Constitutional Law 1 | Atty.

Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

AMENDMENT/REVISION LAMBINO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

Test to Determine Amendment / Revision ● The Lambino Group filed a petition with
COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their
A. Quantitative test initiative petition under section 5(b) and (c) and
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the
 Asks whether the proposed change is Initiative and Referendum Act.
"so extensive in its provisions as to ● They alleged that their petition had the support
change directly the 'substantial entirety' of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least
twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters,
of the constitution by the deletion or with each legislative district represented by at
least three per centum (3%) of its registered
alteration of numerous existing voters. Claiming also that Comelec election
provisions." registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3
million voters.
 The court examines only the number of
● The changes to be sought are, modifying the
provisions affected and does not following: Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative
Department) and Section 1-4 of Article VII
consider the degree of the change. (Executive Department) and by adding Article
XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions . ”

B. Qualitative Test ● These proposed changes will shift the present

Bicameral - Presidential system to a Unicameral
 Inquires into the qualitative effects of the - Parliamentary form of government.

proposed change in the constitution. ISSUE:

 Main inquiry is whether the change will Whether or not the said initiative is an
amendment.
"accomplish such far reaching changes
RULING:
in the nature of our basic governmental
● The Lambino Group’s initiative is a revision and
plan as to amount to a revision. not merely an amendment.
(Case in point: Lambino v. Commission on Elections )
● The courts developed a two-part test : the
quantitative test and the qualitative test .
CASE PROBLEMS:
● The Quantitative test asks whether the
1.) What change was intended to be proposed change is "so extensive in its provisions
introduced?
as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of
2.) Explain the two tests and how are they the constitution by the deletion or alteration of
used appropriately? numerous existing provisions ." The court
examines only the number of provisions affected
3.) Was the change and amendment or
and does not consider the degree of the change.
revision? How did the Supreme Court arrive
at such decision? ● The Lambino Group’s proposed changes
4.) What provisions of the Constitution were overhaul two articles affecting a total of 105
affected? provisions in the entire Constitution .

● The Qualitative test inquires into the qualitative

effects of the proposed change in the constitution.
The main inquiry is whether the change will

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

" accomplish such far reaching changes in the ● Sections 1, 4, 18, & 19 of Article XIII (Social
nature of our basic governmental plan as to
Justice and Human Rights)
amount to a revision.
● Sections of 4, 6, 9, & 11 Article XIV
● the proposed changes alter substantially the
basic plan of government, from presidential to (Education, Science and Technology, etc.)
parliamentary , and from a bicameral to a
unicameral legislature. ● Sections of 2, 5, 11, & 12 Article XVI

● A change in the structure of government is a (General Provisions)

revision of the Constitution , as when the three
● Sections of 1-3 Article XVII (Amendments or
great co-equal branches of government in the
present Constitution are reduced into two. This Revisions)
alters the separation of powers in the
Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral- ● All 27 Sections of Article XVIII (Transitory
Presidential system to a Unicameral-
Provisions)
Parliamentary system is a revision of the
Constitution. Merging the legislative and
executive branches is a radical change in the
structure of government. Constituent Assembly (Congress)
COMMENTS: Textual Basis
More than one hundred (100) sections will be affected  Section 1 of Article 17 of the 1987
or altered:
Constitution
● Sec.19 of Art III (Bill of rights)  SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or
revision of, this Constitution may be
● Sec. 2 of Art V (Suffrage)
proposed by: The Congress, upon a vote
● All 32 Sections of Article VI on the of ¾ of all its Members; or a constitutional
Legislative Department
convention

● All 32 Sections of Article VI on the Can it be used to introduce both amendment

and revision? YES.
Legislative Department
How can said assembly effectively propose
● Sections 2, 7, 8, 9, & 16 of Article VIII
change/s?
(Judicial Department)
 Vote of 3/4 of all its Members
● Sections (B) 3, 5, & 8; (C) 1, 2(7-9), 5, 7, &  Section 4 gives details about how to
ratify/implement
8; (D) 1(2); and Sec 4(Duty of the COA to
 SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or
make annual report to the President and revision of, this Constitution under
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
Congress) of Article IX (Constitutional
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in
Commissions) a plebiscite (election) which shall be held
not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90
● Sections of 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 16, 18, & 19
days after the certification by the
Article X (Local Government) Commission of Elections of the
Sufficiency of the Petition.
● Sections of 2, 3, 9, 16, & 17 Article XI
Constitutional Convention (Specific People
(Accountability of Public Officers)
assigned by Congress)
● Sections 2-5, 9-11, 15-17, & 20 of Article XII
Textual Basis
(National Economy and Patrimony)
 Section 1 and 3 of Article 17

