Abdula vs. Guiani G.R. No.: 118821, February 18, 2000, 326 SCRA 1 FACTS: The case involves a petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the warrant of arrest issued by Judge Japal M. Guiani of Branch 14 of the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato City. The petitioners, Mayor Bai Unggie D. Abdula and Odin Abdula, were charged with murder in Criminal Case No. 2376. The murder complaint alleged that the petitioners paid six other individuals for the death of a certain Abdul Dimalen, the former COMELEC Registrar of Kabuntalan, Maguindanao. Initially, the Provincial Prosecutor of Maguindanao dismissed the murder charges against the petitioners and five other respondents due to lack of prima facie evidence. However, a separate information for murder was filed against one of the respondents, Kasan Mama. Subsequently, the case was ordered to be returned to the Provincial Prosecutor for further investigation. After additional evidence was presented, the Provincial Prosecutor found a prima
DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC
G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997
FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to lift term limits of elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is: “Do you approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
a. Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed.
b. Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law.
c. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
d. People’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision.
e. Congress nor any government agency has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735
It was intended to include or cover people’s initiative on amendments to the Constitution but, as worded, it does not adequately cover such intiative. Article XVII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing for amendments to Constitution, is not self-executory. While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution via PI, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.
FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought. The word is not relevant to the section which is silent as to amendments of the Constitution.
SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Sec 5(c) does not include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
THIRD: No subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. The argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope. Under Subtitle II and III, the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and character.
National initiative – what is proposed to be enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass.
Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance or resolution which only legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest
What has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions to the rule are: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2] Delegation of emergency powers to the President; [3] Delegation to the people at large; [4] Delegation to local governments; and [5] Delegation to administrative bodies.
COMELEC
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority. In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law
(a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fixes a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Republic Act No. 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300
Insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void. 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 Republic Act No. 6735.
Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order:
(a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering;
(b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin’s movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and
(c) directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
DELFIN PETITION
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that RA 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. The COMELEC requires 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.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The petition was merely entered as UND, meaning undocketed. It was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional amendment.
FACTS:
In 1996, Atty. Jesus Delfin filed with COMELEC a petition to amend Constitution, to lift term limits of elective officials, by people’s initiative. Delfin wanted COMELEC to control and supervise said people’s initiative the signature-gathering all over the country. The proposition is: “Do you approve of lifting the term limits of all elective government officials, amending for the purpose Sections 4 ) and 7 of Article VI, Section 4 of Article VII, and Section 8 of Article 8 of Article X of the 1987 Philippine Constitution?” Said Petition for Initiative will first be submitted to the people, and after it is signed by at least 12% total number of registered voters in the country, it will be formally filed with the COMELEC.
COMELEC in turn ordered Delfin for publication of the petition. Petitioners Sen. Roco et al moved for dismissal of the Delfin Petition on the ground that it is not the initiatory petition properly cognizable by the COMELEC.
a. Constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the Constitution can only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has been passed.
b. Republic Act No. 6735 provides for 3 systems on initiative but failed to provide any subtitle on initiative on the Constitution, unlike in the other modes of initiative. This deliberate omission indicates matter of people’s initiative was left to some future law.
c. COMELEC has no power to provide rules and regulations for the exercise of people’s initiative. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to pass the implementing law.
d. People’s initiative is limited to amendments to the Constitution, not to revision thereof. Extending or lifting of term limits constitutes a revision.
e. Congress nor any government agency has not yet appropriated funds for people’s initiative.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the people can directly propose amendments to the Constitution through the system of initiative under Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.
HELD:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6735
It was intended to include or cover people’s initiative on amendments to the Constitution but, as worded, it does not adequately cover such intiative. Article XVII Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution providing for amendments to Constitution, is not self-executory. While the Constitution has recognized or granted the right of the people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution via PI, the people cannot exercise it if Congress, for whatever reason, does not provide for its implementation.
FIRST: Contrary to the assertion of COMELEC, Section 2 of the Act does not suggest an initiative on amendments to the Constitution. The inclusion of the word “Constitution” therein was a delayed afterthought. The word is not relevant to the section which is silent as to amendments of the Constitution.
SECOND: Unlike in the case of the other systems of initiative, the Act does not provide for the contents of a petition for initiative on the Constitution. Sec 5(c) does not include the provisions of the Constitution sought to be amended, in the case of initiative on the Constitution.
THIRD: No subtitle is provided for initiative on the Constitution. This conspicuous silence as to the latter simply means that the main thrust of the Act is initiative and referendum on national and local laws. The argument that the initiative on amendments to the Constitution is not accepted to be subsumed under the subtitle on National Initiative and Referendum because it is national in scope. Under Subtitle II and III, the classification is not based on the scope of the initiative involved, but on its nature and character.
National initiative – what is proposed to be enacted is a national law, or a law which only Congress can pass.
Local initiative – what is proposed to be adopted or enacted is a law, ordinance or resolution which only legislative bodies of the governments of the autonomous regions, provinces, cities, municipalities, and barangays can pass.
Potestas delegata non delegari potest
What has been delegated, cannot be delegated. The recognized exceptions to the rule are: [1] Delegation of tariff powers to the President; [2] Delegation of emergency powers to the President; [3] Delegation to the people at large; [4] Delegation to local governments; and [5] Delegation to administrative bodies.
COMELEC
Empowering the COMELEC, an administrative body exercising quasi judicial functions, to promulgate rules and regulations is a form of delegation of legislative authority. In every case of permissible delegation, there must be a showing that the delegation itself is valid. It is valid only if the law
(a) is complete in itself, setting forth therein the policy to be executed, carried out, or implemented by the delegate; and
(b) fixes a standard – the limits of which are sufficiently determinate and determinable – to which the delegate must conform in the performance of his functions. Republic Act No. 6735 failed to satisfy both requirements in subordinate legislation. The delegation of the power to the COMELEC is then invalid.
COMELEC RESOLUTION NO. 2300
Insofar as it prescribes rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is void. 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 Republic Act No. 6735.
Whether the COMELEC can take cognizance of, or has jurisdiction over, a petition solely intended to obtain an order:
(a) fixing the time and dates for signature gathering;
(b) instructing municipal election officers to assist Delfin’s movement and volunteers in establishing signature stations; and
(c) directing or causing the publication of the unsigned proposed Petition for Initiative on the 1987 Constitution.
DELFIN PETITION
COMELEC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION OR WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN ENTERTAINING THE DELFIN PETITION. Even if it be conceded ex gratia that RA 6735 is a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement the right to initiate constitutional amendments, or that it has validly vested upon the COMELEC the power of subordinate legislation and that COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 is valid, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition.
The Delfin Petition does not contain signatures of the required number of voters. Without the required signatures, the petition cannot be deemed validly initiated. The COMELEC requires 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.
Since the Delfin Petition is not the initiatory petition under RA6735 and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, it cannot be entertained or given cognizance of by the COMELEC. The petition was merely entered as UND, meaning undocketed. It was nothing more than a mere scrap of paper, which should not have been dignified by the Order of 6 December 1996, the hearing on 12 December 1996, and the order directing Delfin and the oppositors to file their memoranda to file their memoranda or oppositions. In so dignifying it, the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion and merely wasted its time, energy, and resources.
Therefore, Republic Act No. 6735 did not apply to constitutional amendment.