements for a valid exercise of the right to initiative.
delegation of legislative power. I fully agree in the conclusion made by Justice Questions raised by the oppositors to the petition, such as those on the
Puno on this matter in his dissenting opinion12 in the Santiago case, that reads – authenticity of the registered voters' signatures or compliance with the requisite
R.A. No. 6735 sufficiently states the policy and the standards to guide number of registered voters for every legislative district, are already factual in
the COMELEC in promulgating the law's implementing rules and nature and require the reception and evaluation of evidence of the parties. Such
regulations of the law. As aforestated, Section 2 spells out the policy of questions are best presented and resolved before the COMELEC since this Court
the law; viz: "The power of the people under a system of initiative and is not a trier of facts.
referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or in In view of the foregoing, I am of the position that the Resolution of the COMELEC
part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any dated 31 August 2006 denying due course to the Petition for Initiative filed by
legislative body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is Lambino and Aumentado be reversed and set aside for having been issued in
hereby affirmed, recognized and guaranteed." Spread out all over R.A. grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, and that the Petition
No. 6735 are the standards to canalize the delegated power to the be remanded to the COMELEC for further proceedings.
COMELEC to promulgate rules and regulations from overflowing. Thus, In short, I vote to GRANT the petition for Initiative of Lambino and Aumentado.
the law states the number of signatures necessary to start a people's
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
initiative, directs how initiative proceeding is commenced, what the
COMELEC should do upon filing of the petition for initiative, how a Associate Justice
proposition is approved, when a plebiscite may be held, when the ____________________
amendment takes effect, and what matters may not be the subject of EN BANC
any initiative. By any measure, these standards are adequate. G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006
III RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO B. AUMENTADO, together with 6,327,952
The dissent of Justice Puno has already a well-presented discourse on the REGISTERED VOTERS, petitioners, vs. The COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
difference between an "amendment" and a "revision" of the Constitution. Allow respondent.
me also to articulate my additional thoughts on the matter. G.R. No. 174299 October 25, 2006
Oppositors to Lambino and Aumentado's petition for initiative argue that the MAR-LEN ABIGAIL BINAY, SOFRONIO UNTALAN, JR., and RENE A. Q.
proposed changes therein to the provisions of the Constitution already amount to SAGUISAG, petitioners vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, Represented by
a revision thereof, which is not allowed to be done through people's initiative; Chairman BENJAMIN S. ABALOS, JR., and Commissioners
Article XVII, Section 2 of the Constitution on people's initiative refers only to RESURRECCION Z. BORRA, FLORENTINO A. TUASON, JR., ROMEO A.
proposals for amendments to the Constitution. They assert the traditional BRAWNER, RENE V. SARMIENTO, and John Doe and Peter Doe,
distinction between an amendment and a revision, with amendment referring to respondents.
isolated or piecemeal change only, while revision as a revamp or rewriting of the x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
whole instrument.13 SEPARATE OPINION
However, as pointed out by Justice Puno in his dissent, there is no quantitative or VELASCO, JR., J.:
qualitative test that can establish with definiteness the distinction between an Introduction
amendment and a revision, or between a substantial and simple change of the The fate of every democracy, of every government
Constitution. based on the Sovereignty of the people, depends
The changes proposed to the Constitution by Lambino and Aumentado's petition on the choices it makes between these opposite
for initiative basically affect only Article VI on the Legislative Department and principles: absolute power on the one hand, and on
Article VII on the Executive Department. While the proposed changes will the other the restraints of legality and the authority
drastically alter the constitution of our government by vesting both legislative and of tradition.
executive powers in a unicameral Parliament, with the President as the Head of —John Acton
State and the Prime Minister exercising the executive power; they would not In this thorny matter of the people's initiative, I concur with the erudite and highly
essentially affect the other 16 Articles of the Constitution. The 100 or so changes persuasive opinion of Justice Reynato S. Puno upholding the people's initiative
counted by the oppositors to the other provisions of the Constitution are and raise some points of my own.
constituted mostly of the nominal substitution of one word for the other, such as The issue of the people's power to propose amendments to the Constitution was
Parliament for Congress, or Prime Minister for President. As eloquently pointed once discussed in the landmark case of Santiago v. COMELEC.1 Almost a decade
out in the dissent of Justice Puno, the changes proposed to transform our form of later, the issue is once again before the Court, and I firmly believe it is time to
government from bicameral-presidential to unicameral-parliamentary, would not reevaluate the pronouncements made in that case.
affect the fundamental nature of our state as a democratic and republican state.
The issue of Charter Change is one that has sharply divided the nation, and its The Temporary Restraining Order issued on 18 December 1996 is
proponents and opponents will understandably take all measures to advance their made permanent as against the Commission on Elections, but is
position and defeat that of their opponents. The wisdom or folly of Charter Change LIFTED against private respondents.
does not concern the Court. The only thing that the Court must review is the Resolution on the matter of contempt is hereby reserved.
validity of the present step taken by the proponents of Charter Change, which is SO ORDERED.
the People's Initiative, as set down in Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution: The question now is if the ruling in Santiago is decisive in this case. It is
Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by elementary that when there is conflict between the dispositive portion or fallo of
the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per the decision and the opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the
centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every judgment, the former prevails over the latter. An order of execution is based on
legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the disposition, not on the body, of the decision. 5 The dispositive portion is its
the registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall decisive resolution; thus, it is the subject of execution. The other parts of the
be authorized within five years following the ratification of this decision may be resorted to in order to determine the ratio decidendi for the
Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. disposition. Where there is conflict between the dispositive part and the
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of opinion of the court contained in the text or body of the decision, the former
this right. must prevail over the latter on the theory that the dispositive portion is the
In the Santiago case, the Court discussed whether the second paragraph of that final order, while the opinion is merely a statement ordering nothing. Hence,
section had been fulfilled. It determined that Congress had not provided for the the execution must conform with that which is ordained or decreed in the
implementation of the exercise of the people's initiative, when it held that Republic dispositive portion of the decision.6
Act No. 6735, or "The Initiative and Referendum Act," was "inadequate to cover A judgment must be distinguished from an opinion. The latter is an informal
the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to expression of the views of the court and cannot prevail against its final order or
provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation."2 decision. While the two may be combined in one instrument, the opinion forms no
With all due respect to those Justices who made that declaration, I must disagree. part of the judgment. So there is a distinction between the findings and
Republic Act No. 6735 is the proper law for proposing constitutional conclusions of a court and its Judgment. While they may constitute its decision
amendments and it should not have been considered inadequate. and amount to the rendition of a judgment, they are not the judgment itself. It is
The decision in Santiago focused on what it perceived to be fatal flaws in the not infrequent that the grounds of a decision fail to reflect the exact views of the
drafting of the law, in the failings of the way the law was structured, to come to the court, especially those of concurring justices in a collegiate court. We often
conclusion that the law was inadequate. The Court itself recognized the encounter in judicial decisions lapses, findings, loose statements and generalities
legislators' intent, but disregarded this intent. The law was found wanting. The which do not bear on the issues or are apparently opposed to the otherwise sound
Court then saw the inclusion of the Constitution in RA 6735 as an afterthought. and considered result reached by the court as expressed in the dispositive part,
However, it was included, and it should not be excluded by the Court via a strained so called, of the decision.7
analysis of the law. The difficult construction of the law should not serve to Applying the foregoing argument to the Santiago case, it immediately becomes
frustrate the intent of the framers of the 1987 Constitution: to give the people the apparent that the disposition in the latter case categorically made permanent the
power to propose amendments as they saw fit. It is a basic precept in statutory December 18, 1996 Temporary Restraining Order issued against the COMELEC
construction that the intent of the legislature is the controlling factor in the in the Delfin petition but did NOT formally incorporate therein any directive
interpretation of a statute.3 The intent of the legislature was clear, and yet RA 6735 PERMANENTLY enjoining the COMELEC "from entertaining or taking
was declared inadequate. It was not specifically struck down or declared cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments." Undeniably, the
unconstitutional, merely incomplete. The Court focused on what RA 6735 was not, perpetual proscription against the COMELEC from assuming jurisdiction over any
and lost sight of what RA 6735 was. other petition on Charter Change through a People's Initiative is just a conclusion
It is my view that the reading of RA 6735 in Santiago should have been more and cannot bind the poll body, for such unending ban would trench on its
flexible. It is also a basic precept of statutory construction that statutes should be constitutional power to enforce and administer all laws and regulations relative to
construed not so much according to the letter that killeth but in line with the the conduct of an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall under
purpose for which they have been enacted.4 The reading of the law should not Section 2, Article IX of the Constitution. RA 6735 gave the COMELEC the
have been with the view of its defeat, but with the goal of upholding it, especially jurisdiction to determine the sufficiency of the petition on the initiative under
with its avowed noble purpose. Section 8, Rule 11 and the form of the petition under Section 3, Rule I; hence, it
Congress has done its part in empowering the people themselves to propose cannot be barred from entertaining any such petition.
amendments to the Constitution, in accordance with the Constitution itself. It In sum, the COMELEC still retains its jurisdiction to take cognizance of any petition
should not be the Supreme Court that stifles the people, and lets their cries for on initiative under RA 6735 and it can rule on the petition and its action can only
change go unheard, especially when the Constitution itself grants them that be passed upon by the Court when the same is elevated through a petition for
power. certiorari. COMELEC cannot be barred from acting on said petitions since
The court's ruling in the Santiago case does not bar the present petition jurisdiction is conferred by law (RA 6735) and said law has not been declared
because the fallo in the Santiago case is limited to the Delfin petition. unconstitutional and hence still valid though considered inadequate in the
The Santiago case involved a petition for prohibition filed by Miriam Defensor- Santiago case.
Santiago, et al., against the COMELEC, et al., which sought to prevent the Respondents, however, claim that the Court in the subsequent case of PIRMA v.
COMELEC from entertaining the "Petition to Amend the Constitution, to Lift Term Commission on Elections8 confirmed the statement of the Court in the Santiago
Limits of Elective Officials, by People's Initiative" filed by Atty. Jesus Delfin. In the case that the COMELEC was "permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking
body of the judgment, the Court made the following conclusion, viz: cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments." Much reliance is placed
This petition must then be granted and the COMELEC should be on the ruling contained in a Minute Resolution which reads:
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any The Court ruled, first, by a unanimous vote, that no grave abuse of
petition or initiative on amendments on the Constitution until a sufficient Discretion could be attributed to the public respondent COMELEC in
law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation Dismissing the petition filed by PIRMA therein, it appearing that it only
of the system (emphasis supplied). Complied with the DISPOSITIONS in the Decision of this Court in G.R.
We feel, however, that the system of initiative to propose amendments No. 127325, promulgated on March 19, 1997, and its Resolution of
to the Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be June 10, 1997.
given flesh and blood, energy and strength. Congress should not tarry Take note that the Court specifically referred to "dispositions" in the March 19,
any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to provide for 1997 Decision. To reiterate, the dispositions in the Santiago case decision refer
the implementation of the right of the people under that system. specifically to the December 18, 1996 TRO being made permanent against the
In the said case, the Court's fallo states as follows: COMELEC but do not pertain to a permanent injunction against any other petition
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered for initiative on amendment. Thus, what was confirmed or even affirmed in the
a) GRANTING the instant petition; Minute Resolution in the PIRMA case pertains solely to the December 18, 1996
b) DECLARING R. A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative TRO which became permanent, the declaration of the inadequacy of RA 6735,
on amendments to the Constitution, and to have failed to provide and the annulment of certain parts of Resolution No. 2300 but certainly not the
sufficient standard for subordinate legislation; alleged perpetual injunction against the initiative petition. Thus, the resolution in
c) DECLARING void those parts of Resolutions No. 2300 of the the PIRMA case cannot be considered res judicata to the Lambino petition.
Commission on Elections prescribing rules and regulations on the Amendment or Revision
conduct of initiative or amendments to the Constitution; and One last matter to be considered is whether the petition may be allowed under RA
d) ORDERING the Commission on Elections to forthwith DISMISS the 6735, since only amendments to the Constitution may be the subject of a people's
DELFIN petition (UND-96-037). initiative.
 The Lambino petition cannot be considered an act of revising the Constitution; it compact and adjacent territory, and each province must have at least
is merely an attempt to amend it. The term amendment has to be liberally one member.
construed so as to effectuate the people's efforts to amend the Constitution. (2) Each Member of Parliament shall be a natural-born citizen of the
As an eminent constitutionalist, Dean Vicente G. Sinco,9 explained: Philippines, at least twenty-five years old on the day of the election, a
Strictly speaking, the act of revising a constitution involves alterations resident of his district for at least one year prior thereto, and shall be
of different portions of the entire document. It may result in the rewriting elected by the qualified voters of his district for a term of five years
either of the whole constitution, or the greater portion of it, or perhaps without limitation as to the number thereof, except those under the
only some of its important provisions. But whatever results the revision party-list system which shall be provided for by law and whose number
may produce, the factor that characterizes it as an act of revision is the shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total membership coming
original intention and plan authorized to be carried out. That intention from the parliamentary districts.
5
and plan must contemplate a consideration of all the provisions of the Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Article VII will be changed thus:
constitution to determine which one should be altered or suppressed or Section 1. There shall be a President who shall be the Head of State. The
whether the whole document should be replaced with an entirely new executive power shall be exercised by a Prime Minister, with the assistance of the
one. Cabinet. The Prime Minister shall be elected by a majority of all the Members of
The act of amending a constitution, on the other hand, envisages a Parliament from among themselves. He shall be responsible to the Parliament for
change of only a few specific provisions. The intention of an act to the program of government.
6
amend is not to consider the advisability of changing the entire Sections 1-5 of the Transitory Provisions read:
constitution or of considering that possibility. The intention rather is to Section 1. (1) The incumbent President and Vice President shall serve until the
improve specific parts of the existing constitution or to add to it expiration of their term at noon on the thirtieth day of June 2010 and shall continue
provisions deemed essential on account of changed conditions or to to exercise their powers under the 1987 Constitution unless impeached by a vote
suppress portions of it that seem obsolete, or dangerous, or misleading of two thirds of all the members of the interim parliament.
in their effect. (2) In case of death, permanent disability, resignation or removal from
In this case, the Lambino petition is not concerned with rewriting the entire office of the incumbent President, the incumbent Vice President shall
Constitution. It was never its intention to revise the whole Constitution. It merely succeed as President. In case of death, permanent disability,
concerns itself with amending a few provisions in our fundamental charter. resignation or removal from office of both the incumbent President and
When there are gray areas in legislation, especially in matters that pertain to the Vice President, the interim Prime Minister shall assume all the powers
sovereign people's political rights, courts must lean more towards a more liberal and responsibilities of Prime Minister under Article VII as amended.
interpretation favoring the people's right to exercise their sovereign power. Section 2. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
Conclusion and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Sovereignty residing in the people is the highest form of sovereignty and thus of Article VI of the 1987 Constitution which shall hereby be amended
deserves the highest respect even from the courts. It is not something that can be and Sections 18 and 24 which shall be deleted, all other sections of
overruled, set aside, ignored or stomped over by whatever amount of Article VI are hereby retained and renumbered sequentially as Section
technicalities, blurred or vague provisions of the law. 2, ad seriatim up to 26, unless they are inconsistent with the
As I find RA 6735 to be adequate as the implementing law for the People's Parliamentary system of government, in which case, they shall be
Initiative, I vote to grant the petition in G.R. No. 174153 and dismiss the petition amended to conform with a unicameral parliamentary form of
in G.R. No. 174299. The Amended Petition for Initiative filed by petitioners Raul government; provided, however, that any and all references therein to
L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado should be remanded to the COMELEC for "Congress", "Senate", "House of Representatives" and "Houses of
determination whether or not the petition is sufficient under RA 6735, and if the Congress" shall be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all
petition is sufficient, to schedule and hold the necessary plebiscite as required by references therein to "Member[s] of Congress", "Senator[s]" or
RA 6735. "Member[s] of the House of Representatives" shall be changed to read
It is time to let the people's voice be heard once again as it was twenty years ago. as "Member[s] of Parliament" and any and all references to the
And should this voice demand a change in the Constitution, the Supreme Court "President" and or "Acting President" shall be changed to read "Prime
should not be one to stand in its way. Minister".
Section 3. Upon the expiration of the term of the incumbent President
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
and Vice President, with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 of
Associate Justice Article VII of the 1987 Constitution which are hereby amended and
Footnotes Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 which are hereby deleted, all other
1
Including Sigaw ng Bayan and Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines Sections of Article VII shall be retained and renumbered sequentially as
(ULAP). Section 2, ad seriatim up to 14, unless they shall be inconsistent with
2
This provision states: "Requirements. — x x x x Section 1 hereof, in which case they shall be deemed amended so as
(b) A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at least to conform to a unicameral Parliamentary System of government;
twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as provided however that any and all references therein to "Congress",
signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at "Senate", "House of Representatives" and "Houses of Congress" shall
least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative be changed to read "Parliament"; that any and all references therein to
on the Constitution may be exercised only after five (5) years from the "Member[s] of Congress", "Senator[s]" or "Member[s] of the House of
ratification of the 1987 Constitution and only once every five (5) years Representatives" shall be changed to read as "Member[s] of
thereafter. Parliament" and any and all references to the "President" and or "Acting
(c) The petition shall state the following: President" shall be changed to read "Prime Minister".
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, Section 4. (1) There shall exist, upon the ratification of these
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be; amendments, an interim Parliament which shall continue until the
c.2. the proposition; Members of the regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall
c.3. the reason or reasons therefor; have qualified. It shall be composed of the incumbent Members of the
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein; Senate and the House of Representatives and the incumbent Members
c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and of the Cabinet who are heads of executive departments.
c.6. an abstract or summary in not more than one hundred (100) words (2) The incumbent Vice President shall automatically be a Member of
which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every page of the Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. He shall also be
petition." a member of the cabinet and shall head a ministry. He shall initially
3
This provision states: "Verification of Signatures. — The Election Registrar shall convene the interim Parliament and shall preside over its sessions for
verify the signatures on the basis of the registry list of voters, voters' affidavits and the election of the interim Prime Minister and until the Speaker shall
voters identification cards used in the immediately preceding election." have been elected by a majority vote of all the members of the interim
4
Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article VI will be changed thus: Parliament from among themselves.
