02 04 Amendment

Notes
Amendment of the Constitution
Amendment vs. Revision

Revision
 broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the Constitution, like altering the principle of
separation of powers or the system of checks and balances. There is also revision if the change alters the
substantial entirety of the Constitution
 it involved a change in the form of government, from presidential to parliamentary, and a shift from the
present bicameral to a unicameral legislature
Amendment
 broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle involved.
 Revision generally affects several provisions of the Constitution; while amendment generally affects
only the specific provision being amended.
The two-part test.
o Quantitative test
 asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the
“substance entirety” of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous provisions.
 The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of
the change.
o Qualitative test,
 which inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the Constitution.
 The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far-reaching changes in the
nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision”
Proposal
 [Secs. 1-3, Art. XVII]. The adoption of the suggested change in the Constitution
 A proposed amendment may come from:
1. Congress, by a vote of % of all its members. Majority of authorities opine that this is to be
understood as 3 /4 of the Senate and 3 /4 of the House of Representatives.
o whether made directly by Congress or through a Constitutional Convention, is within the full
discretion of the legislature.
2. Constitutional Convention, which may be called into existence either by a 2/3 vote of all the
members of Congress, or (if such vote is not obtained) by a majority vote of all the members of
Congress with the question of whether or not to call a Convention to be resolved by the people in a
plebiscite [Sec. 3, Art. XVII]
Three Theories on the position of a Constitutional Convention vis-a-vis the regular departments of
government:
1. Theory of Conventional Sovereignty [Loomis v. Jackson, 6 W. Va. 613]; (2)
2. Convention is inferior to the other departments [Wood’s Appeal, 79 Pa. 59];
3. Independent of and co-equal to the other departments [Mabanag v. Lopez Vito, 78 Phil. 1]
3. People, through the power of initiative [Sec. 2, Art. XVI/].

 Requisite: A petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered voters, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least 3% of the registered voters
therein.
 Limitation: No amendment in this manner shall be authorized within five years following
the ratification of this Constitution nor more often than once every five years thereafter
 Under Republic Act No. 6735 [An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum], approved on August 4, 1989,
o initiative is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or
to propose and enact legislation through an election called for the purpose
1. Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the
Constitution;
2. initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation; and
initiative on local legislation which refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial,
city, municipal or bararigay law, resolution or ordinance [Sec. 2(a), R.A. 6735].
3. Indirect Initiative is exercise of initiative by the people through a proposition sent to Congress
or the local legislative body for action [Sec. 2(b) R.A. 6735]
In Lambino v. Comelec, the Court noted that the majority of the justices had voted to declare RA 6735
sufficient and adequate for a people’s intitiative. Lambino thus effectively abandoned the ruling in
Defensor-Santiago v. Comelec, G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997, where the Supreme Court declared
R.A. 6735 inadequate to cover the system of initiative to amend the Constitution.
Procedure
1. The people must author and sign the entire proposal; no agent or representative can sign in their
behalf.
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in the petition
 The rationale for these requisites is that the signature requirement would be meaningless if
the person supplying the signature has not first seen what it is that he is signing, and
 more importantly, a loose interpretation of the subscription requirement would pose a
significant potential for fraud.
 In Lambino, the great majority of the 6.3 million people who signed the signature sheets did
not see the full text of the proposed changes before signing; they were not apprised of the
nature and effect of the proposed amendments.
 Failure to comply with these requirements was fatal to the validity of the initiative petition
[Lambino v. Comelec, supra.].
People’s initiative applies only to an amendment, not a revision, of the Constitution.
 A people’s inititiative can only propose amendments to the Constitution, inasmuch as the
Constitution itself limits initiatives to amendments, as shown by the deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission.
 The Lambino initiative constituted a revision because it proposed to change the form of
government from presidential to parliamentary and the bicameral to a unicameral legislature.
Thus, the people’s initiative as a mode to effect these proposed amendments was invalid
[Lambino v. Comelec]
Ratification [Sec. 4, Art. XVII],
 The proposed amendment shall become part of the Constitution when ratified by a majority
of the votes cast in a plebiscite held not earlier than 60 nor later than 90 days after the
approval of the proposal by Congress or the Constitutional Convention, or after the
certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition for initiative
under Sec. 2, Art. XVII
Doctrine of proper submission.
Because the Constitution itself prescribes the time frame within which the plebiscite is to be
held, there can no longer be a question on whether the time given to the people to determine the
merits and demerits of the proposed amendment is adequate.
Other related principles:
 The plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular elections [Gonzales v. Comelec, 21
SCRA 774; Occena v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1; Almario v. Alba, 127 SCRA 69].
 The use of the word “election" in the singular meant that the entire Constitution must be
submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only; furthermore, the people have to be given a
“proper frame of reference” in arriving at their decision.
o Thus, submission for ratification of piece-meal amendments by the Constitutional
Convention (which is tasked to revise the Constitution) was disallowed since the
people had, at that time, no idea yet of what the rest of the revised Constitution would
be [Tolentino v. Comelec, 41 SCRA 702].
Judicial Review of Amendments.
 The question is now regarded as subject to judicial review, because invariably, the issue
will boil down to whether or not the constitutional provisions had been followed [Sanidad
v. Comelec, 78 SCRA 333; Javellana v. Executive Secretary, 50 SCRA 50]

02 04 Amendment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 04 Amendment

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 04 Amendment

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes

Amendment of the Constitution

Amendment vs. Revision

The two-part test.

3. People, through the power of initiative [Sec. 2, Art. XVI/].

Judicial Review of Amendments.

You might also like