Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. 174153 October 25, 2006 RAUL L.

LAMB NO !"# ER CO B. AUMENTA$O, TOGET%ER & T% 6,327,'52 REG STERE$ (OTERS,Petitioners, vs. T%E COMM SS ON ON ELECT ONS, Respondent. x--------------------------------------------------------x ALTERNAT (E LA& GROUPS, NC., Intervenor. x ------------------------------------------------------ x ONE(O CE NC., C%R ST AN S.MONSO$, RENE B. A)UR N, MANUEL L. *UE)ON , BEN+AM N T. TOLOSA, +R., SUSAN (. OPLE, !"# CARLOS P. ME$ NA, +R., Intervenors. x------------------------------------------------------ x ATT,. PETE *U R NO *UA$RA, Intervenor. x--------------------------------------------------------x BA,AN re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. C1!0r-er.o" $r. C!ro20"! P!3!#4!"5Ar!422o, BA,AN MUNA re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. C1!0r-er.o" $r. Re/"!2#o Le.!c!, 6 LUSANG MA,O UNO re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. Secret!r/ Ge"er!2 +oe2 M!324".o#, %EA$ re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. Secret!r/ Ge"er!2 $r. Ge"e A27o"! N0.-ero., ECUMEN CAL B S%OPS 8ORUM re-re.e"te# b/ 8r. $0o"0to C!b022!., M GRANTE re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. C1!0r-er.o" Co"ce-c0o" Br!3!.5 Re3!2!#o, GABR ELA re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. Secret!r/ Ge"er!2 E9ere"c0!"! #e +e.4., GABR ELA &OMEN:S PART, re-re.e"te# b/ Sec. Ge". Cr0.t0"! P!2!b!/, ANA6BA,AN re-re.e"te# b/ C1!0r-er.o" E2e!"or #e G479!", LEAGUE O8 8 L P NO STU$ENTS re-re.e"te# b/ C1!0r (e"cer Cr0.o.to9o P!2!b!/, +O+O P NE$A o; t1e Le!34e o; Co"cer"e# Pro;e..0o"!2. !"# B4.0"e..9e", $R. $ARB, SANT AGO o; t1e So20#!r0t/ o; %e!2t1 A3!0".t C1!rter C1!"3e, $R. REG NAL$ PAMUGAS o; %e!2t1 Act0o" ;or %49!" R031t., Intervenors. x--------------------------------------------------------x LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES, MAR O +O,O AGU+A, !"# ANA T%ERESA %ONT (EROS5BARA*UEL,Intervenors.

x--------------------------------------------------------x ARTURO M. $E CASTRO, Intervenor. x ------------------------------------------------------- x TRA$E UN ON CONGRESS O8 T%E P% L PP NES, Intervenor. x---------------------------------------------------------x LU&AL%AT R CASA ANTON NO, Intervenor. x ------------------------------------------------------- x P% L PP NE CONST TUT ON ASSOC AT ON <P% LCONSA=, CONRA$O 8. ESTRELLA, TOMAS C. TOLE$O, MAR ANO M. TA+ON, 8RO LAN M. BACUNGAN, +OA*U N T. (ENUS, +R., 8ORTUNATO P. AGUAS, !"# AMA$O GAT NC ONG, Intervenors. x ------------------------------------------------------- x RONAL$ L. A$AMAT, ROLAN$O MANUEL R (ERA, !"# RUELO BA,A, Intervenors. x -------------------------------------------------------- x P% L PP NE TRANSPORT AN$ GENERAL &OR6ERS ORGAN )AT ON <PTG&O= !"# MR. ( CTOR NO 8. BALA S, Intervenors. x -------------------------------------------------------- x SENATE O8 T%E P% L PP NES, re-re.e"te# b/ 0t. Pre.0#e"t, MANUEL ( LLAR, +R., Intervenor. x ------------------------------------------------------- x SULONG BA,AN MO(EMENT 8OUN$AT ON, NC., Intervenor. x ------------------------------------------------------- x +OSE ANSELMO . CA$ ), B,RON $. BOCAR, MA. TAN,A 6AR NA A. LAT, ANTON O L. SAL(A$OR, !"# RAN$ALL TABA,O,ONG, Intervenors. x -------------------------------------------------------- x NTEGRATE$ BAR O8 T%E P% L PP NES, CEBU C T, AN$ CEBU PRO( NCE C%APTERS, Intervenors. x --------------------------------------------------------x SENATE M NOR T, LEA$ER A*U L NO *. P MENTEL, +R. !"# SENATORS SERG O R. OSMENA , +AMB, MA$R GAL, + NGGO, ESTRA$A, AL8RE$O S. L M !"# PAN8 LO LACSON, Intervenors. x -----------------------------------------------------x

+OSEP% E+ERC TO ESTRA$A !"# P&ERSA NG MASANG P L P NO, Intervenors. x -----------------------------------------------------x G.R. No. 1742'' October 25, 2006 MAR5LEN AB GA L B NA,, SO8RON O UNTALAN, +R., !"# RENE A.(. SAGU SAG, Petitioners, vs. COMM SS ON ON ELECT ONS, re-re.e"te# b/ C1!0r9!" BEN+AM N S. ABALOS, SR., !"# Co990..0o"er. RESURRECC ON ). BORRA, 8LORENT NO A. TUASON, +R., ROMEO A. BRA&NER, RENE (. SARM ENTO, N CO$EMO T. 8ERRER, !"# +o1" $oe !"# Peter $oe,, Respondent. ECI!I"N CARP O, J.: T1e C!.e #hese are consolidated petitions on the Resolution dated $% Au&ust '(() of the Co**ission on Elections +,C"ME-EC,. den/in& due course to an initiative petition to a*end the %012 Constitution. A"tece#e"t 8!ct. "n %3 4ebruar/ '((), petitioners in 5.R. No. %26%3$, na*el/ Raul -. -a*bino and Erico B. Au*entado +,-a*bino 5roup,., 7ith other &roups% and individuals, co**enced &atherin& si&natures for an initiative petition to chan&e the %012 Constitution. "n '3 Au&ust '((), the -a*bino 5roup filed a petition 7ith the C"ME-EC to hold a plebiscite that 7ill ratif/ their initiative petition under !ection 3+b. and +c.' and !ection 2$ of Republic Act No. )2$3 or the Initiative and Referendu* Act +,RA )2$3,.. #he -a*bino 5roup alle&ed that their petition had the support of ),$'2,03' individuals constitutin& at least t7elveper centum +%'8. of all re&istered voters, 7ith each le&islative district represented b/ at least three per centum +$8. of its re&istered voters. #he -a*bino 5roup also clai*ed that C"ME-EC election re&istrars had verified the si&natures of the ).$ *illion individuals.

#he -a*bino 5roup9s initiative petition chan&es the %012 Constitution b/ *odif/in& !ections %-2 of Article :I +-e&islative epart*ent.6 and !ections %-6 of Article :II +Executive epart*ent.3 and b/ addin& Article ;:III entitled ,#ransitor/ Provisions.,) #hese proposed chan&es 7ill shift the present Bica*eral-Presidential s/ste* to a <nica*eral-Parlia*entar/ for* of &overn*ent. #he -a*bino 5roup pra/ed that after due publication of their petition, the C"ME-EC should sub*it the follo7in& proposition in a plebiscite for the voters9 ratification= " >"< APPR":E #?E AMEN MEN# "4 AR#IC-E! :I AN :II "4 #?E %012 C"N!#I#<#I"N, C?AN5IN5 #?E 4"RM "4 5":ERNMEN# 4R"M #?E PRE!EN# BICAMERA-PRE!I EN#IA- #" A <NICAMERA--PAR-IAMEN#AR> !>!#EM, AN PR":I IN5 AR#IC-E ;:III A! #RAN!I#"R> PR":I!I"N! 4"R #?E "R ER-> !?I4# 4R"M "NE !>!#EM #" #?E "#?ER@ "n $( Au&ust '((), the -a*bino 5roup filed an A*ended Petition 7ith the C"ME-EC indicatin& *odifications in the proposed Article ;:III +#ransitor/ Provisions. of their initiative.2 T1e R420"3 o; t1e COMELEC "n $% Au&ust '((), the C"ME-EC issued its Resolution den/in& due course to the -a*bino 5roup9s petition for lacA of an enablin& la7 &overnin& initiative petitions to a*end the Constitution. #he C"ME-EC invoAed this Court9s rulin& in Santiago v. Commission on Elections1 declarin& RA )2$3 inadeBuate to i*ple*ent the initiative clause on proposals to a*end the Constitution.0 In 5.R. No. %26%3$, the -a*bino 5roup pra/s for the issuance of the 7rits of certiorari and *anda*us to set aside the C"ME-EC Resolution of $% Au&ust '(() and to co*pel the C"ME-EC to &ive due course to their initiative petition. #he -a*bino 5roup contends that the C"ME-EC co**itted &rave abuse of discretion in den/in& due course to their petition since Santiago is not a bindin& precedent. Alternativel/, the -a*bino 5roup clai*s thatSantiago binds onl/ the parties to that case, and their petition deserves co&niCance as an expression of the ,7ill of the soverei&n people., In 5.R. No. %26'00, petitioners +,Bina/ 5roup,. pra/ that the Court reBuire respondent C"ME-EC Co**issioners to sho7 cause 7h/ the/ should not be cited in conte*pt for the C"ME-EC9s verification of si&natures and for

,entertainin&, the -a*bino 5roup9s petition despite the per*anent inDunction in Santiago. #he Court treated the Bina/ 5roup9s petition as an opposition-inintervention. In his Co**ent to the -a*bino 5roup9s petition, the !olicitor 5eneral Doined causes 7ith the petitioners, ur&in& the Court to &rant the petition despite the Santiago rulin&. #he !olicitor 5eneral proposed that the Court treat RA )2$3 and its i*ple*entin& rules ,as te*porar/ devises to i*ple*ent the s/ste* of initiative., :arious &roups and individuals sou&ht intervention, filin& pleadin&s supportin& or opposin& the -a*bino 5roup9s petition. #he supportin& intervenors%( unifor*l/ hold the vie7 that the C"ME-EC co**itted &rave abuse of discretion in rel/in& on Santiago. "n the other hand, the opposin& intervenors%% hold the contrar/ vie7 and *aintain that Santiago is a bindin& precedent. #he opposin& intervenors also challen&ed +%. the -a*bino 5roup9s standin& to file the petitionE +'. the validit/ of the si&nature &atherin& and verification processE +$. the -a*bino 5roup9s co*pliance 7ith the *ini*u* reBuire*ent for the percenta&e of voters supportin& an initiative petition under !ection ', Article ;:II of the %012 ConstitutionE%' +6. the nature of the proposed chan&es as revisions and not *ere a*end*ents as provided under !ection ', Article ;:II of the %012 ConstitutionE and +3. the -a*bino 5roup9s co*pliance 7ith the reBuire*ent in !ection %(+a. of RA )2$3 li*itin& initiative petitions to onl/ one subDect. #he Court heard the parties and intervenors in oral ar&u*ents on ') !epte*ber '((). After receivin& the parties9 *e*oranda, the Court considered the case sub*itted for resolution. T1e ..4e. #he petitions raise the follo7in& issues= %. Fhether the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative petition co*plies 7ith !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution on a*end*ents to the Constitution throu&h a people9s initiativeE '. Fhether this Court should revisit its rulin& in Santiago declarin& RA )2$3 ,inco*plete, inadeBuate or 7antin& in essential ter*s and conditions, to i*ple*ent the initiative clause on proposals to a*end the ConstitutionE and $. Fhether the C"ME-EC co**itted &rave abuse of discretion in den/in& due course to the -a*bino 5roup9s petition. T1e R420"3 o; t1e Co4rt

