Republic of the  Philippines
HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon  City
NINETEENTH  CONGRESS
Second  Regular Session
HouseBillNo.        9868
R8®E§wEaB  `t:
ENEEEBun2i
"qEJ2ifiEtry
Introduced by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The people's initiative is an innovative mode for the people to
propose directly amendments to the Constitution. It is provided for
the  first  time  in  the  1987  Constitution.  It  is  a  recognition  of the
people's  capacity,  power and  right to  initiate  reforms even  to the
Fundamental Law. It is the third method of proposing amendments
to the Constitution in addition to the original systems of constituent
assembly and constitutional convention.
Accordingly,  Section  2  of Art:icle XVII  provides  in  full:
"Section  2.  Amendments  to  this  Constitution  may
likewise   be   directly   proposed   by  the   people  through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per cenfum of
the  total  number  of  registered  voters,  of  which  every
legislative   district   must   be   represented   by   at   least
three per  cenfum of  the  registered  voters  therein.  No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five  years  following  the  ratification  of this  Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
``The     Congress     shall     provide     for     the
implemehtation   of  the   exercise   of  this   right."
(Emphasis supplied),
The  following  are  the  fundamental  conditions  for  the  valid
exercise of people's initiative:
a.       There mustbean enabling lawto implementthe people's
exercise of said right;
b.       People's   initiative   is   limited   to   amendments   to   the
Constitution,  and does not include revision thereof;
1


c.       The signatures oftwelve percent (120/o) of the registered
voters nationwide are necessary to support the petition for people's
initiative,  of which  at  least  three  percent  (3°/o)  must  come  from
each  legislative district;  and
d.       People's  initiative  cannot  be  exercised   within  five  (5)
years  after the  ratification  of the  1987  Constitution  and  not more
than once every five years thereafter.
On  04 August  1989,  Republic Act  No.  6735  or the "Initiative
and  Referendum  Act"  was  enacted.  It  covers  three  (3)  kinds  of
initiatives:    (a)   enactment   or   repeal    of   local    ordinances   and
resolutions;  (b)  legislation  or  repeal  of  national  statutes;  and  (c)
proposal to amend the Constitution.
While  the  ``Initiative  and  Referendum  Act"  is  fully  adequate
with  respect  to  the  enactment  or  repeal  of  local  ordinances  and
national statutes,  it is inadequate as a compliant legislation for the
effective exercise of people's  initiative to  propose amendments to
the Constitution. This deficiency is patent because,  among others:
1.       While  there  are  separate  subtitles  on  local  and  national
initiatives, there  is no separate subtitle to cover people's initiative
to propose amendments to the Constitution.
2.      There  is  no  requirement  that  the  voters  must  sign  the
signature  sheets  supporting  the  petition  on  people's  initiative  to
amend   the   Constitution   before   the   election   officer   or   his/her
representative at designated signing stations in order to ensure the
integrity of the  process,  unlike  in  local  or national  initiatives.
3.       There   is   no   provision   for  the   petition   to   include   the
reasons  for the  amendment  in  order to  inform  the  people  of the
purpose of the  petition,  unlike  in  local  and  national  initiatives.
On   16  January   1991,   the   COMELEC   issued   Resolution   No.
2300  purportedly  to  regulate,  among  others,  the  conduct  of the
people's initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
The    late   Senator   Miriam    Defensor-Santiago   filed   on    27
November  1995  Senate  Bill  No.  1290,  entitled "An Act  Prescribing
and  Regulating  Constitutional  Amendments  by  People's  Initiative"
to comply with the requirement of the Constitution for an enabling
statute,  This  bill  did  not  become  a  law.  No  similar  bill  was filed  in
the House of Representatives.
2


