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 before the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to hold a plebiscite on proposed amendments to the 1987 Constitution, primarily to lift the term limits of elective officials, through the system of people’s initiative under Republic Act No. 6735. Petitioners, including Senator Raul Roco as intervenor, sought to enjoin the COMELEC from proceeding, arguing that R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the constitutional provision on initiative to amend the Constitution. They contended that the law failed to provide adequate standards and guidelines, making it incapable of supporting such a fundamental process. The respondents, PIRMA members, defended the sufficiency of the law and the COMELEC’s authority to act under its provisions and its implementing resolution.

ISSUE

The primary issue resolved in Justice Puno’s separate opinion is whether Republic Act No. 6735 is a sufficient and valid implementing law for the exercise of the people’s initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution as provided under Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

RULING

Justice Puno, in his separate Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurred with the majority’s result to dismiss the Delfin petition but dissented from its central legal conclusion. He firmly argued that R.A. No. 6735 is legally sufficient to implement the people’s initiative to amend the Constitution. His legal logic began with the principle of statutory construction that legislative intent is the controlling factor in interpreting a law. He highlighted that the legislative history, particularly the consolidation of House Bill No. 21505 and Senate Bill No. 17, clearly showed an intent to include constitutional initiative. The House version, sponsored by Congressman Raul Roco, expressly included it, and this intent should prevail in understanding the final law.
Justice Puno reasoned that the law, while not perfect, provides the essential substantive and procedural requirements. He pointed to specific provisions in R.A. No. 6735, such as the definition of “plebiscite” and the prescription of petition signatures, which apply to constitutional amendments. He argued that the COMELEC, through its rule-making power under the law, could fill in procedural gaps, as it did with Resolution No. 2300. For him, declaring the law insufficient would judicially amend the statute and undermine the constitutional grant of power to the people. He concluded that the defect lay not in the law but in the specific Delfin petition’s failure to comply with its requirements, justifying its dismissal on that specific ground, not on the alleged inadequacy of the statute itself.