|
|
|
|
| Click here for the separate opinions of the Justices: |
| Concurring Justices: Panganiban, C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ. |
|
Dissenting Justices: Puno, Quisumbing, Corona, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ. |
Republic
of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. 174153
- versus - October 25, 2006
G.R. No. 174299
-versus-
October 25, 2006
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
These are
consolidated Petitions on the Resolution dated 31 August 2006 of the
Commission on Elections (“COMELEC”) denying due course to an initiative
petition to amend the 1987 Constitution.
Antecedent Facts
On 15 February 2006, petitioners in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (“Lambino Group”), with other groups and individuals, commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that will ratify their initiative petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the Initiative and Referendum Act (“RA 6735”). The Lambino Group alleged that their petition had the support of 6,327,952 individuals constituting at least twelve per centum (12%) of all registered voters, with each legislative district represented by at least three per centum (3%) of its registered voters. The Lambino Group also claimed that COMELEC election registrars had verified the signatures of the 6.3 million individuals. The Lambino Group’s initiative petition changes the 1987 Constitution by modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI (Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4 of Article VII (Executive Department) and by adding Article XVIII entitled “Transitory Provisions.” These proposed changes will shift the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. The Lambino Group prayed that after due publication of their petition, the COMELEC should submit the following proposition in a plebiscite for the voters’ ratification: DO YOU APPROVE
THE AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING
THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A
UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM, AND PROVIDING ARTICLE XVIII AS
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO THE
OTHER?
On 30 August 2006, the Lambino Group filed an Amended Petition with the COMELEC indicating modifications in the proposed Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions) of their initiative.chan robles virtual law library
The Ruling of the COMELEC
On 31 August 2006, the COMELEC issued its Resolution denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution. The COMELEC invoked this Court’s ruling in Santiago v. Commission on Elections declaring RA 6735 inadequate to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution. In G.R. No. 174153, the Lambino Group prays for the issuance of the writs of certiorari and mandamus to set aside the COMELEC Resolution of 31 August 2006 and to compel the COMELEC to give due course to their initiative petition. The Lambino Group contends that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to their petition since Santiago is not a binding precedent. Alternatively, the Lambino Group claims that Santiago binds only the parties to that case, and their petition deserves cognizance as an expression of the “will of the sovereign people.” In G.R. No. 174299, petitioners (“Binay Group”) pray that the Court require respondent COMELEC Commissioners to show cause why they should not be cited in contempt for the COMELEC’s verification of signatures and for “entertaining” the Lambino Group’s petition despite the permanent injunction in Santiago. The Court treated the Binay Group’s petition as an opposition-in-intervention. In his Comment to the Lambino Group’s petition, the Solicitor General joined causes with the petitioners, urging the Court to grant the petition despite the Santiago ruling. The Solicitor General proposed that the Court treat RA 6735 and its implementing rules “as temporary devises to implement the system of initiative.” Various groups and individuals sought intervention, filing pleadings supporting or opposing the Lambino Group’s petition. The supporting intervenors uniformly hold the view that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in relying on Santiago. On the other hand, the opposing intervenors hold the contrary view and maintain that Santiago is a binding precedent. The opposing intervenors also challenged (1) the Lambino Group’s standing to file the petition; (2) the validity of the signature gathering and verification process; (3) the Lambino Group’s compliance with the minimum requirement for the percentage of voters supporting an initiative petition under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; (4) the nature of the proposed changes as revisions and not mere amendments as provided under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution; and (5) the Lambino Group’s compliance with the requirement in Section 10(a) of RA 6735 limiting initiative petitions to only one subject. chan robles virtual law library The Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral arguments on 26 September 2006. After receiving the parties’ memoranda, the Court considered the case submitted for resolution.
The Issues
The petitions raise the following issues:
1. Whether the Lambino Group’s initiative
petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on
amendments to the Constitution through a people’s initiative;
2. Whether this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on proposals to amend the Constitution; and 3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition. The Ruling of the Court
There is no merit to the petition. The Lambino Group miserably failed to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution for conducting a people’s initiative. Thus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition warrants dismissal based alone on the Lambino Group’s glaring failure to comply with the basic requirements of the Constitution. For following the Court’s ruling in Santiago, no grave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Commision on Elections. 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on Direct Proposal by the People. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution is the governing constitutional provision that allows a people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. This section states:
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 voters therein. x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission vividly explain the meaning of an amendment “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition,” thus:
MR. RODRIGO: Let
us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a
constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed constitutional
amendment ready to be shown to the people when they are asked to sign?
