Part 2. Amendments and Revisions

Sa Bed Colleg of Law
POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

“But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient per centum (12%) of all registered voters,
for you, for my power is made perfect in with each legislative district represented
weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the by at least three per centum (3%) of its
more gladly about my weaknesses, so that registered voters. The Lambino Group
Christ’s power may rest on me.” also claimed that COMELEC election
2 Corinthians 12:9 registrars had verified the signatures of
the 6.3 million individuals.
The Lambino Group's initiative
PART 2 petition changes the 1987 Constitution by
AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS modifying Sections 1-7 of Article VI
(Legislative Department) and Sections 1-4
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ONLY of Article VII (Executive Department) and
ALLOWS TWO KINDS OF CHANGES. by adding Article XVIII entitled
WHAT ARE THESE TWO CHANGES "Transitory Provisions." These proposed
ALLOWED TO BE INTRODUCED BY changes will shift the present
FUNDAMENTAL LAW? Bicameral-Presidential system to a
● Amendments and Revisions Unicameral-Parliamentary form of
● Amendment is just a piecemeal government. The Lambino Group prayed
isolated change intended to delete, that after due publication of their
to add and to improve a provision. petition, the COMELEC should submit the
While a revision on the other hand following proposition in a plebiscite for
is a complete rewriting of the the voters' ratification.
document or a change of a On 30 August 2006, the Lambino
principle underlying the Group filed an Amended Petition with the
Constitution (Lambino v. COMELEC indicating modifications in the
COMELEC | Santiago v. COMELEC) proposed Article XVIII (Transitory
Provisions) of their initiative.
SINCE BOTH CHANGES ARE ALLOWED,
IS IT STILL NECESSARY TO DETERMINE ISSUE: Whether the Lambino Group's
THE CHARACTER OF CHANGE? initiative petition complies with Section 2,
● Yes, it is necessary to determine Article XVII of the Constitution on
the character of the proposed amendments to the Constitution through
change because different a people's initiative.
procedure applies and initiative by
people can only propose HELD: NO. The essence of amendments
amendments. “directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition” is that the
entire proposal on its face is a petition by
LAMBINO v. COMELEC the people. This means two essential
FACTS: On 15 February 2006, petitioners elements must be present. First, the
in G.R. No. 174153, namely Raul L. Lambino people must author and thus sign the
and Erico B. Aumentado ("Lambino entire proposal. No agent or
Group"), with other groups and representative can sign on their behalf.
individuals, commenced gathering Second, as an initiative upon a petition,
signatures for an initiative petition to the proposal must be embodied in a
change the 1987 Constitution. On 25 petition. These essential elements are
August 2006, the Lambino Group filed a present only if the full text of the
petition with the COMELEC to hold a proposed amendments is first shown to
plebiscite that will ratify their initiative the people who express their assent by
petition under Section 5(b) and (c) and signing such complete proposal in a
Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6735 or the petition. Thus, an amendment is “directly
Initiative and Referendum Act ("RA 6735"). proposed by the people through initiative
The Lambino Group alleged that upon a petition” only if the people sign on
their petition had the support of 6,327,952 a petition that contains the full text of the
individuals constituting at least twelve proposed amendments. The full text of

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 1 of 25

the proposed amendments may be either the petition must set forth the full text of
written on the face of the petition, or the proposed amendments. However, the
attached to it. If so attached, the petition deliberations of the framers of our
must state the fact of such attachment. Constitution clearly show that the
This is an assurance that every one of the framers intended to adopt the relevant
several millions of signatories to the American jurisprudence on people’s
petition had seen the full text of the initiative. In particular, the deliberations
proposed amendments before signing. of the Constitutional Commission
Otherwise, it is physically impossible, explicitly reveal that the framers
given the time constraint, to prove that intended that the people must first see
every one of the millions of signatories the full text of the proposed amendments
had seen the full text of the proposed before they sign, and that the people
amendments before signing. must sign on a petition containing such
The framers of the Constitution full text. Indeed, Section 5(b) of Republic
directly borrowed the concept of people’s Act No. 6735, the Initiative and
initiative from the United States where Referendum Act that the Lambino Group
various State constitutions incorporate an invokes as valid, requires that the people
initiative clause. In almost all States which must sign the “petition x x x as
allow initiative petitions, the unbending signatories.”
requirement is that the people must first The proponents of the initiative
see the full text of the proposed secure the signatures from the people.
amendments before they sign to signify The proponents secure the signatures in
their assent, and that the people must their private capacity and not as public
sign on an initiative petition that officials. The proponents are not
contains the full text of the proposed disinterested parties who can impartially
amendments. The rationale for this explain the advantages and disadvantages
requirement has been repeatedly of the proposed amendments to the
explained in several decisions of various people. The proponents present favorably
courts. Thus, in Capezzuto v. State Ballot their proposal to the people and do not
Commission, the Supreme Court of present the arguments against their
Massachusetts, affirmed by the First proposal. The proponents, or their
Circuit Court of Appeals, declared: A supporters, often pay those who gather
signature requirement would be the signatures. Thus, there is no
meaningless if the person supplying the presumption that the proponents
signature has not first seen what it is observed the constitutional requirements
that he or she is signing. Further, and in gathering the signatures. The
more importantly, loose interpretation of proponents bear the burden of proving
the subscription requirement can pose a that they complied with the
significant potential for fraud. A person constitutional requirements in gathering
permitted to describe orally the contents the signatures—that the petition
of an initiative petition to a potential contained, or incorporated by
signer, without the signer having actually attachment, the full text of the proposed
examined the petition, could easily amendments.
mislead the signer by, for example, The Lambino Group cites as
omitting, downplaying, or even flatly authority Corpus Juris Secundum, stating
misrepresenting, portions of the petition that “a signer who did not read the
that might not be to the signer’s liking. measure attached to a referendum
This danger seems particularly acute petition cannot question his signature on
when, in this case, the person giving the the ground that he did not understand
description is the drafter of the petition, the nature of the act.” The Lambino Group
who obviously has a vested interest in quotes an authority that cites a proposed
seeing that it gets the requisite change attached to the petition signed by
signatures to qualify for the ballot. the people. Even the authority the
Section 2, Article XVII of the Lambino Group quotes requires that the
Constitution does not expressly state that proposed change must be attached to the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 2 of 25