Section 1. (1) The legislative and executive powers shall be vested in a (3) Within forty-five days from ratification of these amendments, the
unicameral Parliament which shall be composed of as many members interim Parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or
as may be provided by law, to be apportioned among the provinces, revisions of, this Constitution consistent with the principles of local
representative districts, and cities in accordance with the number of autonomy, decentralization and a strong bureaucracy.
their respective inhabitants, with at least three hundred thousand Section 5. (1) The incumbent President, who is the Chief Executive,
inhabitants per district, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive shall nominate, from among the members of the interim Parliament, an
ratio. Each district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, interim Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the
members thereof. The interim Prime Minister shall oversee the various
 ministries and shall perform such powers and responsibilities as may Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Jojo Pineda, Dr. Darby Santiago,
be delegated to him by the incumbent President. Dr. Reginald Pamugas; Loretta Ann P. Rosales, and Mario Joyo Aguja, Ana
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members Theresa Hontiveros-Baraquel, Luwalhati Ricasa Antonino; Philippine Constitution
of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously Association (PHILCONSA), Conrado F. Estrella, Tomas C. Toledo, Mariano M.
with the election of all local government officials. Thereafter, the Vice Tajon, Froilan M. Bacungan, Joaquin T. Venus, Jr., Fortunato P. Aguas, and
President, as Member of Parliament, shall immediately convene the Amado Gat Inciong; Senate of the Philippines; Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D.
Parliament and shall initially preside over its session for the purpose of Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, Antonio L. Salvador and Randall C. Tabayoyong,
electing the Prime Minister, who shall be elected by a majority vote of Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Cebu City and Cebu Province Chapters; Senate
all Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., and Senators Sergio R. Osmeňa III,
its members, from among themselves. The duly elected Prime Minister Jamby Madrigal, Jinggoy Estrada, Alfredo S. Lim and Panfilo Lacson; Joseph
shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and Ejercito Estrada and Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino.
12
responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the This provision states: "Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
term of incumbent President and Vice President. proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per
7
As revised, Article XVIII contained a new paragraph in Section 4 (paragraph 3) centum of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district
and a modified paragraph 2, Section 5, thus: must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered voters therein.
Section 4. x x x x No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following
(3) Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be Members of the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years."
13
Parliament until noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. I RECORD, 387-388.
14
xxxx During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, Commissioner Rene
Section 5. x x x x V. Sarmiento made the following report (I RECORD 389):
(2) The interim Parliament shall provide for the election of the members MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the Committee
of Parliament, which shall be synchronized and held simultaneously on Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided to retain the system
with the election of all local government officials. The duly elected Prime of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution. I made a survey of
Minister shall continue to exercise and perform the powers, duties and American constitutions and I discovered that 13 States provide for a
responsibilities of the interim Prime Minister until the expiration of the system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution — Arizona,
term of the incumbent President and Vice President. Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
8
336 Phil. 848 (1997); Resolution dated 10 June 1997. Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon. The
9
The COMELEC held: initiative for ordinary laws only is used in Idaho, Maine, Montana and
We agree with the Petitioners that this Commission has the solemn South Dakota. So, I am happy that this was accepted or retained by the
Constitutional duty to enforce and administer all laws and regulations Committee.
relative to the conduct of, as in this case, initiative. xxxx
This mandate, however, should be read in relation to the other The Americans in turn copied the concept of initiatives from the Swiss
provisions of the Constitution particularly on initiative. beginning in 1898 when South Dakota adopted the initiative in its
Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides: constitution. The Swiss cantons experimented with initiatives in the
Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly 1830s. In 1891, the Swiss incorporated the initiative as a mode of
proposed by the people through initiative, upon a petition of at least amending their national constitution. Initiatives promote "direct
twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which democracy" by allowing the people to directly propose amendments to
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per the constitution. In contrast, the traditional mode of changing the
centum of the registered voters therein. x x x. constitution is known as "indirect democracy" because the amendments
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of are referred to the voters by the legislature or the constitutional
this right. convention.
15
The afore-quoted provision of the Constitution being a non self- Florida requires only that the title and summary of the proposed amendment
executory provision needed an enabling law for its implementation. are "printed in clear and unambiguous language." Advisory Opinion to the
Thus, in order to breathe life into the constitutional right of the people Attorney General RE Right of Citizens to Choose Health Care Providers, No.
under a system of initiative to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, 90160, 22 January 1998, Supreme Court of Florida.
16
in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolution, State ex. rel Patton v. Myers, 127 Ohio St. 95, 186 N.E. 872 (1933); Whitman
Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6735. v. Moore, 59 Ariz. 211, 125 P.2d 445 (1942); Heidtman v. City of Shaker Heights,
However, the Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Santiago vs. 99 Ohio App. 415, 119 N.E. 2d 644 (1954); Christen v. Baker, 138 Colo. 27, 328
Commission on Elections struck down the said law for being P.2d 951 (1958); Stop the Pay Hike Committee v. Town Council of Town of
incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions Irvington, 166 N.J. Super. 197, 399 A.2d 336 (1979); State ex rel Evans v.
insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Blackwell, Slip copy, 2006 WL 1102804 (Ohio App. 10 Dist.), 2006-Ohio-2076.
17
The Supreme Court likewise declared that this Commission should be 407 Mass. 949, 955 (1990). Affirmed by the District Court of Massachusetts in
permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any Henry v. Conolly, 743 F. Supp. 922 (1990) and by the Court of Appeals, First
petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient Circuit, in Henry v. Conolly, 9109 F. 2d. 1000 (1990), and cited in Marino v. Town
law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation Council of Southbridge, 13 Mass.L.Rptr. 14 (2001).
18
of the system. 89 P.3d 1227, 1235 (2004).
19
Thus, even if the signatures in the instant Petition appear to meet the Stumpf v. Law, 839 P. 2d 120, 124 (1992).
20
required minimum per centum of the total number of registered voters, Exhibit "B" of the Lambino Group's Memorandum filed on 11 October 2006.
21
of which every legislative district is represented by at least three per Annex "B" of the Comment/Opposition in Intervention of Atty. Pete Quirino-
centum of the registered voters therein, still the Petition cannot be given Quadra filed on 7 September 2006.
22
due course since the Supreme Court categorically declared R.A. No. www.ulap.gov.ph.
23
6735 as inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to www.ulap.gov.ph/reso2006-02.html.
24
the Constitution. The full text of the proposals of the Consultative Commission on Charter
This Commission is not unmindful of the transcendental importance of Change can be downloaded at its official website at www.concom.ph.
25
the right of the people under a system of initiative. However, neither can The Lambino Group's Memorandum, p. 5.
26
we turn a blind eye to the pronouncement of the High Court that in the Under the proposed Section 1(2), Article VI of the Constitution, members of
absence of a valid enabling law, this right of the people remains nothing Parliament shall be elected for a term of five years "without limitation as to the
but an "empty right", and that this Commission is permanently enjoined number thereof."
27
from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on Under the proposed Section 4(1), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the
amendments to the Constitution. Constitution, the interim Parliament "shall continue until the Members of the
Considering the foregoing, We are therefore constrained not to regular Parliament shall have been elected and shall have qualified." Also, under
entertain or give due course to the instant Petition. the proposed Section 5(2), Article XVIII, of the same Transitory Provisions, the
10
Arturo M. De Castro; Ronald L. Adamat, Rolando Manuel Rivera, Ruelo Baya; interim Parliament "shall provide for the election of the members of Parliament."
28
Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization (PTGWO); Trade Union Under the proposed Section 4(3), Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions of the
Congress of the Philippines; Sulong Bayan Movement Foundation, Inc. Constitution, the interim Parliament, within 45 days from ratification of the
11
Onevoice Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L. Quezon III, proposed changes, "shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, this
Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.; Alternative Law Constitution."
29
Groups, Inc.; Atty. Pete Quirino Quadra; Bayan, Bayan Muna, Kilusang Mayo 448 So.2d 984, 994 (1984), internal citations omitted.
30
Uno, Head, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Gabriela Women's 698 P.2d 1173, 1184 (1985).
31
I RECORD 386, 392, 402-403. to amend through initiative, it bears stressing, is guaranteed by Section
32
196 P.2d 787, 790 (1948). See also Lowe v. Keisling, 130 Or.App. 1, 882 P.2d 2, Article XVII of the Constitution, as follows:
91 (1994). their final weapons against political excesses, opportunism, inaction,
33
392 P.2d 636, 638 (1964). oppression and misgovernance; as well as their reserved instruments
34
930 P.2d 186, 196 (1996), internal citations omitted. to exact transparency, accountability and faithfulness from their chosen
35
Livermore v. Waite, 102 Cal. 113, 118-119 (1894). leaders. While on the one hand, their misuse and abuse must be
36
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, resolutely struck down, on the other, their legitimate exercise should be
583 P.2d 1281, 1286 (1978). carefully nurtured and zealously protected.
37
Id. "WHEREFORE, I vote to GRANT the petition of Sen. Miriam D.
38
Legislature of the State of California v. EU, 54 Cal.3d 492, 509 (1991). Santiago et al. and to DIRECT Respondent Commission on Elections
39
California Association of Retail Tobacconists v. State, 109 Cal.App.4th 792, 836 to DISMISS the Delfin Petition on the ground of prematurity, but not on
(2003). the other grounds relied upon by the majority. I also vote to LIFT the
40
See note 44, infra. temporary restraining order issued on 18 December 1996 insofar as it
41
Joaquin Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines: A prohibits Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa from
Commentary, p. 1294 (2003). exercising their right to free speech in proposing amendments to the
42
238 So.2d 824 (1970). Constitution."
43 3
Id. at 830-832. GR No. 129754, September 23, 1997 (still unpublished in the Philippine Reports
44
As stated by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. during the 26 September or in the Supreme Court Reports Annotated). Again, for ease of reference, I
2006 oral arguments. reproduce my Separate Opinion in full:
45
Francisco, Jr. v. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, 10 November "Petitioners assail the July 8, 1997 Resolution of Respondent
2003, 415 SCRA 44; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 142 Commission dismissing their petition for a people's initiative to amend
Phil. 393 (1970); Gold Creek Mining Corporation v. Rodriguez, 66 Phil. 259 the Constitution. Said petition before the Comelec (henceforth, PIRMA
(1938). petition) was backed up by nearly six (6) million signatures constituting
46
882 P.2d 91, 96-97 (1994). On the merits, the Court in Lowe v. Keisling found about 16% of the registered voters of the country with at least 3% in
the amendment in question was not a revision. each legislative district. The petition now before us presents two
47
Section 1, Article V of the Constitution. grounds:
48
Section 11(1), Article XVI of the Constitution. "1. In refusing to act on the PIRMA petition, the Comelec allegedly acted
49
Section 2, Article VII of the Constitution. with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
50
This section provides: "The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. jurisdiction; and
Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from "2. In declaring R.A. 6735 "inadequate to cover its system of initiative
them." on amendments to the Constitution" and "declaring void those parts of
51
Spouses Mirasol v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 760 (2001); Intia Jr. v. COA, 366 Resolution 2300 of the Commission on Elections prescribing rules and
Phil. 273 (1999). regulations on the conduct of [an] initiative [on] amendments to the
52
G.R. No. 129754, Resolution dated 23 September 1997. Constitution," the Supreme Court's Decision in G.R. No. 127325 entitled
53
Presidential Proclamation No. 58 dated February 11, 1987, entitled Miriam Defensor Santiago vs. Commission on Elections (hereafter
"Proclaiming the Ratification of the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines referred to as Santiago) should be reexamined because said Decision
Adopted by the Constitutional Commission of 1986, including the Ordinance is allegedly "unconstitutional," and because, in any event, the Supreme
Appended thereto." Court itself, in reconsidering the said issue per its June 10, 1997
PANGANIBAN, CJ.: Resolution, was deadlocked at six votes one each side.
1
Chief Justice McLachlin spoke on "Liberty, Prosperity and the Rule of Law" in "The following in my position on each of these two issues:
her speech before the Global Forum on Liberty and Prosperity held on October First Issue:
18-20, 2006 in Manila. She further stated: "Without the rule of law, government No Grave Abuse of Discretion in Comelec's Refusal to Act
officials are not bound by standards of conduct. Without the rule of law, the dignity "The Respondent Commission's refusal to act on the "prayers" of the
and equality of all people is not affirmed and their ability to seek redress for PIRMA petition cannot in any wise be branded as "grave abuse of
grievances and societal commitments is limited. Without the rule of law, we have discretion." Be it remembered that the Court's Decision in Santiago
no means of ensuring meaningful participation by people in formulating and permanently enjoined the Comelec "from entertaining or taking
enacting the norms and standards which organize the kinds of societies in which cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the
4
we want to live." Republic v. COCOFED, 423 Phil. 735, December 14, 2001.
2 5
GR No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 336 Phil. 848. For ease of reference, my Well-entrenched is this definition of grave abuse of discretion. Id.; Benito v.
Separate Opinion is reproduced in full: Comelec, 349 SCRA 705, January 19, 2001; Defensor-Santiago v. Guingona Jr.,
"Our distinguished colleague, Mr. Justice Hilario G. Davide Jr., writing 359 Phil. 276, November 18, 1998; and Philippine Airlines, Inc. v. Confesor, 231
for the majority, holds that: SCRA 41, March 10, 1994.
6
'(1) The Comelec acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of In PIRMA, I submitted as follows: "I believed, and still do, that the majority gravely
discretion in entertaining the 'initiatory' Delfin Petition. erred in rendering such a sweeping injunction [that covered ANY petition, not just
'(2) While the Constitution allows amendments to 'be directly proposed the Delfin petition], but I cannot fault the Comelec for complying with the ruling
by the people through initiative,' there is no implementing law for the even if it, too, disagreed with said decision's ratio decidendi. Respondent Comelec
purpose. RA 6735 is 'incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential was directly enjoined by the highest Court of the land. It had no choice but to obey.
terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Its obedience cannot constitute grave abuse of discretion. Regusal to act on the
Constitution is concerned.' PIRMA petition was the only recourse open to the Comelec. Any other mode of
'(3) Comelec Resolution No. 2300, 'insofar as it prescribes rules and action would have constituted defiance of the Court and would have been struck
regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the down as grave abuse of discretion and contumacious disregard of this Court's
Constitution, is void.' supremacy as the final arbiter of justiciable controversies."
7
"I concur with the first item above. Until and unless an initiatory petition 42 Am. Jr. 2d, §26, citing Birmingham Gas Co. v. Bessemer; 250 Ala 137, 33 So
can show the required number of signatures — in this case, 12% of all 2d 475, 250 Ala 137; Tacker v. Board of Comrs., 127 Fla 248, 170 So 458; Hoxie
the registered voters in the Philippines with at least 3% in every V. Scott, 45 Neb 199, 63 NW 387; Gill v. Board of Comrs., 160 NC 176, 76, SE
legislative district — no public funds may be spent and no government 204.
8
resources may be used in an initiative to amend the Constitution. Verily, Partido ng Manggagawa v. Comelec, GR No. 164702, March 15, 2006.
9
the Comelec cannot even entertain any petition absent such signatures. Article XVII (AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS)
However, I dissent most respectfully from the majority's two other "SEC. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
rulings. Let me explain. proposed by:
"Under the above restrictive holdings espoused by the Court's majority, (1) The Congress, upon the vote of three-fourths of all its
the Constitution cannot be amended at all through a people's initiative. Members; or
Not by Delfin, not by PIRMA, not by anyone, not even by all the voters (2) A constitutional convention.
of the country acting together. This decision will effectively but "SEC. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly
unnecessarily curtail, nullify, abrogate and render inutile the people's proposed by the people though initiative upon a petition of at least
right to change the basic law. At the very least, the majority holds the twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of which
right hostage to congressional discretion on whether to pass a new law every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
to implement it, when there is already one existing at present. This right centum of the registered voters therein. No amendment under this
 section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of c.5. signatures of the petitioners or registered voters; and
this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. c.6. an abstract or summary proposition in not more than one hundred
"SEC. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, (100) words which shall be legibly written or printed at the top of every
call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, page of the petition.
3
submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention. SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.— For purposes of this Act, the following terms shall
"SEC. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution under mean: x x x
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes (d) "Proposition" is the measure proposed by the voters.
4
cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor I Record, Constitutional Commission 387-389 (July 9, 1986).
5
later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision. Community Gas and Service Company, Inc. v. Walbaum, 404 P.2d 1014, 1965
"Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when ratified by OK 118 (1965).
6
a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier Section 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject
than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
7
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition." The late Senator (then Congressman) Raul S. Roco stated this fact in his
10
Republic Act 6735, Sec. 10, provides: sponsorship presentation of H.B. No. 21505, thus:
"SEC. 10. Prohibited Measures. – The following cannot be the subject xxxx
of an initiative or referendum petition: D. Prohibited Subjects.
(a) No petition embracing more than one subject shall be The bill provides for two kinds of measures which cannot be the subject
submitted to the electorate; and of an initiative or referendum petition. A petition that embraces more
(b) Statutes involving emergency measures, the enactment than one subject cannot be submitted to the electorate as it would be
of which are specifically vested in Congress by the violative of the constitutional proscription on passing bills containing
Constitution, cannot be subject to referendum until ninety more than one subject, and statutes involving emergency measures
(90) days after its effectivity." cannot be subject to referendum until 90 days after its effectivity.
11
The principle of separation of powers operates at the core of a presidential form [Journal and record of the house of representatives, Second Regular
of government. Thus, legislative power is given to the legislature; executive Session, Vol. 6, p. 975 (February 14, 1989).]
8
power, to a separate executive (from whose prominent position in the system, the Memorandum of petitioner Aumentado, p. 117.
9
presidential nomenclature is derived); and judicial power, to an independent The proposed Section 4(3) of Article XVIII of the Constitution states that
judiciary. This system embodies interdependence by separation. Senators whose term of office ends in 2010 shall be members of parliament until
On the other hand, a parliamentary system personifies interdependence by noon of the thirtieth day of June 2010. No counterpart provision was provided for
integration, its essential features being the following: "(1) The members of the members of the House of Representatives who, as members of the interim
government or cabinet or the executive arm are, as a rule, simultaneously parliament under the proposed changes, shall schedule the elections for the
members of the legislature. (2) The government or cabinet, consisting of the regular parliament in its discretion.
10
political leaders of the majority party or of a coalition who are also members of the The proposed Section 4(3), Article XVIII of the Constitution states that the
legislative, is in effect a committee of the legislature. (3) The government or interim parliament shall convene to propose amendments to, or revisions of, the
cabinet has a pyramidal structure, at the apex of which is the Prime Minister or Constitution within 45 days from ratification of the proposed changes.
11
his equivalent. (4) The government or cabinet remains in power only for as long The United Kingdom, for instance, has a two-house parliament, the House of
as it enjoys the support of the majority of the legislature. (5) Both government and Lords and the House of Commons.
