Post

Lambino v. COMELEC; Binay v. COMELEC

Posted
By Anonymous
8 min read
Lambino v. COMELEC; Binay v. COMELEC

Case Title and Citation

Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006; En Banc; Ponente: Chief Justice Reynato S. Panganiban.
Binay v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174299, October 25, 2006; En Banc; Ponente: Chief Justice Reynato S. Panganiban.

Facts

  • In February 2006, Lambino and Aumentado led a Signature-gathering effort for a petition to amend the 1987 Constitution via a people’s initiative, joined by inter alia multiple groups and individuals.
  • They sought to amend Articles VI and VII (regarding the Legislative and Executive Departments) and to add a Transitory Provisions Article XVIII, aiming to shift from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary form of government.
  • The Lambino group claimed 6,327,952 registered voters supported the initiative, and that COMELEC registrars had verified signatures.
  • On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to Lambino’s petition, citing Santiago v. COMELEC and holding that RA 6735 (the Initiative and Referendum Act) is inadequate to implement an initiative to amend the Constitution.
  • The Lambino petition was accompanied by signature sheets with no full text of the proposed amendments attached to the sheets; the petition itself did not attach copies of the text or show that signatories had seen the full text of the amendments.
  • In G.R. No. 174299, Binay, Untalan, Saguisag, and others (petitioners-intervenors) opposed the Lambino petition and supported COMELEC’s cautious approach. The case was treated as an opposition-in-intervention.
  • The issues presented by the cases included whether the Lambino petition complied with Article XVII, Sec. 2 (amendments via initiative) of the 1987 Constitution; whether Santiago v. COMELEC should be revisited; and whether COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the petition.
  • The Court heard arguments on September 26, 2006 and issued a decision on October 25, 2006.

Issues

  1. Whether the Lambino group’s initiative petition complies with Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution (direct proposal of amendments via initiative).
  2. Whether the Court should revisit its Santiago v. COMELEC ruling regarding the sufficiency of RA 6735 to implement constitutional initiative.
  3. Whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to Lambino’s petition.

For the Binay matter (G.R. No. 174299), core issues mirrored these themes, focusing on the sufficiency of the petition and the propriety of the COMELEC’s handling, given the majority’s view that the Lambino petition failed while the Binay petition could proceed.

Ruling

  1. Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153)
      1. No — the petition failed to comply with the constitutional requirements for a direct people’s initiative to amend the Constitution (Section 2, Article XVII) because the full text of the amendments was not shown to signatories, the signature sheets did not attach the full text, and the signatures did not demonstrate that signatories read and understood the proposal.
      1. No — the Court need not revisit Santiago v. COMELEC; the Lambino petition itself fails on fundamental constitutional grounds independent of Santiago.
      1. No — COMELEC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition; rather, it followed the controlling doctrine in Santiago and PIRMA.
  2. Binay v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174299)
      1. Yes — the petition in G.R. No. 174299 was treated as properly aligned with RA 6735 and the constitutional framework; the Court granted the petition, allowing it to proceed toward plebiscite considerations, subject to sufficiency and proper implementation.
      1. Not applicable in the sense of a remand of Santiago; the majority did not require revisiting Santiago to justify the grant in Binay.
      1. No — this portion of the ruling does not rest on grave abuse by COMELEC.

Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi

  • The Court reaffirmed that Art. XVII, Sec. 2 limits direct initiative to amendments to the Constitution, not revisions, and requires that the initiative be embodied in a petition signed by at least 12% of registered voters, with representation of at least 3% in every legislative district.
  • Textual and historical analysis supports the differentiation between amendments and revisions, with emphasis on the need for signatories to have access to the full text of proposed amendments; attachments or full text must be attached to the petition or clearly stated as attached.
  • The majority emphasized that RA 6735, while controversial, was insufficient to govern constitutional initiatives in Santiago, but this does not automatically render the current petition invalid if the petition complies with constitutional requirements; the Court must assess form and substance in light of RA 6735 and constitutional provisions.
  • The Court highlighted the consequences of “logrolling” and multi-subject petitions in constitutional initiatives, citing American jurisprudence on single-subject rule to ensure voters can evaluate each proposition.
  • The Court explained the substantial distinction between amendments (which modify specific provisions) and revisions (which overhaul the entire constitution); shifts to a unicameral-parliamentary form would entail a revision and may exceed the scope of a people’s initiative.
  • The majority found in Lambino that the petition failed to meet constitutional and RA 6735 requirements; in Binay, the petition was deemed sufficiently compliant to proceed.

