DEFENSOR-SANTIAGO vs. COMELEC Sec.

2, Art XVII of the Constitution is not self executory, thus,

(G.R. No. 127325 - March 19, 1997)
Facts:
Private respondent Atty. Jesus Delfin, president of People’s
Initiative for Reforms, Modernization and Action (PIRMA), filed with
COMELEC a petition to amend the constitution to lift the term limits of
elective officials, through People’s Initiative. He based this petition on
Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution, which provides for the right of
the people to exercise the power to directly propose amendments to the
Constitution. Subsequently the COMELEC issued an order directing the
publication of the petition and of the notice of hearing and thereafter set
the case for hearing. At the hearing, Senator Roco, the IBP, Demokrasya-
Ipagtanggol ang Konstitusyon, Public Interest Law Center, and Laban ng
Demokratikong Pilipino appeared as intervenors-oppositors. Senator Roco
filed a motion to dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground that one which is
cognizable by the COMELEC. The petitioners herein Senator Santiago,
Alexander Padilla, and Isabel Ongpin filed this civil action for prohibition
under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court against COMELEC and the Delfin
petition rising the several arguments, such as the following: (1) The
constitutional provision on people’s initiative to amend the constitution can
only be implemented by law to be passed by Congress. No such law has
been passed; (2) The people’s initiative is limited to amendments to the
Constitution, not to revision thereof. Lifting of the term limits constitutes a
revision, therefore it is outside the power of people’s initiative. The
Supreme Court granted the Motions for Intervention.
without implementing legislation the same cannot operate. Although the
Constitution has recognized or granted the right, the people cannot
exercise it if Congress does not provide for its implementation.
The portion of COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 which prescribes
rules and regulations on the conduct of initiative on amendments to the
Constitution, is void. It has been an established rule that what has been
delegated, cannot be delegated (potestas delegata non delegari potest).
The delegation of the power to the COMELEC being invalid, the latter
cannot validly promulgate rules and regulations to implement the exercise
of the right to people’s initiative.
The lifting of the term limits was held to be that of a revision, as it
would affect other provisions of the Constitution such as the
synchronization of elections, the constitutional guarantee of equal access
to opportunities for public service, and prohibiting political dynasties. A
revision cannot be done by initiative. However, considering the Court’s
decision in the above Issue, the issue of whether or not the petition is a
revision or amendment has become academic.

Issues:
(1) Whether or not Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 Constitution is a
self-executing provision.

(2) Whether or not COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 regarding the

conduct of initiative on amendments to the Constitution is valid,
considering the absence in the law of specific provisions on the conduct of
such initiative.

(3) Whether the lifting of term limits of elective officials would

constitute a revision or an amendment of the Constitution.

Held: