Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2K views

    CONSTILAW - Santiago Vs Comelec GR127325

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Delfin's petition to amend the constitution through a people's initiative to lift term limits of elected officials. The Court held that under RA 6735 and the constitution, the COMELEC's power to promulgate rules on people's initiatives is limited to local government matters and does not extend to initiatives proposing constitutional amendments. Justice Puno dissented, arguing that RA 6735 was intended to cover constitutional amendment initiatives based on the history and text of the law.

    Copyright:

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

    CONSTILAW - Santiago Vs Comelec GR127325

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    2K views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Delfin's petition to amend the constitution through a people's initiative to lift term limits of elected officials. The Court held that under RA 6735 and the constitution, the COMELEC's power to promulgate rules on people's initiatives is limited to local government matters and does not extend to initiatives proposing constitutional amendments. Justice Puno dissented, arguing that RA 6735 was intended to cover constitutional amendment initiatives based on the history and text of the law.

    Original Description:

    ConstiLaw

    Original Title

    CONSTILAW - Santiago vs Comelec GR127325

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Delfin's petition to amend the constitution through a people's initiative to lift term limits of elected officials. The Court held that under RA 6735 and the constitution, the COMELEC's power to promulgate rules on people's initiatives is limited to local government matters and does not extend to initiatives proposing constitutional amendments. Justice Puno dissented, arguing that RA 6735 was intended to cover constitutional amendment initiatives based on the history and text of the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views2 pages

    CONSTILAW - Santiago Vs Comelec GR127325

    Uploaded by

    Lu Cas
    The Supreme Court ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining Delfin's petition to amend the constitution through a people's initiative to lift term limits of elected officials. The Court held that under RA 6735 and the constitution, the COMELEC's power to promulgate rules on people's initiatives is limited to local government matters and does not extend to initiatives proposing constitutional amendments. Justice Puno dissented, arguing that RA 6735 was intended to cover constitutional amendment initiatives based on the history and text of the law.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Santiago vs COMELEC

    G.R. No. 127325 March 19, 1997

    Ponente: Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr.

    Facts:

    On 6 December 1996, Atty. Jesus S. Delfin filed with COMELEC a “Petition to Amend the Constitution to Lift Term
    Limits of elective Officials by People’s Initiative” The COMELEC then, upon its approval

    1. set the time and dates for signature gathering all over the country,

    2. caused the necessary publication of the said petition in papers of general circulation, and

    3. instructed local election registrars to assist petitioners and volunteers in establishing signing stations.

    On 18 Dec 1996, Miriam Santiago et al filed a special civil action for prohibition against the Delfin Petition. Also,
    Raul Roco filed with the COMELEC a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition, the petition having been untenable due
    to the foregoing. Santiago argues among others that the People’s Initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution
    NOT a revision thereof. The extension or the lifting of the term limits of those in power (particularly the President)
    constitutes revision and is therefore beyond the power of people’s initiative. The respondents argued that the petition
    filed by Roco is pending under the COMELEC hence the Supreme Court cannot take cognizance of it.

    Issue:

    1. Whether or not the COMELEC has the power to call for People’s Initiative to amend the constitution
    specifically to lift term limits of elected officials.

    2. Whether or not the Supreme Court can take cognizance of the case

    Decision:

    COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN


    ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION.

    The 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.

    Ratio:

    Under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the COMELEC’s 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.

    Dissenting Opinion:

    Justice Puno does not share the view that R.A. No. 5735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 are legally defective
    and cannot implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. I likewise submit that the petition with respect
    to the Pedrosas has no leg to stand on and should be dismissed.

    Significantly, the majority decision concedes that “. . . R.A. No. 6735 was intended to cover initiative to propose
    amendments to the Constitution.” It ought to be so for this intent is crystal clear from the history of the law which was
    a consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 3 and Senate Bill No. 17. 4 Senate Bill No. 17 was entitled “An Act Providing
    for a System of Initiative and Referendum and the Exception Therefrom, Whereby People in Local Government Units

    Can Directly Propose and Enact Resolutions and Ordinances or Approve or Reject any Ordinance or Resolution
    Passed by the Local Legislative Body.” Beyond doubt, Senate Bill No. 17 did not include people’s initiative to
    propose amendments to the Constitution. In checkered contrast, House Bill No. 21505 5 expressly included people’s
    initiative to amend the Constitution.

    You might also like