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution intended that the “draft of
the proposed constitutional amendment” should be “ready and shown” to
the people “before” they sign such proposal. The framers plainly
stated that “before they sign there is already a draft shown to
them.” The framers also “envisioned” that the people should sign
on the proposal itself because the proponents must “prepare that
proposal and pass it around for signature.” MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President. MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft? MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President. MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not they want to propose this constitutional amendment. chan robles virtual law library MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature. (Emphasis supplied) The essence of amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential elements must be present. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or representative can sign on their behalf. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition” only if the people sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. chan robles virtual law library The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition must state the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance that every one of the several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. Otherwise, it is physically impossible, given the time constraint, to prove that every one of the millions of signatories had seen the full text of the proposed amendments before signing. The framers of the Constitution directly borrowed the concept of people’s initiative from the United States where various State constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In almost all States which allow initiative petitions, the unbending requirement is that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign to signify their assent, and that the people must sign on an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments. The rationale for this requirement has been repeatedly explained in several decisions of various courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot Commission, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, affirmed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals, declared: [A] signature requirement would be meaningless if the person supplying
the signature has not first seen what it is that he or she is signing.
Further, and more importantly, loose interpretation of the subscription
requirement can pose a significant potential for fraud. A person
permitted to describe orally the contents of an initiative petition to
a potential signer, without the signer having actually examined the
petition, could easily mislead the signer by, for example, omitting,
downplaying, or even flatly misrepresenting, portions of the petition
that might not be to the signer’s liking. This danger seems
particularly acute when, in this case, the person giving the
description is the drafter of the petition, who obviously has a vested
interest in seeing that it gets the requisite signatures to qualify for
the ballot. (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Likewise, in Kerr v. Bradbury, the Court of Appeals of Oregon explained:
The purposes of “full text” provisions that apply to amendments by
initiative commonly are described in similar terms. x x x (The purpose
of the full text requirement is to provide sufficient information so
that registered voters can intelligently evaluate whether to sign the
initiative petition.”); x x x (publication of full text of amended
constitutional provision required because it is “essential for the
elector to have x x x the section which is proposed to be added to or
subtracted from. If he is to vote intelligently, he must have this
knowledge. Otherwise in many instances he would be required to vote in
the dark.”) (Emphasis supplied)
Moreover, “an initiative signer must be informed at the time of signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed” and failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which renders the initiative void. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments. However, the deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that the framers intended to adopt the relevant American jurisprudence on people’s initiative. In particular, the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission explicitly reveal that the framers intended that the people must first see the full text of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the people must sign on a petition containing such full text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 6735, the Initiative and Referendum Act that the Lambino Group invokes as valid, requires that the people must sign the “petition x x x as signatories.” chan robles virtual law library The proponents of the initiative secure the signatures from the people. The proponents secure the signatures in their private capacity and not as public officials. The proponents are not disinterested parties who can impartially explain the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments to the people. The proponents present favorably their proposal to the people and do not present the arguments against their proposal. The proponents, or their supporters, often pay those who gather the signatures. Thus, there is no presumption that the proponents observed the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures. The proponents bear the burden of proving that they complied with the constitutional requirements in gathering the signatures - that the petition contained, or incorporated by attachment, the full text of the proposed amendments.chan robles virtual law library The Lambino Group did not attach to their present petition with this Court a copy of the paper that the people signed as their initiative petition. The Lambino Group submitted to this Court a copy of a signature sheet after the oral arguments of 26 September 2006 when they filed their Memorandum on 11 October 2006. The signature sheet with this Court during the oral arguments was the signature sheet attached to the opposition in intervention filed on 7 September 2006 by intervenor Atty. Pete Quirino-Quadra. The signature sheet attached to Atty. Quadra’s opposition and the signature sheet attached to the Lambino Group’s Memorandum are the same. We reproduce below the signature sheet in full:
PROPOSITION: “DO YOU APPROVE OF THE AMENDMENT OF
ARTICLES VI AND VII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, CHANGING THE FORM OF GOVERNMENT
FROM THE PRESENT BICAMERAL-PRESIDENTIAL TO A UNICAMERAL-PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM OF
GOVERNMENT, IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GREATER EFFICIENCY, SIMPLICITY AND ECONOMY IN
GOVERNMENT; AND PROVIDING AN ARTICLE XVIII AS TRANSITORY PROVISIONS FOR THE
ORDERLY SHIFT FROM ONE SYSTEM TO ANOTHER?” I hereby APPROVE the
proposed amendment to the 1987 Constitution. My signature herein which
shall form part of the petition for initiative to amend the Constitution
signifies my support for the filing thereof.