#here is no *erit to the petition. #he -a*bino 5roup *iserabl/ failed to co*pl/ 7ith the basic reBuire*ents of the Constitution for conductin& a people9s initiative. #hus, there is even no need to revisit Santiago, as the present petition 7arrants dis*issal based alone on the -a*bino 5roup9s &larin& failure to co*pl/ 7ith the basic reBuire*ents of the Constitution. 4or follo7in& the Court9s rulin& in !antia&o, no &rave abuse of discretion is attributable to the Co**ision on Elections. 1. The Initiative Petition Does Not Comply with Section 2, A ticle !"II o# the Constit$tion on Di ect P oposal %y the People !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution is the &overnin& constitutional provision that allo7s a people9s initiative to propose a*end*ents to the Constitution. #his section states= !ec. '. A*end*ents to this Constitution *a/ liAe7ise be #0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o" of at least t7elve per centum of the total nu*ber of re&istered voters of 7hich ever/ le&islative district *ust be represented b/ at least three per centum of the re&istered voters therein. x x x x +E*phasis supplied. #he deliberations of the Constitutional Co**ission vividl/ explain the *eanin& of an a*end*ent ,#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o",, thus= MR. R" RI5"= -et us looA at the *echanics. -et us sa/ so*e voters 7ant to propose a constitutional a*end*ent. . t1e #r!;t o; t1e -ro-o.e# co".t0t4t0o"!2 !9e"#9e"t re!#/ to be .1o?" to t1e -eo-2e ?1e" t1e/ !re !.@e# to .03"@ MR. !<AREG= T1!t c!" be re!.o"!b2/ !..49e#, Mada* President. MR. R" RI5"= Fhat does the sponsor *ean@ T1e #r!;t 0. re!#/ !"# .1o?" to t1e9 be;ore t1e/ .03". No7, 7ho prepares the draft@ MR. !<AREG= #he people the*selves, Mada* President. MR. R" RI5"= No, because be;ore t1e/ .03" t1ere 0. !2re!#/ ! #r!;t .1o?" to t1e9 and the/ are asAed 7hether or not the/ 7ant to propose this constitutional a*end*ent. MR. !<AREG= As it is envisioned, an/ 4ilipino can -re-!re t1!t -ro-o.!2 !"# -!.. 0t !ro4"# ;or .03"!t4re.%$ +E*phasis supplied. Clearl/, the fra*ers of the Constitution intended that the ,#r!;t o; t1e -ro-o.e# co".t0t4t0o"!2 !9e"#9e"t, should be ,re!#/ !"# .1o?", to the people

,be;ore, the/ si&n such proposal. #he fra*ers plainl/ stated that ,be;ore t1e/ .03" t1ere 0. !2re!#/ ! #r!;t .1o?" to t1e9., #he fra*ers also ,e">0.0o"e#, that the people should si&n o" t1e -ro-o.!2 0t.e2; because the proponents *ust ,-re-!re t1!t -ro-o.!2 !"# -!.. 0t !ro4"# ;or .03"!t4re., #he essence of a*end*ents ,#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o", is that t1e e"t0re -ro-o.!2 o" 0t. ;!ce 0. ! -et0t0o" b/ t1e -eo-2e. #his *eans t7o essential ele*ents *ust be present. 4irst, the people *ust author and thus si&n the entire proposal. No a&ent or representative can si&n on their behalf. !econd, as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal *ust be e*bodied in a petition. #hese essential ele*ents are present onl/ if the full text of the proposed a*end*ents is ;0r.t .1o?" to the people 7ho express their assent b/ si&nin& such co*plete proposal in a petition. T14., !" !9e"#9e"t 0. A#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o"A o"2/ 0; t1e -eo-2e .03" o" ! -et0t0o" t1!t co"t!0". t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t.. #he full text of the proposed a*end*ents *a/ be either 7ritten on the face of the petition, or attached to it. If so attached, the petition *ust state the fact of such attach*ent. #his is an assurance that ever/ one of the several *illions of si&natories to the petition had seen the full text of the proposed a*end*ents before si&nin&. "ther7ise, it is ph/sicall/ i*possible, &iven the ti*e constraint, to prove that ever/ one of the *illions of si&natories had seen the full text of the proposed a*end*ents before si&nin&. #he fra*ers of the Constitution directl/ borro7ed%6 the concept of people9s initiative fro* the <nited !tates 7here various !tate constitutions incorporate an initiative clause. In al*ost all !tates%3 7hich allo7 initiative petitions, t1e 4"be"#0"3 reC40re9e"t 0. t1!t t1e -eo-2e 94.t ;0r.t .ee t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t. be;ore t1e/ .03" to .03"0;/ t1e0r !..e"t, !"# t1!t t1e -eo-2e 94.t .03" o" !" 0"0t0!t0>e -et0t0o" t1!t co"t!0". t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t..%) #he rationale for this reBuire*ent has been repeatedl/ explained in several decisions of various courts. #hus, inCape&&$to v. State 'allot Commission, the S$p eme Co$ t o# (assach$setts, affir*ed b/ the 4irst Circuit Court of Appeals, declared= DAE .03"!t4re reC40re9e"t ?o42# be 9e!"0"32e.. 0; t1e -er.o" .4--2/0"3 t1e .03"!t4re 1!. "ot ;0r.t .ee" ?1!t 0t 0. t1!t 1e or .1e 0.

.03"0"3. 4urther, and *ore i*portantl/, loose interpretation of the subscription reBuire*ent can pose a si&nificant potential for fraud. A person per*itted to describe orall/ the contents of an initiative petition to a potential si&ner, 7ithout the si&ner havin& actuall/ exa*ined the petition, could easil/ *islead the si&ner b/, for exa*ple, o*ittin&, do7npla/in&, or even flatl/ *isrepresentin&, portions of the petition that *i&ht not be to the si&ner9s liAin&. T10. #!"3er .ee9. -!rt0c42!r2/ !c4te ?1e", 0" t10. c!.e, t1e -er.o" 30>0"3 t1e #e.cr0-t0o" 0. t1e #r!;ter o; t1e -et0t0o", ?1o ob>0o4.2/ 1!. ! >e.te# 0"tere.t 0" .ee0"3 t1!t 0t 3et. t1e reC40.0te .03"!t4re. to C4!20;/ ;or t1e b!22ot.%2 +Boldfacin& and underscorin& supplied. -iAe7ise, in )e v. ' a*%$ y,%1 the Court of Appeals of "re&on explained= #he purposes of ,full text, provisions that appl/ to a*end*ents b/ initiative co**onl/ are described in si*ilar ter*s. x x x +T1e -4r-o.e o; t1e ;422 teBt reC40re9e"t 0. to -ro>0#e .4;;0c0e"t 0";or9!t0o" .o t1!t re30.tere# >oter. c!" 0"te2203e"t2/ e>!24!te ?1et1er to .03" t1e 0"0t0!t0>e -et0t0o".,.E x x x +publication of full text of a*ended constitutional provision reBuired because it is ,essential for the elector to have x x x the section 7hich is proposed to be added to or subtracted fro*. If he is to vote intelli&entl/, he *ust have this Ano7led&e. "ther7ise in *an/ instances he 7ould be reBuired to vote in the darA.,. +E*phasis supplied. Moreover, ,an initiative si&ner *ust be infor*ed at the ti*e of si&nin& of the "!t4re !"# e;;ect of that 7hich is proposed, and failure to do so is ,#ece-t0>e !"# 90.2e!#0"3, 7hich renders the initiative void.%0 !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution does not expressl/ state that the petition *ust set forth the full text of the proposed a*end*ents. ?o7ever, the deliberations of the fra*ers of our Constitution clearl/ sho7 that the fra*ers intended to adopt the relevant A*erican Durisprudence on people9s initiative. In particular, the deliberations of the Constitutional Co**ission eB-20c0t2/ re>e!2 that the fra*ers intended t1!t t1e -eo-2e 94.t ;0r.t .ee t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t. be;ore t1e/ .03", !"# t1!t t1e -eo-2e 94.t .03" o" ! -et0t0o" co"t!0"0"3 .4c1 ;422 teBt. Indeed, !ection 3+b. of Republic Act No. )2$3, the Initiative and Referendu* Act that the -a*bino 5roup invoAes as valid, reBuires that the people *ust si&n the ,-et0t0o" B B B !. .03"!tor0e..,

#he proponents of the initiative secure the si&natures fro* the people. #he proponents secure the si&natures in their private capacit/ and not as public officials. #he proponents are not disinterested parties 7ho can i*partiall/ explain the advanta&es and disadvanta&es of the proposed a*end*ents to the people. #he proponents present favorabl/ their proposal to the people and do not present the ar&u*ents a&ainst their proposal. #he proponents, or their supporters, often pa/ those 7ho &ather the si&natures. #hus, there is no presu*ption that the proponents observed the constitutional reBuire*ents in &atherin& the si&natures. #he proponents bear the burden of provin& that the/ co*plied 7ith the constitutional reBuire*ents in &atherin& the si&natures - t1!t t1e -et0t0o" co"t!0"e#, or 0"cor-or!te# b/ !tt!c19e"t, t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t.. #he -a*bino 5roup did not attach to their present petition 7ith this Court a cop/ of the paper that the people si&ned as their initiative petition. #he -a*bino 5roup sub*itted to this Court a cop/ of a .03"!t4re .1eet'( after the oral ar&u*ents of ') !epte*ber '(() 7hen the/ filed their Me*orandu* on %% "ctober '((). #he si&nature sheet 7ith this Court durin& the oral ar&u*ents 7as the si&nature sheet attached'% to the opposition in intervention filed on 2 !epte*ber '(() b/ intervenor Att/. Pete Huirino-Huadra. #he si&nature sheet attached to Att/. Huadra9s opposition and the si&nature sheet attached to the -a*bino 5roup9s Me*orandu* are the .!9e. Fe reproduce belo7 the si&nature sheet in full= Province= Cit/IMunicipalit/= -e&islative istrict= Baran&a/= PR"P"!I#I"N= , " >"< APPR":E "4 #?E AMEN MEN# "4 AR#IC-E! :I AN :II "4 #?E %012 C"N!#I#<#I"N, C?AN5IN5 #?E 4"RM "4 5":ERNMEN# 4R"M #?E PRE!EN# BICAMERA-PRE!I EN#IA- #" A <NICAMERA--PAR-IAMEN#AR> !>!#EM "4 5":ERNMEN#, IN "R ER #" AC?IE:E 5REA#ER E44ICIENC>, !IMP-ICI#> AN EC"N"M> IN 5":ERNMEN#E AN PR":I IN5 AN AR#IC-E ;:III A! #RAN!I#"R> PR":I!I"N! 4"R #?E "R ER-> !?I4# 4R"M "NE !>!#EM #" AN"#?ER@, I hereby APPROVE the proposed amendment to the 1 !" Constitution. #y signature herein $hich shall %orm part o% the petition %or initiative to amend the

Constitution signi%ies my support %or the %iling thereo% . Precinct Na*e Nu*ber -ast Na*e, 4irst Na*e, M.I. % ' $ 6 3 ) 2 1 0 %( JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Baran&a/ "fficial +Print Na*e and !i&n.

Address

Birthdat MMI I

JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Fitness +Print Na*e and !i&n.

T1ere 0. "ot ! .0"32e ?or#, -1r!.e, or .e"te"ce o; teBt o; t1e L!9b0"o Gro4-:. -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. 0" t1e .03"!t4re .1eet. Ne0t1er #oe. t1e .03"!t4re .1eet .t!te t1!t t1e teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. 0. !tt!c1e# to 0t. Petitioner Att/. Raul -a*bino ad*itted this durin& the oral ar&u*ents before this Court on ') !epte*ber '((). #he si&nature sheet *erel/ asAs a Buestion 7hether the people approve a shift fro* the Bica*eral-Presidential to the <nica*eral-Parlia*entar/ s/ste* of &overn*ent. T1e .03"!t4re .1eet #oe. "ot .1o? to t1e -eo-2e t1e #r!;t o; t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. be;ore t1e/ !re !.@e# to .03" t1e .03"!t4re .1eet . Clearl/, the si&nature sheet is not the ,petition, that the fra*ers of the Constitution envisioned 7hen the/ for*ulated the initiative clause in !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution. Petitioner Att/. -a*bino, ho7ever, explained that durin& the si&nature-&atherin& fro* 4ebruar/ to Au&ust '((), the -a*bino 5roup circulated, to&ether 7ith the si&nature sheets, printed copies of the -a*bino 5roup9s draft petition 7hich the/ later filed on '3 Au&ust '(() 7ith the C"ME-EC. Fhen asAed if his &roup also circulated the draft of their a*ended petition filed on $( Au&ust '(() 7ith the

C"ME-EC, Att/. -a*bino initiall/ replied that the/ circulated both. ?o7ever, Att/. -a*bino chan&ed his ans7er and stated that 7hat his &roup circulated 7as the draft of the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition, not the draft of the '3 Au&ust '(() petition. #he -a*bino 5roup 7ould have this Court believe that the/ prepared the draft of the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition !29o.t .e>e" 9o"t1. e!r20er 0" 8ebr4!r/ 2006 7hen the/ started &atherin& si&natures. Petitioner Erico B. Au*entado9s ,:erificationICertification, of the '3 Au&ust '(() petition, as 7ell as of the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition, filed 7ith the C"ME-EC, states as follo7s= I have caused the preparation of the fore&oin& KA*endedL Petition in */ personal capacit/ as a re&istered voter, ;or !"# o" be1!2; o; t1e U"0o" o; Loc!2 A4t1or0t0e. o; t1e P1020--0"e., !. .1o?" b/ ULAP Re.o24t0o" No. 2006502 1ereto !tt!c1e#, and as representative of the *ass of si&natories hereto. +E*phasis supplied. #he -a*bino 5roup failed to attach a cop/ of <-AP Resolution No. '(()-(' to the present petition. ?o7ever, the ,"fficial Febsite of the <nion of -ocal Authorities of the Philippines,'' has posted the full text of Resolution No. '(()(', 7hich provides= RESOLUT ON NO. 2006502 RESOLUT ON SUPPORT NG T%E PROPOSALS O8 T%E PEOPLE:S CONSULTAT (E COMM SS ON ON C%ARTER C%ANGE T%ROUG% PEOPLE:S N T AT (E AN$ RE8EREN$UM AS A MO$E O8 AMEN$ NG T%E 1'F7 CONST TUT ON &%EREAS, there is a need for the <nion of -ocal Authorities of the Philippines +<-AP. to adopt a co**on stand on the approach to support the proposals of the People9s Consultative Co**ission on Charter Chan&eE &%EREAS, <-AP *aintains its unBualified support to the a&enda of ?er Excellenc/ President 5loria Macapa&al-Arro/o for constitutional refor*s as e*bodied in the <-AP Moint eclaration for Constitutional Refor*s si&ned b/ the *e*bers of the <-AP and the *aDorit/ coalition of the ?ouse of Representatives in Manila ?otel so*eti*e in "ctober '((3E &%EREAS, the People9s Consultative Co**ission on Charter Chan&e

created b/ ?er Excellenc/ to reco**end a*end*ents to the %012 Constitution has sub*itted its final report so*eti*e in ece*ber '((3E &%EREAS, the <-AP is *indful of the current political develop*ents in Con&ress 7hich *ilitates a&ainst the use of the expeditious for* of a*endin& the %012 ConstitutionE &%EREAS, subDect to the ratification of its institutional *e*bers and the failure of Con&ress to a*end the Constitution as a constituent asse*bl/, <-AP has unani*ousl/ a&reed to pursue the constitutional refor* a&enda throu&h People9s Initiative and Referendu* 7ithout preDudice to other pra&*atic *eans to pursue the sa*eE &%ERE8ORE, BE T RESOL(E$ AS T S %EREB, RESOL(E$, T%AT ALL T%E MEMBER5LEAGUES O8 T%E UN ON O8 LOCAL AUT%OR T ES O8 T%E P% L PP NES <ULAP= SUPPORT T%E PORPOSALS <S C= O8 T%E PEOPLE:S CONSULATAT (E <S C= COMM SS ON ON C%ARTER C%ANGE T%ROUG% PEOPLE:S N T AT (E AN$ RE8EREN$UM AS A MO$E O8 AMEN$ NG T%E 1'F7 CONST TUT ONG $ONE, durin& the <-AP National Executive Board special *eetin& held on %6 Manuar/ '(() at the Centur/ ParA ?otel, Manila.'$ +<nderscorin& supplied. <-AP Resolution No. '(()-(' #oe. "ot !4t1or07e petitioner Au*entado to prepare the '3 Au&ust '(() petition, or the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition, filed 7ith the C"ME-EC. <-AP Resolution No. '(()-(' ,.4--ort<.= t1e -or-o.!2. <.0c= o; t1e Co".42!t!t0>e <.0c= Co990..0o" o" C1!rter C1!"3e throu&h people9s initiative and referendu* as a *ode of a*endin& the %012 Constitution., #he proposals of the Consultative Co**ission'6 are>!.t2/ #0;;ere"t fro* the proposed chan&es of the -a*bino 5roup in the '3 Au&ust '(() petition or $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition filed 7ith the C"ME-EC. 4or exa*ple, the proposed revisions of the Consultative Co**ission affect !22 -ro>0.0o". of the existin& Constitution, ;ro9 t1e Pre!9b2e to t1e Tr!".0tor/ Pro>0.0o".. #he proposed revisions have profound i*pact on the Mudiciar/ and the National Patri*on/ provisions of the existin& Constitution, provisions that the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es do not touch. #he -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es purport to affect onl/ Articles :I and :II of the existin& Constitution,

includin& the introduction of ne7 #ransitor/ Provisions. #he <-AP adopted Resolution No. '(()-(' on %6 Manuar/ '(() or *ore than six *onths before the filin& of the '3 Au&ust '(() petition or the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition 7ith the C"ME-EC. ?o7ever, <-AP Resolution No. '(()-(' does not establish that <-AP or the -a*bino 5roup caused the circulation of the draft petition, to&ether 7ith the si&nature sheets, six *onths before the filin& 7ith the C"ME-EC. "n the contrar/, ULAP Re.o24t0o" No. 2006502 c!.t. 3r!>e #o4bt o" t1e L!9b0"o Gro4-:. c2!09 t1!t t1e/ c0rc42!te# t1e #r!;t -et0t0o" to3et1er ?0t1 t1e .03"!t4re .1eet.. ULAP Re.o24t0o" No. 2006502 #oe. "ot re;er !t !22 to t1e #r!;t -et0t0o" or to t1e L!9b0"o Gro4-:. -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. . In their Manifestation explainin& their a*ended petition before the C"ME-EC, the -a*bino 5roup declared= After the Petition 7as filed, Petitioners belatedl/ realiCed that the proposed a*end*ents alle&ed in the Petition, *ore specificall/, para&raph $ of !ection 6 and para&raph ' of !ection 3 of the #ransitor/ Provisions 7ere inaccuratel/ stated and failed to correctl/ reflect their proposed a*end*ents. #he -a*bino 5roup did not alle&e that the/ 7ere a*endin& the petition because the a*ended petition 7as 7hat the/ had sho7n to the people durin& the 4ebruar/ to Au&ust '(() si&nature-&atherin&. Instead, the -a*bino 5roup alle&ed that the petition of '3 Au&ust '(() ,inaccuratel/ stated and failed to correctl/ reflect their proposed a*end*ents., #he -a*bino 5roup "e>er !22e3e# in the '3 Au&ust '(() petition or the $( Au&ust '(() a*ended petition 7ith the C"ME-EC that the/ circulated printed copies of the draft petition to&ether 7ith the si&nature sheets. -iAe7ise, the -a*bino 5roup did "ot alle&e in their present petition before this Court that the/ circulated printed copies of the draft petition to&ether 7ith the si&nature sheets. #he si&nature sheets do not also contain an/ indication that the draft petition is attached to, or circulated 7ith, the si&nature sheets. It is onl/ in their Consolidated Repl/ to the "pposition-in-Interventions that the -a*bino 5roup first clai*ed that the/ circulated the ,petition for initiative filed 7ith the C"ME-EC,, thus= K#Lhere is persuasive authorit/ to the effect that A<?=1ere t1ere 0. "ot <.0c= ;r!4#, ! .03"er ?1o #0# "ot re!# t1e 9e!.4re !tt!c1e# to ! re;ere"#49 -et0t0o" c!""ot C4e.t0o" 10. .03"!t4re o" t1e 3ro4"#

t1!t 1e #0# "ot 4"#er.t!"# t1e "!t4re o; t1e !ct.A K1' C.M.!. !%'1h. Mo. !tate v. !ullivan, ''6, !.F. $'2, '1$ Mo. 36).L #hus, t1e re30.tere# >oter. ?1o .03"e# t1e .03"!t4re .1eet. c0rc42!te# to3et1er ?0t1 t1e -et0t0o" ;or 0"0t0!t0>e ;02e# ?0t1 t1e COMELEC be2o?, are presu*ed to have understood the proposition contained in the petition. +E*phasis supplied. #he -a*bino 5roup9s state*ent that the/ circulated to the people ,t1e -et0t0o" ;or 0"0t0!t0>e ;02e# ?0t1 t1e COMELEC, appears an afterthou&ht, *ade after the intervenors Inte&rated Bar of the Philippines +Cebu Cit/ Chapter and Cebu Province Chapters. and Att/. Huadra had pointed out that the si&nature sheets did not contain the text of the proposed chan&es. In their Consolidated Repl/, the -a*bino 5roup alle&ed that the/ circulated ,t1e -et0t0o" ;or 0"0t0!t0>e, but failed to *ention the !9e"#e# -et0t0o". #his contradicts 7hat Att/. -a*bino finall/ stated durin& the oral ar&u*ents that 7hat the/ circulated 7as the draft of the !9e"#e# -et0t0o" of $( Au&ust '((). #he -a*bino 5roup cites as authorit/ Corpus &uris Secundum, statin& that ,a si&ner 7ho did not read t1e 9e!.4reattache* to ! re;ere"#49 -et0t0o" cannot Buestion his si&nature on the &round that he did not understand the nature of the act., #he -a*bino 5roup Buotes an authorit/ that cites ! -ro-o.e# c1!"3e attache* to t1e -et0t0o" .03"e# b/ t1e -eo-2e. Even the authorit/ the -a*bino 5roup Buotes reBuires that the proposed chan&e *ust be attached to the petition. #he sa*e authorit/ the -a*bino 5roup Buotes reBuires the people to si&n on the petition itself. Indeed, it is basic in A*erican Durisprudence that the proposed a*end*ent *ust be incorporated 7ith, or attached to, the initiative petition si&ned b/ the people. In the present initiative, the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es 7ere not incorporated 7ith, or attached to, the si&nature sheets. #he -a*bino 5roup9s citation of Corpus &uris Secundumpulls the ru& fro* under their feet. It is extre*el/ doubtful that the -a*bino 5roup prepared, printed, circulated, fro* 4ebruar/ to Au&ust '(() durin& the si&nature-&atherin& period, the draft of the petition or a*ended petition the/ filed later 7ith the C"ME-EC. #he -a*bino 5roup are less than candid 7ith this Court in their belated clai* that the/ printed and circulated, to&ether 7ith the si&nature sheets, the petition or a*ended petition. Ne>ert1e2e.., e>e" ass$ming t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- c0rc42!te# t1e !9e"#e# -et0t0o" #4r0"3 t1e .03"!t4re53!t1er0"3 -er0o#, t1e L!9b0"o