12
legislature are possessed of control devices with which each can demand of the Philippine Political Law [1954 ed.], Vicente G. Sinco, pp. 43-44, quoted in
other immediate political responsibility." These control devices are a vote of no- Separate Opinion of J. Hilario G. Davide, Jr. in PIRMA v. COMELEC, G.R. No.
confidence (censure), whereby the government may be ousted by the legislature; 129754, September 23, 1997, p. 7.
13
and the power of the government to dissolve the legislature and call for new 151-A Phil. 35 (1973).
14
elections. (J. BERNAS, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE 196 P. 2d 787 (Cal. 1948), cert. denied, 336 U.S. 918 (1949).
15
PHILIPPINES A COMMENTARY, Vol. II, 17-18 (1988 ed.). 801 P. 2d 1077 (Cal. 1990).
16
With respect to the transformation from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature, 583 P. 2d 1281 (Cal. 1982).
17
the change involves the form of representation and the lawmaking process. Raven v. Deukmeijan, supra, citing Brosnahan v. Brown, 651 P. 2d 274 (Cal.
12
Attached to the Opposition-in-Intervention of Intervenors OneVoice Inc., etc., is 1982).
18
a photocopy of the Certification dated August 23, 2006, issued by Atty. Marlon S. Supra note 13. It may well be pointed out that in making the distinction between
Casquejo, the election officer for the 3rd District and the officer-in-charge for the amendment and revision, Justice Antonio relied not only in the analogy presented
1st and the 2nd Districts of Davao City. The Certification states that "this office in Wheeler v. Board of Trustees, 37 S.E. 2d 322, but cited also the seminal ruling
(First, Second and Third District, Davao City) has not verified the signatures of of the California Supreme Court in McFadden v. Jordan, supra.
19
registered voters x x x." Philippine Political Law, 1995 ed., Justice Isagani A. Cruz, p. 71, citing
13
In People v. Veneracion, the Court held: "Obedience to the rule of law forms the Pangasinan Transportation Co. v. PSC, 40 O.G., 8th Supp. 57.
20
bedrock of our system of justice. If judges, under the guide of religious or political The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 1996 ed., Fr. Joaquin
beliefs were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond boundaries within which they G. Bernas, S.J., p. 1161.
21
are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then law becomes Id.
22
meaningless. A government of laws, not of men, excludes the exercise of broad Supra note 14.
23
discretionary powers by those acting under its authority. Under this system, The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1st ed., Fr. Joaquin
judges are guided by the Rule of Law, and ought 'to protect and enforce it without G. Bernas, S.J., p. 567, citing B. Schwartz, I The Powers of Government (1963).
24
fear or favor,' resist encroachments by governments, political parties, or even the 16 C.J.S. §3 at 24.
25
interference of their own personal beliefs." (249 SCRA 244, October 13, 1995, per 14 T.M. Cooley, II Constitutional Limitations, 8th ed. (1927), p. 1349.
26
Kapunan, J.) A bogus revolution, Philippine Daily Inquirer, September 11, 2006, Fr. Joaquin
14
An American professor on legal philosophy, A. Altman, puts it thus: "By ratifying Bernas, S.J., p. A15.
27
the constitution that included an explicit amendment process, the sovereign Article II, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution.
people committed themselves to following the rule of law, even when they wished SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:
1
to make changes in the basic system of government." A. ALTMAN, ARGUING Works, Letter 164.
2
ABOUT LAW 94 (2001). G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
15 3
See my Separate Opinion in Francisco Jr. v. House of Representatives, 415 Resolution dated June 10, 1997, G.R. No. 127325.
4
SCRA 45, November 10, 2003. G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. Joining PIRMA as petitioners were its
16
See, for instance, the front page Malaya report entitled "Lobbyists soil dignity of founding members, spouses Alberto Pedrosa and Carmen Pedrosa.
5
Supreme Court" (October 23, 2006). Entitled "In the Matter of Proposing Amendments to the 1987 Constitution
17
Lk 8:17. through a People's Initiative: A Shift from a Bicameral Presidential to a Unicameral
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.: Parliamentary Government by Amending Articles VI and VII; and Providing
1
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. Transitory Provisions for the Orderly Shift from the Presidential to the
2
SEC. 5. Requirements.— x x x Parliamentary System."
6
(c) The petition shall state the following: Among them ONEVOICE, Inc., Christian S. Monsod, Rene B. Azurin, Manuel L.
c.1. contents or text of the proposed law sought to be enacted, Quezon III, Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr., Susan V. Ople, and Carlos P. Medina, Jr.,
approved or rejected, amended or repealed, as the case may be; Alternative Law Groups, Inc., Senate Minority Leader Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr.,
c.2. the proposition; and Senators Sergio Osmeña III, Jamby A.S. Madrigal, Alfredo S. Lim, Panfilo M.
c.3. the reason or reasons therefore; Lacson, Luisa P. Ejercito-Estrada, and Jinggoy Estrada, Representatives Loretta
c.4. that it is not one of the exceptions provided herein; Ann P. Rosales, Mario Joyo Aguja, and Ana Theresia Hontiveros-Baraquel,
 30
Bayan, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Ecumenical Bishops Forum, Migrante, Gabriela, Joaquin Bernas, Sounding Board: AMENDMENT OR REVISION, Philippine
Gabriela Women's Party, Anakbayan, League of Filipino Students, Leonardo San Daily Inquirer, September 25, 2006.
31
Jose, Jojo Pineda, Drs. Darby Santiago and Reginald Pamugas, and Attys. Pete See Sections 8-12 for national initiative and referendum, and sections 13-19 for
Quirino-Quadra, Jose Anselmo I. Cadiz, Byron D. Bocar, Ma. Tanya Karina A. Lat, local initiative and referendum.
Antonio L. Salvador, and Randall C. Tabayoyong. 32
Section 2. Statement of Policy. – The power of the people under a system of
7
"Grounds for contempt initiative and referendum to directly propose, enact, approve or reject, in whole or
3. From the time the so-called People's Initiative (hereafter PI) now in part, the Constitution, laws, ordinances, or resolutions passed by any legislative
subject of Lambino v. Comelec, was initiated, respondents did body upon compliance with the requirements of this Act is hereby affirmed,
nothing to stop what was clearly lawless, and even arguably recognized and guaranteed.
33
winked at, as it were, if not condoned and allowed, the waste and Section 3. Definition of terms.-
misuse of its personnel, time, facilities and resources on an xxx
enterprise that had no legal basis and in fact was permanently a.1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing
enjoined by this Honorable Court in 1997. Seemingly mesmerized, it amendments to the Constitution;
is time to disenthrall them. xxx
34
3.1. For instance, undersigned counsel happened to be in the Senate See Section 3(e).
on August 29, 2006 (on other business) when respondent Chair sought 35
Section 5 (b) – A petition for an initiative on the 1987 Constitution must have at
to be stopped by the body from commenting on PI out of prudential least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as
considerations, could not be restrained. On contentious issues, he signatories, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three
volunteered that Sigaw ng Bayan would not cheat in Makati as it per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein. Initiative on the Constitution may
was the opposition territory and that the fact that out of 43,405 be exercised only after five (5) years from the ratification of the 1987 Constitution
signatures, only 7,186 were found authentic in one Makati District, and only once every five (5) years thereafter.
to him, showed the "efficiency" of Comelec personnel. He could xxx
not appreciate 1) that Sigaw had no choice but to get the 36
Section 9 (b) – The proposition in an initiative on the Constitution approved by
constitutionality-required 3% in every district, [Const., Art. VII, a majority of the votes cast in the plebiscite shall become effective as to the day
Sec. 2] friendly or otherwise, including administration critics' of the plebiscite.
37
turfs, and 2) that falsus in 36,319 (93.30%) falsus in omnibus, in an 7 How (48 US) 1 (1849).
38
exercise that could never be free, orderly, honest and credible, 328 US 549 (1946).
39
another constitutional requirement. [Nothing has been heard about 77 Phil. 192 (1946).
40
probing and prosecuting the falsifiers.] 103 Phi. 1051 (1957).
41
xxxxxxxxx G.R. No. 35546, September 17, 1974, 50 SCRA 559.
42
3.2. It was excessively obvious to undersigned and other observers that 369 US 186 (1962).
43
respondent Chairman, straining at the leash, was lawyering for G.R. No. 85344, December 21, 1989, 180 SCRA 496.
44
Sigaw ng Bayan in the Senate! It was discomfiting that he would G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989, 177 SCRA 668.
45
gloss over the seeming wholesale falsification of 96.30% of the Nos. L-36142, L-36164, L-36165, L-36236, and L-36283, March 31, 1973, 50
signatures in an exercise with no credibility! Even had he been SCRA 30.
asked, he should have pled to be excused from answering as the CALLEJO, SR., J.:
1
matter could come up before the Comelec for an official collegial Entitled An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and Referendum and
position (different from conceding that it is enjoined). Appropriating Funds Therefor.
2
xxxxxxxxx Section 2(1), Article IX-C, 1987 Constitution.
3
4. Respondents Commissioners Borra and Romeo A. Brawner, for Petition, pp. 12-14.
4
their part, even issued widely-publicized written directives to the Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129368, August 25,
field, [Annex C, as to Commissioner Brawner; that as to 2003, 409 SCRA 455, 480.
5
Commissioner Borra will follow.] while the Commission itself was Rodson Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appears, G.R. No. 141857, June 9, 2004,
trying to be careful not to be explicit in what it was abetting 431 SCRA 469, 480.
6
implicitly, in hypocritical defiance of the injunction of 1997. People v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144332, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 610.
8 7
Intestate Estate of Carmen de Luna v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. v. Galauran & Pilares Construction Co., G.R.
72424, February 13, 1989, 170 SCRA 246. No. L-35630, November 25, 1982, 118 SCRA 664.
9 8
Supra. People v. Court of Appeals, supra.
10 9
Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, March 1, 1995, 242 SCRA 59; G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
10
Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI), L-26364, May 29, 1968, 23 Article 8, New Civil Code provides that "[j]udicial decisions applying or
SCRA 948. interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
11
56 O.G. 3546 cited in Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila (Branch VI), id. Philippines."
12 11
Supra. Suson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126749, August 27, 1997, 278 SCRA 284.
13 12
Separate Opinion of Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, G.R. No. 129754, September Calderon v. Carale, G.R. No. 91636, April 23, 1992, 208 SCRA 254.
13
23, 1997. 974 S.W.2d 451 (1998).
14 14
G.R. No. 109645, March 4, 1996, 254 SCRA 234. Id. at 453.
15 15
Philippine National Bank v. Palma, G.R. No. 157279, August 9, 2005, 466 Entitled In Re: Rules and Regulations Governing the Conduct of Initiative in the
CSRA 307, citing Moreno, Philippine Law Dictionary (1988), 3rd ed. (citing Constitution, and Initiative and Referendum on National and Local Laws.
16
Santiago v. Valenzuela, 78 Phil. 397, [1947]). Supra note 10, p. 157.
16 17
Id., citing Dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126183, March 25, 1999, 305 G.R. No. 129754.
18
SCRA 303, citing Government v. Jalandoni, No. 837-R, August 30, 1947, 44 O.G. Minute Resolution, September 23, 1997, pp. 1-2.
19
1840. Republic v. De los Angeles, No. L-26112, October 4, 1971, 41 SCRA 422.
17 20
Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process (New Haven and Albert v. Court of First Instance of Manila, No. L-26364, May 29, 1968, 23 SCRA
London: Yale University Press, 1921), pp. 33-34. 948.
18
William K. Frankena, Ethics, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall Inc.,) 21
Philippine Constitution Association v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19,
1973, p. 49. 1994, 235 SCRA 506.
19 22
Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296. Then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, Justices Florenz D. Regalado, Flerida
20
July 9, 1986. Records of the Constitutional Commission, No. 26. Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan and Justo P. Torres,
21
Bernas, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES: A Jr. fully concurred in the ponencia of Justice Davide.
23
COMMENTARY, 1996 Ed., p. 1161. Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Vicente V. Mendoza, Reynato S. Puno, Ricardo J.
22
242 N. W. 891 259 Mich 212. Francisco, Jr. and Artemio V. Panganiban (now Chief Justice).
23 24
State v. Orange [Tex. x. Civ. App.] 300 SW 2d 705, People v. Perkins 137, p. The voting on the motion for reconsideration was as follows: Six Justices,
55. namely, Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
18
City of Midland v. Arbury 38 Mich. App. 771, 197 N.W. 2d 134. Bellosillo and Kapunan, voted to deny the motions for lack of merit; and six
25
Adams v. Gunter Fla, 238 So. 2d 824. Justices, namely, Justices Melo, Puno, Mendoza, Francisco, Jr., Regino C.
26
196 P.2d 787. Hermosisima and Panganiban voted to grant the same. Justice Vitug maintained
27
Adams v. Gunter Fla. 238 So.2d 824. his opinion that the matter was not ripe for judicial adjudication. Justices Teodoro
28
Mc Fadden v. Jordan, supra. R. Padilla and Torres inhibited from participation in the deliberations.
29 25
Rivera-Cruz v. Gray, 104 So.2d 501, p. 505 (Fla. 1958). House Bill No. 457 filed by then Rep. Nachura during the Twelfth Congress.
26 100
See Pagdayawon v. Secretary of Justice, G.R. No. 154569, September 23, Codilla, Sr. v. De Venecia, G.R. No. 150605, December 10, 2002, 393 SCRA
2002, 389 SCRA 480. 639.
27 101
London Street Tramways Co., Ltd. v. London County Council, [1898] A.C. 375, Teope v. People, G.R. No. 149687, April 14, 2004, 427 SCRA 540.
102
cited in COOLEY, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 117-118. Tañada v. Cuenco, 103 Phil. 1051 (1957).
28 103
Amended Petition for Initiative, pp. 4-7. Id.
29 104
Id. at 7. G.R. No. 127255, August 14, 1997, 277 SCRA 268, 311-312.
30 105
I Records of the Constitutional Commission 373. Dissenting Opinion of Justice Fernando in Javellana v. Executive Secretary,
31
Id. at 371. supra note 36.
32 106
Id. at 386. 119 N.W. 408 (1909).
33 107
Id. at 392. 22 Minn. 400 (1876).
34 108
Id. at 402-403. 96 S.W. 396 (1906).
35 109
No. L-36142, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30. 63 N.J. Law 289.
36 110
Id. at 367. 77 Miss. 543 (1900).
37 111
SINCO, Philippine Political Law 43-44. Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.
38 112
37 S.E.2d 322 (1946). Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno, p. 49.
39 113
Id. at 330. COOLEY, A Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations 56, cited in Ellingham v.
40
Id. Dye, supra.
41 114
Sounding Board, Philippine Daily Inquirer, April 3, 2006. Hunter v. Colfax Consol. Coal. Co., 154 N.W. 1037 (1915).
42 115
Introduction to the Journal of the Constitutional Commission. ALTMAN, ARGUING ABOUT THE LAW 94 (2001), citing AGRESTO, THE
43
BLACK, Constitutional Law 1-2, citing 1 BOUV. INST. 9. SUPREME COURT AND CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY (1984)
44 116
SCHWARTZ, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 1. McBee v. Brady, 100 P. 97 (1909).
45 117
Proclamation No. 58, 83 O.G. No. 23, pp. 2703-2704, June 8, 1987. McFadden v. Jordan, supra note 48.
46 118
See McBee v. Brady, 15 Idaho 761, 100 P. 97 (1909). Cooley, Am.Law.Rev. 1889, p. 311, cited in Ellingham v. Dye, supra.
47 119
Id. 15 N.W. 609 (1883).
48 120
196 P.2d 787 (1948). Id. at 630.
49
Id. at 798. AZCUNA, J.:
50 1
Ellingham v. Dye, 99 N.E. 1 (1912). G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 and June 10, 1997.
51 2
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Puno, p. 36. 100 Phil. 501 (1956).
52
Id. at 39. PUNO, J.:
53 1
Supra note 38. M'cCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat) 316, 407 (1819).
54 2
McFadden v. Jordan, supra note 48. Section 1, Article II, 1987 Constitution.
55 3
Id. at 799. 270 SCRA 106, March 19, 1997.
56 4
Supra note 41. Id. at 153.
57 5
Annex "1363." Id. at 157.
58 6
Annex "1368." Justice Teodoro R. Padilla did not take part in the deliberation as he was related
59
Annex "1369." to a co-petitioner and co-counsel of petitioners.
60 7
Annex "1370." Justice Davide (ponente), Chief Justice Narvasa, and Justices Regalado,
61
Annex "1371." Romero, Bellosillo, and Kapunan.
62 8
Annex "1372." Resolution dated June 10, 1997, G.R. No. 127325.
63 9
Annex "1374." People's Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA) v.
64
Annex "1375." Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997.
65 10
Annex "1376." Amended Petition for Initiative, pp. 4-7.
66 11
Annex "1377." G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
67 12
Annex "1378." Petition, pp. 12-14.
68 13
Annex "1379." Advisory issued by Court, dated September 22, 2006.
69 14
Annex "1380." Exhibit "B," Memorandum of Petitioner Lambino.
70 15
Annex "1381." Barnhart, Principled Pragmatic Stare Decisis in Constitutional Cases, 80 Notre
71
Annex "1382." Dame Law Rev., 1911-1912, (May 2005).
72 16
Annex "1383." Ibid.
73 17
Annex "1385." Id. at 1913.
74 18
Annex "1387." Consovoy, The Rehnquist Court and the End of Constitutional Stare Decisis:
75
Annex "1388." Casey, Dickerson and the Consequences of Pragmatic Adjudication, 53 Utah Law
76
Annex "1389." Rev. 53, 67 (2002).
77 19
Annex "1391." Id. at 68.
78 20
Annex "1392." Id. at 69.
79 21
Annex "1393." Id. at 67.
80 22
Annex "1395." Id. at 69.
81 23
Annex "1396." Consovoy, supra note 18, at 57.
82 24
Annex "1397." Id. at 58.
83 25
Annex "1398." Id. at 64.
84 26
Annex "1399." Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 405-06 (1932) (Justice Brandeis,
85
Annex "1400." dissenting).
86 27
Annex "1401." Graves v. New York ex rel. O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466, 491-492 (Justice Frankfurter,
87
Annex "1402." concurring).
88 28
Annex "1404." Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Fink, 483 U.S. 89 (1987) (Justice Stevens,
89
Annex "1405." dissenting).
90 29
Annex "1406." Barnhart, supra note 15, at 1922.
91 30
Annex "1407." Id. at 1921.