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

Can it be used to introduce both amendment

and revision? YES. 4.) If Congress, as a Constituent Assembly,
fails to provide for the implementing details of
Modes for calling a Constitutional Convention: the operation of Constitutional Convention,
what can be done?
 2/3 vote of congress
 Submit to the electorate 5.) Ultimately, did Congress call for a
 Majority Vote of Congress to pass this Constitutional Convention as a legislative
action body through R.A. 6132?
 Submitting to the electorate the question
of calling for a CC
 The question of a CC will be asked to the
RULING:
people during election and their votes will
determine if a ConCon can be called.  No, Congress cannot call for a
Constitutional Convention while acting as
(Case in point: Imbong vs. Ferrer)
a legislative body. However, it may Call
IMBONG VS. FERRER for a Con-Con acting as a Constituent
Assembly.
FACTS:  Yes, the Congress acting as a legislative
 Manuel Imbong and Raul Gonzalez filed body, can lay down the implementing
2 separate cases challenging the details for the operation of the
constitutionality of R.A. 6132, claiming Constitutional Convention, as it has by
that it hurts their rights to run as implementing R.A. No. 4192 and 6132.
candidates.  No, the Congress can only do so by
 Petitioner Raul Gonzalez argues the acting as a legislative body.
validity of Sections 2, 4, 5, and par. 1 of  As a legislative body, the Congress can
8(a), and the entire law. He argued that enact necessary implementing details
sec 2 was not in accordance with the through legislation to fill in the gaps of the
constitution and its intent. Constituent Assembly.
 Petitioner Manuel Imbong, challenges  No, the Congress, as a legislative body,
the constitutionality of par.1 of Sec. 8 of did not call for a Constitutional
R.A. 6132 Convention through R.A. 6132, the said
act was passed by Congress to provide
ISSUE: implementing details for Resolutions 2
and 4 in calling a Constitutional
Whether or not such laws are unconstitutional. Convention.

CASE PROBLEMS: SIGNIFICANT LAWS:

1.) Can Congress, acting as a legislative  Resolution No 2 (1967) -Calls for

body, call for a Constitutional Constitutional Convention to be composed of
Convention? 2 delegates from each representative district
who shall be elected in November, 1970.
2.) Can Congress, acting as a legislative  RA 4919 -implementation of Resolution No 2
body, lay down the implementing details  Resolution 4 (1969)-amended Resolution 2:
for the operation of the Constitutional Constitutional Convention shall be composed
Convention? of 320 delegates a proportioned among
existing representative districts according to
3.) Can Congress, acting as a the population. Provided that each district
Constituent Assembly lay down the shall be entitled to 2 delegates.
implementing details for the operation of  RA 6132-Concon Act 1970, repealed RA
4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4.
the Constitutional Convention?
 Sec 2: apportionment of delegates