Gro4- !#90tte# c0rc42!t0"3 o"2/ ve y limite* copies o; t1e -et0t0o". urin& the oral ar&u*ents, Att/. L!9b0"o e+p essly a*mitte* t1!t t1e/ -r0"te# o"2/ 100,000 co-0e. o; t1e #r!;t -et0t0o" t1e/ ;02e# 9ore t1!" .0B 9o"t1. 2!ter ?0t1 t1e COMELEC. Att/. -a*bino added that he also asAed other supporters to print additional copies of the draft petition but he could not state 7ith certaint/ ho7 *an/ additional copies the other supporters printed. Att/. L!9b0"o co42# o"2/ !..4re t10. Co4rt o; t1e -r0"t0"3 o; 100,000 co-0e. bec!4.e 1e 109.e2; c!4.e# t1e -r0"t0"3 o; t1e.e 100,000 co-0e.. -iAe7ise, in the -a*bino 5roup9s Me*orandu* filed on %% "ctober '((), t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- eB-re..2/ !#90t. t1!t A-et0t0o"er L!9b0"o 0"0t0!te# t1e -r0"t0"3 !"# re-ro#4ct0o" o; 100,000 co-0e. o; t1e -et0t0o" ;or 0"0t0!t0>e B B B.A'3 T10. !#90..0o" b0"#. t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- !"# e.t!b20.1e. be/o"# !"/ #o4bt t1!t t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- ;!02e# to .1o? t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. to t1e 3re!t 9!Hor0t/ o; t1e -eo-2e ?1o .03"e# t1e .03"!t4re .1eet. . #hus, of the ).$ *illion si&natories, onl/ %((,((( si&natories could have received 7ith certaint/ one cop/ each of the petition, assu*in& a %(( percent distribution 7ith no 7asta&e. If Att/. -a*bino and co*pan/ attached one cop/ of the petition to each si&nature sheet, onl/ %((,((( si&nature sheets could have circulated 7ith the petition. Each si&nature sheet contains space for ten si&natures. Assu*in& ten people si&ned each of these %((,((( si&nature sheets 7ith the attached petition, the *axi*u* nu*ber of people 7ho sa7 the petition before the/ si&ned the si&nature sheets 7ould not exceed %,(((,(((. Fith onl/ %((,((( printed copies of the petition, it 7ould be ph/sicall/ i*possible for all or a &reat *aDorit/ of the ).$ *illion si&natories to have seen the petition before the/ si&ned the si&nature sheets. T1e 0"e.c!-!b2e co"c24.0o" 0. t1!t t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- ;!02e# to .1o? to t1e 6.3 90220o" .03"!tor0e. t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e.. If ever, not *ore than one *illion si&natories sa7 the petition before the/ si&ned the si&nature sheets. In an/ event, the -a*bino 5roup9s si&nature sheets do not contain the full text of the proposed chan&es, either on the face of the si&nature sheets, or as attach*ent 7ith an indication in the si&nature sheet of such attach*ent.Pet0t0o"er Att/. L!9b0"o !#90tte# t10. #4r0"3 t1e or!2 !r349e"t., !"# t10. !#90..0o" b0"#. t1e L!9b0"o Gro4-. T10. ;!ct 0. !2.o ob>0o4. ;ro9 ! 9ere re!#0"3 o; t1e .03"!t4re .1eet. T10. o90..0o" 0. ;!t!2. #he failure to so include the text of the proposed chan&es in the si&nature sheets renders the initiative void for non-

co*pliance 7ith the constitutional reBuire*ent that the a*end*ent *ust be ,#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o" ., #he si&nature sheet is not the ,-et0t0o", envisioned in the initiative clause of the Constitution. 4or sure, the &reat *aDorit/ of the ).$ *illion people 7ho si&ned the si&nature sheets did not see the full text of the proposed chan&es before si&nin&. #he/ could not have Ano7n the nature and effect of the proposed chan&es, a*on& 7hich are= %. #he ter9 2090t. o" 9e9ber. o; t1e 2e30.2!t4re ?022 be 20;te# and thus *e*bers of Parlia*ent can be re-elected indefinitel/E') '. #he interi* Parlia*ent can continue to function indefinitel/ until its *e*bers, 7ho are al*ost all the present *e*bers of Con&ress, decide to call for ne7 parlia*entar/ elections. #hus, the 9e9ber. o; t1e 0"ter09 P!r20!9e"t ?022 #eter90"e t1e eB-0r!t0o" o; t1e0r o?" ter9 o; o;;0ceE '2 $. Fithin 63 da/s fro* the ratification of the proposed chan&es, t1e 0"ter09 P!r20!9e"t .1!22 co">e"e to -ro-o.e ;4rt1er !9e"#9e"t. or re>0.0o". to t1e Co".t0t4t0o".'1 #hese three specific a*end*ents are not stated or even indicated in the -a*bino 5roup9s si&nature sheets. #he people 7ho si&ned the si&nature sheets had no idea that the/ 7ere proposin& these a*end*ents. #hese three proposed chan&es are hi&hl/ controversial. #he people could not have inferred or divined these proposed chan&es *erel/ fro* a readin& or rereadin& of the contents of the si&nature sheets. urin& the oral ar&u*ents, petitioner Att/. -a*bino stated that he and his &roup !..4re# t1e -eo-2e #4r0"3 t1e .03"!t4re53!t1er0"3 t1!t t1e e2ect0o". ;or t1e re342!r P!r20!9e"t ?o42# be 1e2# #4r0"3 t1e 2007 2oc!2 e2ect0o". if the proposed chan&es 7ere ratified before the '((2 local elections. ?o7ever, the text of the proposed chan&es be20e. this. #he proposed !ection 3+'., Article ;:III on #ransitor/ Provisions, as found in the a*ended petition, states= !ection 3+'.. #he interi* Parlia*ent shall provide for the election of the *e*bers of Parlia*ent, ?10c1 .1!22 be ./"c1ro"07e# !"# 1e2# .0942t!"eo4.2/ ?0t1 t1e e2ect0o" o; !22 2oc!2 3o>er"9e"t o;;0c0!2. . x x x x +E*phasis supplied. !ection 3+'. does not state that the elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent 7ill be held si*ultaneousl/ 7ith the '((2 local elections. #his section *erel/ reBuires

that the elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent shall be held si*ultaneousl/ 7ith the local elections ?0t1o4t .-ec0;/0"3 t1e /e!r. Petitioner Att/. -a*bino, 7ho clai*s to be the principal drafter of the proposed chan&es, could have easil/ 7ritten the 7ord ,next, before the phrase ,election of all local &overn*ent officials., #his 7ould have insured that the elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent 7ould be held in the next local elections follo7in& the ratification of the proposed chan&es. ?o7ever, the absence of the 7ord ,"eBt, allo7s the interi* Parlia*ent to schedule the elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent si*ultaneousl/ 7ith !"/ future local elections. #hus, the *e*bers of the interi* Parlia*ent 7ill decide the expiration of their o7n ter* of office. #his allo7s incu*bent *e*bers of the ?ouse of Representatives to hold office be/ond their current three-/ear ter* of office, and possibl/ even be/ond the five-/ear ter* of office of re&ular *e*bers of the Parlia*ent. Cert!0"2/, t10. 0. co"tr!r/ to t1e re-re.e"t!t0o". o; Att/. L!9b0"o !"# 10. 3ro4- to t1e 6.3 90220o" -eo-2e ?1o .03"e# t1e .03"!t4re .1eet.. Att/. L!9b0"o !"# 10. 3ro4- #ece0>e# t1e 6.3 90220o" .03"!tor0e., !"# e>e" t1e e"t0re "!t0o". #his lucidl/ sho7s the !b.o24te "ee# for the people to si&n an initiative petition that contains the full text of the proposed a*end*ents to avoid fraud or *isrepresentation. In the present initiative, the ).$ *illion si&natories had to rel/ on the >erb!2 re-re.e"t!t0o". of Att/. -a*bino and his &roup because the si&nature sheets did not contain the full text of the proposed chan&es. #he result is a 3r!"# #ece-t0o" on the ).$ *illion si&natories 7ho 7ere led to believe that the proposed chan&es 7ould reBuire the holdin& in '((2 of elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent si*ultaneousl/ 7ith the local elections. #he -a*bino 5roup9s initiative sprin&s another surprise on the people 7ho si&ned the si&nature sheets. #he proposed chan&es *andate the interi* Parlia*ent to *aAe further a*end*ents or revisions to the Constitution. #he proposed !ection 6+6., Article ;:III on #ransitor/ Provisions, provides= !ection 6+6.. Fithin fort/-five da/s fro* ratification of these a*end*ents, the interi* Parlia*ent .1!22 co">e"e to -ro-o.e !9e"#9e"t. to, or re>0.0o". o;, t10. Co".t0t4t0o" consistent 7ith the principles of local autono*/, decentraliCation and a stron& bureaucrac/. +E*phasis supplied. urin& the oral ar&u*ents, Att/. -a*bino stated that this provision is a

,surplusa&e, and the Court and the people should si*pl/ i&nore it. 4ar fro* bein& a surplusa&e, this provision invalidates the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative. !ection 6+6. is a subDect *atter tot!22/ 4"re2!te# to the shift fro* the Bica*eralPresidential to the <nica*eral-Parlia*entar/ s/ste*. A*erican Durisprudence on initiatives outla7s this as 2o3ro220"3 - 7hen the initiative petition incorporates an unrelated subDect *atter in the sa*e petition. #his puts the people in a dile**a since the/ can ans7er onl/ either /es or no to the entire proposition, forcin& the* to si&n a petition that effectivel/ contains t7o propositions, one of 7hich the/ *a/ find unacceptable. <nder A*erican Durisprudence, the effect of lo&rollin& is to "4220;/ t1e e"t0re -ro-o.0t0o" and not onl/ the unrelated subDect *atter. #hus, in ,ine v. ,i estone,'0 the !upre*e Court of 4lorida declared= Co9b0"0"3 942t0-2e -ro-o.0t0o". 0"to o"e -ro-o.!2 co".t0t4te. A2o3ro220"3,A ?10c1, 0; o4r H4#0c0!2 re.-o".0b020t/ 0. to 9e!" !"/t10"3, ?e c!""ot -er90t. #he ver/ broadness of the proposed a*end*ent a*ounts to lo&rollin& because the electorate cannot Ano7 7hat it is votin& on - the a*end*ent9s proponents9 si*plistic explanation reveals onl/ the tip of the iceber&. x x x x #he ballot *ust &ive the electorate fair notice of the proposed a*end*ent bein& voted on. x x x x #he ballot lan&ua&e in the instant case fails to do that. #he ver/ broadness of the proposal *aAes it i*possible to state 7hat it 7ill affect and effect and violates the reBuire*ent that proposed a*end*ents e*brace onl/ one subDect. +E*phasis supplied. -o&rollin& confuses and even deceives the people. In -$te Ai Alas.a v. (cAlpine,$( the !upre*e Court of AlasAa 7arned a&ainst ,inadvertence, stealth and fraud, in lo&rollin&= Fhenever a bill beco*es la7 throu&h the initiative process, all of the proble*s that the sin&le-subDect rule 7as enacted to prevent are exacerbated. #here is a &reater dan&er of lo&rollin&, or the deliberate inter*in&lin& of issues to increase the liAelihood of an initiative9s passa&e, and t1ere 0. ! 3re!ter o--ort4"0t/ ;or A0"!#>erte"ce, .te!2t1 !"# ;r!4#A 0" t1e e"!ct9e"t5b/50"0t0!t0>e -roce.. . #he drafters of an initiative operate independentl/ of an/ structured or supervised process. #he/ often e*phasiCe particular provisions of their proposition, 7hile re*ainin& silent on other +*ore co*plex or less appealin&. provisions, 7hen co**unicatin& to the public. x x x "#ee#, 0"0t0!t0>e -ro9oter. t/-0c!22/ 4.e