On   19   March   1997,   the   Supreme   Court   promulgated   its
decision  in  Santiago vs.  COMELEC wherein  it categorically  held,
with all the participating justices concurring, that the ``Initiative and
Referendum   Act"  is   not   a   sufficient,   adequate,   compliant   and
enabling  law to  implement the exercise of people's initiative.
The dispositive  portion  in Santiago reads in full:
a)      ``WHEREFORE,   I.udgment   is   hereby   rendered
GRANTING the instant petition;
b)      DECLARING  R.A.  No.  6735  inadequate  to
cover the  system  of initiative  on  amendments to
the Constitution, and to have failed to provide sufficient
standard      for      subordinate      legislation;       (Emphasis
supplied).
c)      DECLARING       void       those       parts      of
Resolutions   No.    2300   of   the   Commission   on
Elections prescribing  rules and  regulations on the
conduct   of   initiative   on   amendments   to   the
Constitution;  and  (Emphasis supplied)
d)      ORDERING   the   Commission   on   Elections   to
forthwith   DISMISS  the   DELFIN   petition   (UND-96-037).
The   Temporary   Restraining   Order   issued   on   18
December   1996   is   made   permanent   as   against   the
Commission  on  Elections,  but  is  LIFTED  against  private
respondents."
The  following   reasons  and   explanations  of  the   High   Court
constitute the rafy.o c/ec/.c/enc/e of the decision  in Santiago:
(1)  "The  constitutional  provision  on  people's
initiative to  amend  the  Constitution  can  only  be
implemehted by law to be passed by Congress. No
such  law  has  been  passed;  in  fact,  Senate  Bill  No.
±2:90     er\ti+T}edAn     Act     Prescribing     and     Regulatl.ng
Constitution  Amendments  by  People's  Initiative,  whiich
petitioner Senator Santiago filed on 24 November 1995,
is    still    pending    before    the    Senate    Committee    on
Constitutional Amendments." (Emphasis supplied).
3


(2) ``It is true that R.A.  No.  6735 provides for three
systems     of     initiative,     namely,     initiative     on     the
Constitution,    on    statutes,    and    on    local    legislation.
However,  it failed to provide any subtitle on  initiative on
the  Constitution,  unlike  in the other modes of initiative,
which   are   specifically   provided   for   in   Subtitle   11   and
Subtitle  Ill.  This  deliberate  omission  indicates  that  the
matter  of  people's  initiative  to  amend  the  Constitution
was   left  to   some  future   law.   Former  Senator  Art:uro
Tolentino   stressed   this   deficiency   in   the   law   in   his
privilege  speech  delivered  before  the  Senate  in  1994:
"There  is  not  a  single  word  in  that  law  which  can  be
considered      as      implementing      [the      provision      on
constitutional  initiative].  Such  implementing  provisions
have been obviously left to a separate law."
(3) ``COMELEC  Resolution  No.  2300,  adopted  on  16
January  1991  to govern `the conduct of initiative on  the
Constitution  and  initiative  and  referendum  on  national
and    local    laws',    is u/Era    vt`ries insofar   as t`nt.£I.ati've on
amendments to the Constitution  is concerned,  since the
COMELEC has no  power to  provide rules and  regulations
for  the  exercise  of the  right  of  initiative  to  amend  the
Constitution.    Only    Congress    is    authorized    by    the
Constitution to pass the  implementing  law."
(4)  ``R.A.   No.  6735  is  deficient  and  inadequate  in
itself to  be  called  the  enabling  law that  implements the
people's initiative on amendments to the Constitution.  It
fails  to  state  (a)  the  proper  parties  who  may  file  the
petition,  (b)  the  appropriate  agency  before  whom  the
petition is to be filed, (c) the contents of the petition, (d)
the  publication  of the same,  (e) the ways and  means of
gathering  the  signatures  of the  voters  nationwide  and
30/o  per  legislative  district,   (f)  the  proper  parties  who
may oppose  or question  the veracity of the signatures,
(g)  the  role  of  the  COMELEC  in  the  verification  of  the
signatures  and  the  sufficiency  of  the  petition,  (h)  the
appeal from any decision of the COMELEC, (i) the holding
of  a  plebiscite,  and  (g)  the  appropriation  of  funds  for
such   people's   initiative.   Accordingly,   there   being   no
enabling  law,  the  COMELEC  has  no  jurisdiction  to  hear
Delfin's  petition."
(5) ``The deficiency of R.A. No. 6735 cannot be
rectified or remedied  by COMELEC  Resolution  No.
4


