I. Legislative power—representative by design, partly “reserved” to the people

Philippine public law begins with two ideas that sit side by side:

Representative lawmaking is the norm. The Constitution vests legislative power primarily in Congress (the Senate and the House of Representatives), operating through the familiar process of bills, deliberation, bicameral approval, and (generally) presidential action.
Direct lawmaking is constitutionally recognized as an exception. The same Constitution expressly reserves to the people a limited form of direct legislative power through initiative and referendum.

This “dual design” is explicit in Article VI, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution: legislative power is vested in Congress “except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision on initiative and referendum.” That reservation is then operationalized through a constitutional command to Congress to create a working system of direct legislation.

II. Constitutional foundations of initiative and referendum

A. Article VI, Section 32 (system of initiative and referendum)

Article VI, Section 32 directs Congress to provide, as early as possible, a system of initiative and referendum, including exceptions, by which the people may:

directly propose and enact laws, or
approve or reject any act or law (or part of it) passed by Congress or a local legislative body,

upon the registration of a petition signed by at least:

10% of the total number of registered voters, and
with every legislative district represented by at least 3% of the registered voters in that district.

This section supplies the constitutional “skeleton”: the broad power, the idea of exceptions, and the basic signature thresholds for initiative/referendum on legislation.

B. Article XVII, Section 2 (people’s initiative for constitutional amendments)

Separate from Article VI’s initiative/referendum on ordinary laws, the Constitution also recognizes a distinct mechanism for constitutional amendments:

Under Article XVII, Section 2, amendments to the Constitution may be proposed directly by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least:

12% of the total number of registered voters, and
3% in every legislative district.

It also imposes a timing rule:

No initiative on constitutional amendments within 5 years after ratification of the Constitution, and
not more often than once every 5 years thereafter.

C. Why this matters: direct legislation is constitutionally real, but not automatically self-executing

A recurring theme in Philippine jurisprudence is that these constitutional provisions require a functioning enabling framework—detailed procedures, verification rules, and election administration—so that direct legislation is not reduced to slogans. The Constitution itself anticipates this by ordering Congress to provide the system and its exceptions.

III. The statutory framework: where the mechanics come from

A. Republic Act No. 6735 (The Initiative and Referendum Act)

Congress enacted Republic Act No. 6735 to implement the constitutional directive. In broad terms, RA 6735 provides procedures for:

Initiative on statutes (national legislation),
Initiative on local legislation (ordinances and local measures),
Referendum on statutes (approving/rejecting national laws or parts),
Referendum on local legislation, and
it also contains provisions purporting to deal with initiative on the Constitution—a point that becomes crucial in the case law discussed below.

RA 6735 also distinguishes between forms of initiative (commonly described as direct and indirect), reflecting whether a proposal goes straight to the electorate or is first submitted to the legislative body for possible adoption.

B. The Local Government Code (Republic Act No. 7160)

The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160) likewise recognizes and structures local initiative and local referendum as part of local democratic participation—alongside other local accountability mechanisms (often discussed in the same neighborhood as initiative/referendum, though legally distinct), such as recall.

C. Administration: COMELEC’s central role

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC)—as the constitutional body charged with enforcing and administering election laws—plays the principal implementing role in initiative and referendum processes, particularly in:

receiving/processing petitions (through its offices),
verifying signatures and voter status,
scheduling and conducting the relevant election, and
canvassing and proclaiming results.

Because initiative and referendum culminate in a vote, they inevitably fall within the COMELEC-administered election environment, subject to applicable election rules and judicial review.

IV. Core concepts and distinctions (initiative, referendum, plebiscite, recall)

Precision matters in Philippine public law because these terms are often used loosely in political debate.

A. Initiative

Initiative is the power of the people to propose a legislative measure and, if procedural requirements are met, to submit it to a vote so it may become law by popular approval.

In Philippine usage, initiative commonly appears in three contexts:

Initiative on statutes (national laws),
Initiative on local legislation (ordinances/local measures),
Initiative on the Constitution (constitutional amendments) — constitutionally recognized, but doctrinally constrained (see jurisprudence).

