JUSTICE  YNARES-­‐SANTIAGO  

A.  Whether  Lambino  group’s  petition  follows  constitutional  requirements.  

a.   No.   The   proposal   was   not   contained   or   attached   to   the   petition.   This   requirement   is   important  because   the  petition   is   supposed   to  be  a  direct  petition  of   the  people,   thus,   they  must   know  what   is  actually,  and  not  merely  a  general  idea,  the  content.    

b.   Lambino   group   committed   logrolling.   A   shift   from   presidential   to   parliamentary   form   does   not  necessarily  require  a  shift  from  a  bicameral  to  a  unicameral  legislature.  

B.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  an  amendment.  

a.  It  is  a  revision.  It  may  be  conceded  that  it  fails  the  quantitative  test,  however,  qualitatively,  it  does  not  only   affect   our   basic   governmental   plan,   but   also   redefine   our   rights   as   citizens   in   relation   to   the  government   (e.g.,   under   the   presidential   form,   we   directly   elect   the   executive,   but   under   the  parliamentary  form,  we  indirectly  elect  through  the  members  of  the  parliament  the  executive).    

b.   The   parliamentary   system   is   consistent   with   constitutional   democracy,   however,   the   underlying  tenets   and   governmental   framework   are   different.   As   already   explained,   the   legislature   and   the  executive  are  only  one,  affective  framework,  power  relations,  and  checks  and  balances.  

c.  The  intent  of  the  petition  is  not  merely  to  change  Articles  VI  and  VII,  but  to  consider  all  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  This  is  evidenced  by  the  fact  that  the  proposal  contains  a  mandatory  formation  of  a  constitutional   assemblee   once   the   change   of   government   form   is   instituted.   Since   the   intent   is   to  consider  the  whole  Constitution,  the  intent  is  for  a  revision,  not  an  amendment.  

C.  Whether  the  people’s  sovereignty  is  violated  by  the  dismissal  of  the  petition.  

a.  No.  It  is  in  accord  with  the  Constitution—the  embodiment  of  the  people’s  sovereignty—that  people’s  initiative  can  only  propose  amendments  to  the  Constitution.  The  people,  through  the  constitution,  in  the  first  place,  exercised  their  sovereign  will  when  they  ratified  the  Constitution,  including  the  provision  that  limits  people’s  initiatives  to  amendments.  This  limitation  is  their  sovereign  will,  binding  upon  them  and  upon  future  generations,  and  not  even  the  dissenting  voice  of  millions  can  usurp  it.    

JUSTICE  SANDOVAL-­‐GUTIERREZ  

A.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  

a.  No,  because  it  did  not  dismiss  the  petition  in  a  capricious  or  whimsical  manner  and  it  did  not  act  in  an  arbitrary  and  despotic  manner,  the  dismissal  of  the  petition  being  based  on  the  precedence  of  Santiago  vs.  Comelec.  

B.  Whether  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  has  precedence.  

a.  Yes.  The  decision  is  workable,  and  it  is  relied  upon,  as  proven  by  the  fact  that  people,  especially  law  practitioners,  students,  the  entire  judiciary,  and  litigants  recognize  it  as  such,  and  there  are  bills  passed  

in  Congress  to  cure  the  defect  of  RA  6735.  As  no  bill  to  cure  the  defects  has  been  signed  to  law,  there  is  no  development  in  law  that  can  overrule  the  decision.  

C.  Whether  the  Lambino  petition  is  a  revision  or  an  amendment.  

a.  It  is  a  revision.  It  will  alter  the  very  structure  of  government  and  create  multifarious  ramifications.  It  creates  a  domino  effect  on  different  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  which  may  constitute  substantially  the  entirety  of  the  charter.  

b.   There   is   a   change   in   the  principle  of   separation  of   power,  which   is   interwoven   in   the   fabric   of   the  Constitution,  thus  the  petition  is  a  revision.  

D.  Whether  Lambino  or  Aumentado  can  file  the  petition.  

a.   No.   Amendment   through   people’s   initiative   is   a   direct   petition   of   the   people,   and   being   a   direct  petition,  it  cannot  admit  representation  within  its  meaning.  

b.   Since   the  proposal  was  not  attached   to   the  petition,   there   can  be  no  presumption   that   the  people  knew  what  the  proposal  is  really  about,  thus,  it  cannot  be  said  that  it  is  a  direct  petition  by  the  people.  

JUSTICE  CORONA  

A.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  

a.  Yes.  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  ruling  is  res  judicata,  for  reasons  already  mentioned  (e.g.,  by  Justice  Puno).  In   addition,   here   are   the   res   judicata   requisites:   the   former   judgment   is   final;   the   judgment   was  rendered  by  a  court  with  jurisdiction  over  the  subject  matter  and  the  parties;  the  judgment  is  on  merits;  and  identity  (sameness)  of  the  parties.  Since  the  parties  are  now  the  Lambino  group  and  the  Comelec—not  Santiago  and  Comelec—there   is   a   violation  of   the   fourth   requisite,   thus   the  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  ruling  cannot  used  in  the  Lambino  vs.  Comelec  case.  