.09-20.t0c !#>ert0.0"3 to -re.e"t t1e0r 0"0t0!t0>e to -ote"t0!2 -et0t0o"5.03"er. !"# e>e"t4!2 >oter.. Man/ voters 7ill never read the full text of the initiative before the election. More i*portantl/, there is no process for a*endin& or splittin& the several provisions in an initiative proposal. #hese difficulties clearl/ distin&uish the initiative fro* the le&islative process. +E*phasis supplied. #hus, the present initiative appears *erel/ a preli*inar/ step for further a*end*ents or revisions to be undertaAen b/ the interi* Parlia*ent as a constituent asse*bl/. #he people 7ho si&ned the si&nature sheets could not have Ano7n that their si&natures 7ould be used to propose an a*end*ent 9!"#!t0"3 the interi* Parlia*ent to propose;4rt1er a*end*ents or revisions to the Constitution. Apparentl/, the -a*bino 5roup inserted the proposed !ection 6+6. to co9-e2 the interi* Parlia*ent to a*end or revise a&ain the Constitution 7ithin 63 da/s fro* ratification of the proposed chan&es, or be;ore t1e M!/ 2007 e2ect0o".. In the absence of the proposed !ection 6+6., the interi* Parlia*ent has the discretion 7hether to a*end or revise a&ain the Constitution. Fith the proposed !ection 6+6., the initiative proponents 7ant the interi* Parlia*ent 9!"#!te# to i**ediatel/ a*end or revise a&ain the Constitution. ?o7ever, the si&nature sheets do not explain the reason for this rush in a*endin& or revisin& a&ain so soon the Constitution. #he si&nature sheets do not also explain 7hat specific a*end*ents or revisions the initiative proponents 7ant the interi* Parlia*ent to *aAe, and 7h/ there is a need for such further a*end*ents or revisions.T1e -eo-2e !re !3!0" 2e;t 0" t1e #!r@ to ;!t1o9 t1e "!t4re !"# e;;ect o; t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e.. Certainl/, such an initiative is not ,directl/ proposed b/ the people, because the people do not even Ano7 the nature and effect of the proposed chan&es. #here is another intri&uin& provision inserted in the -a*bino 5roup9s a*ended petition of $( Au&ust '((). #he proposed !ection 6+$. of the #ransitor/ Provisions states= !ection 6+$.. !enators 7hose ter* of office ends in '(%( shall be *e*bers of Parlia*ent until noon of the thirtieth da/ of Mune '(%(. After $( Mune '(%(, not one of the present !enators 7ill re*ain as *e*ber of Parlia*ent if the interi* Parlia*ent does not schedule elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent b/ $( Mune '(%(. ?o7ever, there is no counterpart provision for the present *e*bers of the ?ouse of Representatives even if their ter* of office 7ill

all end on $( Mune '((2, three /ears earlier than that of half of the present !enators. #hus, all the present *e*bers of the ?ouse 7ill re*ain *e*bers of the interi* Parlia*ent after $( Mune '(%(. #he ter* of the incu*bent President ends on $( Mune '(%(. #hereafter, the Pri*e Minister exercises all the po7ers of the President. If the interi* Parlia*ent does not schedule elections for the re&ular Parlia*ent b/ $( Mune '(%(, the Pri*e Minister 7ill co*e onl/ fro* the present *e*bers of the ?ouse of Representatives to the eBc24.0o" of the present !enators. #he si&nature sheets do not explain this discri*ination a&ainst the !enators. T1e 6.3 90220o" -eo-2e ?1o .03"e# t1e .03"!t4re .1eet. co42# "ot 1!>e @"o?" t1!t t1e0r .03"!t4re. ?o42# be 4.e# to #0.cr090"!te !3!0".t t1e Se"!tor.. T1e/ co42# "ot 1!>e @"o?" t1!t t1e0r .03"!t4re. ?o42# be 4.e# to 2090t, !;ter 30 +4"e 2010, t1e 0"ter09 P!r20!9e"t:. c1o0ce o; Pr09e M0"0.ter o"2/ to 9e9ber. o; t1e eB0.t0"3 %o4.e o; Re-re.e"t!t0>e.. An initiative that &athers si&natures fro* the people 7ithout ;0r.t .1o?0"& to the people the full text of the proposed a*end*ents is *ost liAel/ a deception, and can operate as a 303!"t0c ;r!4# o" t1e -eo-2e. #hat is 7h/ the Constitution reBuires that an initiative *ust be ,#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e B B B 0" ! -et0t0o", - *eanin& that the people *ust si&n on a petition that contains the full text of the proposed a*end*ents. "n so vital an issue as a*endin& the nation9s funda*ental la7, the 7ritin& of the text of the proposed a*end*ents cannot be 10##e" ;ro9 t1e -eo-2e under a &eneral or special po7er of attorne/ to unna*ed, faceless, and unelected individuals. #he Constitution entrusts to the people the po7er to directl/ propose a*end*ents to the Constitution. #his Court trusts the 7isdo* of the people even if the *e*bers of this Court do not personall/ Ano7 the people 7ho si&n the petition. %o?e>er, t10. tr4.t e9!"!te. ;ro9 ! ;4"#!9e"t!2 !..49-t0o"I t1e ;422 teBt o; t1e -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t 0. ;0r.t .1o?" to t1e -eo-2e be;ore t1e/ .03" t1e -et0t0o", "ot !;ter t1e/ 1!>e .03"e# t1e -et0t0o". In short, the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative is void and unconstitutional because it dis*all/ fails to co*pl/ 7ith the reBuire*ent of !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution that the initiative *ust be ,#0rect2/ -ro-o.e# b/ t1e -eo-2e t1ro431 0"0t0!t0>e 4-o" ! -et0t0o"., 2. The Initiative "iolates Section 2, A ticle !"II o# the Constit$tion Disallowing /evision th o$gh Initiatives

A people9s initiative to chan&e the Constitution applies onl/ to an a*end*ent of the Constitution and not to its revision. In contrast, Con&ress or a constitutional convention can propose both a*end*ents and revisions to the Constitution. Article ;:II of the Constitution provides= ART CLE J( AMEN$MENTS OR RE( S ONS !ec. %. A"/ !9e"#9e"t to, or re>0.0o" o;, t10. Co".t0t4t0o" *a/ be proposed b/= +%. #he Co"3re.., upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Me*bers, or +'. A co".t0t4t0o"!2 co">e"t0o". !ec. '. A9e"#9e"t. to t10. Co".t0t4t0o" *a/ liAe7ise be directl/ proposed b/ the people throu&h initiative x x x. +E*phasis supplied. Article ;:II of the Constitution speaAs of three *odes of a*endin& the Constitution. #he first *ode is throu&h Con&ress upon three-fourths vote of all its Me*bers. #he second *ode is throu&h a constitutional convention. #he third *ode is throu&h a people9s initiative. !ection % of Article ;:II, referrin& to the first and second *odes, applies to ,KALn/ a*end*ent to, or revision of, this Constitution., In contrast, !ection ' of Article ;:II, referrin& to the third *ode, applies onl/ to ,KAL*end*ents to this Constitution., #his distinction 7as 0"te"t0o"!2 as sho7n b/ the follo7in& deliberations of the Constitutional Co**ission= MR. !<AREG= #hanA /ou, Mada* President. Ma/ 7e respectfull/ call the attention of the Me*bers of the Co**ission that pursuant to the *andate &iven to us last ni&ht, 7e sub*itted this afternoon a co*plete Co**ittee Report No. 2 7hich e*bodies the proposed provision &overnin& the *atter of initiative. #his is no7 covered b/ !ection ' of the co*plete co**ittee report. Fith the per*ission of the Me*bers, *a/ I Buote !ection '= #he people *a/, after five /ears fro* the date of the last plebiscite held, directl/ propose a*end*ents to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition of at least ten percent of the re&istered voters. #his co*pletes the blanAs appearin& in the ori&inal Co**ittee Report No. 2. #his proposal 7as su&&ested on the theor/ that this *atter of initiative, 7hich ca*e about because of the extraordinar/ develop*ents this /ear, has to be separated fro* the traditional *odes of a*endin& the

Constitution as e*bodied in !ection %.T1e co990ttee 9e9ber. ;e2t t1!t t10. ./.te9 o; 0"0t0!t0>e .1o42# be 2090te# to !9e"#9e"t. to t1e Co".t0t4t0o" !"# .1o42# "ot eBte"# to t1e re>0.0o" o; t1e e"t0re Co".t0t4t0o", .o ?e re9o>e# 0t ;ro9 t1e o-er!t0o" o; Sect0o" 1 o; t1e -ro-o.e# Art0c2e o" A9e"#9e"t or Re>0.0o". x x x x xxxx M!. AH<IN"= KIL a* seriousl/ bothered b/ providin& this process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on A*end*ent. Fould the sponsor be a*enable to acceptin& an a*end*ent in ter*s of reali&nin& !ection ' as another subpara&raph +c. of !ection %, instead of settin& it up as another separate section as if it 7ere a self-executin& provision@ MR. !<AREG= Fe 7ould be a*enable except that, as 7e clarified a 7hile a&o, t10. -roce.. o; 0"0t0!t0>e 0. 2090te# to t1e 9!tter o; !9e"#9e"t !"# .1o42# "ot eB-!"# 0"to ! re>0.0o" ?10c1 co"te9-2!te. ! tot!2 o>er1!42 o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o". #hat 7as the sense that 7as conve/ed b/ the Co**ittee. M!. AH<IN"= " ot1er ?or#., t1e Co990ttee ?!. !tte9-t0"3 to #0.t0"340.1 t1e co>er!3e o; 9o#e. <!= !"# <b= 0" Sect0o" 1 to 0"c24#e t1e -roce.. o; re>0.0o"G ?1ere!., t1e -roce.. o; 0"0t0!t0o" to !9e"#, ?10c1 0. 30>e" to t1e -4b20c, ?o42# o"2/ !--2/ to !9e"#9e"t.K MR. !<AREG= T1!t 0. r031t. T1o.e ?ere t1e ter9. e">0.0o"e# 0" t1e Co990ttee. M!. AH<IN"= I thanA the sponsorE and thanA /ou, Mada* President. xxxx MR. MAAMB"N5= M/ ;0r.t C4e.t0o"I Co990..0o"er $!>0#e:. -ro-o.e# !9e"#9e"t o" 20"e 1 re;er. to A!9e"#9e"t..A $oe. 0t "ot co>er t1e ?or# Are>0.0o"A !. #e;0"e# b/ Co990..0o"er P!#022! ?1e" 1e 9!#e t1e #0.t0"ct0o" bet?ee" t1e ?or#. A!9e"#9e"t.A !"# Are>0.0o"AK MR. A:I E= No, 0t #oe. "ot, bec!4.e A!9e"#9e"t.A !"# Are>0.0o"A .1o42# be co>ere# b/ Sect0o" 1. So 0".o;!r !. 0"0t0!t0>e 0. co"cer"e#, 0t c!" o"2/ re2!te to A!9e"#9e"t.A "ot Are>0.0o".A MR. MAAMB"N5= #hanA /ou.$% +E*phasis supplied. #here can be no *istaAe about it. #he fra*ers of the Constitution 0"te"#e#, !"# ?rote, a clear distinction bet7een ,a*end*ent, and ,revision, of the

Constitution. #he fra*ers 0"te"#e#, !"# ?rote, that onl/ Con&ress or a constitutional convention *a/ propose revisions to the Constitution. #he fra*ers 0"te"#e#, !"# ?rote, that a people9s initiative *a/ propose onl/ a*end*ents to the Constitution. Fhere the intent and lan&ua&e of the Constitution clearl/ 7ithhold fro* the people the po7er to propose revisions to the Constitution, the people cannot propose revisions even as the/ are e*po7ered to propose a*end*ents. #his has been the consistent rulin& of state supre*e courts in the <nited !tates. #hus, in (c,a**en v. Jo *an,$'the !upre*e Court of California ruled= T1e 0"0t0!t0>e -o?er re.er>e# b/ t1e -eo-2e b/ !9e"#9e"t to t1e Co".t0t4t0o" B B B !--20e. o"2/ to t1e -ro-o.0"3 !"# t1e !#o-t0"3 or reHect0"3 o; :2!?. !"# !9e"#9e"t. to t1e Co".t0t4t0o": !"# #oe. "ot -4r-ort to eBte"# to ! co".t0t4t0o"!2 re>0.0o". x x x x It is thus clear that a revision of the Constitution *a/ be acco*plished onl/ throu&h ratification b/ the people of a revised constitution proposed b/ a convention called for that purpose as outlined hereinabove. ConseBuentl/ if the scope of the proposed initiative *easure +hereinafter ter*ed 9the *easure9. no7 before us is so broad that if such *easure beca*e la7 a substantial revision of our present state Constitution 7ould be effected, then the *easure *a/ not properl/ be sub*itted to the electorate until and unless it is first a&reed upon b/ a constitutional convention, and the 7rit sou&ht b/ petitioner should issue. x x x x +E*phasis supplied. -iAe7ise, the !upre*e Court of "re&on ruled in 0olmes v. Appling=$$ It is 7ell established that 7hen a constitution specifies the *anner in 7hich it *a/ be a*ended or revised, it can be altered b/ those 7ho favor a*end*ents, revision, or other chan&e onl/ throu&h the use of one of the specified *eans. #he constitution itself reco&niCes that there is a difference bet7een an a*end*ent and a revisionE and it is obvious fro* an exa*ination of the *easure here in Buestion that it is not an a*end*ent as that ter* is &enerall/ understood and as it is used in Article I:, !ection %. #he docu*ent appears to be based in lar&e part on the revision of the constitution drafted b/ the 9Co**ission for Constitutional Revision9 authoriCed b/ the %0)% -e&islative Asse*bl/, x x x and sub*itted to the %0)$ -e&islative Asse*bl/. It failed to receive in the Asse*bl/ the t7o-third9s *aDorit/ vote of both houses reBuired b/