petition. The same authority the Lambino Supreme Court of Alaska warned against
Group quotes requires the people to sign “inadvertence, stealth and fraud” in
on the petition itself. Indeed, it is basic in logrolling: Whenever a bill becomes law
American jurisprudence that the through the initiative process, all of the
proposed amendment must be problems that the single-subject rule was
incorporated with, or attached to, the enacted to prevent are exacerbated.
initiative petition signed by the people. In There is a greater danger of logrolling, or
the present initiative, the Lambino the deliberate intermingling of issues to
Group’s proposed changes were not increase the likelihood of an initiative’s
incorporated with, or attached to, the passage, and there is a greater
signature sheets. The Lambino Group’s opportunity for “inadvertence, stealth and
citation of Corpus Juris Secundum pulls fraud” in the enactment-by initiative
the rug from under their feet. process. The drafters of an initiative
The Lambino Group’s initiative operate independently of any structured
springs another surprise on the people or supervised process. They often
who signed the signature sheets. The emphasize particular provisions of their
proposed changes mandate the interim proposition, while remaining silent on
Parliament to make further amendments other (more complex or less appealing)
or revisions to the Constitution. The provisions, when communicating to the
proposed Section 4(4), Article XVIII on public. x x x Indeed, initiative promoters
Transitory Provisions, provides: Section typically use simplistic advertising to
4(4). Within forty-five days from present their initiative to potential
ratification of these amendments, the petition-signers and eventual voters.
interim Parliament shall convene to Many voters will never read the full text
propose amendments to, or revisions of, of the initiative before the election. More
this Constitution consistent with the importantly, there is no process for
principles of local autonomy, amending or splitting the several
decentralization and a strong provisions in an initiative proposal. These
bureaucracy. During the oral arguments, difficulties clearly distinguish the
Atty. Lambino stated that this provision is initiative from the legislative process.
a “surplusage” and the Court and the The signature sheets do not
people should simply ignore it. Far from explain this discrimination against the
being a surplusage, this provision Senators. The 6.3 million people who
invalidates the Lambino Group’s initiative. signed the signature sheets could not
Section 4(4) is a subject matter totally have known that their signatures would
unrelated to the shift from the be used to discriminate against the
BicameralPresidential to the Senators. They could not have known that
Unicameral-Parliamentary system. their signatures would be used to limit,
American jurisprudence on initiatives after 30 June 2010, the interim
outlaws this as logrolling—when the Parliament’s choice of Prime Minister only
initiative petition incorporates an to members of the existing House of
unrelated subject matter in the same Representatives. An initiative that gathers
petition. This puts the people in a signatures from the people without first
dilemma since they can answer only showing to the people the full text of the
either yes or no to the entire proposition, proposed amendments is most likely a
forcing them to sign a petition that deception, and can operate as a gigantic
effectively contains two propositions, one fraud on the people. That is why the
of which they may find unacceptable. Constitution requires that an initiative
Under American jurisprudence, the effect must be “directly proposed by the people
of logrolling is to nullify the entire x x x in a petition”—meaning that the
proposition and not only the unrelated people must sign on a petition that
subject matter. contains the full text of the proposed
Logrolling confuses and even amendments. On so vital an issue as
deceives the people. In Yute Air Alaska v. amending the nation’s fundamental law,
McAlpine, 698 P.2d 1173, 1184 (1985), the the writing of the text of the proposed