92 31
Annex "1408." Filippatos, The Doctrine of Stare Decisis and the Protection of Civil Rights and
93
Annex "1409." Liberties in the Rehnquist Court, 11 Boston College Third World Law Journal, 335,
94
Annex "1410." 343 (Summer 1991).
95 32
Annex "1411." 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
96 33
Annex "1412." 163 U.S. 537 (1896).
97 34
Arroyo, Jr. v. Taduran, G.R. No. 147012, January 29, 2004, 421 SCRA 423. G.R. No. 127882, December 1, 2004, 445 SCRA 1.
98 35
See, for example, Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, No. L-62089, March 9, 1988, G.R. No. 139465, October 17, 2000, 343 SCRA 377.
36
158 SCRA 508. Barnhart, supra note 15, at 1915.
99 37
Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 112 S.Ct. 2791 (1992).
38
394. Section 5(b).
39
Ibid.
40 103
Santiago v. Commission on Elections, supra note 11, at 145. BNO Leasing Corp. v. Hollins & Hollins, Inc., 448 So.2d 1329 (1984).
41 104
85 Record of the House of Representatives 140-142 (February 14, 1989). ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
42
85 Record of the house of representatives 142-143 (February 14, 1989). How many copies of the petition, that you mention(ed), did you print?
43
Zeringue v. State Dept. of Public Safety, 467 So. 2d 1358. ATTY. LAMBINO:
44
I RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 386, 392 (July 9, 1986). We printed 100 thousand of this petition last February and we
45
Id. at 400, 402-403. distributed to the different organizations that were volunteering to
46
v record, constitutional commission 806 (October 10, 1986). support us.
47
Opposition-in-Intervention filed by ONEVOICE, p. 39. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
48
Opposition-in-Intervention filed by Alternative Law Groups, Inc., p. 30. So, you are sure that you personally can say to us that 100 thousand
49
Introduction to Political Science, pp. 397-398. of
50
Section 1, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution. these were printed?
51
Eighth Edition, p. 89 (2004). ATTY. LAMBINO:
52
Ibid. It could be more than that, Your Honor.
53
Id. at 1346. xxxxxxxxxxxx
54
Ibid. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
55
Third Edition, p. 67 (1969). But you asked your friends or your associates to re-print, if they can(?)
56
Id. at 68. ATTY. LAMBINO:
57
Id. at 1115. Yes, Your Honor.
58 nd
Vicente G. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, 2 ed., p. 46. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
59
Concurring Opinion of Mr. Justice Felix Q. Antonio in Javellana v. The Executive Okay, so you got 6.3 Million signatures, but you only printed 100
Secretary, No. L-361432, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 367-368. thousand. So you're saying, how many did your friends print of the
60
J. M. Aruego, The New Philippine Constitution Explained, iii-iv (1973). petition?
61
E. Quisumbing-Fernando, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp. 422-425 (1984). ATTY. LAMBINO:
62
N. Gonzales, Philippine Political Law 30 (1969 ed.). I can no longer give a specific answer to that, Your Honor. I relied
63
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 83896, February 22, only to the assurances of the people who are volunteering that they are
1991, 194 SCRA 317, 337 quoting Commonwealth v. Ralph, 111 Pa. 365, 3 Alt. going to
220 (1886). reproduce the signature sheets as well as the draft petition that we have
64
L-36142, March 31, 1973, 50 SCRA 30, 367. given them, Your Honor.
65
i record, constitutional commission 373 (July 8, 1986). xxxxxxxxxxxx
66
The opinion was actually made by Justice Felix Antonio. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
67
Javellana v. Executive Secretary, supra note 64, citing Wheeler v. Board of Did you also show this amended petition to the people?
Trustees, 37 S.E.2d 322, 327 (1946). ATTY. LAMBINO:
68
T. M. Cooley, I A Treatise on Constitutional Limitations 143-144 (8th ed. 1927). Your Honor, the amended petition reflects the copy of the original
69
H.C. Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law S. 47, p. 67 (2nd ed. petition that we circulated, because in the original petition that we filed
1897). before the COMELEC, we omitted a certain paragraph that is, Section
70
V. Sinco, supra note 58. 4 paragraph 3 which were part of the original petition that we circulated
71
Ibid. and so we have to correct that oversight because that is what we have
72
No. L-1232, 79 Phil. 819, 826 (1948). circulated to the people and we have to correct that…
73
IV RECORD, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION 735 (September 17, 1986). ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
74
Id. at 752. But you just stated now that what you circulated was the petition of
75
Id. at 769. August 25, now you are changing your mind, you're saying what you
76
Id. at 767-769. circulated was the petition of August 30, is that correct?
77
Id. at 377. ATTY. LAMBINO:
78
Id. at 395. In effect, yes, Your Honor.
79
Sinco, supra note 58, at 22. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
80
Id. at 20-21. So, you circulated the petition of August 30, but what you filed in the
81
Frivaldo v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996, 257 COMELEC on August 25 was a different petition, that's why you have
SCRA 727. to amend it?
82
G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 530. ATTY. LAMBINO:
83
Sinco, supra note 58, at 29. We have to amend it, because there was an oversight, Your Honor, that
84
State v. Moore, 103 Ark 48, 145 SW 199 (1912); Whittemore v. Seydel, 74 Cal we have omitted one very important paragraph in Section 4 of our
App 2d 109 (1946). proposition.
85
Town of Whitehall v. Preece, 1998 MT 53 (1998). xxxxxxxxxxxx
86
G.R. No. 125416, September 26, 1996, 262 SCRA 492, 516-517, citing 42 Am. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
Jur. 2d, p. 653. Okay, let's be clear. What did you circulate when you gathered the
87
Memorandum for petitioner Aumentado, pp. 151-152. signatures, the August 25 which you said you circulated or the August
88
Id. at 153-154. 30?
89
L-44640, October 12, 1976, 73 SCRA 333, 360-361. ATTY. LAMBINO:
90
Section 2, Article XVII, 1987 Constitution. Both the August 25 petition that included all the provisions, Your
91
Annex "3," Opposition-In-Intervention of Oppositors-Intervenors ONEVOICE, Honor, and as amended on August 30. Because we have to include the
INC., et al. one that
92
Certification dated April 21, 2006 issued by Reynne Joy B. Bullecer, Annex "B," we have inadvertently omitted in the August 25 petition, Your Honor.
Memorandum of Oppositor-Intervenor Pimentel, et al.; Certification dated April 20, xxxxxxxxxxxx
2006 issued by Atty. Marlon S. Casquejo, Annex "C," Memorandum of Oppositor- ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
Intervenor Pimentel, et al.; Certification dated April 26, 2006 issued by Atty. And (you cannot tell that) you can only say for certain that you printed
Marlon S. Cascuejo, Annex "D," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intervenor Pimentel, 100 thousand copies?
et al. ATTY. LAMBINO:
93
Annex "1," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Antonino. That was the original printed matter that we have circulated by the
94
Annex "10-A," Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Joseph Ejercito Estrada, month of February, Your Honor, until some parts of March, Your Honor.
et al. ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CARPIO:
95
Annexes 1-29, Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Alternative Law Groups, That is all you can assure us?
Inc. ATTY. LAMBINO:
96
Annexes 30-31, Id. That is all I can assure you, Your Honor, except that I have asked some
97
Annexes 44-64, Id. friends, like for example (like) Mr. Liberato Laos to help me print out
98
Consolidated Reply of Petitioner Aumentado, p. 54. some more of this petition… (TSN, September 26, 2006, pp. 7-17)
99
Exhibit "E," Memorandum of Petitioner Lambino. 105
Section 2 (1), Article IX – C, 1987 Constitution.
100 106
Annex "A," Consolidated Response of Petitioner Aumentado. Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa and Justices Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Florenz
101
Memorandum of Oppositor-Intevenor Pimentel, et al., pp. 12-13. D. Regalado, Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Josue N. Bellosillo, Santiago M. Kapunan,
102
Helvey v. Wiseman, 199 F. Supp. 200, 8 A.F.T.2d 5576 (1961). Regino C. Hermosisima, Jr. and Justo P. Torres.
107 4
Justices Jose A.R. Melo, Reynato S. Puno, Vicente V. Mendoza, Ricardo J. See Civil Code, Art. 9.
5
Francisco and Artemio V. Panganiban. 456 Phil. 1 (2003).
108 6
Justice Jose C. Vitug. Id., at 10; citing I Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Code of the Philippines 43 (1990) and
109
Only fourteen (14) justices participated in the deliberations as Justice Teodoro Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 113 (1921).
7
R. Padilla took no part on account of his relationship with the lawyer of one of the See Dissenting Opinion, Manila International Airport Authority v. City of
parties. Parañaque, G.R. No. 155650, 20 July 2006. In my ponencia in Globe Telecom v.
110
Citing conscience as ground. NTC, G.R. No. 143964, 26 July 2004, 435 SCRA 110, I further observed that while
111
409 U.S. 188, 93 S. Ct. 375, 34 L. Ed. 2d 401 (1972). an administrative agency was not enslaved to obey its own precedent, it was
112
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 97 S. Ct. 2264 (1977); Arkansas Writers' "essential, for the sake of clarity and intellectual honesty, that if an administrative
Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 107 S. Ct. 1722, 1730 n. 7, 95 L. Ed. 2d (1987); France agency decides inconsistently with previous action, that it explain thoroughly why
v. Nelson, 292 Ark. 219, 729 S.W. 2d 161 (1987). a different result is warranted, or if need be, why the previous standards should
113
40 P. 3d 886 (2006). no longer apply or should be overturned." Id., at 144. Happily, Justice Puno's
114
781 P. 2d 973 (Alaska, 1989). present opinion expressly elucidates why Santiago should be reversed.
115 8
Id. at 982-84 (Compton, J., concurring). As Justice Frankfurter once wrote: "We recognize that stare decisis embodies
116
Id. at 975-78. an important social policy. It represents an element of continuity in law, and is
117
Negri v. Slotkin, 244 N.W. 2d 98 (1976). rooted in the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable expectations. But stare
118
112 Fla. 734, 151 So. 284 (1933). decisis is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the
119
Penned by Justice Whitfield, and concurred in by Chief Justice Davis and latest decision, however recent and questionable, when such adherence involves
Justice Terrell; Justices Ellis, Brown and Buford are of the opinion that chapter collision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope, intrinsically sounder,
15938, Acts of 1933, is a special or local law not duly advertised before its and verified by experience… This Court, unlike the House of Lords, has from the
passage, as required by sections 20 and 21 of article 3 of the state Constitution, beginning rejected a doctrine of disability at self-correction." Helvering v. Hallock,
and therefore invalid. This evenly divided vote resulted in the affirmance of the 309 U.S. 106, 119-121 (1940).
9
validity of the statute but did not constitute a binding precedent on the Court. 351 Phil. 692 (1998).
120 10
62 S. Ct. 552 (1942). As Chief Justice Panganiban then cited: "For instance, Ebralinag vs. Davision
121
329 F. 2d 541 (1964). Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, 219 SCRA 256, March 1, 1993, reversed the
122
239 F. 2d 532 (9th Cir. 1956). Court's 34-year-old doctrine laid down in Gerona vs. Secretary of Education, 106
123
Citing Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.S. 205, 30 S. Ct. 621 (1910). Phil 2, August 12, 1959, and upheld the right of Jehovah's Witnesses "to refuse
124
331 N.E. 2d 65 (1975). to salute the Philippine flag on account of their religious beliefs." Similarly, Olaguer
125
Neil v. Biggers, supra note 108. vs. Military Commission, 150 SCRA 144, May 22, 1987, abandoned the 12-year-
126
Catherwood v. Caslon, 13 Mees. & W. 261; Beamish v. Beamish, 9 H. L. Cas. old ruling in Aquino Jr. vs. Military Commission, 63 SCRA 546, May 9, 1975, which
274. recognized the jurisdiction of military tribunals to try civilians for offenses allegedly
127
Maglalang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85692, July 31, 1989, 175 SCRA 808, committed during martial law. The Court likewise reversed itself in EPZA vs.
811, 812; Development Bank of the Philippines v. Pundogar, G.R. No. 96921, Dulay, 149 SCRA 305, April 29, 1987, when it vacated its earlier ruling in National
January 29, 1993, 218 SCRA 118. Housing Authority vs. Reyes, 123 SCRA 245, June 29, 1983, on the validity of
128
No. L-35440, August 19, 1982, 115 SCRA 839, citing Anticamara v. Ong, No. certain presidential decrees regarding the determination of just compensation. In
L-29689, April 14, 1978, 82 SCRA 337. the much earlier case of Philippine Trust Co. vs. Mitchell, 59 Phil. 30, December
129
Supra note 1. 8, 1933, the Court revoked its holding in Involuntary Insolvency of Mariano
QUISUMBING, J.: Velasco & Co., 55 Phil 353, November 29, 1930, regarding the relation of the
1
Political questions have been defined as "Questions of which the courts of justice insolvency law with the then Code of Civil Procedure and with the Civil Code. Just
will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account of their purely political recently, the Court, in Kilosbayan vs. Morato, 246 SCRA 540, July 17, 1995, also
character, or because their determination would involve an encroachment upon abandoned the earlier grant of standing to petitioner-organization in Kilosbayan
the executive or legislative powers; e.g., what sort of government exists in a vs. Guingona, 232 SCRA 110, May 5, 1994." Id., at 780.
state…." Black's Law Dictionary, p. 1319 citing Kenneth v. Chambers, 14 How. 11
Ibid.
12
38, 14 L.Ed. 316. 129 Phil. 507, 516 (1967).
2 13
See 1987 Const., Art. XVII, Sec. 2. G.R. Nos. L-78461, L-79146, & L-79212, 12 August 1987, 153 SCRA 67, 75.
3 14
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106. G.R. No. 160427, 15 September 2004, 438 SCRA 319, 326.
4 15
G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997. Ibid.
16
CORONA, J.: G.R. No. 155855, 26 January 2004, 421 SCRA 92.
1 17
Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616. Id., at 104. Relatedly, the Court held that "[c] ontests which do not involve the
2
336 Phil. 848 (1997). election, returns and qualifications of elected officials are not subjected to the
3
Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 134787, 15 November 2005, 475 SCRA 1. exercise of the judicial or quasi-judicial powers of courts or administrative
4
Feria and Noche, Civil Procedure Annotated, vol. I, 2001 edition, p. 419. agencies". Ibid.
5 18
Sec. 30, Petitions and initiatives by the people, 16 Am Jur 2d 380, citing State See e.g., Memorandum of Oppositors-Intervenors Senators Pimentel, Jr., et.
ex rel. Stenberg v. Beermann, 240 Neb. 754, 485 N.W. 2d 151 (1992). al., pp. 19-22; Memorandum for Intervenor Senate of the Philippines, pp. 34-35.
6 19
Id. citing Coalition for Political Honesty v. State Board of Elections, 83 Ill. 2d 236, See 1987 Const., Art. VI, Sec. 26(1). See also Section 19[1]. 1987 Const, Art.
47 Ill. Dec. 363, 415 N.E. 2d 368 (1980). VIII.
7 20
Balitzer, Alfred, The Initiative and Referendum: A Study and Evaluation of Direct See e.g., Sumulong v. COMELEC, 73 Phil. 288, 291 (1941); Cordero v. Hon.
Legislation, The California Roundtable 13 (1981). The American Founding Jose Cabatuando, et al., 116 Phil. 736, 741 (1962).
21
Fathers recognized that direct democracy posed a profound threat to individual See Tio v. VRB, G.R. No. L-75697, 18 June 1987, 151 SCRA 208, 214-215;
rights and liberty. The U.S. Constitution was "designed to provide a system of citing Public Service Co., Recktenwald, 290 Ill. 314, 8 A.L.R. 466, 470. See also
government that would prevent either a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the Fariñas v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 147387 & 152161, 10 December 2003,
few." James Madison "warned against the power of a majority or a minority of the 417 SCRA 503, 519.
22
population 'united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of "As a policy, this Court has adopted a liberal construction of the one title - one
interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate subject rule." Tatad v. Secretary of Department of Energy, 346 Phil. 321, 359
interest of the community.' (1997).
8
Gilbert Hahn & Steven C. Morton, Initiative and Referendum – Do They 23
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, G.R. Nos. 83896 & 83815; 22
Encourage or Impair Better State Government? 5 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 925, 927 February 1991, 194 SCRA 317.
24
(1977). Id. at 337. I have previously expressed my own doubts in relying on the
9
Florida Advisory Council on Intergovernmental Relations, Initiatives and constitutional or legislative deliberations as a definitive source of construction. "It
Referenda: Issues in Citizen Lawmaking (1986). is easy to selectively cite passages, sometimes out of their proper context, in order
10
Sec. 1, Article II, Constitution. to assert a misleading interpretation. The effect can be dangerous. Minority or
11
In re Initiative Petition No. 362 State Question 669, 899 P.2d 1145 (Okla. 1995). solitary views, anecdotal ruminations, or even the occasional crude witticisms,
TINGA, J.: may improperly acquire the mantle of legislative intent by the sole virtue of their
1
G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997, 270 SCRA 106. publication in the authoritative congressional record. Hence, resort to legislative
2
G.R. No. 129754, 23 September 1997. deliberations is allowable when the statute is crafted in such a manner as to leave
3
Petitioner Aumentado aptly refers to the comment of the late Senator Raul Roco room for doubt on the real intent of the legislature." Southern Cross Cement
that the Santiago ruling "created a third specie of invalid laws, a mongrel type of Corporation v. Phil. Cement Manufacturers, G.R. No. G.R. No. 158540, 8 July
constitutional but inadequate and, therefore, invalid law." Memorandum for 2004, 434 SCRA 65, 95.
25
Aumentado, p. 54. 77 Phil. 192 (1946).
26
Id. at 215.
27
Civil Liberties Union v. Executive Secretary, supra note 23, at 338; citing
Household Finance Corporation v. Shaffner, 203 S.W. 2d 734, 356 Mo. 808.
28
See Sections 5(b) & 8, Rep. Act No. 6735. See also 1987 Const., Sec. 2, Art.
XVI.
29
G.R. No. 151944, January 20, 2004, 420 SCRA 365.
30
Id., at 377. Emphasis supplied.
31
See Sections 5(b) & 8, Rep. Act No. 6735. See also 1987 Const., Sec. 2, Art.
XVI.
32
From the "Funeral Oration" by Pericles, as recorded by Thucydides in the History
of the Peloponnesian War.
33
H. Zinn, A People's History of the United States (1980 ed.), at 95.
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
1
The full text of the Preamble reads:
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in
order to build a just and humane society and establish a Government
that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common
good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves
and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under
the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality,
and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.