Citations to statutory provisions and prior jurisprudence such as Santiago v. COMELEC; PIRMA v. COMELEC; RA 6735; Section 2, Article XVII; Section 5 of RA 6735; Section 10 (one-subject rule); and cases on amendment vs. revision (McFadden v. Jordan; Adams v. Gunter; Holmes v. Appling) framed the ratio.

Doctrine / Legal Principle

  • Direct initiative under Article XVII, Section 2 applies to amendments, not revisions, to the Constitution.
  • The initiative petition must present the full text of the proposed amendments to the signatories (full text on petition or attached) so signatories know the exact proposition before signing.
  • The petition must be signed by at least 12% of registered voters, with representation from each legislative district by at least 3%.
  • The one-subject rule: petitions embracing more than one subject are disallowed; the subject matter must be germane to the proposition.
  • Distinction between amendment and revision is central; changes that overhaul the structure of government, such as moving to a unicameral-parliamentary system, are revisions and generally not subject to initiative.
  • The Supreme Court can revisit prior precedents where warranted to reflect contemporary constitutional jurisprudence, provided the doctrine of stare decisis is weighed against the need for correct, stable law.
  • The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) has a ministerial-like duty to implement constitutional directives and to determine sufficiency of petitions under RA 6735, within the framework of the Constitution.

Disposition

  • Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174153): Dismissed. The petition was denied due course; the Court rejected direct initiative as to amendment under Article XVII, Section 2 given the failure to show full text and proper attachment to the petition, among other deficiencies, and upheld the Santiago framework as controlling.
  • Binay v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 174299): Granted. The petition was treated as sufficiently compliant to proceed, and the Court allowed the process toward plebiscite, subject to the usual sufficiency checks, RA 6735, and implementing rules.

Concurring / Dissenting Opinions

  • Panganiban, CJ — Separate Concurring: The Court’s result (dismiss Lambino; grant Binay) is sound, but the CJ sets out his own reasoning emphasizing the sovereign will and upholding the Constitution while noting the need for a careful approach to constitutional change.
  • Ynres-Santiago, J. — Separate Opinion: Argues Santiago should be revisited and that RA 6735 is adequate; supports granting the petition; stresses that the Court should not be bound by improper adherence to prior decisions that stifle the sovereign people’s initiative.
  • Callejo, Sr., J. — Separate Concurring: Agrees with the result; emphasizes the need to consider the nature of amendment vs. revision, and supports allowing petitions that seek amendatory changes while remaining within the constitutional framework.
  • Azcuna, J. — Separate Concurring: Agrees with the outcome; emphasizes the need to respect the people’s initiative as a direct expression of sovereignty, while recognizing the limitations of RA 6735 and the implementing rules.
  • Puno, J. — Dissent: Argues Santiago should be reversed; RA 6735 is sufficient to implement the initiative; the Lambino petition should be granted (remand to COMELEC for proper fact-finding and plebiscite scheduling); asserts that the initiative can involve substantial amendments if properly framed within the constitutional limit of “amendments” and not “revision.”
  • Corona, J. — Dissent: Also argues for granting the petitions; emphasizes that the sovereign power to amend lies with the people; urges respect for direct democracy and contesting the majority’s reluctance to extend initiative to reform; suggests remanding for proper plebiscite scheduling if petitions are sufficient.
  • Ting a, J. — Dissent: Expresses support for granting the petition; emphasizes direct democracy and the need to allow the people to decide on constitutional changes; notes concerns about the Court’s role and stare decisis.
  • Velasco, Jr., J. — Dissent: Aligns with Justice Puno on upholding initiative; supports granting Lambino’s petition; argues for proper fact-finding by COMELEC and scheduling of plebiscite if sufficiency is proven.

Significance / Notes

  • The decision clarifies the constitutional framework governing constitutional amendments via the people’s initiative, including the distinctions between amendments and revisions and the necessity of presenting the full text to signatories.
  • The ruling highlights the limits of RA 6735 as a governing enabling law for constitutional initiatives and the role of implementing rules (COMELEC resolutions) in guiding the process.
  • The Lambino dismissal reinforces the Court’s caution against “logrolling” and multi-subject proposals that could mislead voters; it also underscores the importance of ensuring that signatories understand the exact amendments proposed.
  • The Binay disposition demonstrates how a petition deemed sufficiently compliant may proceed to plebiscite, subject to further verification, and highlights the Court’s willingness to consider direct democratic instruments while safeguarding constitutional structure.
  • The decision continues to shape the debate on charter changes and the proper scope of initiatives, reflecting the court’s ongoing balance between safeguarding the Constitution and respecting the sovereign will of the people.
Constitutional Law Election Law Remedial Law
This post is licensed under CC BY 4.0 by the author.