Several citizens, unhappy with the proliferation of families dominating the political landscape, decided to take matters into their own hands. They proposed to come up with a people’s initiative defining political dynasties. They started a signature campaign for the purpose of coming up with a petition for that purpose. Some others expressed misgivings about a people’s initiative for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution, however. They cited the Court’s decision in Santiago v. Commission on Elections, 270 SCRA 106 (1997), as authority for their position that there is yet no enabling law for s uch purpose. On the other hand, there are also those who claim that the individual votes of the justices in Lambino v. Commission on Elections, 505 SCRA 160 (2006), mean that Santiago’s pronouncement has effectively been abandoned. If you were consulted by those behind the new attempt at a people’s initiative, how would you advise them? (4%)
Suggested answer only. Not an official answer and not legal advice.
I would advise them to file a people's initiative to enact a statute prohibiting political dynasties, but not a constitutional amendment.
Under Section 32, Article VI of the Constitution and R.A. No. 6735, initiative on statutes is valid. In Santiago v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court upheld R.A. No. 6735 for statutes, though finding it inadequate for constitutional amendments. Under Section 4(3), Article VIII, doctrines cannot be reversed by implication, and Lambino v. COMELEC did not overturn Santiago.
Here, defining political dynasties involves enacting a statute under Section 26, Article II of the Constitution. Thus, an initiative for a law prohibiting dynasties is valid under R.A. No. 6735. However, an initiative to amend the Constitution remains barred because Santiago stands.
Therefore, they may validly pursue an initiative to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.
This is not an official scoring system and carries no weight with the Supreme Court or any bar review provider. It measures how much of the suggested answer's wording your response covers, not whether your reasoning is correct. For practice only.
Quick check
Under Section 32, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution and R.A. No. 6735, what can citizens directly propose through a valid people's initiative?
Republic Act No. 6735 validly enables a people's initiative for national statutes and local ordinances.
In Santiago v. COMELEC, why was a people's initiative to amend the Constitution declared invalid?
The Supreme Court held that R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide adequate statutory standards for constitutional amendments.
Why did Lambino v. COMELEC fail to overturn the doctrine established in Santiago v. COMELEC regarding constitutional initiatives?
Constitutional doctrines established en banc can only be modified or reversed by an explicit en banc ruling.
Why is Section 26, Article II of the Constitution regarding political dynasties considered non-self-executing?
Section 26, Article II requires a law to define and regulate political dynasties before it becomes enforceable.
What is the recommended constitutional approach for citizens seeking to prohibit political dynasties via a people's initiative?
A statutory initiative under R.A. No. 6735 is valid and constitutionally enabled to enact anti-political dynasty legislation.
Learn more about these topics
1. Initiative on Statutes
Under Section 32, Article VI of the 1987 Philippine Constitution and Republic Act No. 6735, the system of initiative and referendum enables citizens to directly propose, enact, or reject statutes. In Santiago v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court held that while R.A. No. 6735 was inadequate to enable a people's initiative for constitutional amendments, it remains valid and sufficient for initiating legislation and national statutes. Therefore, citizens can validly utilize a people's initiative to enact an anti-political dynasty law pursuant to Section 26, Article II of the Constitution, which requires a statutory enactment to define political dynasties.
2. Constitutional Initiative Rule
Section 2, Article XVII of the Constitution provides that amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the people through initiative. However, in Santiago v. COMELEC, the Supreme Court ruled that R.A. No. 6735 failed to provide sufficient statutory details to implement constitutional initiatives. Although proponents argued that individual opinions in Lambino v. COMELEC cast doubt on Santiago, Section 4(3), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that no doctrine established en banc may be modified or reversed except by the Court sitting en banc. Because Santiago was not explicitly overturned, constitutional initiatives remain legally unviable without new legislation.
3. Anti-Political Dynasty Mandate
Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Because this constitutional provision is non-self-executing, it requires an enabling act of Congress or a statutory people's initiative to take full effect. Passing an anti-political dynasty statute via a people's initiative directly fulfills this constitutional policy without requiring a constitutional amendment, thereby providing a constitutionally sound mechanism for voters to regulate political monopolies.