2300,  since the  COMELEC  is  without  authority to
legislate      the      procedure      for      a      people's
initiative under  Section  2  of  Article  XVII  of  the
Constitution. That function exclusively pertains to
Congress.   Section   20   of   R.A.    No.    6735   does   not
constitute a legal  basis for the Resolution, as the former
does  not set a  sufficient standard  for a valid  delegation
of power." (Emphasis supplied).
(6) "BIuntly stated, the right of the people to
directly propose amendments to the Constitution
through  the  system  of  initiative  would   remain
entombed  in  the  cold  niche  of  the  Constitution
until  Congress  provides  for  its  implementation.
Stated   otherwise,   while   the   Constitution   has
recognized   or   granted   that   right,   the   people
cannot   exercise   it   if   Congress,   for   whatever
reason, does not provide for its implementation."
(Emphasis supplied).
(7)   "There    was,    therefore,    an    obvious
downgrading   of   the   more   important   or   the
paramount system of initiative. RA. No. 6735 thus
delivered  a   humiliating   blow  to  the  system  of
initiative  oh  amendments  to  the  Constitution  by
merely paying it a reluctant lip service."  (Emphasis
supplied)I
(8)   "The     foregoing     brings     us     to     the
conclusion   that   R.A.   No.   6735   is   incomplete,
inadequate,  or  wanting  in  essential  terms  and
conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to
the Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on this
substantive matter are fatal and cannot be cured
by `empowering' the COMELEC `to promulgate such
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes of [the] Act." (Emphasis supplied).
(9)    ``This  petition  must then  be  granted,  and  the
COMELEC  should  be  permanently  enjoined  from
entertaining or taking  cognizance of any  petition
for  initiative  on  amendments to the  Constitution
until   a   sufficient   law   shall   have   been   validly
enacted to provide for the implementation of the
system." (Emphasis supplied).
5


(10)  We  feel,  however,  that  the  system  of
initiative     to     propose     amendments     to     the
Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold;
it  should  be  given  flesh  and  blood,  energy  and
strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in
complying   with   the   constitutional   mandate   to
provide for the implementation of the right of the
people under that system. (Emphasis supplied),
COMELEC     Resolution     No.     10650     (Revised     Rules     and
Regulations   Governing   the    Conduct   of:    1)    Initiative    on   the
Constitution;  and  2)  Initiative  and  Referendum  on  National  and
Local   Legislations)  dated  31  January  2020,   like  its  predecessor
Resolution No.  2300, is u/Era v;+es insofar as it covers ``Initiative on
the Constitution" because only Congress can legislate the adequate
enabling  law.
The   case   of   Lambino   vs.   COMELEC   (G.R.   No.   174153)
promulgated  on  25  October 2006 did  not abandon  or reverse the
Santiago ruling.  In Lambino the Supreme Court ruled that:
"3. A  Revisit  of  Santialgo  v.  COMELEC  is  Not
Necessary.
a)   The   present   petition   warrants   dismissal   for
failure to comply with the basic requirements of Section
2,  Article  XVII  of  the  Constitution  on  the  conduct  and
scope of a  people's  initiative to amend the  Constitution.
There    is    no    need    to    revisit    this    Court's    ruling
in Sanri-ago declaring  RA 6735 ``incomplete,  inadequate
or  wanting  in  essential  terms  and  conditions" to  cover
the  system  of  initiative  to  amend  the  Constitution.  An
affirmation  or  reversal  of San£J-ago will  not change  the
outcome  of the  present  petition.  Thus,  this  Court  must
decline  to  revisit Santi-ago which  effectively  ruled  that
RA  6735  does  not comply with  the  requirements  of the
Constitution    to    implement    the    initiative    clause    on
amendments to the Constitution.
b)    This    Court    must    avoid    revisiting    a    ruling
involving  the  constitutionality  of  a  statute  if  the  case
before the Court can be resolved on some other grounds.
Such   avoidance  is  a   logical   consequence  of  the  well-
settled   doctrine   that   courts   will   not   pass   upon   the
constitutionality of a  statute  if the case can  be  resolved
on some other grounds."
6


