REVIEWER: Constitutional Amendment and Revision

Can the Philippine Constitution be changed?

Yes. The Constitution can be changed. It may be revised or be amended as provided under Article 17 of the Philippine Constitution.


Question: What is the difference between Revision and Amendment?

Answer: There is revision when a change alters a basic principle in the constitution.

Thus, there must be an overhauling of the constitution. Such as, there is a change of government system from one to another.

While, amendment refers to a change that adds, reduces or deletes but without altering the basic principle involved. Like, amending the economic provisions of the Constitution i.e. Article 12.


In the case of Lambino v. COMELEC,the Supreme Court explains the two-part test to determine whether the proposed change is a revision or amendment. (1) The quantative test asks whether the change is extensive in its provisions as to change directly the substantial entirety of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of the numerous existing provision. Here, the court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. Simply stated, this test concerns only to the numbers of the provisions. Thus, if the number of provisions is so numerous that it alters the basic principles of the government, then the proposed change is considered as revision and (2) qualitative test inquires into qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will accomplish a far reaching changes in the nature of the basic governmental plan asto amount to a revision. Thus, this test asks whether there is an alteration in the structure of government. It does not matter how may provisions it seeks to change so long as these provisions will effect change in the system of the government or fundamental governemental system, then such proposed change is a revision.


Question: What are the two steps in amending or revising the Constitution?

Answer: (1) Proposal (someone will propose) and (2) Ratification (the people will ratify it)

The Process of Revision:

1. Proposal. There are only two (2) ways to propose a Revision.

a. The Congress, upon vote of 3/4 of all of its members a.k.a Constitutional Assembly. The members of the ConAss must have 3/4 vote but voting separately. In case of doubt, they should vote separately.

b. Constitutional Convention. This can be called upon by the Congress i.e. it can be convened by Congress. In practice, the members of the ConCon is voted upon by the people and not the members of Congress.

(Article 17 Section 3) ConCon can be called upon by: (1) a vote 2/3 of the members of Congress; or (2) a majority vote upon submitting the question whether to form a ConCon to the people.

2. Ratification (Must be ratified by the people)

The Revision is valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such revision. Thus, the COMELEC must set the plebiscite not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such revision.

Process of Amendment:

1. Proposal:

a. The congress, upon a vote of ¾ of all its members a.k.a Constitutional Assembly

b. Consitutional Convention (Read the case of Imbong v. COMELEC)

c. People’s Initiative

Question: Why People's Initiative is not applicable in case of Revision as held in the case of Lambino?

Answer: Because Article 17 Section 2 starts with a phrase Amendment to this Constitution may likewise be initiated by the people. Thus, people’s initiative is not a proper way for the proposal of Revision to the constitution.

Requirement: 12 % of the total number registered voter that every legislative district be represented by  at least 3% of the total number of RV therein.

Read the case of Defenso-Santiago v. COMELEC and the Resolution on MR filed in Lambino v. COMELEC.

2. Ratification

a. When proposed by ConAss or ConCon - valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment.

b. When proposed through People’s Initiative - valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the certification by the COMELEC of the sufficiency of the petition.

Reason: The petition should be submitted to the COMELEC in order to determine whether such petitionis sufficient in form or substance. If YES, Comelec will have to schedule the plebiscite.

Question: What is the doctrine of Proper Submission?

Answer: The Doctrine of Proper submission states that the entire constitution containing all the proposed amendments must be presented and submitted to the people for ratification or rejection at one plebiscite only. Thus, submission for ratification of piecemeal amendments is not allowed.

In the case of Tolentino v. COMELEC, the Congress formed itself as ConAss to amend the Constitution. They intended the revision, but they wanted more people to vote in its ratification.Thus, they first propose to change the voting age from 21 to 18. However, the Supreme Court held that such proposal is not allowed under the Doctrine of Proper Submission.

QUESTION: Can the court or SC review any amendment or revision done in the constitution?(There are two answers)

ANSWERS:

(1) As to whether the Congress wants to change the Constitution through itself acting as a ConsAss or to call ConCon for that purpose or to do both is a political question. It is a matter of discretion belongs to the Congress which cannot be reversed by the court.

(2) As to whether the constitutionally prescribed method or procedure for amendement both as to proposal and ratification has been followed is a justiciable question. Thus, it is a question about legality or constitutionality. Since when the action of other branches of the government is against the law, the court has the duty to reverse its decision.

For instance,can the SC reverse Congress' decision to form ConAss to change amend/revise the Constitution? As a general rule, the SC cannot reverse such decision. Considering that is a PQ and is outside judicial review. By way of exceotion, the Court can review the legality or constitutionality of the procedure taken by the Congress because the Constitution specifically provides a method or procedure. For example, the Congress wants to form itself as ConAss it must have ¾ votes of all its members. Thus, when the Congress forms a ConAss having less than ¾ vote of all members of Congress, the same can be questioned before the court as it becomes a JQ.

As in the case of Javellna v. Executive Secretary, the legality of Proclamation 1102 was questioned. Whereas then President Marcos certified  and proclaimed that the Constitution proposed by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified by an overwhelming majority of all of the votes cast by the members of all the Barangays (Citizens Assemblies) throughout the Philippines, and has thereby come into effect. Then petitions questioning the propriety of the revision of the Constitution were filed. The Supreme Court held that whether a constitutional amendment has been properly adopted according to the requirements of an existing Constitution is a judicial question. Bear stressing, it is the absolute duty of the judiciary to determine whether the Constitution has been amended in the manner required by the Constitution. 

Worthy emphasizing that the Constitution prescribes the method or procedure for its amendment. Clearly, the question whether or not the revised Constitution drafted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention has been ratified in accordance with said Art. XV is a justiciable one and not a political question. It is not only subject to judicial inquiry, but also,  it is the Court's bounden duty to decide such question.

Again, in order to determine whether a question is justiciable or political question, bear in mind that when the grant of power is qualified, conditional or subject to limitations, the issue on whether or not the prescribed qualifications or conditions have been met, or the limitations respected, it is a justicaible question. Considering that the crux of the problem being one of legality or validity of the contested act, not its wisdom. Otherwise, said qualifications, conditions or limitations — particularly those prescribed or imposed by the Constitution — are futile.