MNB Case Digest: Lambino vs. COMELEC

-

Nota bene:

        The Lambino Group failed to meet the requirements for a valid people's initiative to amend the Constitution set forth in the Constitution and the Initiative and Referendum Act. The Initiative Petition did not comply with the requirement that the people must author and sign the entire proposal, and the proposed amendments were not embodied in a petition. Additionally, the proposed amendments constituted a revision of the Constitution, which cannot be amended through a people's initiative. Only Congress or a constitutional convention can propose revisions to the Constitution. Amendments, on the other hand, refer to changes that add, reduce, or delete specific provisions without altering the basic principles of the Constitution.

Case Name: Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado v. Commission on Elections

Citation: G.R. NO. 174153, October 25, 2006

Parties: Raul L. Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado (petitioners) vs. Commission on Elections (respondent)

Facts of the case:

Lambino and Aumentado, together with 6,327,952 registered voters, filed a petition seeking to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution through a people's initiative.

The petitioners proposed several amendments, including the conversion of the Philippines into a federal state.

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) denied the petition on the grounds that it did not comply with the requirements for a valid people's initiative.

Legal issues: 

Whether the petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution was valid.

Court's holding: 

No. The petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution was not valid.

Court's reasoning:

The petitioners failed to comply with the requirements for a valid people's initiative set forth in Republic Act No. 6735 (the Initiative and Referendum Act).

Specifically, the petition did not contain the required number of signatures and the petitioners did not follow the proper procedure for verifying the signatures.

The Court also held that the proposed amendments, including the conversion of the Philippines into a federal state, involved amendments to the Constitution's "substantive provisions," which cannot be amended through a people's initiative.

Ergo, the Supreme Court ruled against the petitioners and upheld the COMELEC's denial of the petition for a people's initiative to amend the 1987 Philippine Constitution.


Nota bene:

To determine whether a proposed change to the Constitution constitutes an amendment or a revision, a two-part test is used:

The first part, the quantitative test, looks at the number of provisions affected by the proposed change. If the change is "so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the 'substantial entirety' of the constitution," it is considered a revision. 

The second part, the qualitative test, examines the qualitative effects of the proposed change on the nature of the basic governmental plan. If the change would "amount to a revision," it is considered a revision. Both the quantitative and qualitative tests are used to determine whether a proposed change is an amendment or a revision.



Disclaimer:

This case digest was generated by AI and is intended to provide a summary of the case. It may contain legal issue that is not relevant to the main issue of the case and should not be relied upon as a substitute for reading the full case. Use this case digest as a starting point for your own research. Please read the full case. It is intended for reference purposes only. Copying and submitting this case digest to your professor as your own work may result in failing the subject or any other academic consequences.

Anyway, if you have a case that you would like me to digest in this manner using an AI platform, you can message me. I offer this service for a fee of 2.00 pesos per case, with a minimum of 10.00 cases per transaction. If you do not meet the minimum number of cases, each case will be charged at a rate of 5.00 pesos to reflect the time and effort I will spend. Please contact me if you are interested in this service.

-------------------------------- 
HASHTAGS
-------------------------------- 
#HernandoBar #BAR2023 #HernanDoit #BarExamTips #LawSchool Philippines, Law Student, Bar Exam, #PhilippineBarExam, Law School Vlog, Law School lecture, #HowToPrepareForTheBarExam, Law School Recitation, Law School tips

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2023 Bar Questions for Labor Law and Social Legislation (Day 2 - Afternoon Exams)

-
Image
Question No. 1: As an incentive for Filipino nurses to remain or be employed in the Philippines, the "Ang Nars Incentives Act of 2023" was approved by the President. The law allows children of any nurse to be enrolled in any private tertiary institution without need of taking any entrance examination provided the child maintains the required passing average grade each year. A 70% tuition waiver for each child. shall be extended by the institution and 50% of the tuition waiver may be creditable to any national taxes owed by the institution to the government. Is the law constitutional? Explain briefly. AI Answer: No, the law is unconstitutional. The Constitution of the Philippines, Article III, Section 1, states that: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. This means that all laws must be fair and just, and that they must apply to everyone equally. The Ang Nars Incent...
Read more

MNB Case Digest: Imbong vs. Ochoa

-
Image
Case Title:  James M. Imbong and Lovely-Ann C. Imbong, for themselves and on behalf of their minor children, Lucia Carlos Imbong and Bernadette Carlos Imbong and Magnificat Child Development Center, Inc., petitioners, vs. Hon. Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr., Executive Secretary, Hon. Florencio B. Abad, Secretary, Department of Budget and Management, Hon. Enrique T. Ona, Secretary, Department of Health, Hon. Armin A. Luistro, Secretary, Department of Education, Culture and Sports and Hon. Manuel A. Roxas II, Secretary, Department of Interior and Local Government, respondents. Case Citation:  G.R. No. 204819, April 8, 2014 Facts of the case: The petitioners, James M. Imbong, Lovely-Ann C. Imbong, and Magnificat Child Development Center, Inc., filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Supreme Court, seeking to declare Republic Act No. 10354, also known as the Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Act of 2012, as unconstitutional. The petitioners argued that the l...
Read more

MNB Case Digest: Macalintal v. Commission on Elections Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines

-
Image
Case Title:  Macalintal v. Commission on Elections Court: Supreme Court of the Philippines Facts of the case: • Atty. Romulo B. Macalintal (petitioner) filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), Hon. Alberto Romulo (Executive Secretary), and Hon. Emilia T. Boncodin (Secretary of the Department of Budget and Management) (respondents). • The petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9189, also known as the "Overseas Absentee Voting Act of 2003," which provided for the implementation of absentee voting for qualified Filipinos abroad. • The petitioner argued that the Act violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution and sought to have it declared null and void. Legal Issue:          W hether Republic Act No. 9189 was constitutional. Held: The court upheld the constitutionality of Republic Act No. 9189. The court found that the Act did not violate the equal protection cl...
Read more