2
Article XVII, Constitution.
3
G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
4
Id. at 157.
5
Id. at 124.
6
Olac v. Rivera, G.R. No. 84256, 2 September 1992, 213 SCRA 321, 328-329;
See also the more recent cases of Republic v. Nolasco, G.R. No. 155108, 27 April
2005, 457 SCRA 400; and PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil.
821 (2001).
7
Supra note 2 at 124.
8
G.R. No. 129754.
9
Separate Opinion of former Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. to the Resolution,
dated 23 September 1997, in G.R. No. 129754, PIRMA v. COMELEC, pp. 2-3.
10
Mirpuri v. Court of Appeals, 376 Phil. 628, 650 (1999).
11
Pioneer Texturizing Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No. 118651, 16 October 1997.
12
Santiago v. Comelec, supra note 2 at 170-171.
13
Isagani A. Cruz, Philippine Political Law, 1996 ed., p. 352.
VELASCO, JR., J.:
1
G.R. No. 127535, March 19, 1997, 270 SCRA 106.
2
Id.
3
Commission on Audit of the Province of Cebu v. Province of Cebu, G.R. No.
141386, November 29, 2001, 371 SCRA 196, 202.
4
United Harbor Pilots' Association of the Philippines, Inc. v. Association of
International Shipping Lines, Inc., G.R. No. 133763, November 13, 2002, 391
SCRA 522, 533.
5
PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Carlos M. Farrales, G. R. No.
109648, November 22, 2001, 370 SCRA 155, 166-167.
6
Id.
7
Florentino v. Rivera, et al., G. R. No. 167968, January 23, 2006, 479 SCRA 522,
529.
8
G.R. No. 129754, September 23, 1997.
9
V. Sinco, Philippine Political Law, Principles and Concept 46 (1962).
Republic of the Philippines SECTION 1. There is hereby called a convention to propose amendments to the
SUPREME COURT Constitution of the Philippines, to be composed of two elective Delegates from
Manila each representative district who shall have the same qualifications as those
EN BANC required of Members of the House of Representatives.
G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971
xxx xxx xxx
ARTURO M. TOLENTINO, petitioner,
vs. SECTION 7. The amendments proposed by the Convention shall be valid and
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, and THE CHIEF ACCOUNTANT, THE considered part of the Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast
AUDITOR, and THE DISBURSING OFFICER OF THE 1971 CONSTITUTIONAL in an election at which they are submitted to the people for their ratification
CONVENTION, respondents, RAUL S. MANGLAPUS, JESUS G. BARRERA, pursuant to Article XV of the Constitution.
PABLO S. TRILLANA III, VICTOR DE LA SERNA, MARCELO B. FERNAN, JOSE
Y. FERIA, LEONARDO SIGUION REYNA, VICTOR F. ORTEGA, and JUAN V. Resolution No. 4 merely modified the number of delegates to represent the
BORRA, Intervenors. different cities and provinces fixed originally in Resolution No 2.

Arturo M. Tolentino in his own behalf. After the election of the delegates held on November 10, 1970, the Convention
held its inaugural session on June 1, 1971. Its preliminary labors of election of
Ramon A. Gonzales for respondents Chief Accountant and Auditor of the 1971 officers, organization of committees and other preparatory works over, as its first
Constitutional Convention. formal proposal to amend the Constitution, its session which began on September
27, 1971, or more accurately, at about 3:30 in the morning of September 28, 1971,
Emmanuel Pelaez, Jorge M. Juco and Tomas L. Echivarre for respondent the Convention approved Organic Resolution No. 1 reading thus: .
Disbursing Officer of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.
CC ORGANIC RESOLUTION NO. 1
Intervenors in their own behalf.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION ONE OF ARTICLE V OF THE
BARREDO, J.: CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES SO AS TO LOWER THE VOTING AGE
Petition for prohibition principally to restrain the respondent Commission on TO 18
Elections "from undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which
the proposed constitutional amendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of BE IT RESOLVED as it is hereby resolved by the 1971 Constitutional Convention:
Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall be,
submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to Organic Resolution No. 1 of Section 1. Section One of Article V of the Constitution of the Philippines is
the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the subsequent implementing amended to as follows:
resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by (male) citizens of the Philippines not
in so far as they direct the holding of such plebiscite and by also declaring the acts otherwise disqualified by law, who are (twenty-one) EIGHTEEN years or over and
of the respondent Commission (COMELEC) performed and to be done by it in are able to read and write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for one
obedience to the aforesaid Convention resolutions to be null and void, for being year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least six months
violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. preceding the election.
Section 2. This amendment shall be valid as part of the Constitution of the
As a preliminary step, since the petition named as respondent only the Philippines when approved by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite to
COMELEC, the Count required that copies thereof be served on the Solicitor coincide with the local elections in November 1971.
General and the Constitutional Convention, through its President, for such action Section 3. This partial amendment, which refers only to the age qualification for
as they may deem proper to take. In due time, respondent COMELEC filed its the exercise of suffrage shall be without prejudice to other amendments that will
answer joining issues with petitioner. To further put things in proper order, and be proposed in the future by the 1971 Constitutional Convention on other portions
considering that the fiscal officers of the Convention are indispensable parties in of the amended Section or on other portions of the entire Constitution.
a proceeding of this nature, since the acts sought to be enjoined involve the Section 4. The Convention hereby authorizes the use of the sum of P75,000.00
expenditure of funds appropriated by law for the Convention, the Court also from its savings or from its unexpended funds for the expense of the advanced
ordered that the Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the plebiscite; provided, however that should there be no savings or unexpended
Convention be made respondents. After the petition was so amended, the first sums, the Delegates waive P250.00 each or the equivalent of 2-1/2 days per diem.
appeared thru Senator Emmanuel Pelaez and the last two thru Delegate Ramon By a letter dated September 28, 1971, President Diosdado Macapagal, called
Gonzales. All said respondents, thru counsel, resist petitioner's action. upon respondent Comelec "to help the Convention implement (the above)
resolution." The said letter reads:
For reasons of orderliness and to avoid unnecessary duplication of arguments
and even possible confusion, and considering that with the principal parties being September 28, 1971
duly represented by able counsel, their interests would be adequately protected The Commission on Elections Manila
already, the Court had to limit the number of intervenors from the ranks of the Thru the Chairman
delegates to the Convention who, more or less, have legal interest in the success Gentlemen:
of the respondents, and so, only Delegates Raul S. Manglapus, Jesus G. Barrera, Last night the Constitutional Convention passed Resolution No. 1 quoted as
Pablo S. Trillana III, Victor de la Serna, Marcelo B. Fernan, Jose Y. Feria, follows:
Leonardo Siguion Reyna, Victor Ortega and Juan B. Borra, all distinguished xxx xxx xxx
lawyers in their own right, have been allowed to intervene jointly. The Court feels (see above)
that with such an array of brilliant and dedicated counsel, all interests involved
should be duly and amply represented and protected. At any rate, notwithstanding Pursuant to the provision of Section 14, Republic Act No. 6132 otherwise known
that their corresponding motions for leave to intervene or to appear as amicus as the Constitutional Convention Act of 1971, may we call upon you to help the
curiae 1 have been denied, the pleadings filed by the other delegates and some Convention implement this resolution:
private parties, the latter in representation of their minor children allegedly to be
affected by the result of this case with the records and the Court acknowledges Sincerely,
that they have not been without value as materials in the extensive study that has
been undertaken in this case. (Sgd.) DIOSDADO P. MACAPAGAL
DIOSDADO P. MACAPAGAL
The background facts are beyond dispute. The Constitutional Convention of 1971 President
came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines
approved in its capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of On September 30, 1971, COMELEC "RESOLVED to inform the Constitutional
calling a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution namely, Convention that it will hold the plebiscite on condition that:
Resolutions 2 and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress held on March 16, 1967 and
June 17, 1969 respectively. The delegates to the said Convention were all elected (a) The Constitutional Convention will undertake the printing of separate official
under and by virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof, ballots, election returns and tally sheets for the use of said plebiscite at its
Republic Act 6132. The pertinent portions of Resolution No 2 read as follows: expense;
(b) The Constitutional Convention will adopt its own security measures for the concededly is at par with the former. A simple reading of Our ruling in that very
printing and shipment of said ballots and election forms; and case of Gonzales relied upon by intervenors should dispel any lingering
misgivings as regards that point. Succinctly but comprehensively, Chief Justice
(c) Said official ballots and election forms will be delivered to the Commission in Concepcion held for the Court thus: .
time so that they could be distributed at the same time that the Commission will
distribute its official and sample ballots to be used in the elections on November As early as Angara vs. Electoral Commission (63 Phil. 139, 157), this Court —
8, 1971. speaking through one of the leading members of the Constitutional Convention
and a respected professor of Constitutional Law, Dr. Jose P. Laurel — declared
What happened afterwards may best be stated by quoting from intervenors' that "the judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called
Governors' statement of the genesis of the above proposal: upon to determine the proper allocation of powers between the several
departments and among the integral or constituent units thereof."
The President of the Convention also issued an order forming an Ad Hoc
Committee to implement the Resolution. It is true that in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito (supra), this Court characterizing the issue
submitted thereto as a political one declined to pass upon the question whether
This Committee issued implementing guidelines which were approved by the or not a given number of votes cast in Congress in favor of a proposed
President who then transmitted them to the Commission on Elections. amendment to the Constitution — which was being submitted to the people for
ratification — satisfied the three-fourths vote requirement of the fundamental law.
The Committee on Plebiscite and Ratification filed a report on the progress of the The force of this precedent has been weakened, however, by Suanes v. Chief
implementation of the plebiscite in the afternoon of October 7,1971, enclosing Accountant of the Senate (81 Phil. 818), Avelino v. Cuenco, (L-2851, March 4 &
copies of the order, resolution and letters of transmittal above referred to (Copy 14, 1949), Tañada v. Cuenco, (L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957) and Macias v.
of the report is hereto attached as Annex 8-Memorandum). Commission on Elections, (L-18684, Sept. 14, 1961). In the first we held that the
officers and employees of the Senate Electoral Tribunal are under its supervision
RECESS RESOLUTION and control, not of that of the Senate President, as claimed by the latter; in the
In its plenary session in the evening of October 7, 1971, the Convention approved second, this Court proceeded to determine the number of Senators necessary for
a resolution authored by Delegate Antonio Olmedo of Davao Oriental, calling for quorum in the Senate; in the third, we nullified the election, by Senators belonging
a recess of the Convention from November 1, 1971 to November 9, 1971 to permit to the party having the largest number of votes in said chamber, purporting to act,
the delegates to campaign for the ratification of Organic Resolution No. 1. (Copies on behalf of the party having the second largest number of votes therein of two
of the resolution and the transcript of debate thereon are hereto attached as (2) Senators belonging to the first party, as members, for the second party, of the
Annexes 9 and 9-A Memorandum, respectively). Senate Electoral Tribunal; and in the fourth, we declared unconstitutional an act
of Congress purporting to apportion the representatives districts for the House of
RESOLUTION CONFIRMING IMPLEMENTATION Representatives, upon the ground that the apportionment had not been made as
On October 12, 1971, the Convention passed Resolution No. 24 submitted by may be possible according to the number of inhabitants of each province. Thus
Delegate Jose Ozamiz confirming the authority of the President of the Convention we rejected the theory, advanced in these four (4) cases that the issues therein
to implement Organic Resolution No. 1, including the creation of the Ad Hoc raised were political questions the determination of which is beyond judicial
Committee ratifying all acts performed in connection with said implementation. review.

Upon these facts, the main thrust of the petition is that Organic Resolution No. 1 Indeed, the power to amend the Constitution or to propose amendments thereto
and the other implementing resolutions thereof subsequently approved by the is not included in the general grant of legislative powers to Congress (Section 1,
Convention have no force and effect as laws in so far as they provide for the Art. VI, Constitution of the Philippines). It is part of the inherent powers of the
holding of a plebiscite co-incident with the elections of eight senators and all city, people — as the repository sovereignty in a republican state, such as ours
provincial and municipal officials to be held on November 8, 1971, hence all of (Section 1, Art. 11, Constitution of the Philippines) — to make, and, hence, to
Comelec's acts in obedience thereof and tending to carry out the holding of the amend their own Fundamental Law. Congress may propose amendments to the
plebiscite directed by said resolutions are null and void, on the ground that the Constitution merely because the same explicitly grants such power. (Section 1,
calling and holding of such a plebiscite is, by the Constitution, a power lodged Art. XV, Constitution of the Philippines) Hence, when exercising the same, it is
exclusively in Congress, as a legislative body, and may not be exercised by the said that Senators and members of the House of Representatives act, not as
Convention, and that, under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the proposed members of Congress, but as component elements of a constituent assembly.
amendment in question cannot be presented to the people for ratification When acting as such, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
separately from each and all of the other amendments to be drafted and proposed Constitution, unlike the people, when performing the same function, (Of amending
by the Convention. On the other hand, respondents and intervenors posit that the the Constitution) for their authority does not emanate from the Constitution — they
power to provide for, fix the date and lay down the details of the plebiscite for the are the very source of all powers of government including the Constitution itself.
ratification of any amendment the Convention may deem proper to propose is
within the authority of the Convention as a necessary consequence and part of its Since, when proposing, as a constituent assembly, amendments to the
power to propose amendments and that this power includes that of submitting Constitution, the members of Congress derive their authority from the
such amendments either individually or jointly at such time and manner as the Fundamental Law, it follows, necessarily, that they do not have the final say on
Convention may direct in discretion. The Court's delicate task now is to decide whether or not their acts are within or beyond constitutional limits. Otherwise, they
which of these two poses is really in accord with the letter and spirit of the could brush aside and set the same at naught, contrary to the basic tenet that
Constitution. ours is a government of laws, not of men, and to the rigid nature of our
Constitution. Such rigidity is stressed by the fact that the Constitution expressly
As a preliminary and prejudicial matter, the intervenors raise the question of confers upon the Supreme Court, (And, inferentially, to lower courts.) the power
jurisdiction. They contend that the issue before Us is a political question and that to declare a treaty unconstitutional. (Sec. 2(1), Art. VIII of the Constitution),
the Convention being legislative body of the highest order is sovereign, and as despite the eminently political character of treaty-making power.
such, its acts impugned by petitioner are beyond the control of the Congress and
the courts. In this connection, it is to be noted that none of the respondent has In short, the issue whether or not a Resolution of Congress — acting as a
joined intervenors in this posture. In fact, respondents Chief Accountant and constituent assembly — violates the Constitution is essentially justiciable not
Auditor of the convention expressly concede the jurisdiction of this Court in their political, and, hence, subject to judicial review, and, to the extent that this view
answer acknowledging that the issue herein is a justifiable one. may be inconsistent with the stand taken in Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, (supra) the
latter should be deemed modified accordingly. The Members of the Court are
Strangely, intervenors cite in support of this contention portions of the decision of unanimous on this point.
this Court in the case of Gonzales v. Comelec, 21 SCRA 774, wherein the
members of the Court, despite their being divided in their opinions as to the other No one can rightly claim that within the domain of its legitimate authority, the
matters therein involved, were precisely unanimous in upholding its jurisdiction. Convention is not supreme. Nowhere in his petition and in his oral argument and
Obviously, distinguished counsel have either failed to grasp the full impact of the memoranda does petitioner point otherwise. Actually, what respondents and
portions of Our decision they have quoted or would misapply them by taking them intervenors are seemingly reluctant to admit is that the Constitutional Convention
out of context. of 1971, as any other convention of the same nature, owes its existence and
derives all its authority and power from the existing Constitution of the Philippines.
There should be no more doubt as to the position of this Court regarding its This Convention has not been called by the people directly as in the case of a
jurisdiction vis-a-vis the constitutionality of the acts of the Congress, acting as a revolutionary convention which drafts the first Constitution of an entirely new
constituent assembly, and, for that matter, those of a constitutional convention government born of either a war of liberation from a mother country or of a
called for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, which revolution against an existing government or of a bloodless seizure of power a la
coup d'etat. As to such kind of conventions, it is absolutely true that the convention provided for a mechanism by which to direct the course of government along
is completely without restrain and omnipotent all wise, and it is as to such constitutional channels, for then the distribution of powers would be mere
conventions that the remarks of Delegate Manuel Roxas of the Constitutional verbiage, the bill of rights mere expressions of sentiment and the principles of
Convention of 1934 quoted by Senator Pelaez refer. No amount of rationalization good government mere political apothegms. Certainly the limitations and
can belie the fact that the current convention came into being only because it was restrictions embodied in our Constitution are real as they should be in any living
called by a resolution of a joint session of Congress acting as a constituent Constitution. In the United States where no express constitutional grant is found
assembly by authority of Section 1, Article XV of the present Constitution which in their constitution, the possession of this moderating power of the courts, not to
provides: speak of its historical origin and development there, has been set at rest by
popular acquiescence for a period of more than one and half centuries. In our
ARTICLE XV — AMENDMENTS case, this moderating power is granted, if not expressly, by clear implication from
SECTION 1. The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths section 2 of Article VIII of our Constitution.
of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting
separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for The Constitution is a definition of the powers or government. Who is to determine
the purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when the nature, scope and extent of such powers? The Constitution itself has provided
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments for the instrumentality of the judiciary as the rational way. And when the judiciary
are submitted to the people for their ratification. mediates to allocate constitutional boundaries, it does not assert any superiority
over the other departments; it does not in reality nullify or invalidate an act of the
True it is that once convened, this Convention became endowed with extra legislature, but only asserts the solemn and sacred obligation assigned to it by the
ordinary powers generally beyond the control of any department of the existing Constitution to determine conflicting claims of authority under the Constitution and
government, but the compass of such powers can be co-extensive only with the to establish for the parties in an actual controversy the rights which that instrument
purpose for which the convention was called and as it may propose cannot have secures and guarantees to them. This is in truth all that is involved in what is
any effect as part of the Constitution until the same are duly ratified by the people, termed "judicial supremacy" which properly is the power of judicial review under
it necessarily follows that the acts of convention, its officers and members are not the Constitution. Even then, this power of judicial review is limited to actual cases
immune from attack on constitutional grounds. The present Constitution is in full and controversies to be exercised after full opportunity of argument by the parties,
force and effect in its entirety and in everyone of its parts the existence of the and limited further to the constitutional question raised or the very lis mota
Convention notwithstanding, and operates even within the walls of that assembly. presented. Any attempt at abstraction could only lead to dialectics and barren
While it is indubitable that in its internal operation and the performance of its task legal questions and to strike conclusions unrelated to actualities. Narrowed as its
to propose amendments to the Constitution it is not subject to any degree of functions is in this manner the judiciary does not pass upon questions of wisdom,
restraint or control by any other authority than itself, it is equally beyond cavil that justice or expediency of legislation. More than that, courts accord the presumption
neither the Convention nor any of its officers or members can rightfully deprive of constitutionality to legislative enactments, not only because the legislature is
any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, deny to anyone presumed to abide by the Constitution but also because the judiciary in the
in this country the equal protection of the laws or the freedom of speech and of determination of actual cases and controversies must reflect the wisdom and
the press in disregard of the Bill of Rights of the existing Constitution. Nor, for that justice of the people as expressed through their representatives in the executive
matter, can such Convention validly pass any resolution providing for the taking and legislative departments of the government.