Article ;:II, !ection ', and hence failed of adoption, x x x. Fhile differin& fro* that docu*ent in *aterial respects, the *easure sponsored b/ the plaintiffs is, nevertheless, a thorou&h overhaulin& of the present constitution x x x. #o call it an a*end*ent is a *isno*er. Fhether it be a revision or a ne7 constitution, it is not such a *easure as can be sub*itted to the people throu&h the initiative. If a revision, it is subDect to the reBuire*ents of Article ;:II, !ection '+%.E if a ne7 constitution, it can onl/ be proposed at a convention called in the *anner provided in Article ;:II, !ection %. x x x x !i*ilarl/, in this Durisdiction there can be no dispute that a people9s initiative can onl/ propose a*end*ents to the Constitution since the Constitution itself li*its initiatives to a*end*ents. #here can be no deviation fro* the constitutionall/ prescribed *odes of re>0.0"3 the Constitution. A popular cla*or, even one bacAed b/ ).$ *illion si&natures, cannot Dustif/ a deviation fro* the specific *odes prescribed in the Constitution itself. As the !upre*e Court of "Alaho*a ruled in In e Initiative Petition No. 123=$6 t 0. ! ;4"#!9e"t!2 -r0"c0-2e t1!t ! co".t0t4t0o" c!" o"2/ be re>0.e# or !9e"#e# 0" t1e 9!""er -re.cr0be# b/ t1e 0".tr49e"t 0t.e2;, !"# t1!t !"/ !tte9-t to re>0.e ! co".t0t4t0o" 0" ! 9!""er ot1er t1!" t1e o"e -ro>0#e# 0" t1e 0".tr49e"t 0. !29o.t 0">!r0!b2/ tre!te# !. eBtr!5 co".t0t4t0o"!2 !"# re>o24t0o"!r/. x x x x ,Fhile it is universall/ conceded that the people are soverei&n and that the/ have po7er to adopt a constitution and to chan&e their o7n 7orA at 7ill, the/ *ust, in doin& so, act in an orderl/ *anner and accordin& to the settled principles of constitutional la7. And 7here the people, in adoptin& a constitution, have prescribed the *ethod b/ 7hich the people *a/ alter or a*end it, an atte*pt to chan&e the funda*ental la7 in violation of the self-i*posed restrictions, is unconstitutional., x x x x +E*phasis supplied. #his Court, 7hose *e*bers are s7orn to defend and protect the Constitution, cannot shirA fro* its sole*n oath and dut/ to insure co*pliance 7ith the clear co**and of the Constitution N that a people9s initiative *a/ onl/ a*end, never revise, the Constitution. #he Buestion is, does the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative constitute an a*end*ent or revision of the Constitution@ If the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative constitutes a

revision, then the present petition should be dis*issed for bein& outside the scope of !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution. Courts have lon& reco&niCed the distinction bet7een an a*end*ent and a revision of a constitution. "ne of the earliest cases that reco&niCed the distinction described the funda*ental difference in this *anner= K#Lhe ver/ ter* ,constitution, i*plies an instru*ent of a per*anent and abidin& nature, and the -ro>0.0o". co"t!0"e# t1ere0" ;or 0t. re>0.0o" 0"#0c!te t1e ?022 o; t1e -eo-2e t1!t t1e 4"#er2/0"3 -r0"c0-2e. 4-o" ?10c1 0t re.t., !. ?e22 !. t1e .4b.t!"t0!2 e"t0ret/ o; t1e 0".tr49e"t , shall be of a liAe per*anent and abidin& nature. "n the other hand, the si&nificance of the ter* ,a*end*ent, i*plies such an addition or chan&e 7ithin the lines of the ori&inal instru*ent as 7ill effect an i*prove*ent, or better carr/ out the purpose for 7hich it 7as fra*ed.$3 +E*phasis supplied. Revision broadl/ i*plies a chan&e that !2ter. ! b!.0c -r0"c0-2e 0" t1e co".t0t4t0o", liAe alterin& the principle of separation of po7ers or the s/ste* of checAs-and-balances. #here is also revision if the chan&e !2ter. t1e .4b.t!"t0!2 e"t0ret/ o; t1e co".t0t4t0o", !. ?1e" t1e c1!"3e !;;ect. .4b.t!"t0!2 -ro>0.0o". o; t1e co".t0t4t0o". "n the other hand, a*end*ent broadl/ refers to ! c1!"3e t1!t !##., re#4ce., or #e2ete. ?0t1o4t !2ter0"3 t1e b!.0c -r0"c0-2e 0">o2>e# . Revision &enerall/ affects several provisions of the constitution, 7hile a*end*ent &enerall/ affects onl/ the specific provision bein& a*ended. In California 7here the initiative clause allo7s a*end*ents but not revisions to the constitution Dust liAe in our Constitution, courts have developed a t?o5-!rt te.t= the Buantitative test and the Bualitative test. #he Buantitative test asAs 7hether the proposed chan&e is ,so extensive in its provisions as to chan&e directl/ the 9substantial entiret/9 of the constitution b/ the deletion or alteration of nu*erous existin& provisions.,$) #he court exa*ines onl/ the nu*ber of provisions affected and does not consider the de&ree of the chan&e. #he Bualitative test inBuires into the Bualitative effects of the proposed chan&e in the constitution. #he *ain inBuir/ is 7hether the chan&e 7ill ,acco*plish such far reachin& chan&es in the nature of our basic &overn*ental plan as to a*ount to a revision.,$2 Fhether there is an alteration in the structure of &overn*ent is a proper subDect of inBuir/. #hus, ,a chan&e in the nature of KtheL basic &overn*ental plan, includes ,chan&e in its funda*ental fra*e7orA or the

funda*ental po7ers of its Branches.,$1 A chan&e in the nature of the basic &overn*ental plan also includes chan&es that ,DeopardiCe the traditional for* of &overn*ent and the s/ste* of checA and balances.,$0 <nder both the Buantitative and Bualitative tests, the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative is a revision and not *erel/ an a*end*ent. Huantitativel/, the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es overhaul t7o articles - Article :I on the -e&islature and Article :II on the Executive - affectin& a total of %(3 provisions in the entire Constitution.6(Hualitativel/, the proposed chan&es alter substantiall/ the basic plan of &overn*ent, fro* presidential to parlia*entar/, and fro* a bica*eral to a unica*eral le&islature. A chan&e in the structure of &overn*ent is a revision of the Constitution, as 7hen the three &reat co-eBual branches of &overn*ent in the present Constitution are reduced into t7o. T10. !2ter. t1e .e-!r!t0o" o; -o?er. 0" t1e Co".t0t4t0o". A shift fro* the present Bica*eral-Presidential s/ste* to a <nica*eralParlia*entar/ s/ste* is a revision of the Constitution. Mer&in& the le&islative and executive branches is a radical chan&e in the structure of &overn*ent. #he abolition alone of the "ffice of the President as the locus of Executive Po7er alters the separation of po7ers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. -iAe7ise, the abolition alone of one cha*ber of Con&ress alters the s/ste* of checAs-and-balances 7ithin the le&islature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution. B/ !"/ 2e3!2 te.t !"# 4"#er !"/ H4r0.#0ct0o", a shift fro* a Bica*eralPresidential to a <nica*eral-Parlia*entar/ s/ste*, involvin& the abolition of the "ffice of the President and the abolition of one cha*ber of Con&ress, is be/ond doubt a revision, not a *ere a*end*ent. "n the face alone of the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es, it is readil/ apparent that the chan&es 7ill r!#0c!22/ !2ter t1e ;r!9e?or@ o; 3o>er"9e"t !. .et ;ort1 0" t1e Co".t0t4t0o". 4ather MoaBuin Bernas, !.M., a leadin& *e*ber of the Constitutional Co**ission, 7rites= An a*end*ent envisa&es an alteration of one or a fe7 specific and separable provisions. #he &uidin& ori&inal intention of an a*end*ent is to i*prove specific parts or to add ne7 provisions dee*ed necessar/ to *eet ne7 conditions or to suppress specific portions that *a/ have beco*e obsolete or that are Dud&ed to be dan&erous. In revision, ho7ever, the &uidin& ori&inal intention and plan conte*plates a re-exa*ination of the entire docu*ent, or of provisions of the docu*ent 7hich have over-all i*plications for the entire docu*ent, to deter*ine

ho7 and to 7hat extent the/ should be altered. T14., ;or 0".t!"ce ! .?0tc1 ;ro9 t1e -re.0#e"t0!2 ./.te9 to ! -!r20!9e"t!r/ ./.te9 ?o42# be ! re>0.0o" bec!4.e o; 0t. o>er5!22 09-!ct o" t1e e"t0re co".t0t4t0o"!2 .tr4ct4re. So ?o42# ! .?0tc1 ;ro9 ! b0c!9er!2 ./.te9 to ! 4"0c!9er!2 ./.te9 be bec!4.e o; 0t. e;;ect o" ot1er 09-ort!"t -ro>0.0o". o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o".6% +E*phasis supplied. In A*ams v. 4$nte ,6' an initiative petition proposed the a*end*ent of the 4lorida !tate constitution to .10;t ;ro9 ! b0c!9er!2 to ! 4"0c!9er!2 2e30.2!t4re. #he issue turned on 7hether the initiative ,7as defective and unauthoriCed 7here KtheL proposed a*end*ent 7ould x x x affect several other provisions of KtheL Constitution., #he !upre*e Court of 4lorida, striAin& do7n the initiative as outside the scope of the initiative clause, ruled as follo7s= #he proposal here to a*end !ection % of Article III of the %0)1 Constitution to provide for a <nica*eral -e&islature !;;ect. "ot o"2/ 9!"/ ot1er -ro>0.0o". o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o" b4t -ro>0#e. ;or ! c1!"3e 0" t1e ;or9 o; t1e 2e30.2!t0>e br!"c1 o; 3o>er"9e"t, 7hich has been in existence in the <nited !tates Con&ress and in all of the states of the nation, except one, since the earliest da/s. t ?o42# be #0;;0c42t to >0.4!207e ! 9ore re>o24t0o"!r/ c1!"3e. #he concept of a ?ouse and a !enate is basic in the A*erican for* of &overn*ent. t ?o42# "ot o"2/ r!#0c!22/ c1!"3e t1e ?1o2e -!tter" o; 3o>er"9e"t 0" t10. .t!te !"# te!r !-!rt t1e ?1o2e ;!br0c o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o", b4t ?o42# e>e" !;;ect t1e -1/.0c!2 ;!c020t0e. "ece..!r/ to c!rr/ o" 3o>er"9e"t. xxxx Fe conclude 7ith the observation that if such proposed a*end*ent 7ere adopted b/ the people at the 5eneral Election and if the -e&islature at its next session should fail to sub*it further a*end*ents to revise and clarif/ the nu*erous inconsistencies and conflicts 7hich 7ould result, or if after sub*ission of appropriate a*end*ents the people should refuse to adopt the*, si*ple chaos 7ould prevail in the &overn*ent of this !tate. #he sa*e result 7ould obtain fro* an a*end*ent, for instance, of !ection % of Article :, to provide for onl/ a !upre*e Court and Circuit Courts-and there could be other exa*ples too nu*erous to detail. #hese exa*ples point unerrin&l/ to the ans7er. #he purpose of the lon& and arduous 7orA of the hundreds of *en and 7o*en and *an/ sessions of the -e&islature in brin&in& about the