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

 Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees Constitution by the disjunctive "or." Such
as resigned when they file their candidacy basis is, however, a weak one, in the
 Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from absence of other circumstances. In fact,
running for any public office in the election or the term "or" has, oftentimes, been held
from assuming any appointive office/position
to mean "and," or vice-versa, when the
until the final adournment of the ConCon.
spirit or context of the law warrants it.
 Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political
parties/organized groups from giving  In any event, we do not find, either in the
support/representing a delegate to the Constitution, or in the history thereof
convention. anything that would negate the authority
of different Congresses to approve the
contested Resolutions, or of the same
GONZALEZ VS. COMELEC Congress to pass the same in, different
sessions or different days of the same
FACTS: congressional session. And, neither has
any plausible reason been advanced to
 The case is an original action for justify the denial of authority to adopt said
prohibition with preliminary injunction by resolutions on the same day.
Ramon A. Gonzales.
 It is, also, noteworthy that R. B. H. Nos. 1
 The Senate and the House of and 3 propose amendments to the
Representatives passed the following constitutional provision on Congress, to
resolutions: 1.) increasing the number of be submitted to the people for ratification
seats in the lower house from 120 – 180, on November 14, 1967, whereas R. B. H.
2.) calling for a Constitutional No. 2 calls for a convention in 1971, to
Convention, and 3.) allowing members of consider proposals for amendment to the
Congress to run as delegates to the Constitution, in general. In other words,
Constitutional Convention without the subject-matter of R. B. H. No. 2 is
forfeiting their seats. different from that of R B. H. Nos. 1 and
 Congress passed a bill which was 3.
approved by the President became  Moreover, the amendments proposed
Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the under R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be
amendments to the constitution submitted for ratification several years
proposed by the aforementioned before those that may be proposed by
Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for the constitutional convention called in R.
approval by the people, at the general B. H. No. 2.
elections.
 Again, although the three (3) resolutions
were passed on the same date, they
were taken up and put to a vote
ISSUE: separately, or one after the other. In other
words, they were not passed at the same
Can Congress propose amendments to the
time.
Constitution and call a Constitutional
Convention? How did the Supreme Court arrive The Supreme Court ruled that the Congress can
at a decision? do both. While it is at best advisable for Congress
to call the Constitutional Convention when the
HELD:
envisioned change partakes of the nature of the
 Atty. Juan T. David, as amicus curiae, revision, there is nothing in law which prohibits
maintains that Congress may either the Congress from undertaking the task.
propose amendments to the Constitution
or call a convention for that purpose, but
it cannot do both, at the same time.
 This theory is based upon the fact that
the two alternatives are connected in the

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

People’s Initiative SANTIAGO VS. COMELEC

Textual Basis FACTS:

 Republic Act 6735 states that an initiative  In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with
is “power of the people to propose COMELEC a petition to amend
amendments to the Constitution or to Constitution, to lift term limits of elective
propose and enact legislations through officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin
an election called for the purpose.” wanted COMELEC to control and
 It is a mode for constitutional amendment supervise said people’s initiative the
provided by the 1987 Philippine signature-gathering all over the country.
Constitution or to the act of pushing an The proposition is: “Do you approve of
initiative (national or local) allowed by the lifting the term limits of all elective
Philippine Initiative and Referendum Act government officials, amending for the
of 1987. purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of Article VI,
 Section 2. Of Article 17 of the 1987 Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of
Philippine Constitution. Article 8 of Article X of the 1987
 SECTION 2. Amendments to this Philippine Constitution?”
Constitution may likewise be directly  Said Petition for Initiative will first be
proposed by the people through initiative submitted to the people, and after it is
upon a petition of at least twelve per signed by at least 12% total number of
centum of the total number of registered registered voters in the country, it will be
voters, of which every legislative district formally filed with the COMELEC.
must be represented by at least three per  COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for
centum of the registered voters therein. publication of the petition. Petitioners
No amendment under this section shall Sen. Roco et al moved for dismissal of
be authorized within five years following the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is
the ratification of this Constitution nor not the initiatory petition properly
oftener than once every five years cognizable by the COMELEC.
thereafter.  Constitutional provision on people’s
initiative to amend the Constitution can
3 systems of initiative provided by law: only be implemented by law to be passed
 Initiative on the Constitution which allows by Congress. No such law has been
for a petition proposing amendments to passed.
the Constitution.  Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3
 Initiative on statutes which allows systems on initiative but failed to provide
proposals for enactment of a national any subtitle on initiative on the
legislation. Constitution, unlike in the other modes of
 Initiative on local legislation which covers initiative.
ordinances and resolutions in the  This deliberate omission indicates matter
regional down to the barangay level. of people’s initiative was left to some
future law.c. COMELEC has no power to
Amendment vs. Revision provide rules and regulations for the
exercise of people’s initiative. Only
"Revision” suggests fundamental change, while
Congress is authorized by the
“Amendment” is a correction of detail.
Constitution to pass the implementing
Can it be a mode to introduce both law.d. People’s initiative is limited to
amendment and revision? NO. ONLY FOR amendments to the Constitution, not to
REVISION. revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
term limits constitutes a revision.e.
(Case in point: Santiago vs. Comelec) Congress nor any government agency

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

has not yet appropriated funds for Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted
people’s initiative. or enacted is a law, ordinance or resolution which
only legislative bodies of the governments of the
autonomous regions, provinces, cities,
ISSUE: municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Whether or not 6735 a sufficient enabling law.