The   principal   issue   in   Lambino   was   whether   a   people's
initiative can  propose a revision of the Constitution  like removing
the     presidential     form     of     government     and     installing     the
parliamentary system. Since the Lambino petition can be resolved
and   denied   on  the  ground   that  people's   initiative   is  limited   to
amendments  only  to  the  Constitution  and  does  not  encompass
revision  thereof,  perforce  a  review,  much  more an  abandonment,
of the Santiago ruling was absolutely not necessary.
Thus the Supreme Court ruled that:
``This   drives   home   the   point   that   the   people's
initiative  is  not  meant  for  revisions  of the  Constitution
but  only   for  amendments.   A   shift  from   the   present
Bicameral-Presidential   to   a    Unicameral-Parliamentary
system requires harmonizing several  provisions in  many
articles  of the  Constitution.  Revision  of the  Constitution
through   a   people's   initiative   will   only   result   in   gross
absurdities in the Constitution.
In   sum,  there  is  no  doubt  whatsoever  that  the
Lambino   Group's   initiative   is   a   revision   and   not   an
amendment.   Thus,   the   present   initiative   is  void   and
unconstitutional   because   it  violates   Section   2,  Article
XVII  of the  Constitution  limiting  the  scope  of a  people's
initiative to `[A]mendments to this Constitution."
The  claim  of  some  that  the  Lambino  case  abandoned  the
ruling   in   Santiago   because   in   the   brief   Resolution   dated   21
November     2006,      which      denied      petitioners'     motions     for
reconsideration   and   upheld   with   finality  the   main   ruling   of  the
Court, there was a passing statement that ten magistrates were in
favor of abandoning the Santiago ruling. This position  is incorrect
because an incidental comment is an obf.tor di.cfum, which does not
constitute the ra£7.o dec/.c/ende or rationale for the decision, neither
does  it  constitute  a  precedent.  It  is  an  "aside  commentary"  with
scant I.urisprudential value.
In a  recent Senate investigation  related to people's initiative,
former  Supreme  Court  Justice  Antonio  Carpio,  the  ponente  in
Lambino,  and  former  Supreme  Court  Justice  Adolf Ascuna,  who
joined  the  ma].ority  decision,  confirmed  that  the  Santiago  ruling
has not been abandoned in  Lambino, and that an ob;.£er d;-cfum is
never controlling.  Moreover, they underscored that the dispositive
portion  in  Lambino did  not  rule  on  the  reversal  or abandonment
of the Santiago ruling on the absence of a sufficient enabling law.
7


The  dispositive  portion  of  the  decision   in   Lambino  simply
dismissed the petition:
``WHEREFORE,  we  DISMISS t:he  petition  in  G.R.  No.
174153."
Accordingly,  the  prevailing  jurisprudence  or case  law  is  that
there  is  no compliant and  enabling  law  implementing  the  people's
right  to   propose   amendments  to  the   Constitution   via   people's
initiative.
Neither the COMELEC nor the Supreme Court can fill the void,
which   deficiency   is   patent   on   the   face   of  the   ``Initiative   and
Referendum  Act".  Only the  Congress  under Section  2  of Art.  XVII
is   empowered   to   enact  the   adequate   and   compliant   enabling
legislation  to  fully  implement the  people's  right to  initiate  directly
proposals to amend the Constitution.
This  bill  is  introduced  to  provide  that enabling  and  compliant
law so that our people can validly and  properly exercise their right
of initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Approval  of this  bill  is earnestly urged.
EDCEL C.  LAGMAN
8


Republic of the  Philippines
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Quezon  City
NINETEENTH CONGRESS
Second  Regular Session
House  Bill  No.9868
Introduced by Rep. Edcel C. Lagman
AN ACT
PRESCRIBING THE ENABLING  LEGISLATION  FOR THE
PEOPLE TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO DIRECTLY
PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION VIA
PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE
Be it enacted  by the House of Representatives and the Senate of
the Congress of the Philippines in session assembled:
SECTION 1.  Declaration of National Policy. -The natjional
policy  is  to  guarantee  the  right  of the  people  to  propose  directly
amendments to the Constitution via a system of people's initiative
as  enshrined  in  Section  2  of Article XVII  of the  1987  Constitution
which  reads  in  full:
``Section  2.  Amendments  to  this  Constitution  may
likewise   be   directly   proposed   by   the   people  through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per cenfum of
the  total  number  of  registered  voters,  of  which  every
legislative   district   must   be   represented   by   at   least
three per  cer}tum of  the  registered  voters  therein.   No
amendment under this section shall be authorized within
five  years  following  the  ratification  of  this  Constitution
nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.
``The Congress shall provide for the implementation
of the exercise of this right."
SEC.   2.     -  Short  Tf-I/e.  -  This  Act  shall  be  known  as  the
``Enabling     Law     on     People's     Initiative     to     Propose     Directly
Amendments to the Constitution."
SEC. 3.   Definition of Terms.  ~ As used .in th.is Act..
9


