RAUL L. LAMBINO and ERICO
B.
AUMENTADO,
TOGETHER WITH
6,327,952 REGISTERED
VOTERS,
Petitioners, |
G.R. No. 174153
October 25, 2006
- versus -
THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,
Respondent.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ALTERNATIVE LAW GROUPS, INC.,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ONEVOICE INC., CHRISTIAN S.
MONSOD, RENE
B. AZURIN, MANUEL L. QUEZON III, BENJAMIN
T. TOLOSA, JR., SUSAN V. OPLE and CARLOS P.
MEDINA, JR.
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
ATTY. PETE QUIRINO QUADRA,
Intervenor.
x-------------------------------------------x
|
|
BAYAN represented by its Chairperson
Dr. Carolina
Pagaduan-Araullo, BAYAN MUNA
represented by its Chairperson,
Dr. Reynaldo
Lesaca, KILUSANG MAYO UNO represented
by its Secretary General Joel Maglunsod, HEAD
represented by its
Secretary General Dr. Gene
Alzona Nisperos, ECUMENICAL BISHOPS
FORUM represented by Fr. Dionito Cabillas,
MIGRANTE represented
by its Chairperson
Concepcion Bragas-Regalado, GABRIELA
represented by its Secretary General
Emerenciana de Jesus,
GABRIELA WOMEN’S
PARTY represented by Sec. Gen. Cristina
Palabay,
ANAKBAYAN represented by Chairperson
Eleanor de
Guzman, LEAGUE OF FILIPINO
STUDENTS represented by Chair
Vencer
Crisostomo Palabay, JOJO PINEDA of the
League of
Concerned Professionals and
Businessmen, DR. DARBY SANTIAGO
of the Solidarity of Health Against Charter
Change, DR. REGINALD
PAMUGAS of
Health Action for Human Rights,
Intervenors.
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES,
MARIO JOYO AGUJA, and ANA THERESA
HONTIVEROS-BARAQUEL,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
ARTURO M. DE CASTRO,
Intervenor.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
TRADE UNION CONGRESS OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
LUWALHATI RICASA ANTONINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), CONRADO
F. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLEDO,
MARIANO M. TAJON, FROILAN M.
BACUNGAN, JOAQUIN T. VENUS, JR.,
FORTUNATO P. AGUAS, and AMADO
GAT
INCIONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
RONALD L. ADAMAT, ROLANDO
MANUEL RIVERA, and RUELO BAYA,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND GENERAL
WORKERS ORGANIZATION (PTGWO)
and MR. VICTORINO F. BALAIS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
SENATE OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented
by its President, MANUEL VILLAR, JR.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
SULONG BAYAN MOVEMENT
FOUNDATION, INC.,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
JOSE ANSELMO I. CADIZ, BYRON D.
BOCAR, MA. TANYA KARINA A. LAT,
ANTONIO L. SALVADOR, and
RANDALL TABAYOYONG,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES,
CEBU CITY AND CEBU PROVINCE
CHAPTERS,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
SENATE MINORITY LEADER AQUILINO
Q. PIMENTEL, JR. and
SENATORS
SERGIO R. OSMEŇA III,
JAMBY
MADRIGAL, JINGGOY
ESTRADA,
ALFREDO S. LIM and
PANFILO LACSON,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA
and
PWERSA
NG MASANG
PILIPINO,
Intervenors.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
|
MAR-LEN ABIGAIL
BINAY,
SOFRONIO
UNTALAN, JR.,
and
RENE
A.V. SAGUISAG,
Petitioners,
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
G.R. No. 174299
October 25, 2006
-versus- chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
|
COMMISSION ON
ELECTIONS,
represented by Chairman BENJAMIN
S. ABALOS, SR., and Commissioners
RESURRECCION Z.
BORRA,
FLORENTINO A. TUASON,
ROMEO A.
BRAWNER,
RENE V.
SARMIENTO,
NICODEMO T. FERRER,
and
John
Doe and Peter
Doe,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------x
|
SEPARATE OPINION
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
AZCUNA, J.:
“Why, friends, you go to do you know not what.”
-- Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Act III, Sc. 2.
Article XVII of the Constitution states:cralaw:red
AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution
may be proposed by:cralaw:red
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.
Sec. 2. Amendments to this
Constitution
may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of
registered voters, of which every legislative district must be
represented by at least three per centum of the registered votes
therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized
within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter.
The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of
all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority
vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of
calling such a convention.
Sec. 4. Any amendment to, or revision of, this
Constitution under Section 1 hereof shall be valid when ratified by a
majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval
of such amendment or revision.
Any amendment under Section 2 hereof shall be valid when
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the
certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the
petition.
chan robles virtual law library
This Article states the procedure for changing the Constitution.
Constitutions have three parts – the Constitution of Liberty, which
states the fundamental rights of the people; the Constitution of
Government, which establishes the structure of government, its branches
and their operation; and the Constitution of Sovereignty, which
provides how the Constitution may be changed.
Article XVII is the Constitution of Sovereignty.
As a result, the powers therein provided are called constituent
powers. So when Congress acts under this provision, it acts not
as a legislature exercising legislative powers. It acts as a
constituent body exercising constituent powers.
The rules, therefore, governing the exercise of legislative powers do
not apply, or do not apply strictly, to the actions taken under Article
XVII.
Accordingly, since Article XVII states that Congress shall provide for
the implementation of the exercise of the people’s right directly to
propose amendments to the
Constitution
through initiative, the act of Congress pursuant thereto is not
strictly a legislative action but partakes of a constituent act.
As a result,
Republic Act No. 6735
,
the act that provides for the exercise of the people of the right to
propose a law or amendments to the Constitution is, with respect to the
right to propose amendments to the
Constitution
, a constituent measure, not a mere legislative one.
The consequence of this special character of the enactment, insofar as it relates to proposing amendments to the
Constitution
,
is that the requirements for statutory enactments, such as sufficiency
of standards and the like, do not and should not strictly apply.
As long as there is a sufficient and clear intent to provide for the
implementation of the exercise of the right, it should be sustained, as
it is simply a compliance of the mandate placed on Congress by the
Constitution.
Seen in this light, the provisions of
Republic Act No. 6735
relating to the procedure for proposing amendments to the Constitution,
can and should be upheld, despite shortcomings perhaps in legislative
headings and standards.
For this reason, I concur in the view that Santiago v. Comelec[1]
should be re-examined and, after doing so, that the pronouncement
therein regarding the insufficiency or inadequacy of the measure to
sustain a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution should be
reconsidered in favor of allowing the exercise of this sovereign right.
And applying the doctrine stated in Senarillos v. Hermosisima,[2]
penned by Justice J.B.L. Reyes, in relation to Article 8 of the Civil Code, that a decision of this Court interpreting a law forms part of the law interpreted as of the time of its enactment,
Republic Act No. 6735
should be deemed sufficient and adequate from the start.
This next point to address, there being a sufficient law, is whether
the petition for initiative herein involved complies with the
requirements of that law as well as those stated in Article XVII of the
Constitution.
True it is that ours is a democratic state, as explicitated in the
Declaration of Principles, to emphasize precisely that there are
instances recognized and provided for in the Constitution where our
people directly exercise their sovereign powers, new features set forth
in this People Power Charter, namely, the powers of recall, initiative
and referendum.
Nevertheless, this democratic nature of our polity is that of a
democracy under the rule of law. This equally important point is
emphasized in the very Preamble to the Constitution, which states:cralaw:red
“ the blessings of . democracy under the rule of law”
Such is the case with respect to the power to initiate changes in the
Constitution
The power is subject to limitations under the Constitution itself,
thus: The power could not be exercised for the first five years
after the Constitution took effect and thereafter can only be exercised
once every five years; the power only extends to proposing amendments
but not revisions; and the power needs an act of Congress providing for
its implementation, which act is directed and mandated.
chan robles virtual law library
The question, therefore, arises whether the proposed changes in the
Constitution
set forth in the petition for initiative herein involved are mere amendments or rather are revisions.
Revisions are changes that affect the entire
Constitution
and not mere parts of it.
