LAMBINO vs.

COMELEC
G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006(CARPIO, J.)
Requirements for Initiative Petition
Constitutional Amendment vs. Constitutional Revision
Tests to determine whether amendment or revision
FACTS:
The Lambino Group commenced gathering signatures for an initiative petition to change the 1987
Constitution and then filed a petition with COMELEC to hold a plebiscite for ratification under Sec. 5(b)
and (c) and Sec. 7 of RA 6735. The proposed changes under the petition will shift the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary form of government. COMELEC did not give it due
course for lack of an enabling law governing initiative petitions to amend the Constitution, pursuant to
Santiago v. Comelec ruling.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the proposed changes constitute an amendment or revision
Whether or not the initiative petition is sufficient compliance with the constitutional requirement on direct
proposal by the people
RULING:
Initiative petition does not comply with Sec. 2, Art. XVII on direct proposal by people Sec. 2, Art. XVII...is the governing
provision that allows a peoples initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution. While this provision
does not expressly state that the petition must set forth the full text of the proposed amendments, the
deliberations of the framers of our Constitution clearly show that: (a) the framers intended to adopt
relevant American jurisprudence on peoples initiative; and (b) in particular, the people must first seethe
full text of the proposed amendments before they sign, and that the people must sign on a petition
containing such full text. The essence of amendments directly proposed by the people through initiative
upon a petition is that the entire proposal on its face is a petition by the people. This means two essential
elements must be present.
2 ELEMENTSOFINITIATIVE
1. First, the people must author and thus sign the entire proposal. No agent or
representative can sign on their behalf.
2. Second, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in a petition. These essential
elements are present only if the full text of the proposed amendments is first shown to the people who
express their assent by signing such complete proposal in a petition.
The full text of the proposed amendments may be either written on the face of the petition, or
attached to it. If so attached, the petition must stated the fact of such attachment. This is an assurance
that everyone of the several millions of signatories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed
amendments before not after signing. Moreover, an initiative signer must be informed at the time of
signing of the nature and effect of that which is proposed and failure to do so is deceptive and
misleading which renders the initiative void. In the case of the Lambino Groups petition, theres not a
single word, phrase, or sentence of text of the proposed changes in the signature sheet. Neither does the
signature sheet state that the text of the proposed changes is attached to it. The signature sheet merely
asks a question whether the people approve a shift from the Bicameral-Presidential to the UnicameralParliamentary system of government. The signature sheet does not show to the people the draft of the
proposed changes before they are asked to sign the signature sheet. This omission is fatal. An initiative
that gathers signatures from the people without first showing to the people the full text of the proposed
amendments is most likely a deception, and can operate as a gigantic fraud on the people. Thats why the
Constitution requires that an initiative must be directly proposed by the people x x x in a petition -

meaning that the people must sign on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed amendments.
On so vital an issue as amending the nations fundamental law, the writing of the text of the proposed
amendments cannot be hidden from the people under a general or special power of attorney to unnamed,
faceless, and unelected individuals. The I nitiative violates Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution disallowing revision through
initiatives. Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three modes of amending the Constitution. The first
mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. The second mode is through a
constitutional convention. The third mode is through a peoples initiative. Section 1 of Article XVII,
referring to the first and second modes, applies to any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution. In
contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to amendments to this
Constitution. This distinction was intentional as shown by the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. A peoples initiative to change the Constitution applies only to an amendment of the
Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Congress or a constitutional convention can propose both
amendments and revisions to the Constitution. Does the Lambino Groups initiative constitute a revision of the
Constitution? Yes. By any legal test and under any jurisdiction, a shift from a Bicameral-Presidential to a
Unicameral-Parliamentary system, involving the abolition of the Office of the President and the abolition of
one chamber of Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not a mere amendment.
Amendment vs. Revision
Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of a constitution.
Revision broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle
of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. There is also revision if the change alters
the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the
constitution. On the other hand, amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes
without altering the basic principle involved. Revision generally affects several provisions of the
constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. Where the
proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution without affecting any other
section or article, the change may generally be considered an amendment and not a revision. For
example, a change reducing the voting age from 18years to 15 years is an amendment and not a
revision. Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100% to 60% is
an amendment and not a revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification
for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a revision. The changes in these examples do not
entail any modification of sections or articles of the Constitution other than the specific provision being
amended. These changes do not also affect the structure of government or the system of checks-andbalances among or within the three branches. However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change
is an amendment or a revision. A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a
revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the word republican with monarchic
or theocratic in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of
government and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will
have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as well as how it affects
the structure of government, the carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the underlying
ideological basis of the existing Constitution. Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or
several provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to
undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered
principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like
constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand,
constitutions allow peoples initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or
recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions. Tests to determine whether
amendment or revision. In California where the initiative clause allows amendments but not revisions to
the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative test
and the qualitative test. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its
provisions as to change directly the substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of
numerous existing provisions. The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not
consider the degree of the change. The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed
change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will accomplish such far reaching
changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision. Whether there is an

alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. Thus, a change in the nature of
[the] basic governmental plan includes change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers
of its Branches. A change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that
jeopardize the traditional form of government and the system of check and balances. Under both the
quantitative and qualitative tests, the Lambino Groups initiative is a revision and not merely an
amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino Groups proposed changes overhaul two articles - Article VI on
the Legislature and Article VII on the Executive -affecting a total of 105 provisions in the entire
Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed changes alter substantially the basic plan of government, from
presidential to parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a unicameral legislature. A change in the structure
of government is a revision. A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as
when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into
two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the present BicameralPresidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the
legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of government. The abolition alone
of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power alters the separation of powers and thus
constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters
the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the
Constitution. The Lambino Group theorizes that the difference between amendment and revision is only
one of procedure, not of substance. The Lambino Group posits that when a deliberative body drafts and
proposes changes to the Constitution, substantive changes are called revisions because members of the
deliberative body work full-time on the changes. The same substantive changes, when proposed through
an initiative, are called amendments because the changes are made by ordinary people who do not make
an occupation, profession, or vocation out of such endeavor. The SC, however, ruled that the express
intent of the framers and the plain language of the Constitution contradict the Lambino Groups theory.
Where the intent of the framers and the language of the Constitution are clear and plainly stated courts do
not deviate from such categorical intent and language.