B. Referendum

Referendum is the power of the people to approve or reject a law (or part of it) that has already been passed by a legislative body.

If initiative is “proposal by the people,”
referendum is “review by the people.”

Referendum can be directed at:

national statutes (acts of Congress), or
local legislative measures (ordinances/resolutions), depending on the governing rules.

C. Plebiscite (not the same as referendum)

A plebiscite is a constitutionally or statutorily required vote of the electorate on certain foundational political questions—commonly:

ratification of constitutional amendments (under Article XVII),
creation, division, merger, abolition, or boundary change of local government units (as required by the Constitution and the Local Government Code), and similar structural matters.

While a plebiscite is also a vote, it is not the same as referendum:

Referendum typically concerns a legislative act (approve/reject a law).
Plebiscite concerns constitutional or structural authorization where the Constitution/law itself requires ratification.

D. Recall (also distinct)

Recall is a political mechanism for removing an elected local official before the end of the term under rules set by law. It is not an exercise of legislative power, though it is often discussed alongside initiative and referendum as a participatory device in local governance.

V. What initiative and referendum can (and cannot) do

A. Scope is limited by the nature of the power being exercised

Even when the people act directly, they are exercising legislative power—and legislative power is bounded by:

the Constitution (Bill of Rights, separation of powers, constitutional allocations of authority),
limitations embedded in enabling statutes (RA 6735; RA 7160; COMELEC rules),
and the practical requirement that the subject matter must be legislative in character (i.e., something a legislature could validly enact).

B. National initiative/referendum (statutes)

In principle, initiative/referendum on statutes deals with measures within the competence of national legislation—subject to constitutional limits. When framed well, it operates as lawmaking by popular vote rather than by congressional voting.

C. Local initiative/referendum (local legislation)

Local initiative and referendum generally operate only within the law-making authority of the sanggunian (provincial, city, municipal, barangay):

A local initiative cannot validly enact something that the local government unit has no authority to enact.
Local measures must remain consistent with the Constitution and national statutes (including the Local Government Code and other governing laws).

D. Constitutional initiative (amendments) — recognized in text, contested in implementation

The Constitution recognizes people’s initiative for amendments (not “revisions”), but Philippine Supreme Court jurisprudence has treated the enabling framework for constitutional initiative as a critical—and historically unmet—requirement.

VI. Signature thresholds: the non-negotiable numerical gate

The Constitution itself sets baseline numerical thresholds:

A. For initiative/referendum on legislation (Article VI, Section 32)

10% of registered voters nationwide, and
3% in every legislative district.

B. For initiative on constitutional amendments (Article XVII, Section 2)

12% of registered voters nationwide, and
3% in every legislative district.

These district-representation thresholds are designed to prevent purely concentrated, geographically narrow initiatives from claiming a national mandate.

VII. The procedural arc: how an initiative or referendum moves from idea to ballot

While the exact steps depend on whether the proposal is national or local and whether it is initiative or referendum, a functional process typically includes:

1) Drafting the proposition

A legally viable initiative petition generally requires:

clear identification of the measure being proposed (initiative) or measure being challenged (referendum),
the full text of what is proposed (especially critical in constitutional-initiative jurisprudence),
the scope (national vs local),
and a framing that is legislative (capable of being enacted as law).

2) Petition format, signatories, and signature gathering

Petitions must be signed by registered voters meeting the threshold requirements.

A central concern in Philippine doctrine is whether signatories meaningfully assented to the actual text of the measure, not merely a slogan or abstract description.

3) Filing and registration with election authorities

Petitions are filed and registered through election authorities under governing rules (RA 6735, RA 7160, and COMELEC regulations). Filing triggers administrative evaluation.

4) Verification and sufficiency determination

COMELEC (through its processes) checks:

the authenticity of signatures,
voter registration status,
compliance with geographic distribution requirements (where applicable),
and petition sufficiency.

5) Setting the election and ballot form

If sufficient, COMELEC schedules the vote and sets ballot language (often yes/no), and election rules apply.

6) Voting, canvass, proclamation; effect of results

If the measure is approved by the electorate under the applicable rules, it takes effect in the manner provided by law (commonly with publication/effectivity rules applicable to legislation). If rejected, it fails (initiative) or the challenged measure is rejected/blocked (referendum), depending on the governing framework.

