as to manner of amendment case digest

7/27/2019 As to Manner of Amendment Case Digest

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/as-to-manner-of-amendment-case-digest 1/8

A S T O M A N N E R O F A M E N D M E N T

P O L I T I C A L L A W 1

P a g e | 1

Sanidad vs Comelec - A case Digest

PABLITO V. SANIDAD - petitioner; newspaper columnist of the "OVERVIEW" for the

BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the City of Baguio and the

Cordilleras

COMELEC - respondent; through its Solicitor- General

Type of petition filed: PETITION FOR CERTIORARI

ISSUE:

Whether Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is constitutional or not.

FACTS:

COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 was promulgated due to the enacted RA No. 6766 (An Act

Providing for an Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region) last October 23, 1989,

which paved for a call of a plebiscite for its ratification (original schedule was reset fromDecember 27, 1989 to January 30, 1990.

Allegations of Sanidad:

1.Unconsitutional as it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of

the press

2.Constitutes a prior restraint on his constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of the press because of its penal provisions in case of violation

Responses of COMELEC

-Not violative of the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press butonly a valid implementation of the power of the COMELEC to supervise and regulate media

during election or plebiscite periods as enunciated in Article IX-C, Section 4 of the 1987

Constitution and Section 11 of RA 6646

-Does Not absolutely bar petitioner from expressing his views and/or from campaigning for or

against the Organic Act. He may still express his views or campaign for or against the actthrough the COMELEC space and airtime (magazine/periodical in the province)

HELD:

Petiton is GRANTED- Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is declared null and void

and unconstitutional . TRO made permanent due to the following reasons:1. It has no statutory basis

2. Form of regulation is tantamount to a restriction of petitioner's freedom of expression for no

justifiable reason

3. affected by the issues presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictionson the forum where the right to expression may be exercised.

Facts: This is a petition for certiorari assailing the constitutionality of Section 19 of Comelec

Resolution No. 2167 on the ground that it violates the constitutional guarantees of the freedom of

expression and of the press. On October 23, 1989, Republic Act No. 6766, entitled "AN ACTPROVIDING FOR AN ORGANIC ACT FOR THE CORDILLERA AUTONOMOUS

REGION" was enacted into law. Pursuant to said law, the City of Baguio and the Cordilleras

which consist of the provinces of Benguet, Mountain Province, Ifugao, Abra and Kalinga-

Apayao, all comprising the Cordillera Autonomous Region, shall take part in a plebiscite for theratification of said Organic Act originally scheduled last December 27, 1989 which was,

http://www.mylegispinoy.com/2009/06/pablito-v.html

http://www.mylegispinoy.com/2009/06/pablito-v.html





P a g e | 2

however, reset to January 30, 1990 by virtue of COMELEC Resolution No. 2226 dated

December 27, 1989. The Commission on Elections, by virtue of the power vested by the

1987 Constitution, the Omnibus Election Code (BP 881), said R.A. 6766 and other

pertinent election laws, promulgated Resolution No. 2167, to govern the conduct of the plebisciteon the said Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. In a petition dated November 20,

1989, herein petitioner Pablito V. Sanidad, who claims to be a newspaper columnist of the"OVERVIEW" for the BAGUIO MIDLANDCOURIER, a weekly newspaper circulated in the

City of Baguio and the Cordilleras, assailed the constitutionality of Section 19 of COMELEC

Resolution No. 2167, which provides:

Section 19. Prohibition on columnists, commentators or announcers. — During the plebiscite

campaign period, on the day before and on the plebiscite day, no mass media columnist,

commentator, announcer or personality shall use his column or radio or television time tocampaign for or against the plebiscite Issue.

It is alleged by petitioner that said provision is void and unconstitutional because it violates theconstitutional guarantees of the freedom of expression and of the press enshrined in the

Constitution. Unlike a regular news reporter or news correspondent who merely reports the

news, petitioner maintains that as a columnist, his column obviously and necessarily containsand reflects his opinions, views and beliefs on any issue or subject about which he writes.

Petitioner likewise maintains that if media practitioners were to express their views, beliefs and

opinions on the issue submitted to a plebiscite, it would in fact help in the government drive

and desire to disseminate information, and hear, as well as ventilate, all sides of the issue.