1.      Amendment  -An  amendment  to  the  Constitution  is  a
process  which  entails  a  simple  or  singular  change,  alteration  or
deletion  of a  word,  phrase  or  provision  in  the  Constitution  which
does not affect or impact on the system or form of government as
well  as on the  ideals or principles  underlying the Constitution.
2.       People's Initiative  -A mode orsystem  of amending the
Constitution wherein the people directly propose such amendments
under Section  2 of Article XVII of the Constitution  and  pursuant to
the processes provided for in this Act.
3,       Petition   -   A   verified   initiatory   pleading   on   people's
initiative   filed   with   the   Commission   of  Elections   containing   the
ultimate averments, data, and attachments required  under Sec.  5
of this Act.
4.      Petitioner/s  -  Any  natural  person  or  group  of  persons
who   are   Filipino   citizens,   of   legal   age,   registered   voters   and
residents   of  the   Philippines   who   file   with   the   Commission   on
Elections the  petition  required  under Sec.  5 of this Act.
5.       plebiscite  -The  electoral  process  by  which  an  initiative
on  proposed amendments to the Constitution  is submitted for the
approval or rejection  by the people.
6.       Proponent/s  -Any  natural  person  or group  of persons,
including  juridical  persons  or  organizations  with  legal  personality
to  sue  and  be  sued,  who  are  spearheading  and  conducting  the
people's initiative to amend the Constitution.
7.      Oppositor/s  -  Any  natural  person  or  group  of  persons
who   are   Filipino   citizens,   of   legal   age,   registered   voters   and
residents   of  the   Philippines   opposing   the   petition   on   people's
initiative who file a verified formal opposition with the Commission
on  Elections.
8.       Signature  Forms  -Signature  sheets  wherein  registered
voters  affix their  respective  signatures  in  support  of the  people's
initiative,  which  forms  shall  contain  the  data  prescribed  in  Sec.  5
of this Act.
9.      Signature stations -Areas designated bythe proponents
where  voters   affix  their  signatures   on   signature   forms   in   the
presence of the election officer or his/her representative as well as
the voluntary presence of the proponents and oppositors.
10


10.    Revision -A revision of the Constitution  is a thorough or
radical     change     in     the     form     or     system     of    government
institutionalized  in  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  in  the  overriding
rationale    of    significant    provisions,     thus    requiring     a     more
comprehensive     and     participatory     discussions     which     would
necessitate the calling for a constituent assembly or constitutional
convention.
SEC. 4.  Jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections. -
(a) The  Commission  on  Elections,  herein  after referred  to  as
the  Commission,  shall  exercise  I-urisdiction  over  the  petition  on
people's initiative  upon the official filing  of the same.
(b) If within ten (10) days from filing, the Commission en banc
finds the  petition  not compliant with the Constitution  and this Act,
it shall  not.Li prop7-o  dismiss  it,  without  prejudice  to  the  petitioner
or petitioners filing an appeal with the Supreme Court within fifteen
(15) days from  notice of the dismissal.
(c)   If  the   Commission   finds  prt.rna   facie  that  the   petition
appears to be in order,  it shall accordingly cause the publication of
said   petition   in   Filipino   and   English   in   two   (2)   newspapers   of
national  and  local  circulation.
(d) The Commission shall direct the petitioner/s to submit the
signature   sheets   to   the   respective   election   officers   who   shall
validate  the  authenticity  of the  signatures  and  ascertain  the  fact
that  the  voters  who  signed  the  same   have  active   registration
records, which verification shall be completed within forty-five (45)
days from the issuance of the Commission's order. The verification
process   shall   be   attended   by  the   proponents,   petitioners   and
oppositors   who   may   submit  their  written   observations   to   the
election officer or representative concerned.
(e) After the publication of the petition and the submission of
the signature validation  reports, the Commission en banc shall set
the petition and opposition, if any, for hearing within ten (10) days
from the submission of the signature validation  reports.
(f)  The   hearing  of  the  petition  shall  continue  for  ten   (10)
consecutive  working  days,   if  necessary,  after  which   it  shall   be
submitted  for  resolution  with  or  without  the  memoranda  of  the
parties  who  may submit the  same  simultaneously  within  ten  (10)
days after the termination of the hearing.
11