VIII. Judicial review: why courts matter even in “people power” lawmaking

Initiative and referendum raise hard constitutional questions precisely because they combine:

popular sovereignty, and
legal formality (thresholds, procedures, limitations).

Courts therefore become central in disputes about:

whether enabling laws are sufficient,
whether procedures were followed,
whether the subject is proper for initiative,
whether a proposal is an “amendment” versus a “revision” (for constitutional change),
whether voter assent was informed (notably the “full text” issue),
and whether COMELEC acted within its authority.

IX. Landmark Supreme Court jurisprudence on initiative (especially constitutional initiative)

A. Santiago v. COMELEC (1997)

In Santiago v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997), the Supreme Court addressed whether the statutory framework was adequate to implement people’s initiative on constitutional amendments.

A core takeaway commonly associated with Santiago is the Court’s conclusion that RA 6735 was inadequate as an enabling law for initiative on constitutional amendments—meaning the constitutional avenue existed in text but lacked a sufficient implementing mechanism as interpreted by the Court.

At the same time, Santiago is generally read as not dismantling initiative/referendum in all forms; rather, it is most famous for its impact on constitutional initiative.

B. Lambino v. COMELEC (2006)

In Lambino v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006), the Supreme Court again confronted an attempt at constitutional change via initiative.

Two doctrinal themes from Lambino are especially influential:

“Amendment” vs “revision.” The Court emphasized that the people’s initiative route under Article XVII, Section 2 covers amendments, not wholesale revisions that substantially rework the constitutional structure.
Informed assent and the “full text” problem. The decision underscored the importance of signatories being able to meaningfully know and approve the actual content being proposed—not merely a generalized description.

Together, Santiago and Lambino explain why constitutional change through people’s initiative has been legally difficult in practice.

X. Substantive limitations and recurring legal pitfalls

A. Constitutional supremacy (always)

No initiative or referendum—national or local—can validly produce a measure that violates:

the Bill of Rights,
separation of powers,
constitutional grants/limits of authority,
or other constitutional commands.

A “popular” vote does not immunize unconstitutional content.

B. The measure must be legislative, not administrative or adjudicative

Initiative and referendum are legislative in nature. They are not designed to:

decide specific disputes (adjudication),
direct executive discretion on individualized matters (administration),
or substitute for judicial or quasi-judicial processes.

C. For constitutional initiative: amendment only, not revision

A proposal that substantially restructures government (for example, changing the system in a way that alters fundamental architecture) risks being treated as a revision, outside the scope of Article XVII, Section 2 initiative.

D. The informed-consent problem (text vs slogan)

One of the most persistent doctrinal concerns is whether:

the petition and signature-gathering process reflects assent to the actual measure, and
the electorate is voting on a question that is fairly presented and legally coherent.

XI. Policy and institutional context: why initiative and referendum remain rare

Even with a constitutional foundation, direct lawmaking tends to be uncommon because:

Signature thresholds are high, especially with district-distribution requirements.
Verification is administratively heavy (and disputes are common).
Drafting quality matters: poorly drafted measures can fail legal scrutiny or collapse in implementation.
National issues are complex: translating policy into statutory language is difficult.
Litigation risk is substantial, especially for constitutional initiatives.

This does not negate the constitutional design; it explains why initiative and referendum function more as a reserve power than a routine lawmaking channel.

XII. Bottom line: initiative and referendum as “reserved” legislative power in Philippine constitutionalism

Initiative and referendum in the Philippines are best understood as:

a constitutionally recognized fragment of legislative power retained by the people,
structured by enabling statutes and administered through COMELEC-supervised electoral processes, and
constrained by constitutional limits and Supreme Court doctrine, particularly when used as a vehicle for constitutional change.

In ordinary legislation and local lawmaking, initiative and referendum remain constitutionally grounded tools of direct democracy. In constitutional amendments, the text recognizes the mechanism, but jurisprudence has imposed demanding requirements that have, historically, made successful constitutional initiative exceptionally difficult.