Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 82 views

    Lambino Vs Comelec Case Digest G R No 174153

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    The Lambino group filed an initiative petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite on amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution that would shift the government from a bicameral presidential system to a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of an enabling law and previous rulings. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment and the signers were not properly informed. The Court also declined to revisit the ruling that the existing law was inadequate to implement constitutional initiative petitions.

    Copyright:

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

    Lambino Vs Comelec Case Digest G R No 174153

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    82 views1 page
    The Lambino group filed an initiative petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite on amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution that would shift the government from a bicameral presidential system to a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of an enabling law and previous rulings. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment and the signers were not properly informed. The Court also declined to revisit the ruling that the existing law was inadequate to implement constitutional initiative petitions.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    155125403 Lambino vs Comelec Case Digest G R No 174153

    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 Lambino group filed an initiative petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite on amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution that would shift the government from a bicameral presidential system to a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of an enabling law and previous rulings. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment and the signers were not properly informed. The Court also declined to revisit the ruling that the existing law was inadequate to implement constitutional initiative petitions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    82 views1 page

    Lambino Vs Comelec Case Digest G R No 174153

    Uploaded by

    Elyn Apiado
    The Lambino group filed an initiative petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite on amendments to the 1987 Philippine Constitution that would shift the government from a bicameral presidential system to a unicameral parliamentary system. COMELEC denied the petition, citing lack of an enabling law and previous rulings. The Supreme Court upheld COMELEC's decision, finding that the initiative petition did not comply with the constitutional requirements for direct proposals by the people, as it constituted a revision rather than amendment and the signers were not properly informed. The Court also declined to revisit the ruling that the existing law was inadequate to implement constitutional initiative petitions.

    Copyright:

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

    Lambino Vs. Comelec Case Digest G.R. No.

    174153
    Lambino Vs. Comelec 
    G.R. No. 174153
    Oct. 25 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 petition changes the
    1987 constitution 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. 

    Issue: 

    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. 

    Whether or Not this Court should revisit its ruling in Santiago declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
    inadequate or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to implement the initiative clause on
    proposals to amend the Constitution. 

    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 Constitution Disallowing 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.

    You might also like