RULING: LAMBINO VS. COMELEC

 It was declared that R.A. 6735 was an Was the change an amendment or revision?
insufficient enabling law to govern the REVISION.
system of initiative to amend the
Constitution for the following reasons: Revision- broadly implies a change that alters a
 FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of basic principle in the Constitution.
COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not
 The proposed change in the case will
suggest an initiative on amendments to
shift the present Bicameral-Presidential
the Constitution. The inclusion of the
System to a Unicameral-Parliamentary
word “Constitution” therein was a
form of government.
delayed afterthought. The word is not
relevant to the section which is silent as
to amendments of the Constitution.
Amendment- broadly refers to a change that
adds, reduces or deletes without altering the
basic principle involved.
 SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other
systems of initiative, the Act does not Revision, generally affects several provisions of
provide for the contents of a petition for the Constitution.
initiative on the Constitution. Sec 5(c)
does not include the provisions of the Amendment, generally affects only the specific
Constitution sought to be amended, in provision being amended.
the case of initiative on the Constitution.
Petition is “directly proposed by the people”
when: the draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment is ready and shown to the people
 THIRD: No subtitle is provided for before they sign such proposal. Before they sign
initiative on the Constitution. This the proposal, a draft must already been shown to
conspicuous silence as to the latter them. The entire proposal on its face is a petition
simply means that the main thrust of the by the people.
Act is initiative and referendum on
national and local laws. The argument Two Essential Elements:
that the initiative on amendments to the
1. The people must author and thus sign the
Constitution is not accepted to be
entire proposal. No agent or representative can
subsumed under the subtitle on National
sign on their behalf.
Initiative and Referendum because it is
national in scope. Under Subtitle II and 2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal
III, the classification is not based on the must be embodied in a petition.
scope of the initiative involved, but on its
nature and character.

National initiative – what is proposed to be RULING:

enacted is a national law, or a law which only Decision of Supreme Court on R.A. 6735:
Congress can pass.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

 Denied, for lack of an enabling law approval of the proposed/draft changes as

governing initiative petitions to amend authored either by Congress or ConCon. But if
the Constitution. the proposed changes are authored by the
 The main inquiry is whether the change people, then the 60 to the 90 day period should
will accomplish such far reaching be counted not from the filing of petition by the
changes in the nature of our basic people but upon the issuance by the Comelecof
governmental plan as to amount to a a certification attesting to the fact that the
revision. people’s petition is sufficient in form and in
 Lambino's group initiative is Revision. By substance.
any legal test and under any jurisdiction,
Why is there a need for a definite time-frame?
a shift from Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, Because the framers of the 1987 constitution did
involving abolition of the office of the not want recurrence of what happened in the past
President and chamber of Congress is where there were cases that were filed
beyond doubt a Revision. Revision questioning the propriety of submitting the
requires harmonizing not only several proposed amendments for ratification by the
provisions, but also the altered principles. people.
Ratification What is the ‘Doctrine of Fair and Proper
Submission’ in relation to the existing
The proposed amendments or revisions either
provisions of Article 17 of the 1987
sponsored by the Congress, ConConor proposed
Constitution?
by the people themselves should be submitted to
the people in a plebiscite for their approval or Amendments cannot be submitted to the people
disapproval. in a piecemeal fashion wherein the other
amendments are to follow. The people should
Textual Basis
have a frame of reference from which to read the
 Article 17 Section 4 of the 1987 amendments being proposed.
Philippine Constitution
(Case in point: Tolentino vs COMELEC)
 SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or
revision of, this Constitution under TOLENTINO VS. COMELEC
Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in FACTS:
a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier  The case is a petition for prohibition to
than sixty days nor later than ninety days restrain respondent Commission on
after the approval of such amendment or Elections "from undertaking to hold a
revision. plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at
 Any amendment under Section 2 hereof which the proposed constitutional
shall be valid when ratified by a majority amendment "reducing the voting age" in
of the votes cast in a plebiscite which Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution
shall be held not earlier than sixty days of the Philippines to eighteen years "shall
nor later than ninety days after the be, submitted" for ratification by the
certification by the Commission on people pursuant to Organic Resolution
Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of
What voting threshold must be met for there 1971, and the subsequent implementing
to be an effective ratification? Majority of the resolutions, by declaring said resolutions
votes cast in a plebiscite. to be without the force and effect of law
for being violative of the Constitution of
When must a plebiscite be conducted? the Philippines.
 Convention approved Organic
Ratification should not be held earlier than 60
Resolution No. 1 on Sept. 28, 1971 which
days but not later than 90 days following the
provides for the (1.) Amendment of Sec.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