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 3 of 25

amendments cannot be hidden from the that the underlying principles upon which
people under a general or special power it rests, as well as the substantial entirety
of attorney to unnamed, faceless, and of the instrument, shall be of a like
unelected individuals. The Constitution permanent and abiding nature. On the
entrusts to the people the power to other hand, the significance of the term
directly propose amendments to the “amendment” implies such an addition or
Constitution. This Court trusts the change within the lines of the original
wisdom of the people even if the instrument as will effect an improvement,
members of this Court do not personally or better carry out the purpose for which
know the people who sign the petition. it was framed. (Emphasis supplied)
However, this trust emanates from a Revision broadly implies a change that
fundamental assumption: the full text of alters a basic principle in the constitution,
the proposed amendment is first shown like altering the principle of separation of
to the people before they sign the powers or the system of checks-and
petition, not after they have signed the balances. There is also revision if the
petition. change alters the substantial entirety of
There can be no mistake about it. the constitution, as when the change
The framers of the Constitution intended, affects substantial provisions of the
and wrote, a clear distinction between constitution. On the other hand,
“amendment” and “revision” of the amendment broadly refers to a change
Constitution. The framers intended, and that adds, reduces, or deletes without
wrote, that only Congress or a altering the basic principle involved.
constitutional convention may propose Revision generally affects several
revisions to the Constitution. The framers provisions of the constitution, while
intended, and wrote, that a people’s amendment generally affects only the
initiative may propose only amendments specific provision being amended.
to the Constitution. Where the intent and In California where the initiative
language of the Constitution clearly clause allows amendments but not
withhold from the people the power to revisions to the constitution just like in
propose revisions to the Constitution, the our Constitution, courts have developed a
people cannot propose revisions even as two-part test: the quantitative test and
they are empowered to propose the qualitative test. The quantitative test
amendments. asks whether the proposed change is “so
Similarly, in this jurisdiction there extensive in its provisions as to change
can be no dispute that a people’s initiative directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the
can only propose amendments to the constitution by the deletion or alteration
Constitution since the Constitution itself of numerous existing provisions.” The
limits initiatives to amendments. There court examines only the number of
can be no deviation from the provisions affected and does not consider
constitutionally prescribed modes of the degree of the change. The qualitative
revising the Constitution. A popular test inquires into the qualitative effects of
clamor, even one backed by 6.3 million the proposed change in the constitution.
signatures, cannot justify a deviation from The main inquiry is whether the change
the specific modes prescribed in the will “accomplish such far reaching
Constitution itself. changes in the nature of our basic
Courts have long recognized the governmental plan as to amount to a
distinction between an amendment and a revision.” Whether there is an alteration in
revision of a constitution. One of the the structure of government is a proper
earliest cases that recognized the subject of inquiry. Thus, “a change in the
distinction described the fundamental nature of [the] basic governmental plan”
difference in this manner: [T]he very term includes change in its fundamental
“constitution” implies an instrument of a framework or the fundamental powers of
permanent and abiding nature, and the its Branches.” A change in the nature of
provisions contained therein for its the basic governmental plan also includes
revision indicate the will of the people changes that “jeopardize the traditional

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 4 of 25

form of government and the system of theory espousing a construction contrary
check and balances.” to such intent and language deserves
Under both the quantitative and scant consideration. More so, if such
qualitative tests, the Lambino Group’s theory wreaks havoc by creating
initiative is a revision and not merely an inconsistencies in the form of
amendment. Quantitatively, the Lambino government established in the
Group’s proposed changes overhaul two Constitution. Such a theory, devoid of any
articles—Article VI on the Legislature and jurisprudential mooring and inviting
Article VII on the Executive—affecting a inconsistencies in the Constitution, only
total of 105 provisions in the entire exposes the flimsiness of the Lambino
Constitution. Qualitatively, the proposed Group’s position. Any theory advocating
changes alter substantially the basic plan that a proposed change involving a radical
of government, from presidential to structural change in government does not
parliamentary, and from a bicameral to a constitute a revision justly deserves
unicameral legislature. A change in the rejection.
structure of government is a revision of We can visualize amendments and
the Constitution, as when the three great revisions as a spectrum, at one end green
co-equal branches of government in the for amendments and at the other end red
present Constitution are reduced into for revisions. Towards the middle of the
two. This alters the separation of powers spectrum, colors fuse and difficulties
in the Constitution. A shift from the arise in determining whether there is an
present Bicameral-Presidential system to amendment or revision. The present
a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a initiative is indisputably located at the far
revision of the Constitution. Merging the end of the red spectrum where revision
legislative and executive branches is a begins. The present initiative seeks a
radical change in the structure of radical overhaul of the existing separation
government. of powers among the three co-equal
The abolition alone of the Office of departments of government, requiring
the President as the locus of Executive far-reaching amendments in several
Power alters the separation of powers and sections and articles of the Constitution.
thus constitutes a revision of the Where the proposed change applies only
Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone to a specific provision of the Constitution
of one chamber of Congress alters the without affecting any other section or
system of checks-and-balances within article, the change may generally be
the legislature and constitutes a revision considered an amendment and not a
of the Constitution. By any legal test and revision. For example, a change reducing
under any jurisdiction, a shift from a the voting age from 18 years to 15 years is
Bicameral-Presidential to a Unicameral an amendment and not a revision.
Parliamentary system, involving the Similarly, a change reducing Filipino
abolition of the Office of the President ownership of mass media companies from
and the abolition of one chamber of 100 percent to 60 percent is an
Congress, is beyond doubt a revision, not amendment and not a revision. Also, a
a mere amendment. On the face alone of change requiring a college degree as an
the Lambino Group’s proposed changes, it additional qualification for election to the
is readily apparent that the changes will Presidency is an amendment and not a
radically alter the framework of revision.
government as set forth in the There can be no fixed rule on
Constitution. whether a change is an amendment or a
The express intent of the framers revision. A change in a single word of one
and the plain language of the Constitution sentence of the Constitution may be a
contradict the Lambino Group’s theory. revision and not an amendment. For
Where the intent of the framers and the example, the substitution of the word
language of the Constitution are clear and “republican” with “monarchic” or
plainly stated, courts do not deviate from “theocratic” in Section 1, Article II of the
such categorical intent and language. Any Constitution radically overhauls the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 5 of 25