Constitution of %0)1 7as to eli*inate inconsistencies and conflicts and to &ive the !tate a 7orAable, accordant, ho*o&enous and up-to-date docu*ent. All of this could disappear ver/ BuicAl/ if 7e 7ere to hold that it could be a*ended in the *anner proposed in the initiative petition here.6$+E*phasis supplied. #he rationale of the A*ams decision applies 7ith &reater force to the present petition. #he -a*bino 5roup9s initiative not onl/ seeAs a shift fro* a bica*eral to a unica*eral le&islature, it also seeAs to *er&e the executive and le&islative depart*ents. #he initiative in A*ams did not even touch the executive depart*ent. In A*ams, the !upre*e Court of 4lorida enu*erated %1 sections of the 4lorida Constitution that 7ould be affected b/ the shift fro* a bica*eral to a unica*eral le&islature. In the -a*bino 5roup9s present initiative, "o 2e.. t1!" 105 -ro>0.0o". o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o" ?o42# be !;;ecte# based on the count of Associate Mustice Ro*eo M. CalleDo, !r.66#here is no doubt that the -a*bino 5roup9s present initiative seeAs far *ore radical chan&es in the structure of &overn*ent than the initiative in A*ams. #he -a*bino 5roup theoriCes that the difference bet7een ,a*end*ent, and ,revision, is onl/ o"e o; -roce#4re, "ot o; .4b.t!"ce. #he -a*bino 5roup posits that 7hen a deliberative bod/ drafts and proposes chan&es to the Constitution, substantive chan&es are called ,revisions, because 9e9ber. o; t1e #e20ber!t0>e bo#/ ?or@ ;4225t09e o" t1e c1!"3e.. ?o7ever, the sa*e substantive chan&es, 7hen proposed throu&h an initiative, are called ,a*end*ents, bec!4.e t1e c1!"3e. !re 9!#e b/ or#0"!r/ -eo-2e ?1o #o "ot 9!@e !" Aocc4-!t0o", -ro;e..0o", or >oc!t0o"A o4t o; .4c1 e"#e!>or. #hus, the -a*bino 5roup *aAes the follo7in& exposition of their theor/ in their Me*orandu*= 00. Fith this distinction in *ind, 7e note that the constitutional provisions expressl/ provide for both ,a*end*ent, and ,revision, 7hen it speaAs of le&islators and constitutional dele&ates, 7hile the sa*e provisions expressl/ provide onl/ for ,a*end*ent, 7hen it speaAs of the people. It 7ould see* that the apparent distinction is based on the actual experience of the people, that on one hand the co**on people in &eneral are not expected to 7orA full-ti*e on the *atter of correctin& the constitution because that is not their occupation, profession or vocationE 7hile on the other hand, the le&islators and constitutional convention

dele&ates are expected to 7orA full-ti*e on the sa*e *atter because that is their occupation, profession or vocation. T14., t1e #0;;ere"ce bet?ee" t1e ?or#. Are>0.0o"A !"# A!9e"#9e"tA -ert!0" o"2/ to t1e -roce.. or -roce#4re o; co90"3 4- ?0t1 t1e correct0o"., for purposes of interpretin& the constitutional provisions. %((. St!te# ot1er?0.e, t1e #0;;ere"ce bet?ee" A!9e"#9e"tA !"# Are>0.0o"A c!""ot re!.o"!b2/ be 0" t1e .4b.t!"ce or eBte"t o; t1e correct0o". x x x x +<nderlinin& in the ori&inalE boldfacin& supplied. #he -a*bino 5roup in effect ar&ues that if Con&ress or a constitutional convention had drafted the sa*e proposed chan&es that the -a*bino 5roup 7rote in the present initiative, the chan&es 7ould constitute a revision of the Constitution. T14., t1e L!9b0"o Gro4- co"ce#e. t1!t t1e -ro-o.e# c1!"3e. 0" t1e -re.e"t 0"0t0!t0>e co".t0t4te ! re>0.0o" 0; Co"3re.. or ! co".t0t4t0o"!2 co">e"t0o" 1!# #r!;te# t1e c1!"3e.. ?o7ever, since the -a*bino 5roup as private individuals drafted the proposed chan&es, the chan&es are *erel/ a*end*ents to the Constitution. #he -a*bino 5roup trivialiCes the serious *atter of chan&in& the funda*ental la7 of the land. #he eB-re.. 0"te"t o; t1e ;r!9er. !"# t1e -2!0" 2!"34!3e o; t1e Co".t0t4t0o" contradict the -a*bino 5roup9s theor/. Fhere the intent of the fra*ers and the lan&ua&e of the Constitution are clear and plainl/ stated, courts do not deviate fro* such cate&orical intent and lan&ua&e.63 An/ theor/ espousin& a construction contrar/ to such intent and lan&ua&e deserves scant consideration. More so, if such theor/ 7reaAs havoc b/ creatin& inconsistencies in the for* of &overn*ent established in the Constitution. !uch a theor/, devoid of an/ Durisprudential *oorin& and invitin& inconsistencies in the Constitution, onl/ exposes the fli*siness of the -a*bino 5roup9s position. An/ theor/ advocatin& that a proposed chan&e involvin& a radical structural chan&e in &overn*ent does not constitute a revision Dustl/ deserves reDection. #he -a*bino 5roup si*pl/ rec/cles a theor/ that initiative proponents in A*erican Durisdictions have atte*pted to advance 7ithout an/ success. In 5owe v. )eisling,6) the !upre*e Court of "re&on reHecte# t10. t1eor/, thus= Mabon ar&ues that Article ;:II, section ', does not appl/ to chan&es to the constitution proposed b/ initiative.%0. t1eor/ 0. t1!t Art0c2e J( , .ect0o" 2 9ere2/ -ro>0#e. ! -roce#4re b/ ?10c1 t1e 2e30.2!t4re c!" -ro-o.e ! re>0.0o" o; t1e co".t0t4t0o", b4t 0t #oe. "ot !;;ect -ro-o.e#

re>0.0o". 0"0t0!te# b/ t1e -eo-2e. Plaintiffs ar&ue that the proposed ballot *easure constitutes a 7holesale chan&e to the constitution that cannot be enacted throu&h the initiative process. #he/ assert that the distinction bet7een a*end*ent and revision is deter*ined b/ revie7in& the scope and subDect *atter of the proposed enact*ent, and that revisions are not li*ited to ,a for*al overhaulin& of the constitution., #he/ ar&ue that this ballot *easure proposes far reachin& chan&es outside the lines of the ori&inal instru*ent, includin& profound i*pacts on existin& funda*ental ri&hts and radical restructurin& of the &overn*ent9s relationship 7ith a defined &roup of citiCens. Plaintiffs assert that, because the proposed ballot *easure ,7ill refashion the *ost basic principles of "re&on constitutional la7,, the trial court correctl/ held that it violated Article ;:II, section ', and cannot appear on the ballot 7ithout the prior approval of the le&islature. Fe first address Mabon9s ar&u*ent that Article ;:II, section '+%., does not prohibit revisions instituted b/ initiative. In 'olmes v. Appling( x x x( the !upre*e Court concluded that a revision of the constitution *a/ not be acco*plished b/ initiative, because of the provisions of Article ;:II, section '. After revie7in& Article ;:II, section%, relatin& to proposed a*end*ents( the court said= ,4ro* the fore&oin& it appears that Article I:, !ection %, authoriCes the use of the initiative as a *eans of a*endin& the "re&on Constitution, but it contains no si*ilar sanction for its use as a *eans of revisin& the constitution., x x x x It then revie7ed Article ;:II, section ', relatin& to revisions( and said= ,It is the onl/ section of the constitution 7hich provides the *eans for constitutional revision and it excludes the idea that an individual, throu&h the initiative, *a/ place such a *easure before the electorate., x x x x Accor#0"32/, ?e reHect M!bo":. !r349e"t t1!t Art0c2e J( , .ect0o" 2, #oe. "ot !--2/ to co".t0t4t0o"!2 re>0.0o". -ro-o.e# b/ 0"0t0!t0>e . +E*phasis supplied. !i*ilarl/, this Court *ust reDect the -a*bino 5roup9s theor/ 7hich ne&ates the express intent of the fra*ers and the plain lan&ua&e of the Constitution. Fe can visualiCe a*end*ents and revisions as a spectru*, at one end &reen for a*end*ents and at the other end red for revisions. #o7ards the *iddle of the

spectru*, colors fuse and difficulties arise in deter*inin& 7hether there is an a*end*ent or revision. #he present initiative is indisputabl/ located at the far end of the red spectru* 7here revision be&ins. #he present initiative seeAs a radical overhaul of the existin& separation of po7ers a*on& the three co-eBual depart*ents of &overn*ent, reBuirin& far-reachin& a*end*ents in several sections and articles of the Constitution. Fhere the proposed chan&e applies onl/ to a specific provision of the Constitution 7ithout affectin& an/ other section or article, the chan&e *a/ &enerall/ be considered an a*end*ent and not a revision. 4or exa*ple, a chan&e reducin& the votin& a&e fro* %1 /ears to %3 /ears62 is an a*end*ent and not a revision. !i*ilarl/, a chan&e reducin& 4ilipino o7nership of *ass *edia co*panies fro* %(( percent to )( percent is an a*end*ent and not a revision.61 Also, a chan&e reBuirin& a colle&e de&ree as an additional Bualification for election to the Presidenc/ is an a*end*ent and not a revision.60 #he chan&es in these exa*ples do not entail an/ *odification of sections or articles of the Constitution other than the specific provision bein& a*ended. #hese chan&es do not also affect the structure of &overn*ent or the s/ste* of checAsand-balances a*on& or 7ithin the three branches. #hese three exa*ples are located at the far &reen end of the spectru*, opposite the far red end 7here the revision sou&ht b/ the present petition is located. ?o7ever, there can be no fixed rule on 7hether a chan&e is an a*end*ent or a revision. A chan&e in a sin&le 7ord of one sentence of the Constitution *a/ be a revision and not an a*end*ent. 4or exa*ple, the substitution of the 7ord ,republican, 7ith ,*onarchic, or ,theocratic, in !ection %, Article II3( of the Constitution radicall/ overhauls the entire structure of &overn*ent and the funda*ental ideolo&ical basis of the Constitution. #hus, each specific chan&e 7ill have to be exa*ined case-b/-case, dependin& on ho7 it affects other provisions, as 7ell as ho7 it affects the structure of &overn*ent, the carefull/ crafted s/ste* of checAs-and-balances, and the underl/in& ideolo&ical basis of the existin& Constitution. !ince a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a #e20ber!t0>e bo#/ ?0t1 recor#e# -rocee#0"3. is best suited to undertaAe a revision. A revision reBuires har*oniCin& not onl/ several provisions, but also the altered principles 7ith those that re*ain unaltered. #hus, constitutions nor*all/ authoriCe deliberative bodies liAe constituent asse*blies or