1 of Art. V, lowering the voting age to 18;  It distinctly states that either Congress
and (2.) holding of a plebiscite co- sitting as a constituent assembly or a
incident with the elections of 8 senators convention called for the purpose "may
and all city, provincial and municipal propose amendments to this
officials for the ratification of the Constitution,".
aforementioned proposed amendment.  The same provision also provides that
 Convention subsequently approved of "such amendments shall be valid as part
other resolutions in support of Org. Res. of this Constitution when approved by a
No. 1 majority of the votes cast at an election at
 COMELEC was called upon to help which the amendments are submitted to
Convention implement Res. No. 1 and the people for their ratification," thus
other supporting resolutions. leaving no room for doubt as to how
 Petitioner then filed this case principally many "elections" or plebiscites may be
to restrain COMELEC, who will be acting held to ratify any amendment or
in pursuant to said resolutions, from amendments proposed by the same
undertaking the plebiscite on Nov. 8, constituent assembly of Congress or
1971 for the ratification of the sole convention, and the provision
amendment. unequivocally says "an election" which
 Intervenors: raised the question of means only one.
jurisdiction. The issue is supposedly “a  The petition herein is granted. Organic
political question and that the Convention Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional
being a legislative body of the highest Convention of 1971 and the
order is sovereign, and as such, its acts implementing acts and resolutions of the
impugned by petitioner are beyond the Convention, insofar as they provide for
control of the Congress and the courts”. the holding of a plebiscite on November
8, 1971, as well as the resolution of
COMELEC (respondent) complying
ISSUE: therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are
hereby declared null and void.
Whether or not it is within the power of the  The respondents COMELEC, Disbursing
Convention to call for a plebiscite for the Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of
ratification by the people of the sole amendment the Constitutional Convention are hereby
contained in Org. Res. No.1 (When Convention is enjoined from taking any action in
not yet adjourned and still in the preliminary compliance with the said organic
stages). resolution. In view of the peculiar
circumstances of this case, the Court
declares this decision immediately
RULING: executory.

 The Court holds that all amendments to What is a piecemeal submission for
be proposed by the same Convention ratification?
must be submitted to the people in a Amendments presented separately from each
single "election" or plebiscite. and all of the other amendments to be drafted and
 Holds that the plebiscite being called for proposed by the Convention.
the purpose of submitting the same for
ratification of the people on November 8, Can a piecemeal submission for ratification
1971 is not authorized by Section 1 of be allowed? Explain how the Supreme Court
Article XV of the Constitution, hence all arrived at a decision.
acts of the Convention and COMELEC
(the respondent) in that direction are null The Supreme Court succinctly ruled that
piecemeal submission of amendments for
and void.
ratification of the people is not allowed. It

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray
Constitutional Law 1 | Atty. Mark Lawrence Badayos | Group 2 | Knowledge Portfolio |

should be submitted to the people as a whole.

The people should have a frame of reference
from which to read the amendments being
proposed. All the amendments to be proposed by
the same Convention must be submitted to the
people in a single election or plebiscite.

Notes By:
Alcular | Chan | Duran | Grengia | Luzon | Oliamot | Oliver | Pestano | Tariman | Yray