Issue: Whether or not Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 is unconstitutional.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that Section 19 of COMELEC Resolution No. 2167 isunconstitutional. It is clear from Art. IX-C of the 1987 Constitution that what was granted to the

COMELEC was the power to supervise and regulate the use and enjoyment of

franchises,

permits or other grants issued for the operation of transportation or other public utilities, mediaof communication or information to the end that equal opportunity, time and space, and the right

to reply, including reasonable, equal rates therefore, for public information campaigns and

forums among candidates are ensured. The evil sought to be prevented by this provision is the

possibility that a franchise holder may favor or give any undue advantage to a candidate in terms

of

advertising space or radio or television time. This is also the reason why a "columnist,commentator, announcer or personality, who is a candidate for any elective office is required to

take a leave of absence from his work during the campaign period (2nd par. Section 11(b) R.A.6646). It cannot be gainsaid that a columnist or commentator who is also a candidate would be

more exposed to the voters to the prejudice of other candidates unless required to take a leave of

absence.

However, neither Article IX-C of the Constitution nor Section 11 (b), 2nd par. of R.A. 6646 can

be construed to mean that the COMELEC has also been granted the right to supervise and

regulate the exercise by media practitioners themselves of their right to expression during plebiscite periods. Media practitioners exercising their freedom of expression during plebiscite

periods are neither the franchise holders nor the candidates. In fact, there are no candidatesinvolved in a plebiscite. Therefore, Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 has no statutory basis.

Plebiscite Issue are matters of public concern and importance. The people's right to be informedand to be able to freely and intelligently make a decision would be better served by access to an

unabridged discussion of the Issue, including the forum. The people affected by the Issue

presented in a plebiscite should not be unduly burdened by restrictions on the forum where theright to expression may be exercised. Comelec spaces and Comelec radio time may provide a

forum for expression but they do not guarantee full dissemination of information to the public

concerned because they are limited to either specific portions in newspapers or to specific radio

or television times.





P a g e | 3

The instant petition is GRANTED. Section 19 of Comelec Resolution No. 2167 is declared null

and void and unconstitutional.

DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC

(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)

Facts:

Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s Initiative for Reforms,Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution

to lift the term limits of elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition onArticle XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of the people to

exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the Constitution. Subsequently the

COMELEC issued an order directing the publication of the petition and of the notice of hearingand thereafter set the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-

Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong

Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein

Senator Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition

under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin petition rising the several

arguments, such as the following: (1) The constitutional provision on people’s initiative toamend the constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law

has been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to

revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.

Issues:

(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a self-executing

provision.

(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the conduct of initiative

on amendments to the Constitution is valid, considering the absence in the law of specific

provisions on the conduct of such initiative.

(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would constitute a revision or

an amendment of the Constitution.

Held:

Sec. 2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus, without implementing

legislation the same cannot operate. Although the Constitution has recognized or granted the

right, the people cannot exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.

The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes rules and regulations

on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution, is void. It has been an established

rule that what has been delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest).The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter cannot validly

promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise of the right to people’s initiative.

The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it would affect other

provisions of the Constitution such as the synchronization of elections, the constitutional

guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties.





P a g e | 4

A revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Court’s decision in the above

Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a revision or amendment has become academic.

ARTURO M. TOLENTINO vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

G.R. No. L-34150 October 16, 1971

FACTS:

The case is a petition for prohibition to restrain respondent Commission on Elections "from

undertaking to hold a plebiscite on November 8, 1971," at which the proposed constitutionalamendment "reducing the voting age" in Section 1 of Article V of the Constitution of the

Philippines to eighteen years "shall be, submitted" for ratification by the people pursuant to

Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of 1971, and the subsequent

implementing resolutions, by declaring said resolutions to be without the force and effect of law

for being violative of the Constitution of the Philippines. The Constitutional Convention of 1971came into being by virtue of two resolutions of the Congress of the Philippines approved in its

capacity as a constituent assembly convened for the purpose of calling a convention to proposeamendments to the Constitution namely, Resolutions 2 and 4 of the joint sessions of Congress

held on March 16, 1967 and June 17, 1969 respectively. The delegates to the said Convention

were all elected under and by virtue of said resolutions and the implementing legislation thereof,Republic Act 6132.

ISSUE:

Is it within the powers of the Constitutional Convention of 1971 to order the holding of a

plebiscite for the ratification of the proposed amendment/s.