entire structure of government and the be amended to conform with a
fundamental ideological basis of the unicameral parliamentary form of
Constitution. Thus, each specific change government.” The effect is to freeze the
will have to be examined case-by-case, two irreconcilable provisions until the
depending on how it affects other earlier one “shall be amended,” which
provisions, as well as how it affects the requires a future separate constitutional
structure of government, the carefully amendment.
crafted system of checks-and-balances, The present petition warrants
and the underlying ideological basis of the dismissal for failure to comply with the
existing Constitution. basic requirements of Section 2, Article
Since a revision of a constitution XVII of the Constitution on the conduct
affects basic principles, or several and scope of a people’s initiative to
provisions of a constitution, a deliberative amend the Constitution. There is no need
body with recorded proceedings is best to revisit this Court’s ruling in Santiago
suited to undertake a revision. A revision declaring RA 6735 “incomplete,
requires harmonizing not only several inadequate or wanting in essential terms
provisions, but also the altered principles and conditions” to cover the system of
with those that remain unaltered. Thus, initiative to amend the Constitution. An
constitutions normally authorize affirmation or reversal of Santiago will not
deliberative bodies like constituent change the outcome of the present
assemblies or constitutional conventions petition. Thus, this Court must decline to
to undertake revisions. On the other revisit Santiago which effectively ruled
hand, constitutions allow people’s that RA 6735 does not comply with the
initiatives, which do not have fixed and requirements of the Constitution to
identifiable deliberative bodies or implement the initiative clause on
recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments to the Constitution. This
amendments and not revisions. Court must avoid revisiting a ruling
In the present initiative, the involving the constitutionality of a statute
Lambino Group’s proposed Section 2 of if the case before the Court can be
the Transitory Provisions states: Section resolved on some other grounds. Such
2. Upon the expiration of the term of the avoidance is a logical consequence of the
incumbent President and Vice President, well-settled doctrine that courts will not
with the exception of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, pass upon the constitutionality of a
6 and 7 of Article VI of the 1987 statute if the case can be resolved on
Constitution which shall hereby be some other grounds.
amended and Sections 18 and 24 which Even then, the present initiative
shall be deleted, all other Sections of violates Section 5(b) of RA 6735 which
Article VI are hereby retained and requires that the “petition for an initiative
renumbered sequentially as Section 2, ad on the 1987 Constitution must have at
seriatim up to 26, unless they are least twelve per centum (12%) of the total
inconsistent with the Parliamentary number of registered voters as
system of government, in which case, signatories.” Section 5(b) of RA 6735
they shall be amended to conform with a requires that the people must sign the
unicameral parliamentary form of “petition x x x as signatories.” The 6.3
government; x x x x (Emphasis supplied) million signatories did not sign the
The basic rule in statutory construction is petition of 25 August 2006 or the
that if a later law is irreconcilably amended petition of 30 August 2006 filed
inconsistent with a prior law, the later law with the COMELEC. Only Atty. Lambino,
prevails. This rule also applies to Atty. Demosthenes B. Donato, and Atty.
construction of constitutions. However, Alberto C. Agra signed the petition and
the Lambino Group’s draft of Section 2 of amended petition as counsels for “Raul L.
the Transitory Provisions turns on its Lambino and Erico B. Aumentado,
head this rule of construction by stating Petitioners.” In the COMELEC the
that in case of such irreconcilable Lambino Group, claiming to act “together
inconsistency, the earlier provision “shall with” the 6.3 million signatories, merely