_________________
_________________
__________________
Barangay
Official
Witness
Witness (Print
Name and
Sign)
(Print Name and
Sign)
(Print Name and Sign) There is not a single word, phrase, or sentence of text of
the Lambino Group’s proposed changes in the signature sheet.
Neither does the signature sheet state that the text of the proposed
changes is attached to it. Petitioner Atty. Raul Lambino admitted
this during the oral arguments before this Court on 26 September
2006. The signature sheet merely asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the Unicameral-Parliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. Clearly, the signature sheet is not the “petition” that the framers of the Constitution envisioned when they formulated the initiative clause in Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution. Petitioner Atty. Lambino, however, explained that during the signature-gathering from February to August 2006, the Lambino Group circulated, together with the signature sheets, printed copies of the Lambino Group’s draft petition which they later filed on 25 August 2006 with the COMELEC. When asked if his group also circulated the draft of their amended petition filed on 30 August 2006 with the COMELEC, Atty. Lambino initially replied that they circulated both. However, Atty. Lambino changed his answer and stated that what his group circulated was the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, not the draft of the 25 August 2006 petition. The Lambino Group would have this Court believe that they prepared the draft of the 30 August 2006 amended petition almost seven months earlier in February 2006 when they started gathering signatures. Petitioner Erico B. Aumentado’s “Verification/Certification” of the 25 August 2006 petition, as well as of the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC, states as follows: I have caused the preparation of the foregoing [Amended] Petition in my personal capacity as a registered voter, for and on behalf of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, as shown by ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 hereto attached, and as representative of the mass of signatories hereto. (Emphasis supplied) The Lambino Group failed to attach a copy of ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 to the present petition. However, the “Official Website of the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines” has posted the full text of Resolution No. 2006-02, which provides:
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-02
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE PROPOSALS OF THE PEOPLE’S CONSULTATIVE
COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM
AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION.
WHEREAS, there is a need for the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) to adopt a common stand on the approach to support the proposals of the People’s Consultative Commission on Charter Change; WHEREAS, ULAP maintains its unqualified support to the agenda of Her Excellency President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo for constitutional reforms as embodied in the ULAP Joint Declaration for Constitutional Reforms signed by the members of the ULAP and the majority coalition of the House of Representatives in Manila Hotel sometime in October 2005; WHEREAS, the People’s Consultative Commission on Charter Change created by Her Excellency to recommend amendments to the 1987 Constitution has submitted its final report sometime in December 2005; WHEREAS, the ULAP is mindful of the current political developments in Congress which militates against the use of the expeditious form of amending the 1987 Constitution; WHEREAS, subject to the ratification of its institutional members and the failure of Congress to amend the Constitution as a constituent assembly, ULAP has unanimously agreed to pursue the constitutional reform agenda through People’s Initiative and Referendum without prejudice to other pragmatic means to pursue the same;chan robles virtual law library WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED, THAT ALL THE MEMBER-LEAGUES OF THE UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES (ULAP) SUPPORT THE PORPOSALS (SIC) OF THE PEOPLE’S CONSULATATIVE (SIC) COMMISSION ON CHARTER CHANGE THROUGH PEOPLE’S INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM AS A MODE OF AMENDING THE 1987 CONSTITUTION; DONE, during the ULAP National Executive Board special meeting held on 14 January 2006 at the Century Park Hotel, Manila. (Underscoring supplied) ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 does not authorize petitioner Aumentado to prepare the 25 August 2006 petition, or the 30 August 2006 amended petition, filed with the COMELEC. ULAP Resolution No. 2006-02 “support(s) the 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 Commission are vastly different from the proposed changes of the Lambino Group in the 25 August 2006 petition or 30 August 2006 amended petition filed with the COMELEC. For example, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Commission affect all provisions of the existing Constitution, from the Preamble to the Transitory Provisions. The proposed revisions have profound impact on the Judiciary and the National Patrimony provisions of the existing Constitution, provisions that the Lambino Group’s proposed changes do not touch. The Lambino Group’s proposed changes purport to affect only Articles VI and VII of the existing Constitution, including the introduction of new Transitory Provisions. |