View full case

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v. COMELEC

FACTS:

The case at hand involves a petition for prohibition under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, centered on the right of the public to propose amendments to the Philippine Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution. On December 6, 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin, a founding member of the Movement for People's Initiative, filed a petition with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC). Delfin's petition sought an order to facilitate signature gathering for amending the Constitution to lift term limits of elective officials. Delfin's petition proposed amendments to Sections 4 and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article X of the Constitution.

Delfin’s proposal involved the deletion of term limits for all elective government officials. He requested that the COMELEC set dates and times for signature collection nationwide, publish the petition and facilitate the establishment of signing stations. Delfin cited the necessity of COMELEC’s involvement, particularly municipal election registrars, to verify signatures.

When the Delfin Petition was filed, the COMELEC Chair issued an order for the petition’s publication and scheduled a hearing on December 12, 1996. Numerous parties, including Delfin, representatives from various advocate groups, opposition groups, and Senator Raul S. Roco, who filed a Motion to Dismiss the Delfin Petition, participated in the hearing. The COMELEC heard arguments and directed the submission of memoranda within five days while continuing to process Delfin’s request.

On December 18, 1996, petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin initiated a special civil action for prohibition. They argued that an implementing law by Congress is necessary to effectuate people's initiative amendments to the Constitution, which had yet to be passed. They also contended that Republic Act No. 6735, though providing for initiatives on statutes and local legislation, failed to sufficiently address initiatives on constitutional amendments. Furthermore, they argued that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is ultra vires regarding initiatives on constitutional amendments as COMELEC lacks legislative authority to promulgate necessary rules in this area. Finally, they contended that extending or lifting term limits constitutes a constitutional revision beyond the scope of allowable amendments through people’s initiative.

Petitioners cited the potential significant public and financial impact of the proposed initiative, emphasizing the absence of alternative adequate remedies. The Supreme Court accepted the petition, issuing a temporary restraining order enjoining the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition and private respondents from continuing signature drives. Various respondents and intervenors, including COMELEC, Senator Roco, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), PIRMA, and others, filed comments and motions addressing the petition and raising arguments regarding the legality, procedural propriety, and scope of initiatives as determinants for constitutional amendments.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether R.A. No. 6735 adequately provides for the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, as mandated by the Constitution.

  2. Whether the portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid.

  3. Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials proposed in the "Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution" constitutes a revision of or an amendment to the Constitution.

  4. Whether the COMELEC can take jurisdiction over a petition aimed at conducting a signature gathering drive for a People's Initiative to amend the Constitution.

RULING:

  1. No. The Supreme Court declared that R.A. No. 6735 is inadequate to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution and failed to provide sufficient standard for subordinate legislation.

  2. No. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is void insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The COMELEC does not have the power to promulgate such rules and regulations without sufficient legislative standards.

  3. N/A. The court did not find it necessary to resolve this issue given its ruling on the inadequacy of R.A. No. 6735 to provide for initiative on constitutional amendments.

  4. No. The COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition, as the petition did not meet the basic requirements of an initiative petition, such as the signatures of the required number of voters.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Constitutional Law - People's Initiative: Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution allows for amendments to the Constitution to be proposed by the people through an initiative, but this right is not self-executory and requires an enabling law by Congress.

  2. Legislative Delegation: The rule against delegation of legislative power includes the principle that what has been delegated cannot be redelegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest). Exceptions to this rule must satisfy the completeness and sufficient standard tests to be valid.

  3. Administrative Law - Rule Making Authority: Any administrative agency's authority to create rules must be clearly defined and restricted by the legislative body through a comprehensive law that meets adequacy in both terms and implementing guidelines.

  4. Judicial Review - Certiorari and Prohibition: When a lower tribunal or body acts without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion, the higher court may issue a writ of prohibition or certiorari to halt further action.