You are on page 1of 1

Article 17.

Amendments and Revision

Section 1

1. When congress first though to make a constitutional convention and there were already candidates, then subsequently they
decided to just have more delegates composed of representatives form leg districts instead of con-con, such is plenary power of
Congress as legislative body and NOT as constituent assembly.
2. Only the constituent assembly can call for a constitutional convention

Section 4

1. The proposed amendments shall be approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are
submitted to the people for ratification. Election here is singular which meant that the entire constitution must be submitted
for ratification at one plebiscite only. Furthermore, the people were not given a proper “frame of reference” in arriving at their
decision because they had at the time no idea yet of what the rest of the revised Constitution would ultimately be and therefore
would be unable to assess the proposed amendment in the light of the entire document. This is the “Doctrine of Submission”
which means that all the proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be presented to the people for the ratification or
rejection at the same time, NOT piecemeal.
2. Thus an advance plebiscite to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 will not prosper because the election is singular.
3. The said resolutions increasing HR seats and calling for con-con are null and void because the Congress may not avail of both
amending and calling a convention at the same time and the election must be a special election not a general election for
amendment to the Constitution shall be submitted for ratification.

Article 18. Transitory Provision

Section 25

1. VFA is constitutional even if not concurred by senate in US because the term treaty in section 25 is considered by international
law as having many terms. Treaty = written agreement between 2 or more states governed by international law thus VFA is a
treaty in US.

Section 26

1. During interregnum, petitioners can avail of international law to prevent unlawful warrants and seizures.