Political and Public International Law › Basic Concepts › The Constitution
3. Amendments and Revisions (See also RA 6735)
Amendments
Amendment broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, deletes, without altering the basic principle in the Constitution involved. (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1741153, 25 Oct. 2006) Owner check: verify the G.R. number; it may contain an extra digit.
An amendment envisages an alteration of one or a few specific and isolated provisions of the Constitution. Its guiding original intention is to improve specific parts or to add new provisions or to suppress existing ones accordingly as addition or subtraction might be demanded by existing conditions. (Bernas, 2011)
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. (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1741153, 25 Oct. 2006) Owner verification required: the G.R. number appears to have an extra digit. The proposed correction is G.R. No. 174153.
In revision, the guiding intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the entire document to determine how and to what extent it should be altered. The end product of a revision can be an important structural change in the government or a change which affects several provisions of the Constitution. (Bernas, 2011)
Two-Part Test
- Quantitative Test – Asks whether the proposed change is “so extensive in its provisions as to change directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous existing provisions.” The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of change; and
- Qualitative Test – 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 revision.” (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1741153, 25 Oct. 2006) Owner check: verify the G.R. number; the suggested correction is G.R. No. 174153.
Doctrine of Proper Submission
The plebiscite must occur within the period prescribed by Article XVII, Section 4 of the 1987 Constitution. The proposed amendment must still be properly submitted so voters can make an informed choice.
Judicial Review of Amendments
The validity of the process of amendment is not a political question because the Court must review if constitutional processes were followed. (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153)
Ratification of Proposal if Made Through ConAss or ConCon
- Amendments and revisions are valid when ratified by a majority of votes cast in a plebiscite.
- Plebiscite is held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days from the approval of such amendments or revisions.
Date of Effectivity of an Amendment or Revision
Sec. 4, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution says that any amendment or revision shall be valid when ratified. The date of effectivity of any amendment or revision should be the same as that of the date of ratification, that is, the day on which the votes are cast. However, the amendments themselves might specify otherwise. (Bernas)
The three modes of proposing a change, compared
| Congress as constituent assembly | Constitutional convention | People's initiative | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who proposes | Congress itself (Art. XVII, Sec. 1) | A convention that Congress calls (Art. XVII, Secs. 1 and 3) | The registered voters, through a petition (Art. XVII, Sec. 2) |
| Vote or support needed | Three-fourths of all the Members of Congress | Congress calls the convention by two-thirds of all its Members, or, by a majority of all its Members, asks the electorate whether to call one | A petition signed by at least 12% of all registered voters, with every legislative district represented by at least 3% of its registered voters |
| What may be proposed | Amendments or a revision | Amendments or a revision | Amendments only. A revision cannot be proposed by initiative (Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 25 October 2006). |
| Points to note | The Constitution does not say whether the Senate and the House vote jointly or separately. | The same silence applies to the vote calling a convention. Having called one, Congress may fix the delegates, apportionment, funding and other details by an ordinary law (Imbong v. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-32432, 11 September 1970). | The signatories must be shown the full text of the proposed amendment (Lambino v. COMELEC). Congress must enact the implementing law; R.A. No. 6735 was held inadequate for amending the Constitution (Santiago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127325, 19 March 1997). |
| Ratification | A majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held 60 to 90 days after Congress approves the proposal (Art. XVII, Sec. 4) | A majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held 60 to 90 days after the convention approves the proposal (Art. XVII, Sec. 4) | A majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite held 60 to 90 days after the COMELEC certifies that the petition is sufficient (Art. XVII, Sec. 4) |
| How often | No limit | No limit | Not within five years after the Constitution was ratified, and not more than once every five years after that (Art. XVII, Sec. 2) |
| What the courts may review | Whether Congress followed the procedure the Constitution fixes for proposing is justiciable; the substance and wisdom of the proposal is a political question (Gonzales v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-28196, 9 November 1967). Whether to propose directly or to call a convention is for Congress to choose (Art. XVII, Secs. 1 and 3). | The same rule applies to the call and to the convention's proposals (Gonzales v. COMELEC). | Whether the petition stays within Sec. 2 (an amendment only, with the required support and the full text) is justiciable (Lambino v. COMELEC). |
Authorities
- 1987 Constitution, Art. XVII, Sec. 4
- Alejandro v. Bernas, G.R. No. 179243, 17 September 2011
- Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 1741153
- Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, 25 October 2006