Scribd
Upload
1K views3 pages

Miriam Defensor Santiago V. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997

Uploaded by

Jien Lou

1) Petitioners argued that the COMELEC does not have the power to govern constitutional initiatives as only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass an implementing law. 2) The court held that COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules for constitutional initiatives, as it does not have that power under the law. 3) Additionally, the Delfin petition did not meet the signature requirements to be considered validly initiated, so the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over the petition.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt

Miriam Defensor Santiago V. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997

Uploaded by

Jien Lou
1K views3 pages
1) Petitioners argued that the COMELEC does not have the power to govern constitutional initiatives as only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass an implementing law. 2) The court held that COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules for constitutional initiatives, as it does not have that power under the law. 3) Additionally, the Delfin petition did not meet the signature requirements to be considered validly initiated, so the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over the petition.

Original Description:

Santiago v Comelec

Original Title

Santiago v Comelec

Copyright

© © All Rights Reserved

Available Formats

DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

1) Petitioners argued that the COMELEC does not have the power to govern constitutional initiatives as only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass an implementing law. 2) The court held that COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules for constitutional initiatives, as it does not have that power under the law. 3) Additionally, the Delfin petition did not meet the signature requirements to be considered validly initiated, so the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over the petition.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
1K views3 pages

Miriam Defensor Santiago V. Commission On Elections G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997

Uploaded by

Jien Lou
1) Petitioners argued that the COMELEC does not have the power to govern constitutional initiatives as only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass an implementing law. 2) The court held that COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules for constitutional initiatives, as it does not have that power under the law. 3) Additionally, the Delfin petition did not meet the signature requirements to be considered validly initiated, so the COMELEC did not have jurisdiction over the petition.

Copyright:

© All Rights Reserved
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3

MIRIAM DEFENSOR SANTIAGO v.

COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997

On 6 Dec 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a Petition to


Amend the Constitution to Lift Term Limits of elective Officials by Peoples
Initiative. The COMELEC then, upon its approval:
a) set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country,
b) caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general
circulation, and
c) instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in
establishing signing stations.

On 18 Dec 1996, petitioners herein, MD Santiago et al filed a special


civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Santiago argues that:
1. the constitutional provision on peoples initiative to amend the
constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress
and no such law has yet been passed by Congress,
2. RA 6735 indeed provides for three systems of initiative namely, initiative
on the Constitution, on statues and on local legislation. The two latter
forms of initiative were specifically provided for in Subtitles II and III
thereof but no provisions were specifically made for initiatives on the
Constitution. This omission indicates that the matter of peoples initiative
to amend the Constitution was left to some future law as pointed out by
former Senator Arturo Tolentino.
3. COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, adopted on 16 January 1991 to govern
"the conduct of initiative on the Constitution and initiative and
referendum on national and local laws, is ultra vires insofar as initiative

on amendments to the Constitution is concerned, since the COMELEC


has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of the
right of initiative to amend the Constitution. Only Congress is authorized
by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
4. The peoples initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not
to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a
revision and is, therefore, outside the power of the peoples initiative.

ISSUE: Does COMELEC have the power to govern the conduct of initiative
on the Constitution and initiative and referendum on national and local
laws?

HELD: No.

COMELEC cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement


the exercise of the right of the people to directly propose amendments to
the Constitution through the system of initiative. It does not have that
power under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELECs power under
Section 2(1) of Article IX-C of the Constitution is misplaced, for the laws and
regulations referred to therein are those promulgated by the COMELEC
under (a) Section 3 of Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a law where
subordinate legislation is authorized and which satisfies the "completeness"
and the "sufficient standard" tests.

Moreover, COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of


discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.

Under Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution and Section 5(b)of R.A.
No. 6735, a petition for initiative on the Constitution must be signed by at
least 12% of the total number of registered voters of which every legislative
district is represented by at least 3% of the registered voters therein. The

Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters.
Delfin himself admits that he has not yet gathered signatures and that the
purpose of his petition is primarily to obtain assistance in his drive to gather
signatures. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed
validly initiated.

The COMELEC acquires jurisdiction over a petition for initiative only after
its filing. The petition then is the initiatory pleading. Nothing before its
filing is cognizable by the COMELEC, sitting en banc. The only participation
of the COMELEC or its personnel before the filing of such petition are
1) to prescribe the form of the petition;
2) to issue through its Election Records and Statistics Office a certificate on
the total number of registered voters in each legislative district;
3) to assist, through its election registrars, in the establishment of
signature stations; and
4) to verify, through its election registrars, the signatures on the basis of
the registry list of voters, voters affidavits, and voters identification
cards used in the immediately preceding election.

Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under R.A. No. 6735
and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given
cognizance of by the COMELEC.

Hence, the petition was granted, and the COMELEC was permanently
enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative
on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been
validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.

You might also like