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 6 of 25

attached the signature sheets to the SOUGHT TO BE INTRODUCED BY THE
petition and amended petition. Thus, the LAMBINO GROUP. WHAT ARE THESE
petition and amended petition filed with TWO CHANGES?
the COMELEC did not even comply with ● Changing the government from
the basic requirement of RA 6735 that the presidential to parliamentary and
Lambino Group claims as valid. Conversion of congress from
The Lambino Group’s logrolling bicameral to unicameral congress.
initiative also violates Section 10(a) of RA
6735 stating, “No petition embracing CAN THE PETITIONERS SIGN FOR
more than one (1) subject shall be THEMSELVES AND IN BEHALF OF
submitted to the electorate; x x x.” The OTHER?
proposed Section 4(4) of the Transitory ● No because the petitioners must
Provisions, mandating the interim directly author the proposal and
Parliament to propose further must personally sign the petition.
amendments or revisions to the
Constitution, is a subject matter totally WHAT IS THE TWO-PART TEST THAT
unrelated to the shift in the form of WAS USED BY THE SC TO DETERMINE
government. Since the present initiative THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS
embraces more than one subject matter, PROPOSAL?
RA 6735 prohibits submission of the ● Quantitative and Qualitative test
initiative petition to the electorate. Thus,
even if RA 6735 is valid, the Lambino HOW IS QUANTITATIVE TEST APPLY?
Group’s initiative will still fail. ● By asking whether or not the
No amount of signatures, not even change is extensive in number. The
the 6,327,952 million signatures gathered court will just count the number of
by the Lambino Group, can change our provisions in the constitution
Constitution contrary to the specific affected by the proposal if a
modes that the people, in their sovereign substantial number of the
capacity, prescribed when they ratified provisions will be affected with the
the Constitution. The alternative is an proposal the proposed change is
extra-constitutional change, which means revision. Otherwise it is
subverting the people’s sovereign will and amendment
discarding the Constitution. This is one
act the Court cannot and should never do. IN QUALITATIVE TEST?
As the ultimate guardian of the ● The court will look into the
Constitution, this Court is sworn to substantive effect of the proposal
perform its solemn duty to defend and of the constitution if the proposal
protect the Constitution, which embodies will change the general
the real sovereign will of the people. governmental structure that is in
Incantations of “people’s voice,” “people’s the nature of revision otherwise it
sovereign will,” or “let the people decide” is only amendment.
cannot override the specific modes of
changing the Constitution as prescribed APPLYING THESE TWO TEST TO THE
in the Constitution itself. Otherwise, the LAMBINO GROUP, CAN WE SAY THAT
Constitution—the people’s fundamental THE PROPOSAL IS INDEED
covenant that provides enduring stability AMENDMENT?
to our society—becomes easily ● The SC said that 105 provision of
susceptible to manipulative changes by the 1987 constitution will be
political groups gathering signatures affected by the proposal therefore
through false promises. Then, the under the Quantitative test, the
Constitution ceases to be the bedrock of proposal is a Revision. Applying the
the nation’s stability. Qualitative test, the proposal is
within the nature of revision also
IN THE CASE OF LAMBINO v. COMELEC because there will be a change in
THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED CHANGES the governmental structure.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 7 of 25

● So since the petition is in the a bill, which, upon approval by the
nature of revision under the President, became Republic Act No. 4913
two-part test, it cannot be providing that the amendments to the
proposed through the system of Constitution proposed in the
initiative because what can be aforementioned resolutions be submitted,
proposed under the system of for approval by the people, at the general
initiative are Amendments. elections. The petitioner assails the
constitutionality of the said law
TRUE OR FALSE THE CONGRESS CAN contending that the Congress cannot
AMEND OR REVISE THE simultaneously propose amendments to
CONSTITUTION? the Constitution and call for the holding
● False. The Congress cannot amend of a constitutional convention.
or revise the constitution. The
Congress can only propose ISSUE: Whether or not Congress can
amendments or revisions to the simultaneously propose amendments to
Constitution because amendment the Constitution and call for the holding
and revision process involves two of a constitutional convention?
steps proposal and ratification.
The Congress as an institution can HELD: The power to amend the
only do the first one but not the Constitution or to propose amendments
second. But members of Congress thereto is not included in the general
can participate as citizens but not grant of legislative powers to Congress
as an institution (Sec. 1, Art, VI, Const.) It is part of the
inherent powers of the people - as the
repository of sovereignty in a republican
SECTION 1. Any amendment to, or state, such as ours (Sec. 1, Art. II, Const.)
revision of, this Constitution may be — to make and hence, to amend their own
proposed by: Fundamental Law. Congress may propose
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of amendments to the Constitution merely
three-fourths of all its Members; or because the same explicitly grants such
(2) A constitutional convention power (Sec. 1, Art. XV, Const.). Hence,
when exercising the same, it is said that
Senators and Members of the House of
GONZALES v. COMELEC Representatives act, not as members of
FACTS: The Congress passed 3 Congress, but as component elements of
resolutions simultaneously. The first, a constituent assembly. When acting as
proposing amendments to the such, the members of Congress derive
Constitution so as to increase the their authority from the Constitution,
membership of the House of unlike the people, when performing the
Representatives from a maximum of 120, same function, for their authority does
as provided in the present Constitution, not emanate from the Constitution - they
to a maximum of 180. The second, calling are the very source of all powers of
a convention to propose amendments to government, including the Constitution
said Constitution, the convention to be itself.
composed of two (2) elective delegates The congress, acting as a
from each representative district, to be constituent assembly may directly
elected in the general elections. And the propose amendments to the constitution,
third, proposing that the same and simultaneously call a constitutional
Constitution be amended so as to convention to propose the needed
authorize Senators and members of the amendments. Atty. Juan T. David, as
House of Representatives to become amicus curiae maintains that Congress
delegates to the aforementioned may either propose amendments to the
constitutional convention, without Constitution or call a convention for that
forfeiting their respective seats in purpose, but it cannot do both, at the
Congress. Subsequently, Congress passed same time. This theory is based upon the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 8 of 25