of private property without just compensation or for the imposition or exacting of
any tax, impost or assessment, or declare war or call the Congress to a special But much as we might postulate on the internal checks of power provided in our
session, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, pardon a convict or Constitution, it ought not the less to be remembered that, in the language of James
render judgment in a controversy between private individuals or between such Madison, the system itself is not "the chief palladium of constitutional liberty ... the
individuals and the state, in violation of the distribution of powers in the people who are authors of this blessing must also be its guardians ... their eyes
Constitution. must be ever ready to mark, their voices to pronounce ... aggression on the
authority of their Constitution." In the last and ultimate analysis then, must the
It being manifest that there are powers which the Convention may not and cannot success of our government in the unfolding years to come be tested in the crucible
validly assert, much less exercise, in the light of the existing Constitution, the of Filipino minds and hearts than in consultation rooms and court chambers.
simple question arises, should an act of the Convention be assailed by a citizen
as being among those not granted to or inherent in it, according to the existing In the case at bar, the National Assembly has by resolution (No. 8) of December
Constitution, who can decide whether such a contention is correct or not? It is of 3, 1935, confirmed the election of the herein petitioner to the said body. On the
the very essence of the rule of law that somehow somewhere the Power and duty other hand, the Electoral Commission has by resolution adopted on December 9,
to resolve such a grave constitutional question must be lodged on some authority, 1935, fixed said date as the last day for the filing of protests against the election,
or we would have to confess that the integrated system of government established returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly; notwithstanding
by our founding fathers contains a wide vacuum no intelligent man could ignore, the previous confirmations made by the National Assembly as aforesaid. If, as
which is naturally unworthy of their learning, experience and craftsmanship in contended by the petitioner, the resolution of the National Assembly has the effect
constitution-making. of cutting off the power of the Electoral Commission to entertain protests against
the election, returns and qualifications of members of the National Assembly,
We need not go far in search for the answer to the query We have posed. The submitted after December 3, 1935 then the resolution of the Electoral Commission
very decision of Chief Justice Concepcion in Gonzales, so much invoked by of December 9, 1935, is mere surplusage and had no effect. But, if, as contended
intervenors, reiterates and reinforces the irrefutable logic and wealth of principle by the respondents, the Electoral Commission has the sole power of regulating its
in the opinion written for a unanimous Court by Justice Laurel in Angara vs. proceedings to the exclusion of the National Assembly, then the resolution of
Electoral Commission, 63 Phil., 134, reading: December 9, 1935, by which the Electoral Commission fixed said date as the last
day for filing protests against the election, returns and qualifications of members
... (I)n the main, the Constitution has blocked out with deft strokes and in bold of the National Assembly, should be upheld.
lines, allotment of power to the executive, the legislative and the judicial
departments of the government. The overlapping and interlacing of functions and Here is then presented an actual controversy involving as it does a conflict of a
duties between the several departments, however, sometimes makes it hard to grave constitutional nature between the National Assembly on the one hand and
say where the one leaves off and the other begins. In times of social disquietude the Electoral Commission on the other. From the very nature of the republican
or political excitement, the great landmark of the Constitution are apt to be government established in our country in the light of American experience and of
forgotten or marred, if not entirely obliterated. In cases of conflict, the judicial our own, upon the judicial department is thrown the solemn and inescapable
department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine obligation of interpreting the Constitution and defining constitutional boundaries.
the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the The Electoral Commission as we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, is a
integral or constituent units thereof. constitutional organ, created for a specific purpose, namely, to determine all
contests relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the members of the
As any human production our Constitution is of course lacking perfection and National Assembly. Although the Electoral Commission may not be interfered
perfectibility, but as much as it was within the power of our people, acting through with, when and while acting within the limits of its authority, it does not follow that
their delegates to so provide, that instrument which is the expression of their it is beyond the reach of the constitutional mechanism adopted by the people and
sovereignty however limited, has established a republican government intended that it is not subject to constitutional restriction. The Electoral Commission is not
to operate and function as a harmonious whole, under a system of check and a separate department of the government, and even if it were, conflicting claims
balances and subject to specific limitations and restrictions provided in the said of authority under the fundamental law between departmental powers and
instrument. The Constitution sets forth in no uncertain language the restrictions agencies of the government are necessarily determined by the judiciary in
and limitations upon governmental powers and agencies. If these restrictions and justiciable and appropriate cases. Discarding the English type and other European
limitations are transcended it would be inconceivable if the Constitution had not types of constitutional government, the framers of our Constitution adopted the
American type where the written constitution is interpreted and given effect by the parts of the existing Constitution; and, indeed, Organic Resolution No. 1 itself
judicial department. In some countries which have declined to follow the American expressly provides, that the amendment therein proposed "shall be without
example, provisions have been inserted in their constitutions prohibiting the courts prejudice to other amendments that will be proposed in the future by the 1971
from exercising the power to interpret the fundamental law. This is taken as a Constitutional Convention on other portions of the amended section or on other
recognition of what otherwise would be the rule that in the absence of direct portions of the entire Constitution." In other words, nothing that the Court may say
prohibition, courts are bound to assume what is logically their function. For or do, in this case should be understood as reflecting, in any degree or means the
instance, the Constitution of Poland of 1921 expressly provides that courts shall individual or collective stand of the members of the Court on the fundamental
have no power to examine the validity of statutes (art. 81, Chap. IV). The former issue of whether or not the eighteen-year-olds should be allowed to vote, simply
Austrian Constitution contained a similar declaration. In countries whose because that issue is not before Us now. There should be no doubt in the mind of
constitution are silent in this respect, courts have assumed this power. This is true anyone that, once the Court finds it constitutionally permissible, it will not hesitate
in Norway, Greece, Australia and South Africa. Whereas, in Czechoslovakia (arts. to do its part so that the said proposed amendment may be presented to the
2 and 3, Preliminary Law to Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslavak, Republic, people for their approval or rejection.
February 29, 1920) and Spain (arts. 121-123, Title IX, Constitution of the Republic
of 1931) especial constitutional courts are established to pass upon the validity of Withal, the Court rests securely in the conviction that the fire and enthusiasm of
ordinary laws. In our case, the nature of the present controversy shows the the youth have not blinded them to the absolute necessity, under the fundamental
necessity of a final constitutional arbiter to determine the conflict of authority principles of democracy to which the Filipino people is committed, of adhering
between two agencies created by the Constitution. Were we to decline to take always to the rule of law. Surely, their idealism, sincerity and purity of purpose
cognizance of the controversy, who will determine the conflict? And if the conflict cannot permit any other line of conduct or approach in respect of the problem
were left undecided and undetermined, would not a void be thus created in our before Us. The Constitutional Convention of 1971 itself was born, in a great
constitutional system which may in the long run prove destructive of the entire measure, because of the pressure brought to bear upon the Congress of the
framework? To ask these questions is to answer them. Natura vacuum abhorret, Philippines by various elements of the people, the youth in particular, in their
so must we avoid exhaustion in our constitutional system. Upon principle, reason, incessant search for a peaceful and orderly means of bringing about meaningful
and authority, we are clearly of the opinion that upon the admitted facts of the changes in the structure and bases of the existing social and governmental
present case, this court has jurisdiction over the Electoral Commission and the institutions, including the provisions of the fundamental law related to the well-
subject matter of the present controversy for the purpose of determining the being and economic security of the underprivileged classes of our people as well
character, scope and extent of the constitutional grant to the Electoral as those concerning the preservation and protection of our natural resources and
Commission as "the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns and the national patrimony, as an alternative to violent and chaotic ways of achieving
qualifications of the members of the National Assembly." . such lofty ideals. In brief, leaving aside the excesses of enthusiasm which at times
have justifiably or unjustifiably marred the demonstrations in the streets, plazas
As the Chief Justice has made it clear in Gonzales, like Justice Laurel did in and campuses, the youth of the Philippines, in general, like the rest of the people,
Angara, these postulates just quoted do not apply only to conflicts of authority do not want confusion and disorder, anarchy and violence; what they really want
between the three existing regular departments of the government but to all such are law and order, peace and orderliness, even in the pursuit of what they strongly
conflicts between and among these departments, or, between any of them, on the and urgently feel must be done to change the present order of things in this
one hand, and any other constitutionally created independent body, like the Republic of ours. It would be tragic and contrary to the plain compulsion of these
electoral tribunals in Congress, the Comelec and the Constituent assemblies perspectives, if the Court were to allow itself in deciding this case to be carried
constituted by the House of Congress, on the other. We see no reason of logic or astray by considerations other than the imperatives of the rule of law and of the
principle whatsoever, and none has been convincingly shown to Us by any of the applicable provisions of the Constitution. Needless to say, in a larger measure
respondents and intervenors, why the same ruling should not apply to the present than when it binds other departments of the government or any other official or
Convention, even if it is an assembly of delegate elected directly by the people, entity, the Constitution imposes upon the Court the sacred duty to give meaning
since at best, as already demonstrated, it has been convened by authority of and and vigor to the Constitution, by interpreting and construing its provisions in
under the terms of the present Constitution.. appropriate cases with the proper parties, and by striking down any act violative
thereof. Here, as in all other cases, We are resolved to discharge that duty.
Accordingly, We are left with no alternative but to uphold the jurisdiction of the
Court over the present case. It goes without saying that We do this not because During these twice when most anyone feels very strongly the urgent need for
the Court is superior to the Convention or that the Convention is subject to the constitutional reforms, to the point of being convinced that meaningful change is
control of the Court, but simply because both the Convention and the Court are the only alternative to a violent revolution, this Court would be the last to put any
subject to the Constitution and the rule of law, and "upon principle, reason and obstruction or impediment to the work of the Constitutional Convention. If there
authority," per Justice Laurel, supra, it is within the power as it is the solemn duty are respectable sectors opining that it has not been called to supplant the existing
of the Court, under the existing Constitution to resolve the issues in which Constitution in its entirety, since its enabling provision, Article XV, from which the
petitioner, respondents and intervenors have joined in this case. Convention itself draws life expressly speaks only of amendments which shall
form part of it, which opinion is not without persuasive force both in principle and
II in logic, the seemingly prevailing view is that only the collective judgment of its
The issue of jurisdiction thus resolved, We come to the crux of the petition. Is it members as to what is warranted by the present condition of things, as they see
within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order, on its own it, can limit the extent of the constitutional innovations the Convention may
fiat, the holding of a plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment propose, hence the complete substitution of the existing constitution is not beyond
reducing to eighteen years the age for the exercise of suffrage under Section 1 of the ambit of the Convention's authority. Desirable as it may be to resolve, this
Article V of the Constitution proposed in the Convention's Organic Resolution No. grave divergence of views, the Court does not consider this case to be properly
1 in the manner and form provided for in said resolution and the subsequent the one in which it should discharge its constitutional duty in such premises. The
implementing acts and resolution of the Convention? issues raised by petitioner, even those among them in which respondents and
intervenors have joined in an apparent wish to have them squarely passed upon
At the threshold, the environmental circumstances of this case demand the most by the Court do not necessarily impose upon Us the imperative obligation to
accurate and unequivocal statement of the real issue which the Court is called express Our views thereon. The Court considers it to be of the utmost importance
upon to resolve. Petitioner has very clearly stated that he is not against the that the Convention should be untrammelled and unrestrained in the performance
constitutional extension of the right of suffrage to the eighteen-year-olds, as a of its constitutionally as signed mission in the manner and form it may conceive
matter of fact, he has advocated or sponsored in Congress such a proposal, and best, and so the Court may step in to clear up doubts as to the boundaries set
that, in truth, the herein petition is not intended by him to prevent that the proposed down by the Constitution only when and to the specific extent only that it would
amendment here involved be submitted to the people for ratification, his only be necessary to do so to avoid a constitutional crisis or a clearly demonstrable
purpose in filing the petition being to comply with his sworn duty to prevent, violation of the existing Charter. Withal, it is a very familiar principle of
Whenever he can, any violation of the Constitution of the Philippines even if it is constitutional law that constitutional questions are to be resolved by the Supreme
committed in the course of or in connection with the most laudable undertaking. Court only when there is no alternative but to do it, and this rule is founded
Indeed, as the Court sees it, the specific question raised in this case is limited precisely on the principle of respect that the Court must accord to the acts of the
solely and only to the point of whether or not it is within the power of the other coordinate departments of the government, and certainly, the Constitutional
Convention to call for a plebiscite for the ratification by the people of the Convention stands almost in a unique footing in that regard.
constitutional amendment proposed in the abovequoted Organic Resolution No.
1, in the manner and form provided in said resolution as well as in the subject In our discussion of the issue of jurisdiction, We have already made it clear that
question implementing actions and resolution of the Convention and its officers, the Convention came into being by a call of a joint session of Congress pursuant
at this juncture of its proceedings, when as it is a matter of common knowledge to Section I of Article XV of the Constitution, already quoted earlier in this opinion.
and judicial notice, it is not set to adjourn sine die, and is, in fact, still in the We reiterate also that as to matters not related to its internal operation and the
preliminary stages of considering other reforms or amendments affecting other performance of its assigned mission to propose amendments to the Constitution,
the Convention and its officers and members are all subject to all the provisions (2) Very little reflection is needed for anyone to realize the wisdom and
of the existing Constitution. Now We hold that even as to its latter task of appropriateness of this provision. As already stated, amending the Constitution is
proposing amendments to the Constitution, it is subject to the provisions of as serious and important an undertaking as constitution making itself. Indeed, any
Section I of Article XV. This must be so, because it is plain to Us that the framers amendment of the Constitution is as important as the whole of it if only because
of the Constitution took care that the process of amending the same should not the Constitution has to be an integrated and harmonious instrument, if it is to be
be undertaken with the same ease and facility in changing an ordinary legislation. viable as the framework of the government it establishes, on the one hand, and
Constitution making is the most valued power, second to none, of the people in a adequately formidable and reliable as the succinct but comprehensive articulation
constitutional democracy such as the one our founding fathers have chosen for of the rights, liberties, ideology, social ideals, and national and nationalistic
this nation, and which we of the succeeding generations generally cherish. And policies and aspirations of the people, on the other. lt is inconceivable how a
because the Constitution affects the lives, fortunes, future and every other constitution worthy of any country or people can have any part which is out of tune
conceivable aspect of the lives of all the people within the country and those with its other parts..
subject to its sovereignty, every degree of care is taken in preparing and drafting
it. A constitution worthy of the people for which it is intended must not be prepared A constitution is the work of the people thru its drafters assembled by them for the
in haste without adequate deliberation and study. It is obvious that purpose. Once the original constitution is approved, the part that the people play
correspondingly, any amendment of the Constitution is of no less importance than in its amendment becomes harder, for when a whole constitution is submitted to
the whole Constitution itself, and perforce must be conceived and prepared with them, more or less they can assumed its harmony as an integrated whole, and
as much care and deliberation. From the very nature of things, the drafters of an they can either accept or reject it in its entirety. At the very least, they can examine
original constitution, as already observed earlier, operate without any limitations, it before casting their vote and determine for themselves from a study of the whole
restraints or inhibitions save those that they may impose upon themselves. This document the merits and demerits of all or any of its parts and of the document
is not necessarily true of subsequent conventions called to amend the original as a whole. And so also, when an amendment is submitted to them that is to form
constitution. Generally, the framers of the latter see to it that their handiwork is not part of the existing constitution, in like fashion they can study with deliberation the
lightly treated and as easily mutilated or changed, not only for reasons purely proposed amendment in relation to the whole existing constitution and or any of
personal but more importantly, because written constitutions are supposed to be its parts and thereby arrive at an intelligent judgment as to its acceptability.
designed so as to last for some time, if not for ages, or for, at least, as long as
they can be adopted to the needs and exigencies of the people, hence, they must This cannot happen in the case of the amendment in question. Prescinding
be insulated against precipitate and hasty actions motivated by more or less already from the fact that under Section 3 of the questioned resolution, it is evident
passing political moods or fancies. Thus, as a rule, the original constitutions carry that no fixed frame of reference is provided the voter, as to what finally will be
with them limitations and conditions, more or less stringent, made so by the people concomitant qualifications that will be required by the final draft of the constitution
themselves, in regard to the process of their amendment. And when such to be formulated by the Convention of a voter to be able to enjoy the right of
limitations or conditions are so incorporated in the original constitution, it does not
suffrage, there are other considerations which make it impossible to vote
lie in the delegates of any subsequent convention to claim that they may ignore intelligently on the proposed amendment, although it may already be observed
and disregard such conditions because they are as powerful and omnipotent as that under Section 3, if a voter would favor the reduction of the voting age to
their original counterparts. eighteen under conditions he feels are needed under the circumstances, and he
does not see those conditions in the ballot nor is there any possible indication
Nothing of what is here said is to be understood as curtailing in any degree the whether they will ever be or not, because Congress has reserved those for future
number and nature and the scope and extent of the amendments the Convention action, what kind of judgment can he render on the proposal?
may deem proper to propose. Nor does the Court propose to pass on the issue
extensively and brilliantly discussed by the parties as to whether or not the power But the situation actually before Us is even worse. No one knows what changes
or duty to call a plebiscite for the ratification of the amendments to be proposed in the fundamental principles of the constitution the Convention will be minded to
by the Convention is exclusively legislative and as such may be exercised only by approve. To be more specific, we do not have any means of foreseeing whether
the Congress or whether the said power can be exercised concurrently by the the right to vote would be of any significant value at all. Who can say whether or
Convention with the Congress. In the view the Court takes of present case, it does not later on the Convention may decide to provide for varying types of voters for
not perceive absolute necessity to resolve that question, grave and important as each level of the political units it may divide the country into. The root of the
it may be. Truth to tell, the lack of unanimity or even of a consensus among the difficulty in other words, lies in that the Convention is precisely on the verge of
members of the Court in respect to this issue creates the need for more study and introducing substantial changes, if not radical ones, in almost every part and
deliberation, and as time is of the essence in this case, for obvious reasons, aspect of the existing social and political order enshrined in the present
November 8, 1971, the date set by the Convention for the plebiscite it is calling, Constitution. How can a voter in the proposed plebiscite intelligently determine
being nigh, We will refrain from making any pronouncement or expressing Our the effect of the reduction of the voting age upon the different institutions which
views on this question until a more appropriate case comes to Us. After all, the the Convention may establish and of which presently he is not given any idea?
basis of this decision is as important and decisive as any can be.