The reason why revisions are not allowed through direct proposals by
the people through initiative is a practical one, namely, there is no
one to draft such extensive changes, since 6.3 million people cannot
conceivably come up with a single extensive document through a direct
proposal from each of them. Someone would have to draft it and
that is not authorized as it would not be a direct proposal from the
people. Such indirect proposals can only take the form of
proposals from Congress as a Constituent Assembly under Article XVII,
or a Constitutional Convention created under the same provision.
Furthermore, there is a need for such deliberative bodies for revisions
because their proceedings and debates are duly and officially recorded,
so that future cases of interpretations can be properly aided by resort
to the record of their proceedings.
chan robles virtual law library
Even a cursory reading of the proposed changes contained in the
petition for initiative herein involved will show on its face that the
proposed changes constitute a revision of the
Constitution
The proposal is to change the system of government from that which is
bicameral-presidential to one that is unicameral-parliamentary.
While purportedly only Articles VI, VII, and XVIII are involved, the
fact is, as the petition and text of the proposed changes themselves
state, every provision of the
Constitution
will have to be examined to see if they conform to the nature of a
unicameral-parliamentary form of government and changed accordingly if
they do not so conform to it. For example, Article VIII on
Judicial Department cannot stand as is, in a parliamentary system, for
under such a system, the Parliament is supreme, and thus the Court’s
power to declare its act a grave abuse of discretion and thus void
would be an anomaly.
chan robles virtual law library
Now, who is to do such examination and who is to do such changes and
how should the changes be worded? The proposed initiative does
not say who nor how.
Not only, therefore, is the proposed initiative, on this score, a
prohibited revision but it also suffers from being incomplete and
insufficient on its very face.
It, therefore, in that form, cannot pass muster the very limits contained in providing for the power under the Constitution.
Neither does it comply with Republic Act No. 6735, which states in
Section 10 that not more than one subject shall be proposed as an
amendment or amendments to the Constitution. The petition herein
would propose at the very least two subjects – a unicameral legislature
and a parliamentary form of government. Again, for this clear and
patent violation of the very act that provides for the exercise of the
power, the proposed initiative cannot lie.
This does not mean, however, that all is lost for petitioners.
For the proposed changes can be separated and are, in my view,
separable in nature – a unicameral legislature is one; a parliamentary
form of government is another. The first is a mere amendment and
contains only one subject matter. The second is clearly a
revision that affects every article and every provision in the
Constitution to an extent not even the proponents could at present
fully articulate. Petitioners Lambino, et al. thus go about proposing
changes the nature and extent of which they do not as yet know exactly
what.
The proposal, therefore, contained in the petition for initiative,
regarding a change in the legislature from a bicameral or two-chamber
body to that of a unicameral or one-chamber body, is sustainable.
The text of the changes needed to carry it out are perfunctory and
ministerial in nature. Once it is limited to this proposal, the
changes are simply one of deletion and insertions, the wordings of
which are practically automatic and non-discretionary.
As an example, I attach to this opinion an Appendix “A” showing how the
Constitution would read if we were to change Congress from one
consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives to one
consisting only of the House of Representatives. It only affects
Article VI on the Legislative Department, some provisions on Article
VII on the Executive Department, as well as Article XI on the
Accountability of Public Officers, and Article XVIII on Transitory
Provisions. These are mere amendments, substantial ones indeed
but still only amendments, and they address only one subject matter.
Such proposal, moreover, complies with the intention and rationale
behind the present initiative, which is to provide for simplicity and
economy in government and reduce the stalemates that often prevent
needed legislation.
For the nonce, therefore, I vote to DISMISS the petition, without
prejudice to the filing of an appropriate initiative to propose
amendments to the Constitution to change Congress into a unicameral
body. This is not say that I favor such a change. Rather,
such a proposal would come within the purview of an initiative allowed
under Article XVII of the Constitution and its implementing Republic
Act, and should, therefore, be submitted to our people in a plebiscite
for them to decide in their sovereign capacity. After all is said
and done, this is what democracy under the rule of law is about.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
[1]
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997 and June 10, 1997.
[2] 100 Phil. 501 (1956).
|