B.  Whether  the  people’s  initiative  provision  is  inoperative  because  of  RA  6735’s  supposed  defect?  

a.  The  provision  is  operative.  Declaration  that  a  law  is  inadequate  simply  because  of  lack  of  sub-­‐heading  and  other  grammatical  and   insignificant  omissions  cannot   restrain  Constitutional   rights,  otherwise   the  provision  is  emasculated.  

JUSTICE  CALLEJO  

A.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion/  

a.  It  did  not.  It  was  merely  following  court’s  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec,  which  permanently  enjoins  the  Comelec  from  entertaining  any  petition  for  initiative  on  amending  the  Constitution  until  a  valid  law  shall  have  been  enacted  to  provide  for  the  implementation  of  the  system.  Until  the  ruling  is  overruled  by  the  Court  en  banc,  it  is  part  of  the  legal  system.  

b.  The  ruling   in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  remains  definitive,  since  the  motion  for  reconsideration  failed  to  persuade  the  majority  of  the  court.  

c.  RA  6735  do  not  empower  Comelec  to  hear  the  initiative  petition.  

B.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  an  amendment.  

a.   It   is  a  revision.   It  changes  the  basic  plan  and  substance  of   the  tripartite  system  and  the  principle  of  separation  of  powers,  thus,  this  change  is  not  within  the  lines  of  the  original  instrument.  

C.  Whether  limiting  people’s  initiatives  to  change  the  Constitution  infringes  the  people’s  sovereignty.  

a.  No.  It  was  by  exercise  of  their  sovereign  will  that  the  people  imposed  limits  upon  themselves.  

JUSTICE  AZCUNA  

A.  Whether  RA  7635  is  adequate.  

a.   It   is   adequate.   It   is   not   subject   to   regular   rules   of   establishing   sufficiency   of   laws,   because   when  Congress  passed  it,  it  exercised  constituent,  not  legislative,  power,  as  the  law  relates  to  the  Constitution  of  Sovereignty.  

B.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  amendment.  

a.   It   is   a   revision.   Change   in   the   system   of   government   is   a   revision   because   it   will   affect   other  provisions.  For  example,  a  change  to  the  parliamentary  system  will  affect  the  power  of  judiciary,  as  well  as  affect  the  system  of  checks  and  balances,  since  the  Parliament  is  supreme.  

b.  Justice  Azcuna  said  that  a  change  from  bicameral  to  unicameral  legislature  is  an  amendment.  (Just  a  thought:  This   is   because   it   does   not   affect   separation  of   powers   and   constitutional   principles,   among  other  reasons.)  Change  to  a  parliamentary  system  is  a  revision.  

JUSTICE  TINGA  

A.  Whether  the  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  set  precedence.  

a.  It  does  not  set  precedence.  In  addition  of  Justice  Puno’s  explanation,  the  ruling  is  erroneous,  illogical,  and   should   not   be   perpetuated.   The   court   affirmed   RA   6735’s   constitutionality,   but   barred   its  enforcement  by  declaring  it  inadequate.  This  violates  Article  9  of  the  Civil  Code.  

B.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  

a.  It  did.  Since  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  has  no  precedence,  it  has  to  do  its  duties  contained  in  RA  6735.  

 

 

JUSTICE  CHICO-­‐NAZARIO  

A.  Whether  RA  6735  is  adequate.  

a.  Yes.  There  is  no  need  to  provide  for  what  the  Court  found  lacking  in  its  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec,  because  the  enabling  law  which  Congress  has  been  commanded  to  enact  must  give  life  to  the  provision  on  people’s  initiative,  and  make  the  exercise  of  the  right  to  initiative  possible,  not  to  regulate,  limit,  or  restrain  it.  

B.  Whether  Comelec  committed  grave  abuse  of  discretion.  

a.  Yes.  The  ruling  in  Santiago  vs.  Comelec  is  res  judicata.  

JUSTICE  VELASCO  

A.  Whether  the  Lambino  group’s  petition  is  a  revision  or  an  amendment.  

a.   It   is   an   amendment,   because   it   concerns   only   a   few   provisions,   and   not   the   entirety   of   the  Constitution.  The  question  of  whether  a  proposal   is  a  revision  or  an  amendment   is  difficult,  and  when  confronted   with   this   matter,   which   pertains   to   the   sovereign   people’s   political   rights—or   with   any  matter  pertaining  to  the  sovereign  people’s  political  rights—the  Court  must  lean  more  towards  a  more  liberal  interpretation  favoring  the  people’s  right  to  exercise  their  sovereign  power.