We are certain no one can deny that in order that a plebiscite for the ratification
The ultimate question, therefore boils down to this: Is there any limitation or of an amendment to the Constitution may be validly held, it must provide the voter
condition in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution which is violated by the act not only sufficient time but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal of the nature of
of the Convention of calling for a plebiscite on the sole amendment contained in the amendment per se as well as its relation to the other parts of the Constitution
Organic Resolution No. 1? The Court holds that there is, and it is the condition with which it has to form a harmonious whole. In the context of the present state
and limitation that all the amendments to be proposed by the same Convention of things, where the Convention has hardly started considering the merits of
must be submitted to the people in a single "election" or plebiscite. It being hundreds, if not thousands, of proposals to amend the existing Constitution, to
indisputable that the amendment now proposed to be submitted to a plebiscite is present to the people any single proposal or a few of them cannot comply with
only the first amendment the Convention propose We hold that the plebiscite this requirement. We are of the opinion that the present Constitution does not
being called for the purpose of submitting the same for ratification of the people contemplate in Section 1 of Article XV a plebiscite or "election" wherein the people
on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of Article XV of the are in the dark as to frame of reference they can base their judgment on. We reject
Constitution, hence all acts of the Convention and the respondent Comelec in that the rationalization that the present Constitution is a possible frame of reference,
direction are null and void. for the simple reason that intervenors themselves are stating that the sole purpose
of the proposed amendment is to enable the eighteen year olds to take part in the
We have arrived at this conclusion for the following reasons: election for the ratification of the Constitution to be drafted by the Convention. In
brief, under the proposed plebiscite, there can be, in the language of Justice
1. The language of the constitutional provision aforequoted is sufficiently clear. lt Sanchez, speaking for the six members of the Court in Gonzales, supra, "no
says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a constituent assembly or a proper submission".
convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this Constitution,"
thus placing no limit as to the number of amendments that Congress or the III
Convention may propose. The same provision also as definitely provides that The Court has no desire at all to hamper and hamstring the noble work of the
"such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a Constitutional Convention. Much less does the Court want to pass judgment on
majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted the merits of the proposal to allow these eighteen years old to vote. But like the
to the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room for doubt as to how many Convention, the Court has its own duties to the people under the Constitution
"elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or amendments which is to decide in appropriate cases with appropriate parties Whether or not
proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the the mandates of the fundamental law are being complied with. In the best light
provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one. God has given Us, we are of the conviction that in providing for the questioned
plebiscite before it has finished, and separately from, the whole draft of the
constitution it has been called to formulate, the Convention's Organic Resolution
No. 1 and all subsequent acts of the Convention implementing the same violate The second constitutional objection was given expression by one of the writers of
the condition in Section 1, Article XV that there should only be one "election" or this concurring opinion, in the following words:
plebiscite for the ratification of all the amendments the Convention may propose.
We are not denying any right of the people to vote on the proposed amendment; I find it impossible to believe that it was ever intended by its framers that such
We are only holding that under Section 1, Article XV of the Constitution, the same amendment should be submitted and ratified by just "a majority of the votes cast
should be submitted to them not separately from but together with all the other at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
amendments to be proposed by this present Convention. ratification", if the concentration of the people's attention thereon is to be diverted
by other extraneous issues, such as the choice of local and national officials. The
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the petition herein is granted. Organic framers of the Constitution, aware of the fundamental character thereof, and of
Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 and the implementing the need of giving it as much stability as is practicable, could have only meant that
acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of any amendments thereto should be debated, considered and voted upon an
a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent election wherein the people could devote undivided attention to the subject.4
Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared null
and void. The respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and True it is that the question posed by the proposed amendment, "Do you or do you
Auditor of the Constitutional Convention are hereby enjoined from taking any not want the 18-year old to be allowed to vote?," would seem to be uncomplicated
action in compliance with the said organic resolution. In view of the peculiar and innocuous. But it is one of life's verities that things which appear to be simple
circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision immediately may turn out not to be so simple after all.
executory. No costs.
A number of doubts or misgivings could conceivably and logically assail the
Concepcion, C.J., Teehankee, Villamor and Makasiar, JJ., concur. average voter. Why should the voting age be lowered at all, in the first place? Why
should the new voting age be precisely 18 years, and not 19 or 20? And why not
Separate Opinions 17? Or even 16 or 15? Is the 18-year old as mature as the 21-year old so that
MAKALINTAL, J., reserves his vote — there is no need of an educational qualification to entitle him to vote? In this age
of permissiveness and dissent, can the 18-year old be relied upon to vote with
I reserve my vote. The resolution in question is voted down by a sufficient majority judiciousness when the 21-year old, in the past elections, has not performed so
of the Court on just one ground, which to be sure achieves the result from the well? If the proposed amendment is voted down by the people, will the
legal and constitutional viewpoint. I entertain grave doubts as to the validity of the Constitutional Convention insist on the said amendment? Why is there an
premises postulated and conclusions reached in support of the dispositive portion unseemly haste on the part of the Constitutional Convention in having this
of the decision. However, considering the urgent nature of this case, the lack of particular proposed amendment ratified at this particular time? Do some of the
time to set down at length my opinion on the particular issue upon which the members of the Convention have future political plans which they want to begin
decision is made to rest, and the fact that a dissent on the said issue would to subserve by the approval this year of this amendment? If this amendment is
necessarily be inconclusive unless the other issues raised in the petition are also approved, does it thereby mean that the 18-year old should now also shoulder the
considered and ruled upon — a task that would be premature and pointless at this moral and legal responsibilities of the 21-year old? Will he be required to render
time — I limit myself to this reservation. compulsory military service under the colors? Will the age of contractual consent
be reduced to 18 years? If I vote against this amendment, will I not be unfair to
REYES, J.B.L., ZALDIVAR, CASTRO and MAKASIAR, JJ., concurring: my own child who will be 18 years old, come 1973? .

We concur in the main opinion penned by Mr. Justice Barredo in his usual The above are just samplings from here, there and everywhere — from a domain
inimitable, forthright and vigorous style. Like him, we do not express our individual (of searching questions) the bounds of which are not immediately ascertainable.
views on the wisdom of the proposed constitutional amendment, which is not in Surely, many more questions can be added to the already long litany. And the
issue here because it is a matter that properly and exclusively addresses itself to answers cannot be had except as the questions are debated fully, pondered upon
the collective judgment of the people. purposefully, and accorded undivided attention.

We must, however, articulate two additional objections of constitutional dimension Scanning the contemporary scene, we say that the people are not, and by election
which, although they would seem to be superfluous because of the reach of the time will not be, sufficiently informed of the meaning, nature and effects of the
basic constitutional infirmity discussed in extenso in the main opinion, proposed constitutional amendment. They have not been afforded ample time to
nevertheless appear to us to be just as fundamental in character and scope. deliberate thereon conscientiously. They have been and are effectively distracted
from a full and dispassionate consideration of the merits and demerits of the
Assuming that the Constitutional Convention has power to propose piecemeal proposed amendment by their traditional pervasive involvement in local elections
amendments and submit each separately to the people for ratification, we are and politics. They cannot thus weigh in tranquility the need for and the wisdom of
nonetheless persuaded that (1) that there is no proper submission of title the proposed amendment.
proposed amendment in question within the meaning and intendment of Section
1 of Article XV of the Constitution, and (2) that the forthcoming election is not the Upon the above disquisition, it is our considered view that the intendment of the
proper election envisioned by the same provision of the Constitution. words, "at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for
their ratification," embodied in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, has not
Mr. Justice C. V. Sanchez, in his dissent in Gonzales vs. Commission on been met.
Elections1 and Philippine Constitution Association vs. Commission on Elections,2
expounded his view, with which we essentially agree, on the minimum FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
requirements that must be met in order that there can be a proper submission to
the people of a proposed constitutional amendment. This is what he said: There is much to be said for the opinion of the Court penned by Justice Barredo,
characterized by clarity and vigor, its manifestation of fealty to the rule of law
... amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning. couched in eloquent language, that commands assent. As the Constitution
The people are not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They occupies the topmost rank in the hierarchy of legal norms, Congress and
must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the original provisions, compare Constitutional Convention alike, no less than this Court, must bow to its
them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates supremacy. Thereby constitutionalism asserts itself. With the view I entertain of
of their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of extraneous or possibly what is allowable, if not indeed required by the Constitution, my conformity does
insidious influences. We believe the word "submitted" can only mean that the not extend as far as the acceptance of the conclusion reached. The question
government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain every effort to inform presented is indeed novel, not being controlled by constitutional prescription,
citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the proposed amendments and the definite and certain. Under the circumstances, with the express recognition in the
meaning, nature and effects thereof. By this, we are not to be understood as Constitution of the powers of the Constitutional Convention to propose
saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens or 1,000 citizens cannot be reached, then amendments, I cannot discern any objection to the validity of its action there being
there is no submission within the meaning of the word as intended by the framers no legal impediment that would call for its nullification. Such an approach all the
of the Constitution. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government, more commends itself to me considering that what was sought to be done is to
in submitting an amendment for ratification, should put every instrumentality or refer the matter to the people in whom, according to our Constitution, sovereignty
agency within its structural framework to enlighten the people, educate them with resides. It is in that sense that, with due respect, I find myself unable to join my
respect to their act of ratification or rejection. For we have earlier stated, one thing brethren.
is submission and another is ratification. There must be fair submission, intelligent
consent or rejection." . I. It is understandable then why the decisive issue posed could not be resolved by
reliance on, implicit in the petition and the answer of intervenors, such concepts
as legislative control of the constitutional convention referred to by petitioner on which is not withheld from Congress as a constituent body would be to place it in
the one hand or, on the other, the theory of conventional sovereignty favored by an inferior category. Such a proposition I do not find acceptable. Congress and
intervenors. It is gratifying to note that during the oral argument of petitioner and constitutional convention are agencies for submitting proposals under the
counsel for respondents and intervenors, there apparently was a retreat from such fundamental law. A power granted to one should not be denied the other. No
extreme position, all parties, as should be the case, expressly avowing the justification for such a drastic differentiation either in theory or practice exists.
primacy of the Constitution, the applicable provision of which as interpreted by
this Court, should be controlling on both Congress and the Convention. It cannot Such a conclusion has for me the added reinforcement that to require ordinary
be denied though that in at least one American state, that is Pennsylvania, there legislation before the convention could be enabled to have its proposals voted on
were decisions announcing the doctrine that the powers to be exercised by a by the people would be to place a power in the legislative and executive branches
constitutional convention are dependent on a legislative grant, in the absence of that could, whether by act or omission, result in the frustration of the amending
any authority conferred directly by the fundamental law. The result is a convention process. I am the first to admit that such likelihood is remote, but if such a risk
that is subordinate to the lawmaking body. Its field of competence is even if minimal could be avoided, it should be, unless the compelling force of an
circumscribed. It has to look to the latter for the delimitation of its permissible applicable constitutional provision requires otherwise. Considering that a
scope of activity. It is thus made subordinate to the legislature. Nowhere has such constitutional convention is not precluded from imposing additional restrictions on
a view been more vigorously expressed than in the Pennsylvania case of Wood's the powers of either the executive or legislative branches, or, for that matter, the
Appeal.1 Its holding though finds no support under our constitutional provision. judiciary, it would appear to be the better policy to interpret Article XV in such a
way that would not sanction such restraint on the authority that must be
It does not thereby follow that while free from legislative control, a constitutional recognized as vested in a constitutional convention. There is nothing in such a
convention may lay claim to an attribute sovereign in character. The Constitution view that to my mind would collide with a reasonable interpretation of Article XV.
is quite explicit that it is to the people, and to the people alone, in whom It certainly is one way by which freed from pernicious abstractions, it would be
sovereignty resides.2 Such a prerogative is therefore withheld from a convention. easier to accommodate a constitution to the needs of an unfolding future. That is
It is an agency entrusted with the responsibility of high import and significance it to facilitate its being responsive to the challenge that time inevitably brings in its
is true; it is denied unlimited legal competence though. That is what sovereignty wake.
connotes. It has to yield to the superior force of the Constitution. There can then
be no basis for the exaggerated pretension that it is an alter ego of the people. It From such an approach then, I am irresistibly led to the conclusion that the
is to be admitted that there are some American state decisions, the most notable challenged resolution was well within the power of the convention. That would be
of which is Sproule v. Fredericks,3 a Mississippi case, that dates back to 1892, to brush aside the web of unreality spun from a too-restrictive mode of appraising
that yield a different conclusion. The doctrine therein announced cannot bind us. the legitimate scope of its competence. That would be, for me, to give added vigor
Our Constitution makes clear that the power of a constitutional convention is not and life to the conferment of authority vested in it, attended by such grave and
sovereign. It is appropriately termed constituent, limited as it is to the purpose of awesome responsibility.
drafting a constitution or proposing revision or amendments to one in existence,
subject in either case to popular approval. 3. It becomes pertinent to inquire then whether the last sentence of Article XV
providing that such amendment shall be valid when submitted and thereafter
The view that commends itself for acceptance is that legislature and constitutional approved by the majority of the votes cast by the people at an election is a bar to
convention, alike recognized by the Constitution, are coordinate, there being no the proposed submission. It is the conclusion arrived at by my brethren that there
superiority of one over the other. Insofar as the constituent power of proposing is to be only one election and that therefore the petition must be sustained as only
amendments to the Constitution is concerned, a constitutional convention enjoys when the convention has finished its work should all amendments proposed be
a wide sphere of autonomy consistently with the Constitution which can be the submitted for ratification. That is not for me, and I say this with respect, the
only source of valid restriction on its competence. It is true it is to the legislative appropriate interpretation. It is true that the Constitution uses the word "election"
body that the call to a convention must proceed, but once convened, it cannot in in the singular, but that is not decisive. No undue reliance should be accorded
any wise be interfered with, much less controlled by Congress. A contrary rules of grammar; they do not exert a compelling force in constitutional
conclusion would impair its usefulness for the delicate, and paramount task interpretation. Meaning is to be sought not from specific language in the singular
assigned to it. A convention then is to be looked upon as if it were one of the three but from the mosaic of significance derived from the total context. It could be, if it
coordinate departments which under the principle of separation of powers is were not thus, self-defeating. Such a mode of construction does not commend
supreme within its field and has exclusive cognizance of matters properly subject itself. The words used in the Constitution are not inert; they derive vitality from the
to its jurisdiction. A succinct statement of the appropriate principle that should obvious purposes at which they are aimed. Petitioner's stress on linguistic
govern the relationship between a constitutional convention and a legislative body refinement, while not implausible does not, for me, carry the day.
under American law is that found in Orfield's work. Thus: "The earliest view seems
to have been that a convention was absolute. The convention was sovereign and It was likewise argued by petitioner that the proposed amendment is provisional
subject to no restraint. On the other hand, Jameson, whose views have been most and therefore is not such as was contemplated in this article. I do not find such
frequently cited in decisions, viewed a convention as a body with strictly limited contention convincing. The fact that the Constitutional Convention did seek to
powers, and subject to the restrictions imposed on it by the legislative call. A third consult the wishes of the people by the proposed submission of a tentative
and intermediate view is that urged by Dodd — that a convention, though not amendatory provision is an argument for its validity. It might be said of course that
sovereign, is a body independent of the legislature; it is bound by the existing until impressed with finality, an amendment is not to be passed upon by the
constitution, but not by the acts of the legislature, as to the extent of its constituent electorate. There is plausibility in such a view. A literal reading of the Constitution
power. This view has become increasingly prevalent in the state decisions."4 would support it. The spirit that informs it though would not, for me, be satisfied.
From its silence I deduce the inference that there is no repugnancy to the
2. It is to the Constitution, and to the Constitution alone then, as so vigorously fundamental law when the Constitutional Convention ascertains the popular will.
stressed in the opinion of the Court, that any limitation on the power the In that sense, the Constitution, to follow the phraseology of Thomas Reed Powel,
Constitutional, Convention must find its source. I turn to its Article XV. It reads: is not silently silent but silently vocal. What I deem the more important
"The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three fourths of all the consideration is that while a public official, as an agent, has to locate his source
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, of authority in either Constitution or statute, the people, as the principal, can only
may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that be limited in the exercise of their sovereign powers by the express terms of the
purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when Constitution. A concept to the contrary would to my way of thinking be inconsistent
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments with the fundamental principle that it is in the people, and the people alone, that
are submitted to the people for their ratification." sovereignty resides.