HELD: The Court holds that all amendments to be proposed must be submitted to the people ina single "election" or plebiscite. We hold that the plebiscite being called for the purpose of

submitting the same for ratification of the people on November 8, 1971 is not authorized by

Section 1 of Article XV of the Constitution, hence all acts of the Convention and the respondentCOMELEC in that direction are null and void. lt says distinctly that either Congress sitting as a

constituent assembly or a convention called for the purpose "may propose amendments to this

Constitution,". The same provision also as definitely provides that "such amendments shall bevalid as part of this Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at

which the amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification," thus leaving no room

for doubt as to how many "elections" or plebiscites may be held to ratify any amendment or

amendments proposed by the same constituent assembly of Congress or convention, and the provision unequivocably says "an election" which means only one.

The petition herein is granted. Organic Resolution No. 1 of the Constitutional Convention of

1971 and the implementing acts and resolutions of the Convention, insofar as they provide for the holding of a plebiscite on November 8, 1971, as well as the resolution of the respondent

Comelec complying therewith (RR Resolution No. 695) are hereby declared null and void. The

respondents Comelec, Disbursing Officer, Chief Accountant and Auditor of the ConstitutionalConvention are hereby enjoined from taking any action in compliance with the said organic

resolution. In view of the peculiar circumstances of this case, the Court declares this decision

immediately executory. No costs

LAMBINO VS. COMELEC [G.R. No. 174153; 25 Oct 2006]

Facts: Petitioners (Lambino group) commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to

change the 1987 constitution, they filed a petition with the COMELEC to hold a plebiscite that

will ratify their initiative petition under RA 6735. Lambino group alleged that the petition had

the support of 6M individuals fulfilling what was provided by art 17 of the constitution. Their

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/lambino-vs-comelec-gr-no-174153-25-oct.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/lambino-vs-comelec-gr-no-174153-25-oct.html





P a g e | 5

petition changes the 1987constitution by modifying sections 1-7 of Art 6 and sections 1-4 of Art

7 and by adding Art 18. the proposed changes will shift the present bicameral- presidential form

of government to unicameral- parliamentary. COMELEC denied the petition due to lack of

enabling law governing initiative petitions and invoked the Santiago Vs. Comelec ruling that RA

6735 is inadequate to implement the initiative petitions.

Issues: (1) Whether or Not 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 or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiagodeclaring RA 6735

“incomplete, inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative

clause on proposalsto amend the Constitution; (3) Whether or Not the COMELEC committed

grave abuse of discretion in denying due course to the Lambino Group’s petition.

Held: According to the SC the Lambino group failed to comply with the basic requirements for

conducting a people’s initiative. The Court held that the COMELEC did not grave abuse of

discretion on dismissing the Lambino petition.

1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution on

Direct Proposal by the People

The petitioners failed to show the court that the initiative signer must be informed at the time

of the signing of the nature and effect, failure to do so is “deceptive and misleading” which

renders the initiative void.

2. The Initiative Violates Section 2, Article XVII of the ConstitutionDisallowing Revision

through Initiatives

The framers of the constitution intended a clear distinction between “amendment” and

“revision, it is intended that the third mode of stated in sec 2 art 17 of the constitution may

propose only amendments to the constitution. Merging of the legislative and the executive is

a radical change, therefore a constitutes a revision.

3. A Revisit of Santiago v. COMELEC is Not Necessary

Even assuming that RA 6735 is valid, it will not change the result because

the present petition violated Sec 2 Art 17 to be a valid initiative, must first comply with

the constitution before complying with RA 6735

Petition is dismissed.





P a g e | 6

GONZALES VS. COMELEC [21 SCRA 774; G.R. No. L-28196; 9 Nov 1967]

Facts: The case is an original action for prohibition, with preliminary injunction.

The main facts are not disputed. On March 16, 1967, the Senate and the House of

Representatives passed the following resolutions:

1. R. B. H. (Resolution of Both Houses) No. 1, proposing that Section 5, Article VI, of the

Constitution of the Philippines, be amended so as to increase the membership of the House of

Representatives from a maximum of 120, as provided in the present Constitution, to a maximum

of 180, to be apportioned among the several provinces as nearly as may be according to thenumber of their respective inhabitants, although each province shall have, at least, one (1)

member;

2. R. B. H. No. 2, calling a convention to propose amendments to said Constitution, the

convention to be composed of two (2) elective delegates from each representative district, to be

"elected in the general elections to be held on the second Tuesday of November, 1971;" and

3. R. B. H. No. 3, proposing that Section 16, Article VI, of the same Constitution, be amended soas to authorize Senators and members of the House of Representatives to become delegates to

the aforementioned constitutional convention, without forfeiting their respective seats in

Congress.

