G.R. No. 127325. March 19, 1997.
Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin, Petitioners, vs. Commission on Elections, Jesus Delfin, Alberto Pedrosa & Carmen Pedrosa, in their capacities as founding members of the People’s Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a petition filed by Jesus Delfin with the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold a plebiscite for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. The proposed amendments sought to lift term limits for elective officials. Petitioners, including Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, challenged the COMELEC’s authority to entertain and act upon the Delfin Petition. They argued that the constitutional provision on people’s initiative for amendments lacked a sufficient implementing law, rendering the COMELEC’s actions void.
The core dispute centered on whether Republic Act No. 6735, entitled “The Initiative and Referendum Act,” adequately provided the procedural framework for initiating amendments to the Constitution. Petitioners contended the law was insufficient, while respondents maintained it was a valid implementation of the constitutional right. The Supreme Court issued a temporary restraining order against the COMELEC proceedings, and the case was elevated to resolve the fundamental legal questions surrounding the people’s initiative mechanism.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition for a people’s initiative to amend the Constitution, and whether there exists a valid statutory basis to implement such an initiative.

RULING

The Court, through the majority opinion, granted the petition and permanently enjoined the COMELEC from proceeding with the Delfin Petition. The majority ruled that the COMELEC acted without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion. It held that while the Constitution (Article XVII, Section 2) allows amendments “directly proposed by the people through initiative,” there is no valid implementing law for this constitutional mode. The majority declared that R.A. No. 6735 is “incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions” to properly cover the system of initiative on amendments to the Constitution. Consequently, COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, which prescribed rules for such initiatives, was also declared void insofar as it pertained to constitutional amendments.
In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Panganiban concurred with the first point that the COMELEC gravely abused its discretion in entertaining the Delfin Petition, as it lacked the required preliminary showing of signatures from at least 12% of all registered voters, with 3% from every legislative district. However, he dissented from the majority’s sweeping conclusion that no implementing law exists. He argued that R.A. No. 6735, read together with the Constitution and COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, provides a sufficient legal framework. He warned that the majority’s ruling effectively nullifies the people’s constitutional right to initiative by making it wholly dependent on future congressional action, despite an existing law intended for its implementation. Justice Panganiban emphasized that the misuse of the initiative process in this specific instance should not justify a judicial ban on its future proper exercise.