fact that the two (2) alternatives are to submit proposed amendments for
connected in the Constitution by the ratification in general elections.
disjunctive "or." Such basis is, however, a It would be better, from the
weak one, in the absence of other viewpoint of a thorough discussion of the
circumstances — and none has been proposed amendments, that the same be
brought to our attention — supporting submitted to the people's approval
the conclusion drawn by the amicus independently of the election of public
curiae. In fact, the term "or" has, officials. And there is no denying the fact
oftentimes, been held to mean "and," or that an adequate appraisal of the merits
vice-versa, when the spirit or context of and demerits of proposed amendments is
the law warrants it. likely to be overshadowed by the great
It is also noteworthy that R.B.H. attention usually commanded by the
Nos. 1 and 3 propose amendments to the choice of personalities involved in general
constitutional provisions on Congress, to elections, particularly when provincial
be submitted to the people for ratification and municipal officials are to be chosen.
on November 14, 1967, whereas R.B.H. No. But, then, these considerations are
2 calls for a convention in 1971, to addressed to the wisdom of holding a
consider proposals for amendment to the plebiscite simultaneously with the
Constitution, in general. In other words, election of public officers. They do not
the subject- matter of R.B.H. No. 2 is deny the authority of Congress to choose
different from that of R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3. either alternative, as implied in the term
Moreover, the amendments proposed "election" used, without qualification, in
under R.B.H. Nos. 1 and 3, will be the above-quoted provision of the
submitted for ratification several years Constitution. Such authority becomes
before those that may be proposed by the even more patent when we consider: (1)
constitutional convention called in R.B.H. that the term "election," normally refers to
No. 2. Again, although the three (3) the choice or selection of candidates to
resolutions were passed on the same public office by popular vote; and (2) that
date, they were taken up and put to a vote the word used in Article V of the
separately, or one after the other. In other Constitution concerning the grant of
words, they were not passed at the same suffrage to women is, not "election," but
time. "Plebiscite."
In any event, we do not find, either Petitioners maintain that the term
in the Constitution, or in the history "election," as used in Section 1 of Art. XV
thereof, anything that would negate the of the Constitution, should be construed
contested of different Congresses to as meaning a special election Some
approve the contested Resolutions, or of members of the Court even feel that said
the same Congress to pass the same in term ("election") refers to a "plebiscite,"
different sessions or different days of the without any "election," general or special,
same congressional session. And, neither of public officers. They opine that
has any plausible reason been advanced constitutional amendments are, in
to justify the denial of authority to adopt general, if not always, of such importance,
said resolutions on the same day. if not transcendental and vital nature as
Ratification of the constitution to demand that the attention of the
may be held simultaneously in a general people be focused exclusively on the
election. There is in this provision nothing subject-matter thereof, so that their votes
to indicate that the "election" therein thereon may reflect no more than their
referred to is a "special," not a general intelligent, impartial and considered view
election. The circumstance that three on the merits of the proposed
previous amendments to the Constitution amendments, unimpaired, or, at least,
had been submitted to the people for undiluted by extraneous, if not insidious
ratification in special elections merely factors, let alone the partisan political
shows that Congress deemed it best to do considerations that are likely to affect the
so under the circumstances then selection of elective officials.
obtaining. It does not negate its authority

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 9 of 25

This, certainly, is a situation to be
his group tried to prevent Senator
hoped for. It is a goal the attainment of
Tanada from delivering his privileged
which should be promoted. The ideal
speech. During that session when
conditions, are, however, one thing. The
Senator Tanada was about to deliver his
question whether the Constitution
privileged speech, because at the time
forbids the submission of proposals for
there were 22 senators present, 2 were
amendment to the people except under
absent, one was in a hospital, and
such conditions, is another thing. Much
Senator Cuenco who was in the United
as the writer and those who concur in
States. When Sen. Tanada was about to
this opinion admire the contrary view,
deliver his privileged speech 10 senators
they find themselves unable to subscribe
walked out which means that only 12
thereto without, in effect, reading into
remained and continued transacting
the Constitution what they believe is not
business and they declared all seats
written thereon and can not fairly be
vacant. So the issue there is does 12
deduced from the letter thereof, since the
constitute a quorum to transact
spirit of the law should not be a matter of
business? The Supreme Court said that
sheer speculation.
quorum to transact business is

“majority of the House” as distinguished
CAN THE CONGRESS EXERCISE 2
from “majority of all the members of the
POWERS AT THE SAME TIME, THE
house”. Supreme Court said “majority of
POWER TO DIRECTLY PROPOSE
all the members of the house” is
AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS AND AT
different from “majority of the House”.
THE SAME TIME CALL A
One of these two terms is fixed. One is
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
variable. One is bigger. The other is
DESPITE THE USE OF THE
smaller. So which of these two terms is
DISJUNCTIVE “OR”?
smaller and bigger, which is a fix and
● YES. Sometimes “or” means “and”
which is valuable. The fixed and the
and vice versa
bigger number is “majority of all the
● In the absence of expressed
members of the House”. So which
constitutional provision “or” means
means that the “majority of the House”
“and”, thus, Congress can directly
to constitute a quorum is variable and
proposed amendments or
the smaller number. 12 is a quorum of
revisions to the Constitution and
not 22 but of 23. In determining the
at the same time call a
quorum “all the members of the House”
constitutional convention
who are we being the coercive