Clearly, insofar as amendments, including revision, are concerned, there are two 4. The constitutional Convention having acted within the scope of its authority, an
steps, proposal and thereafter ratification. Thus as to the former, two constituent action to restrain or prohibit respondent Commission on Elections from conducting
bodies are provided for, the Congress of the Philippines in the mode therein the plebiscite does not lie. It should not be lost sight of that the Commission on
provided, and a constitutional convention that may be called into being. Once Elections in thus being charged with such a duty does not act in its capacity as
assembled, a constitutional convention, like the Congress of the Philippines, the constitutional agency to take charge of all laws relative to the conduct of
possesses in all its plenitude the constituent power. Inasmuch as Congress may election. That is a purely executive function vested in it under Article X of the
determine what amendments it would have the people ratify and thereafter take Constitution.5 It is not precluded from assisting the Constitutional Convention if
all the steps necessary so that the approval or disapproval of the electorate may pursuant to its competence to amend the fundamental law it seeks, as in this case,
be obtained, the convention likewise, to my mind, should be deemed possessed to submit a proposal, even if admittedly tentative, to the electorate to ascertain its
of all the necessary authority to assure that whatever amendments it seeks to verdict. At any rate, it may be implied that under the 1971 Constitutional
introduce would be submitted to the people at an election called for that purpose. Convention Act, it is not to turn a deaf ear to a summons from the Convention to
It would appear to me that to view the convention as being denied a prerogative aid it in the legitimate discharge of its functions.6
 True it is that the question posed by the proposed amendment, "Do you or do you
The aforesaid considerations, such as they are, but which for me have a force that not want the 18-year old to be allowed to vote?," would seem to be uncomplicated
I mind myself unable to overcome, leave me no alternative but to dissent from my and innocuous. But it is one of life's verities that things which appear to be simple
brethren, with due acknowledgement of course that from their basic premises, the may turn out not to be so simple after all.
conclusion arrived at by them cannot be characterized as in any wise bereft of a
persuasive quality of a high order. A number of doubts or misgivings could conceivably and logically assail the
average voter. Why should the voting age be lowered at all, in the first place? Why
Separate Opinions should the new voting age be precisely 18 years, and not 19 or 20? And why not
MAKALINTAL, J., reserves his vote — 17? Or even 16 or 15? Is the 18-year old as mature as the 21-year old so that
there is no need of an educational qualification to entitle him to vote? In this age
I reserve my vote. The resolution in question is voted down by a sufficient majority of permissiveness and dissent, can the 18-year old be relied upon to vote with
of the Court on just one ground, which to be sure achieves the result from the judiciousness when the 21-year old, in the past elections, has not performed so
legal and constitutional viewpoint. I entertain grave doubts as to the validity of the well? If the proposed amendment is voted down by the people, will the
premises postulated and conclusions reached in support of the dispositive portion Constitutional Convention insist on the said amendment? Why is there an
of the decision. However, considering the urgent nature of this case, the lack of unseemly haste on the part of the Constitutional Convention in having this
time to set down at length my opinion on the particular issue upon which the particular proposed amendment ratified at this particular time? Do some of the
decision is made to rest, and the fact that a dissent on the said issue would members of the Convention have future political plans which they want to begin
necessarily be inconclusive unless the other issues raised in the petition are also to subserve by the approval this year of this amendment? If this amendment is
considered and ruled upon — a task that would be premature and pointless at this approved, does it thereby mean that the 18-year old should now also shoulder the
time — I limit myself to this reservation. moral and legal responsibilities of the 21-year old? Will he be required to render
compulsory military service under the colors? Will the age of contractual consent
REYES, J.B.L., ZALDIVAR, CASTRO and MAKASIAR, JJ., concurring: be reduced to 18 years? If I vote against this amendment, will I not be unfair to
my own child who will be 18 years old, come 1973? .
We concur in the main opinion penned by Mr. Justice Barredo in his usual
inimitable, forthright and vigorous style. Like him, we do not express our individual The above are just samplings from here, there and everywhere — from a domain
views on the wisdom of the proposed constitutional amendment, which is not in (of searching questions) the bounds of which are not immediately ascertainable.
issue here because it is a matter that properly and exclusively addresses itself to Surely, many more questions can be added to the already long litany. And the
the collective judgment of the people. answers cannot be had except as the questions are debated fully, pondered upon
purposefully, and accorded undivided attention.
We must, however, articulate two additional objections of constitutional dimension
which, although they would seem to be superfluous because of the reach of the Scanning the contemporary scene, we say that the people are not, and by election
basic constitutional infirmity discussed in extenso in the main opinion, time will not be, sufficiently informed of the meaning, nature and effects of the
nevertheless appear to us to be just as fundamental in character and scope. proposed constitutional amendment. They have not been afforded ample time to
deliberate thereon conscientiously. They have been and are effectively distracted
Assuming that the Constitutional Convention has power to propose piecemeal from a full and dispassionate consideration of the merits and demerits of the
amendments and submit each separately to the people for ratification, we are proposed amendment by their traditional pervasive involvement in local elections
nonetheless persuaded that (1) that there is no proper submission of title and politics. They cannot thus weigh in tranquility the need for and the wisdom of
proposed amendment in question within the meaning and intendment of Section the proposed amendment.
1 of Article XV of the Constitution, and (2) that the forthcoming election is not the
proper election envisioned by the same provision of the Constitution. Upon the above disquisition, it is our considered view that the intendment of the
words, "at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for
Mr. Justice C. V. Sanchez, in his dissent in Gonzales vs. Commission on their ratification," embodied in Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, has not
Elections1 and Philippine Constitution Association vs. Commission on Elections,2 been met.
expounded his view, with which we essentially agree, on the minimum
requirements that must be met in order that there can be a proper submission to FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
the people of a proposed constitutional amendment. This is what he said:
There is much to be said for the opinion of the Court penned by Justice Barredo,
... amendments must be fairly laid before the people for their blessing or spurning. characterized by clarity and vigor, its manifestation of fealty to the rule of law
The people are not to be mere rubber stamps. They are not to vote blindly. They couched in eloquent language, that commands assent. As the Constitution
must be afforded ample opportunity to mull over the original provisions, compare occupies the topmost rank in the hierarchy of legal norms, Congress and
them with the proposed amendments, and try to reach a conclusion as the dictates Constitutional Convention alike, no less than this Court, must bow to its
of their conscience suggest, free from the incubus of extraneous or possibly supremacy. Thereby constitutionalism asserts itself. With the view I entertain of
insidious influences. We believe the word "submitted" can only mean that the what is allowable, if not indeed required by the Constitution, my conformity does
government, within its maximum capabilities, should strain every effort to inform not extend as far as the acceptance of the conclusion reached. The question
citizen of the provisions to be amended, and the proposed amendments and the presented is indeed novel, not being controlled by constitutional prescription,
meaning, nature and effects thereof. By this, we are not to be understood as definite and certain. Under the circumstances, with the express recognition in the
saying that, if one citizen or 100 citizens or 1,000 citizens cannot be reached, then Constitution of the powers of the Constitutional Convention to propose
there is no submission within the meaning of the word as intended by the framers amendments, I cannot discern any objection to the validity of its action there being
of the Constitution. What the Constitution in effect directs is that the government, no legal impediment that would call for its nullification. Such an approach all the
in submitting an amendment for ratification, should put every instrumentality or more commends itself to me considering that what was sought to be done is to
agency within its structural framework to enlighten the people, educate them with refer the matter to the people in whom, according to our Constitution, sovereignty
respect to their act of ratification or rejection. For we have earlier stated, one thing resides. It is in that sense that, with due respect, I find myself unable to join my
is submission and another is ratification. There must be fair submission, intelligent brethren.
consent or rejection." .
I. It is understandable then why the decisive issue posed could not be resolved by
The second constitutional objection was given expression by one of the writers of reliance on, implicit in the petition and the answer of intervenors, such concepts
this concurring opinion, in the following words: as legislative control of the constitutional convention referred to by petitioner on
the one hand or, on the other, the theory of conventional sovereignty favored by
I find it impossible to believe that it was ever intended by its framers that such intervenors. It is gratifying to note that during the oral argument of petitioner and
amendment should be submitted and ratified by just "a majority of the votes cast counsel for respondents and intervenors, there apparently was a retreat from such
at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their extreme position, all parties, as should be the case, expressly avowing the
ratification", if the concentration of the people's attention thereon is to be diverted primacy of the Constitution, the applicable provision of which as interpreted by
by other extraneous issues, such as the choice of local and national officials. The this Court, should be controlling on both Congress and the Convention. It cannot
framers of the Constitution, aware of the fundamental character thereof, and of be denied though that in at least one American state, that is Pennsylvania, there
the need of giving it as much stability as is practicable, could have only meant that were decisions announcing the doctrine that the powers to be exercised by a
any amendments thereto should be debated, considered and voted upon an constitutional convention are dependent on a legislative grant, in the absence of
election wherein the people could devote undivided attention to the subject.4 any authority conferred directly by the fundamental law. The result is a convention
that is subordinate to the lawmaking body. Its field of competence is
circumscribed. It has to look to the latter for the delimitation of its permissible
scope of activity. It is thus made subordinate to the legislature. Nowhere has such constitutional convention is not precluded from imposing additional restrictions on
a view been more vigorously expressed than in the Pennsylvania case of Wood's the powers of either the executive or legislative branches, or, for that matter, the
Appeal.1 Its holding though finds no support under our constitutional provision. judiciary, it would appear to be the better policy to interpret Article XV in such a
way that would not sanction such restraint on the authority that must be
It does not thereby follow that while free from legislative control, a constitutional recognized as vested in a constitutional convention. There is nothing in such a
convention may lay claim to an attribute sovereign in character. The Constitution view that to my mind would collide with a reasonable interpretation of Article XV.
is quite explicit that it is to the people, and to the people alone, in whom It certainly is one way by which freed from pernicious abstractions, it would be
sovereignty resides.2 Such a prerogative is therefore withheld from a convention. easier to accommodate a constitution to the needs of an unfolding future. That is
It is an agency entrusted with the responsibility of high import and significance it to facilitate its being responsive to the challenge that time inevitably brings in its
is true; it is denied unlimited legal competence though. That is what sovereignty wake.
connotes. It has to yield to the superior force of the Constitution. There can then
be no basis for the exaggerated pretension that it is an alter ego of the people. It From such an approach then, I am irresistibly led to the conclusion that the
is to be admitted that there are some American state decisions, the most notable challenged resolution was well within the power of the convention. That would be
of which is Sproule v. Fredericks,3 a Mississippi case, that dates back to 1892, to brush aside the web of unreality spun from a too-restrictive mode of appraising
that yield a different conclusion. The doctrine therein announced cannot bind us. the legitimate scope of its competence. That would be, for me, to give added vigor
Our Constitution makes clear that the power of a constitutional convention is not and life to the conferment of authority vested in it, attended by such grave and
sovereign. It is appropriately termed constituent, limited as it is to the purpose of awesome responsibility.
drafting a constitution or proposing revision or amendments to one in existence,
subject in either case to popular approval. 3. It becomes pertinent to inquire then whether the last sentence of Article XV
providing that such amendment shall be valid when submitted and thereafter
The view that commends itself for acceptance is that legislature and constitutional approved by the majority of the votes cast by the people at an election is a bar to
convention, alike recognized by the Constitution, are coordinate, there being no the proposed submission. It is the conclusion arrived at by my brethren that there
superiority of one over the other. Insofar as the constituent power of proposing is to be only one election and that therefore the petition must be sustained as only
amendments to the Constitution is concerned, a constitutional convention enjoys when the convention has finished its work should all amendments proposed be
a wide sphere of autonomy consistently with the Constitution which can be the submitted for ratification. That is not for me, and I say this with respect, the
only source of valid restriction on its competence. It is true it is to the legislative appropriate interpretation. It is true that the Constitution uses the word "election"
body that the call to a convention must proceed, but once convened, it cannot in in the singular, but that is not decisive. No undue reliance should be accorded
any wise be interfered with, much less controlled by Congress. A contrary rules of grammar; they do not exert a compelling force in constitutional
conclusion would impair its usefulness for the delicate, and paramount task interpretation. Meaning is to be sought not from specific language in the singular
assigned to it. A convention then is to be looked upon as if it were one of the three but from the mosaic of significance derived from the total context. It could be, if it
coordinate departments which under the principle of separation of powers is were not thus, self-defeating. Such a mode of construction does not commend
supreme within its field and has exclusive cognizance of matters properly subject itself. The words used in the Constitution are not inert; they derive vitality from the
to its jurisdiction. A succinct statement of the appropriate principle that should obvious purposes at which they are aimed. Petitioner's stress on linguistic
govern the relationship between a constitutional convention and a legislative body refinement, while not implausible does not, for me, carry the day.
under American law is that found in Orfield's work. Thus: "The earliest view seems
to have been that a convention was absolute. The convention was sovereign and It was likewise argued by petitioner that the proposed amendment is provisional
subject to no restraint. On the other hand, Jameson, whose views have been most and therefore is not such as was contemplated in this article. I do not find such
frequently cited in decisions, viewed a convention as a body with strictly limited contention convincing. The fact that the Constitutional Convention did seek to
powers, and subject to the restrictions imposed on it by the legislative call. A third consult the wishes of the people by the proposed submission of a tentative
and intermediate view is that urged by Dodd — that a convention, though not amendatory provision is an argument for its validity. It might be said of course that
sovereign, is a body independent of the legislature; it is bound by the existing until impressed with finality, an amendment is not to be passed upon by the
constitution, but not by the acts of the legislature, as to the extent of its constituent electorate. There is plausibility in such a view. A literal reading of the Constitution
power. This view has become increasingly prevalent in the state decisions."4 would support it. The spirit that informs it though would not, for me, be satisfied.
From its silence I deduce the inference that there is no repugnancy to the
2. It is to the Constitution, and to the Constitution alone then, as so vigorously fundamental law when the Constitutional Convention ascertains the popular will.
stressed in the opinion of the Court, that any limitation on the power the In that sense, the Constitution, to follow the phraseology of Thomas Reed Powel,
Constitutional, Convention must find its source. I turn to its Article XV. It reads: is not silently silent but silently vocal. What I deem the more important
"The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three fourths of all the consideration is that while a public official, as an agent, has to locate his source
Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, of authority in either Constitution or statute, the people, as the principal, can only
may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a convention for that be limited in the exercise of their sovereign powers by the express terms of the
purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when Constitution. A concept to the contrary would to my way of thinking be inconsistent
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments with the fundamental principle that it is in the people, and the people alone, that
are submitted to the people for their ratification." sovereignty resides.

Clearly, insofar as amendments, including revision, are concerned, there are two 4. The constitutional Convention having acted within the scope of its authority, an
steps, proposal and thereafter ratification. Thus as to the former, two constituent action to restrain or prohibit respondent Commission on Elections from conducting
bodies are provided for, the Congress of the Philippines in the mode therein the plebiscite does not lie. It should not be lost sight of that the Commission on
provided, and a constitutional convention that may be called into being. Once Elections in thus being charged with such a duty does not act in its capacity as
assembled, a constitutional convention, like the Congress of the Philippines, the constitutional agency to take charge of all laws relative to the conduct of
possesses in all its plenitude the constituent power. Inasmuch as Congress may election. That is a purely executive function vested in it under Article X of the
determine what amendments it would have the people ratify and thereafter take Constitution.5 It is not precluded from assisting the Constitutional Convention if
all the steps necessary so that the approval or disapproval of the electorate may pursuant to its competence to amend the fundamental law it seeks, as in this case,
be obtained, the convention likewise, to my mind, should be deemed possessed to submit a proposal, even if admittedly tentative, to the electorate to ascertain its
of all the necessary authority to assure that whatever amendments it seeks to verdict. At any rate, it may be implied that under the 1971 Constitutional
introduce would be submitted to the people at an election called for that purpose. Convention Act, it is not to turn a deaf ear to a summons from the Convention to
It would appear to me that to view the convention as being denied a prerogative aid it in the legitimate discharge of its functions.6
which is not withheld from Congress as a constituent body would be to place it in
an inferior category. Such a proposition I do not find acceptable. Congress and The aforesaid considerations, such as they are, but which for me have a force that
constitutional convention are agencies for submitting proposals under the I mind myself unable to overcome, leave me no alternative but to dissent from my
fundamental law. A power granted to one should not be denied the other. No brethren, with due acknowledgement of course that from their basic premises, the
justification for such a drastic differentiation either in theory or practice exists. conclusion arrived at by them cannot be characterized as in any wise bereft of a
persuasive quality of a high order.
Such a conclusion has for me the added reinforcement that to require ordinary
legislation before the convention could be enabled to have its proposals voted on Footnotes
by the people would be to place a power in the legislative and executive branches 1 Under Section 36, Rule 138 as amended, no one may appear as amicus curiae
that could, whether by act or omission, result in the frustration of the amending unless invited or allowed, by the Court.
process. I am the first to admit that such likelihood is remote, but if such a risk REYES, J.B.L., ZALDIVAR, CASTRO and MAKASIAR, JJ., concurring:
even if minimal could be avoided, it should be, unless the compelling force of an 1 L-28196, Nov. 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774, 816-817.
applicable constitutional provision requires otherwise. Considering that a 2 L-28224, Nov. 9, 1967, 21 SCRA 774, 816-817.
3 Per Justice J.B.L. Reyes, concurred by Justices Arsenio P. Dizon, Calixto O.
Zaldivar, Fred Ruiz Castro and Eugenio Angeles.
4 21 SCRA 821.
FERNANDO, J., concurring and dissenting:
1 Wood's Appeal, 75 Pa. 59 (1874) cited in Malcolm and Laurel. Cases in
Constitutional Law, pp. 1, 4-5 (1936). It was therein stated: "In a governmental
and proper sense, law is the highest act of a people's sovereignty while their
government and Constitution remain unchanged. It is the supreme will of the
people expressed in the forms and by the authority of their Constitution. It is their
own appointed mode through which they govern themselves, and by which they
bind themselves. So long as their frame of government is unchanged in its grant
of all legislative power, these laws are supreme over all subjects unforbidden by
the instrument itself. The calling of a convention, and regulating its action by law,
is not forbidden in the Constitution. It is a conceded manner, through which the
people may exercise the rights reserved in the bill of rights. ... The right of the
people to restrain their delegates by law cannot be denied, unless the power to
call a convention by law, and the right of self protection be also denied."
2 According to Sec. 1 of Art. II: "Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them." .
3 11 So. 472. The following excerpt appears in the opinion: "We have spoken of
the constitutional convention as a sovereign body, and that characterization
perfectly defines the correct view, in our opinion, of the real nature of that august
assembly. It is the highest legislative body known to freemen in a representative
government. It is supreme in its sphere. It wields the powers of sovereignty,
specially delegated to it, for the purpose and the occasion, by the whole electoral
body, for the good of the whole commonwealth. The sole limitation upon its
powers is that no change in the form of government shall be done or attempted.
The spirit of republicanism must breathe through every part of the framework, but
the particular fashioning of the parts of this framework is confided to the wisdom
the faithfulness, and the patriotism of this great convocation, representing the
people in their sovereignty." The Sproule decision was cited with approval four
years later by the Mississippi Supreme Court anew in Dickson v. State, 20 So.
841. A 1908 decision of the Southern State of Oklahoma, State v. Scales, 97 P.
584, admitted the controversial character of the Sproule dictum.
4 Orfield on The Amending of the Federal Constitution, 45-46 (1942).
5 According to Sec. 2 of Article X of the Constitution: "The Commission on
Elections shall have exclusive charge of its enforcement and administration of all
laws relative to the conduct of elections and shall exercise all other functions
which may be conferred upon it by law." Cf. Abcede v. Imperial, 103 Phil. 136
(1958).
6 "According to Sec. 14 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act
(1970):"Administration and Technical Assistance. -- All government entities,
agencies and instrumentalities, including the Senate and House of
Representatives, shall place at the disposal of the Convention such personnel
premises, and furniture thereof as can, in their judgment be spared without
detriment to public service, without cost, refund or additional pay."