People’s Initiative Requires Complete Implementing Law

G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997

Can ordinary citizens directly amend the Philippine Constitution? The Supreme Court, in Miriam Defensor Santiago vs. Commission on Elections, addressed this very question, clarifying the extent of the people’s power to propose constitutional changes through a system known as “initiative.” The ruling underscores that while the Constitution grants this right, its exercise hinges on the existence of a complete and adequate implementing law passed by Congress. In the absence of such a law, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) cannot act on petitions for constitutional amendments initiated by the people.

The Case: A Push to Lift Term Limits

The case arose when Atty. Jesus Delfin, representing the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed a petition with the COMELEC seeking to amend certain provisions of the Constitution. Specifically, Delfin aimed to lift term limits for elective government officials. He requested the COMELEC to set dates for a nationwide signature campaign and to instruct local election registrars to assist in establishing signature stations. Several parties, including Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, opposed the petition, arguing that no law existed to properly implement the constitutional provision on people’s initiative for amendments.

Senator Santiago and other petitioners argued that Republic Act No. 6735 (R.A. 6735), the law on initiative and referendum, was insufficient to cover constitutional amendments. They also contended that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which provided rules for initiatives, was ultra vires (beyond its powers) since Congress had not yet passed an implementing law. The central legal question was whether the people’s right to directly propose constitutional amendments could be exercised in the absence of a complete and adequate implementing law.

Understanding People’s Initiative and Constitutional Amendments

The 1987 Philippine Constitution recognizes three ways to propose amendments: (1) Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; (2) a constitutional convention; and (3) directly by the people through initiative. The system of initiative, allowing citizens to directly propose changes, was a novel addition intended to empower the populace. Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution lays down the requirements for amendments via people’s initiative:

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. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.

However, this provision is not self-executing, meaning it requires implementing legislation from Congress to be operational. R.A. 6735, while intended to provide a system for initiative and referendum, was found by the Court to be inadequate for constitutional amendments. For instance, while R.A. 6735 mentions initiative on the Constitution, it lacks specific provisions on the contents of such petitions, and lacks a separate subtitle dedicated to it.

To illustrate, imagine a scenario where citizens want to propose an amendment regarding education. Without a clear law outlining the specifics of the petition, signature verification, and plebiscite procedures, the COMELEC would lack the necessary guidelines to properly facilitate the initiative.

How the Supreme Court Ruled

The Supreme Court granted the petition, effectively stopping the COMELEC from proceeding with Delfin’s initiative. The Court held that R.A. 6735 was insufficient to cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. It also declared portions of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 void, as the COMELEC lacked the power to create rules for constitutional amendments in the absence of a proper law. The Court emphasized that Congress had not yet fulfilled its constitutional mandate to provide for the implementation of the people’s right to propose amendments through initiative.

Here are some key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s reasoning:

• “Without implementing legislation Section 2 cannot operate. Thus, although this mode of amending the Constitution is a mode of amendment which bypasses congressional action, in the last analysis it still is dependent on congressional action.”
• “R.A. No. 6735 is incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured by ’empowering’ the COMELEC ‘to promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of [the] Act.”

The Court highlighted several deficiencies in R.A. 6735, including the lack of a separate subtitle for initiative on the Constitution, and the absence of specific requirements for the contents of petitions for constitutional amendments. The Court further explained that even if the COMELEC had the power to issue implementing rules, R.A. 6735 failed to provide sufficient standards for the COMELEC to do so, making the delegation of power invalid.

Practical Implications of the Ruling

This landmark ruling has significant implications for future attempts to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative. The absence of a complete and adequate implementing law effectively puts this method of amendment on hold. The Court’s decision underscores the crucial role of Congress in enabling the exercise of this right. Without congressional action, the people’s power to directly propose constitutional changes remains dormant. This ruling also highlights the limits of the COMELEC’s power, preventing it from overstepping its authority in the absence of clear legal guidelines.

Key Lessons:

• The people’s right to directly propose constitutional amendments through initiative is not self-executing and requires an implementing law passed by Congress.
• R.A. 6735, the existing law on initiative and referendum, is insufficient to cover constitutional amendments.
• The COMELEC lacks the power to create rules for constitutional amendments in the absence of a proper implementing law.

Moving forward, any attempt to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative will necessitate a comprehensive law that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Supreme Court. This law must clearly outline the procedures for petitioning, signature gathering, verification, and holding a plebiscite.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution?

A: It is a system where citizens can directly propose amendments to the Constitution through a petition signed by at least 12% of registered voters, with representation from every legislative district.

Q: Why can’t we use the existing law on initiative and referendum (R.A. 6735) to amend the Constitution?

A: The Supreme Court has ruled that R.A. 6735 is incomplete and inadequate for constitutional amendments because it lacks specific provisions and guidelines for this process.

Q: What needs to happen before citizens can directly propose constitutional amendments?

A: Congress must pass a new law that fully implements the constitutional provision on people’s initiative, addressing the deficiencies in R.A. 6735.

Q: Can the COMELEC create its own rules to implement people’s initiative?

A: No, the COMELEC’s power to create rules is limited to what is authorized by law. In the absence of a proper implementing law from Congress, the COMELEC cannot make rules for constitutional amendments.

Q: What are the implications of this ruling for future attempts to amend the Constitution?

A: Any future attempts to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative will require a new, comprehensive law from Congress that addresses the issues identified by the Supreme Court.

Q: Does this ruling completely eliminate the possibility of people’s initiative?

A: No, the ruling simply clarifies that a proper implementing law is necessary before this right can be exercised. It is up to Congress to pass such a law.

ASG Law specializes in election law and constitutional law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.