constitutional conventions to undertaAe revisions. "n the other hand, constitutions allo7 people9s initiatives, 7hich do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedin&s, to undertaAe onl/ a*end*ents and not revisions. In the present initiative, the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed !ection ' of the #ransitor/ Provisions states= !ection '. <pon the expiration of the ter* of the incu*bent President and :ice President, 7ith the exception of !ections %, ', $, 6, 3, ) and 2 of Article :I of the %012 Constitution 7hich shall hereb/ be a*ended and !ections %1 and '6 7hich shall be deleted, all other !ections of Article :I are hereb/ retained and renu*bered seBuentiall/ as !ection ', ad seriati* up to '), 4"2e.. t1e/ !re 0"co".0.te"t ?0t1 t1e P!r20!9e"t!r/ ./.te9 o; 3o>er"9e"t, 0" ?10c1 c!.e, t1e/ .1!22 be !9e"#e# to co";or9 ?0t1 ! 4"0c!9er!2 -!r20!9e"t!r/ ;or9 o; 3o>er"9e"tE x x x x +E*phasis supplied. #he basic rule in statutor/ construction is that if a later la7 is irreconcilabl/ inconsistent 7ith a prior la7, the later la7 prevails. #his rule also applies to construction of constitutions. ?o7ever, the -a*bino 5roup9s draft of !ection ' of the #ransitor/ Provisions turns on its head this rule of construction b/ statin& that in case of such irreconcilable inconsistenc/, the earlier provision ,.1!22 be !9e"#e# to confor* 7ith a unica*eral parlia*entar/ for* of &overn*ent., #he effect is to freeCe the t7o irreconcilable provisions until the earlier one ,shall be a*ended,, 7hich reBuires a future separate constitutional a*end*ent. RealiCin& the absurdit/ of the need for such an a*end*ent, petitioner Att/. -a*bino readil/ conceded durin& the oral ar&u*ents that the reBuire*ent of a future a*end*ent is a ,surplusa&e., In short, Att/. -a*bino 7ants to reinstate the rule of statutor/ construction so that the later provision auto*aticall/ prevails in case of irreconcilable inconsistenc/. ?o7ever, it is not as si*ple as that. #he irreconcilable inconsistenc/ envisioned in the proposed !ection ' of the #ransitor/ Provisions is not bet7een a provision in Article :I of the %012 Constitution and a provision in the proposed chan&es. #he inconsistenc/ is bet7een a provision in Article :I of the %012 Constitution and the ,P!r20!9e"t!r/ ./.te9 o; 3o>er"9e"t,, and the inconsistenc/ shall be resolved in favor of a ,4"0c!9er!2 -!r20!9e"t!r/ ;or9 o; 3o>er"9e"t., No7, 7hat ,4"0c!9er!2 -!r20!9e"t!r/ ;or9 o; 3o>er"9e"t, do the -a*bino 5roup9s proposed chan&es refer to N the Ban&ladeshi, !in&aporean, Israeli, or

Ne7 Gealand *odels, 7hich are a*on& the ;e? countries 7ith4"0c!9er!2 -!r20!9e"t.@ #he proposed chan&es could "ot possibl/ refer to the traditional and 7ell-Ano7n parlia*entar/ for*s of &overn*ent N the British, 4rench, !panish, 5er*an, Italian, Canadian, Australian, or Mala/sian *odels, 7hich have all b0c!9er!2 parlia*ents. id the people 7ho si&ned the si&nature sheets realiCe that the/ 7ere adoptin& the Ban&ladeshi, !in&aporean, Israeli, or Ne7 Gealand parlia*entar/ for* of &overn*ent@ #his drives ho*e the point that the people9s initiative is not *eant for revisions of the Constitution but onl/ for a*end*ents. A shift fro* the present Bica*eralPresidential to a <nica*eral-Parlia*entar/ s/ste* reBuires har*oniCin& several provisions in *an/ articles of the Constitution. Revision of the Constitution throu&h a people9s initiative 7ill onl/ result in &ross absurdities in the Constitution. In su*, there is no doubt 7hatsoever that the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative is a revision and not an a*end*ent. #hus, the present initiative is void and unconstitutional because it violates !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution li*itin& the scope of a people9s initiative to ADAE9e"#9e"t. to t10. Co".t0t4t0o".A $. A /evisit o# Santiago v. C6(757C is Not Necessa y #he present petition 7arrants dis*issal for failure to co*pl/ 7ith the basic reBuire*ents of !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution on the conduct and scope of a people9s initiative to a*end the Constitution. #here is no need to revisit this Court9s rulin& in Santiago declarin& RA )2$3 ,inco*plete, inadeBuate or 7antin& in essential ter*s and conditions, to cover the s/ste* of initiative to a*end the Constitution. An affir*ation or reversal of Santiago 7ill not chan&e the outco*e of the present petition. #hus, this Court *ust decline to revisit Santiago 7hich effectivel/ ruled that RA )2$3 does not co*pl/ 7ith the reBuire*ents of the Constitution to i*ple*ent the initiative clause on a*end*ents to the Constitution. #his Court *ust avoid revisitin& a rulin& involvin& the constitutionalit/ of a statute if the case before the Court can be resolved on so*e other &rounds. !uch avoidance is a lo&ical conseBuence of the 7ell-settled doctrine that courts 7ill not pass upon the constitutionalit/ of a statute if the case can be resolved on so*e other &rounds.3% Nevertheless, even assu*in& that RA )2$3 is valid to i*ple*ent the constitutional

provision on initiatives to a*end the Constitution, this 7ill not chan&e the result here because the present petition violates !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution. #o be a valid initiative, the present initiative *ust ;0r.t co9-2/ 7ith !ection ', Article ;:II of the Constitution even before co*pl/in& 7ith RA )2$3. Even then, the present initiative violates !ection 3+b. of RA )2$3 7hich reBuires that the ,petition for an initiative on the %012 Constitution *ust have at least t7elve per centum +%'8. of the total nu*ber of re&istered voters !. .03"!tor0e.., !ection 3+b. of RA )2$3 reBuires that the people *ust si&n the A-et0t0o" B B B !. .03"!tor0e..A #he ).$ *illion si&natories did not si&n the petition of '3 Au&ust '(() or the a*ended petition of $( Au&ust '(() filed 7ith the C"ME-EC. O"2/ Att/. L!9b0"o, Att/. $e9o.t1e"e. B. $o"!to, !"# Att/. A2berto C. A3r! .03"e# t1e -et0t0o" !"# !9e"#e# -et0t0o" !. co4".e2. ;or AR!42 L. L!9b0"o !"# Er0co B. A49e"t!#o, Pet0t0o"er.., In the C"ME-EC, the -a*bino 5roup, clai*in& to act ,to&ether 7ith, the ).$ *illion si&natories, *erel/ attached the si&nature sheets to the petition and a*ended petition. #hus, the petition and a*ended petition filed 7ith the C"ME-EC did not even co*pl/ 7ith the basic reBuire*ent of RA )2$3 that the -a*bino 5roup clai*s as valid. #he -a*bino 5roup9s lo&rollin& initiative also violates !ection %(+a. of RA )2$3 statin&, ,No -et0t0o" e9br!c0"3 9ore t1!" o"e <1= .4bHect .1!22 be .4b90tte# to t1e e2ector!teE x x x., #he proposed !ection 6+6. of the #ransitor/ Provisions, *andatin& the interi* Parlia*ent to propose further a*end*ents or revisions to the Constitution, is a subDect *atter totall/ unrelated to the shift in the for* of &overn*ent. !ince the present initiative e*braces *ore than one subDect *atter, RA )2$3 prohibits sub*ission of the initiative petition to the electorate. #hus, even if RA )2$3 is valid, the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative 7ill still fail. 3. The C6(757C Di* Not Commit 4 ave A%$se o# Disc etion in Dismissing the 5am%ino 4 o$p8s Initiative In dis*issin& the -a*bino 5roup9s initiative petition, the C"ME-EC en banc *erel/ follo7ed this Court9s rulin& inSantiago and People8s Initiative #o /e#o m, (o*e ni&ation an* Action 9PI/(A: v. C6(757C.3' 4or follo7in& this Court9s rulin&, no &rave abuse of discretion is attributable to the C"ME-EC. "n this &round alone, the present petition 7arrants outri&ht dis*issal. #hus, this Court should reiterate its 4"!"09o4. rulin& in PI/(A= #he Court ruled, first, b/ a unani*ous vote, that no &rave abuse of

discretion could be attributed to the public respondent C"ME-EC in dis*issin& the petition filed b/ PIRMA therein, it appearin& that it onl/ co*plied 7ith the dispositions in the ecisions of this Court in 5.R. No. %'2$'3, pro*ul&ated on March %0, %002, and its Resolution of Mune %(, %002. ;. Concl$sion #he Constitution, as the funda*ental la7 of the land, deserves the ut*ost respect and obedience of all the citiCens of this nation. No one can trivialiCe the Constitution b/ cavalierl/ a*endin& or revisin& it in blatant violation of the clearl/ specified *odes of a*end*ent and revision laid do7n in the Constitution itself. #o allo7 such chan&e in the funda*ental la7 is to set adrift the Constitution in unchartered 7aters, to be tossed and turned b/ ever/ do*inant political &roup of the da/. If this Court allo7s toda/ a cavalier chan&e in the Constitution outside the constitutionall/ prescribed *odes, to*orro7 the ne7 do*inant political &roup that co*es 7ill de*and its o7n set of chan&es in the sa*e cavalier and unconstitutional fashion. A revolvin&-door constitution does not au&ur 7ell for the rule of la7 in this countr/. An over7hel*in& *aDorit/ O 16,622,111 >oter. co9-r0.0"3 76.3 -erce"t o; t1e tot!2 >ote. c!.t3$ O approved our Constitution in a national plebiscite held on %% 4ebruar/ %012. T1!t !--ro>!2 0. t1e 4"90.t!@!b2e >o0ce o; t1e -eo-2e, t1e ;422 eB-re..0o" o; t1e -eo-2e:. .o>ere03" ?022. T1!t !--ro>!2 0"c24#e# t1e -re.cr0be# 9o#e. ;or !9e"#0"3 or re>0.0"3 t1e Co".t0t4t0o". No a*ount of si&natures, not even the ),$'2,03' *illion si&natures &athered b/ the -a*bino 5roup, can chan&e our Constitution contrar/ to the specific *odes that the people, in their soverei&n capacit/, prescribed 7hen the/ ratified the Constitution. #he alternative is an extra-constitutional chan&e, 7hich *eans .4b>ert0"3 t1e -eo-2e:. .o>ere03" ?022 !"# #0.c!r#0"3 t1e Co".t0t4t0o" . #his is one act the Court cannot and should never do. As the ulti*ate &uardian of the Constitution, this Court is s7orn to perfor* its sole*n dut/ to defend and protect the Constitution, 7hich e*bodies the real soverei&n 7ill of the people. Incantations of ,people9s voice,, ,people9s soverei&n 7ill,, or ,let the people decide, cannot override the specific *odes of chan&in& the Constitution as prescribed in the Constitution itself. "ther7ise, the Constitution N the people9s funda*ental covenant that provides endurin& stabilit/ to our societ/ N beco*es

easil/ susceptible to *anipulative chan&es b/ political &roups &atherin& si&natures throu&h false pro*ises. #hen, the Constitution ceases to be the bedrocA of the nation9s stabilit/. #he -a*bino 5roup clai*s that their initiative is the ,people9s voice., ?o7ever, the -a*bino 5roup unabashedl/ states in <-AP Resolution No. '(()-(', in the verification of their petition 7ith the C"ME-EC, that ,<-AP *aintains its 4"C4!20;0e# .4--ort to t1e !3e"#! of ?er Excellenc/ President 5loria Macapa&al-Arro/o for constitutional refor*s., #he -a*bino 5roup thus ad*its that their ,people9s, initiative is an ,unBualified support to the a&enda, of the incu*bent President to chan&e the Constitution. #his fore7arns the Court to be 7ar/ of incantations of ,people9s voice, or ,soverei&n 7ill, in the present initiative. #his Court cannot betra/ its pri*ordial dut/ to defend and protect the Constitution. #he Constitution, 7hich e*bodies the people9s soverei&n 7ill, is the bible of this Court. T10. Co4rt eB0.t. to #e;e"# !"# -rotect t1e Co".t0t4t0o". #o allo7 this constitutionall/ infir* initiative, propelled b/ deceptivel/ &athered si&natures, to alter basic principles in the Constitution is to allo7 a desecration of the Constitution. #o allo7 such alteration and desecration is to lose this Court9s raison d)etre. &%ERE8ORE, 7e $ SM SS the petition in 5.R. No. %26%3$. SO OR$ERE$.