(g)  The  Commission  shall   resolve  the  petition  within  thirty
(30)  days  after the  expiration  of the  parties'  submission  of their
respective memoranda.
(h)  Any  party  who  may  be  aggrieved  by  the  Commission's
resolution  shall  have  the  right  to  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Court
within fifteen  (15) days from the receipt of the resolution.
(i)  For  purposes  of  the  certification  on  the  total  number  of
registered   voters,   the  Commission   shall   not  conduct  a   special
registration  of voters  considering  the  effectivity  of the  continuing
registration  under R.A.  No.  8189.
SEC.  5.   Pe£7-[7-on.  -The verified petition on people's initiative
to  be filed  with the Commission  shall  contain the following:
a.      Aconcisestatementofthe proposed amendmentand the
reasons and I.ustifications for making such  proposal.
b.      A   verified   report   from   the   authorized   official   of  the
Commission  stating  the  latest  total  number  of  registered  voters
nationwide, as well as the verified reports of the respective election
officers   on   the   latest   total   number   of   registered   voters   per
legislative district.
c.      A separate statement under oath by the petitioner/s that
the signatures of at least twelve percent (12°/o) of the total number
of  registered  voters  nationwide  have  been   legally  secured  and
obtained,  of which  three  percent  (3%)  represents  the  number of
registered voters per legislative district.
d.       Proof that public hearings and consultations were held in
each   of  the   legislative  districts  to  ensure  that  the   people  are
sufficiently informed on the proposed amendments or revisions.
e.      The  signature  forms  have  been  signed  by  the  requisite
number of registered voters in the presence of the election  officer
or   his/her   representative   and   the   voluntary   presence   of  the
proponent/s and oppositor/s at designated signature stations.
f.        The  requisite filing  and  allied fees  have  been  paid.
SEC.  6.    Oppos/-£l-on,  -  Within  the  period  of not  more than
fifteen  (15)  days  after the  publication  of the  petition  on  people's
initiative,   any  oppositor  may  file  a  verified   opposition  with  the
Commission.
12


SE:C. 7.  Implementing  Rules and  Regulations  (IRR).  -
The Commission shall within sixty (60) days from the effectivity of
this   Act   shall    issue   the    implementing    rules   and    regulations
following strictly the provisions of the Constitution and  of this Act,
without   in   any   way   modifying,   augmenting   or   reducing   the
provisions and  import of this Act.
SEC. 8. Conduct and Date of plebiscite. -The comm-issjion
shall call and supervise the conduct of the plebiscite on the people's
initiativel
Within  a  period  of thirty  (30)  days for the certification  of the
sufficiency of the  petition,  the  Commission  shall  publish  the  same
in  Filipino  and  English  at  least  three  (3)  times  in  newspapers  of
general  and  local  circulation  and  set the  date  of the  plebiscite  on
the  initiative,  which  shall  be  held  not earlier that  sixty  (60)  days
nor   later  than   ninety   (90)   days   after  the   certification   of  the
sufficiency of the petition.
SEC. 9.  Effectivity of the Constitutional Amendment. -
The proposed amendment shall be submitted to the electorate and
shall be approved or rejected by a majority of the votes cast by all
registered voters in the  plebiscite  held for the  purpose.  In  case of
approval,  the amendment shall  take  effect fifteen  (15)  days  after
the Commission  shall  have officially proclaimed the final  result.
SEC.  ±0.  Applicability of the Omnibus  Election  Code.  -
The Omnibus Election Code and other election laws not inconsistent
with    the    provisions    of   this    Act    shall    be    applicable    in    the
implementation thereof.
SEC.11. Approprt-afi-ons. -The amount necessary to defray
the  cost of the  people's  initiative as  prescribed  in this Act shall  be
charged against the Contingent Fund in the General Appropriations
Act of the year when the initiative is to be conducted,  unless it has
been seasonably allocated in the General Appropriations Act of the
year,  Thereafter,  sums  necessary  for the  implementation  of this
Act shall  be  included  in the annual  General Appropriations Act.
SEC.  12.  SeparabJ./i`ry C/ause.  -  If any part or provision  of
this Act is held  invalid or unconstitutional, the other provisions not
affected thereby shall  remain  in force and effect.
SEC.   13.  Repea/i.ng  C/ause.  -  All  laws,  executive  orders,
issuances,   decrees,   rules   and   regulations   inconsistent   with   or
13


contrary   to   the   provisions   of  this  Act   are   deemed   amended,
modified or repealed accordingly.
SEC.  14.  Effecti-w/-fy.  -This Act shall take effect fifteen  (15)
days after its  publication  in the  Off7.ct.a/ Gazeffe or in  a  newspaper
of general  circulation.
Approved.
14