jurisdiction of the House shall become
WHAT IS THE REQUIRED VOTE TO
counted. Since was one absent but in
DIRECTLY PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
the Philippines and another was absent
OR REVISIONS TO THE
but outside the Philippines, the basis
CONSTITUTION?
should be 23 because quorum is just
● 3/4 of all its Members
“majority of the House” as distinguished

from “majority of all the members of the
ATTY GAB: Let's take the case of House”.
Avelino v. Cuenco in order to determine
the difference between the terms “of all So to better understand this let's
the members of Congress” and “of the distinguish paragraphs 1 and 2 of
Congress”. In Avelino v. Cuenco, there Section 16 of Article 6. Paragraph 1 of
was a session in the Senate at the time. section 16 of articles 6 deals with the
Prior to that session, Senator Tanada election of the Senate President and the
has already registered his right to Speaker. Paragraph 2 deals with
deliver a privileged speech, the subject quorum. Note the difference “to elect a
of the privilege of speech is to discuss Senate President, the Senate needs
the abuses and violations of law by then majority of all the members of the
Senate President Avelino. On that Senate” but to constitute a quorum the
session day the Senate President and constitution only requires “majority of

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 10 of 25

must be interpreted in harmony
the Senate”. Currently we have 23
with other provisions of the
senators because of the appointment of
Constitution. Sections 1 and 3 of
Senator Cayetano as Secretary of the
Article 17 can be interpreted in 2
Department of Foreign Affairs.
ways. As to the manner of voting,
Supposing these 23-man Senate is
sections 1 and 3 of Article 17 can be
about to determine quorum. What is
interpreted to mean voting jointly
required vote? Is it 1/2 plus 1 of 23 or
or voting separately. Those are the
1/2 plus 1 of 24? Assuming that all the
two possible interpretations of
senators are in the Philippines. So to
Sections 1 and 3 of Article 17. If we
constitute the quorum the Senate only
interpret the sections 1 and 3 to
needs 1/2 plus 1 of 23. But how about
mean voting jointly, there will be
the election of Senate President? 1/2
other provisions of the
plus 1 of 24 because the Constitution
Constitution that will be rendered
requires “majority of all the members of
nugatory or ineffective like the
the Senate” as distinguished from
provision on Section 1 of Article 6
“majority of the Senate”
which calls for the creation of two
Houses of Congress under the
SEC. 1 OF ART 17 WAS COPIED FROM principle of checks and balances. If
ART. 15 OF THE 1935 CONSTITUTION. we interpret the sections 1 and 3 of
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO Article 17 to mean voting
PROVISIONS IS THAT ART. 15 OF THE separately, it will harmonize the
1935 CONSTITUTION IS VERY SPECIFIC entire document. Therefore this is
IT PROVIDES THAT THE CONGRESS IN the interpretation that should be
JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLY BY A VOTE given to Sections 1 and 3 of Article
OF ¾ OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE 17 - voting separately.
SENATE AND ¾ OF ALL THE MEMBERS
OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE CAN THE CONGRESS ACTING AS A
VOTING SEPARATELY MAY PROPOSE CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY PROVIDE
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE IMPLEMENTING
OR CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL LEGISLATION?
CONVENTION. ART. 15 PROVIDES HOW ● YES based on the doctrine of
THE TWO HOUSES WILL MEET, IT ALSO necessary implication. Under the
PROVIDES THE MANNER OF VOTING IN doctrine of necessary implication,
DIRECTLY PROPOSING THE the grant of an express power
CONSTITUTION VOTING SEPARATELY. carries with it by necessary
THESE PHRASES WERE NOT INCLUDED implication all other necessary
IN THE 1987 CONSTITUTION. SINCE powers in order to implement the
THE 1987 CONSTITUTION DID NOT express power
COPY ALL ART. 15 OF THE
CONSTITUTION DOES IT MEAN THAT CAN THE CONGRESS ACTING AS A
OUR PRESENT CONSTITUTION LEGISLATIVE BODY PROVIDE FOR THE
INTENDED A JOINT VOTING? IMPLEMENTING DETAILS OF THE
● NO. In interpreting doubtful CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION?
provisions we have to apply the 3 ● YES. The power to provide
tools provided under the case of implementing details on the
Francisco v. HOR. The first two Constitution Convention is not
cannot be applied because we exclusive to the Congress acting as
cannot know the meaning of a constituent assembly. The power
manner of voting by just reading to provide for the implementing
the Constitution because we detail is also available to the
cannot determine how should the Congress acting as a legislative
Congress vote but we can apply body because implementing detail
the 3rd tool ut magis valeat quam is essentially legislative in
pereat. Under this tool, doubtful
provisions of the Constitution