Subsequently, Congress passed a bill, which, upon approval by the President, on June 17, 1967,

became Republic Act No. 4913, providing that the amendments to the Constitution proposed in

the aforementioned Resolutions No. 1 and 3 be submitted, for approval by the people, at the

general elections which shall be held on November 14, 1967.

Issue: Whether or Not a Resolution of Congress, acting as a constituent assembly, violates the

Constitution.

Held: Inasmuch as there are less than eight (8) votes in favor of declaring Republic Act 4913

and R. B. H. Nos. 1 and 3 unconstitutional and invalid, the petitions in these two (2) cases must

be, as they are hereby, dismiss and the writs therein prayed for denied, without special

pronouncement as to costs. It is so ordered.

As a consequence, the title of a de facto officer cannot be assailed collaterally. It may not be

contested except directly, by quo warranto proceedings. Neither may the validity of his acts be

questioned upon the ground that he is merely a de facto officer. And the reasons are obvious: (1)

it would be an indirect inquiry into the title to the office; and (2) the acts of a de facto officer, if

within the competence of his office, are valid, insofar as the public is concerned.

"The judicial department is the only constitutional organ which can be called upon to determine

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/gonzales-vs-comelec-21-scra-774-gr-no-l.html

http://cofferette.blogspot.com/2009/01/gonzales-vs-comelec-21-scra-774-gr-no-l.html





P a g e | 7

the proper allocation of powers between the several departments and among the integral or

constituent units thereof."

Article XV of the Constitution provides:

. . . The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the

Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this

Constitution or call a contention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this

Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the

amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.

From our viewpoint, the provisions of Article XV of the Constitution are satisfied so long as the

electorate knows that R. B. H. No. 3 permits Congressmen to retain their seats as legislators,

even if they should run for and assume the functions of delegates to the Convention.

Petitioner: Imbong

Respondents: Ferrer (Comelec Chair), Patajo, Miraflor (Comelec Members)

Petitioner: Gonzales

Respondent: Comelec

Ponente: Makasiar

RELATED LAWS:

Resolution No 2 (1967) –Calls for Constitutional Convention to be composed of 2 delegates

from each representative district who shall be elected in November, 1970.

RA 4919 –implementation of Resolution No 2

Resolution 4 (1969) –amended Resolution 2: ConCon shall be composed of 320 delegates

approportioned among existing representative districts according to the population. Provided that

each district shall be entitled to 2 deledates.

RA 6132 –Concon Act 1970, repealed RA 4919, implemented Res No. 2 & 4.

Sec 4: considers all public officers/employees as resigned when they file their candicacy

Sec 2: apportionment of delegates

Sec 5: Disqualifies any elected delegate from running for any public office in the election or

from assuming any appointive office/position until the final adournment of the ConCon.

Par 1 Sec 8: ban against all political parties/organized groups from giving support/representing a

delegate to the convention.





P a g e | 8

FACTS:

This is a petition for declaratory judgment. These are 2 separate but related petitions of

running candidates for delegates to the Constitutional Convention assailing the validity of RA

6132.

Gonzales: Sec, 2, 4, 5 and Par 1 Sec 8, and validity of entire law

Imbong: Par 1 Sec 8

ISSUE: Whether the Congress has a right to call for ConCon and whether the parameters set by

such a call is constitutional.

HOLDING: The Congress has the authority to call for a Constitutional Convention as a

Constituent Assembly. Furthermore, specific provisions assailed by the petitioners are deemed as

constitutional.

RATIO:

• Sec 4 RA 6132: it is simply an application of Sec 2 Art 12 of Constitution

• Constitutionality of enactment of RA 6132:

o Congress acting as Constituent Assembly, has full authority to propose

amendments, or call for convention for the purpose by votes and these votes were

attained by Res 2 and 4

• Sec 2 RA 6132: it is a mere implementation of Res 4 and is enough that the basis

employed for such apportions is reasonable. Macias case relied by Gonsales is not

reasonable for that case granted more representatives to provinces with less population

and vice versa. In this case, Batanes is equal to the number of delegates I other

provinces with more population.• Sec 5: State has right to create office and parameters to qualify/disqualify members

thereof. Furthermore, this disqualification is only temporary. This is a safety mechanism

to prevent political figures from controlling elections and to allow them to devote more

time to the Concon.

• Par 1 Sec 8: this is to avoid debasement of electoral process and also to assure

candidates equal opportunity since candidates must now depend on their individual

merits, and not the support of political parties. This provision does not creatediscrimination towards any particular party/group, it applies to all organizations.

as to manner of amendment case digest

Documents