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 11 of 25

character so therefore it is HELD: While the authority to call a
inherent in Congress. constitutional convention is vested by the
present Constitution solely and
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE WHENEVER exclusively in Congress acting as a
THE CONGRESS PASSES Constituent Assembly, the power to enact
IMPLEMENTING DETAILS ACTING AS A the implementing details, which are now
CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY AND ACTING contained in Resolution Nos. 2 and 4 as
AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY? well as in R.A. No. 6132, does not
● The difference is if the Congress exclusively pertain to Congress acting as
provides for the implementing a Constituent Assembly. Such
details acting as a constituent implementing details are matters within
assembly there is no need for the the competence of Congress in the
approval of the President, mere exercise of its comprehensive legislative
resolutions will do as long as it will power, which power encompasses all
pass the 3/4 vote. But if it is in matters not expressly or by necessary
exercise of the legislative power implication withdrawn or removed by the
under Section 27, Article 6 of the Constitution from the ambit of legislative
Constitution it must require the action. And as long as such statutory
approval of the President details do not clash with any specific
provision of the Constitution, they are
valid.
IMBONG v. FERRER
Unlike in the apportionment of
FACTS: Petitioners Manuel Imbong and representative districts, the Constitution
Raul Gonzales, both interested in running does not expressly or impliedly require
as candidates in the 1971 Constitutional such apportionment of delegates to the
Convention, filed separate petitions for convention on the basis of population in
declaratory relief, impugning the each congressional district. Congress,
constitutionality of RA 6132, claiming that sitting as a Constituent Assembly, may
it prejudices their rights as candidates. constitutionally allocate one delegate for
Congress, acting as a Constituent each congressional district or for each
Assembly, passed Resolution No.2 which province, for reasons of economy and to
called for the Constitutional Convention avoid having an unwieldy convention.
to propose Constitutional amendments.
After its adoption, Congress, acting as a
legislative body, enacted R.A. 4914 Do not be mistaken that the
implementing said resolution, restating Constitution Convention is also the
entirely the provisions of said resolution. Congress. Constitutional convention is
Thereafter, Congress, acting as a a body separate and distinct from the
Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution Congress. Members of the
No. 4 amending the Resolution No. 2 by Constitutional Convention are also
providing that “xxx any other details elected but unlike the Congress that
relating to the specific apportionment of term of office of the Constitutional
delegates, election of delegates to, and Convention is either fixed on time or
the holding of the Constitutional fixed on purpose.
Convention shall be embodied in an
implementing legislation xxx” LIKE THE CONGRESS,
Congress, acting as a legislative CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION IS
body, enacted R.A. 6132, implementing ALSO A COLLEGIAL BODY. IT CONSISTS
Resolution Nos. 2 and 4, and expressly OF SEVERAL DELEGATES. WHAT IS
repealing R.A. 4914. REQUIRED VOTE FOR THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO
ISSUE: May Congress in acting as a APPROVE A PROPOSAL? BECAUSE
legislative body enact R.A.6132 to BEFORE THE PROPOSAL WILL BE
implement the resolution passed by it in SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE FOR
its capacity as a Constituent Assembly? THEIR RATIFICATION, THE

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 12 of 25

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION the moment the same is ratified by the
ITSELF MUST FIRST APPROVE THE sovereign people. There is here the
PROPOSAL. SUPPOSING THE adoption of the principle so well known in
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION American decisions as well as legal texts
CONSISTS OF 100 DELEGATES. WHAT IS that a constituent body can propose
THE REQUIRED VOTE FOR THE 100 anything but conclude nothing. We are
DELEGATES IN ORDER THAT THE not disposed to deviate from such a
PROPOSAL IS DEEMED APPROVED? principle not only sound in theory but
● Only the majority of the members also advantageous in practice.
of the Constitutional Convention is The Interim Batasang Pambansa,
needed to approve a proposal sitting as a constituent body, can propose
(Occena v. COMELEC) amendments. In that capacity, only a
majority vote is needed. It would be an
indefensible proposition to assert that the
OCCENA v. COMELEC
three-fourth votes required when it sits
The 1973 Constitution in its as a legislative body applies as well when
Transitory Provisions vested the Interim it has been convened as the agency
National Assembly with the power to through which amendments could be
propose amendments upon special call by proposed. That is not a requirement as far
the Prime Minister by a vote of the as a constitutional convention is
majority of its members to be ratified in concerned. It is not a requirement either
accordance with the Article on when, as in this case, the Interim
Amendments. When, therefore, the Batasang Pambansa exercises its
Interim Batasang Pambansa, upon the call constituent power to propose
of the President and Prime Minister amendments. Moreover, even on the
Ferdinand E. Marcos, met as a constituent assumption that the requirement of
body, it acted by virtue of such three-fourth votes applies, such
competence. Its authority to do so is extraordinary majority was obtained. It is
clearly beyond doubt. It could and did not disputed that Resolution No. 1
propose the amendments embodied in proposing an amendment allowing a
the resolutions now being assailed. It may natural-born citizen of the Philippines
be observed parenthetically that as far as naturalized in a foreign country to own a
petitioner Occena is concerned, the limited area of land for residential
question of the authority of the Interim purposes was approved by the vote of 122
Batasang Pambansa to propose to 5; Resolution No. 2 dealing with the
amendments is not new. Presidency, the Prime Minister and the
And whether the Constitutional Cabinet, and the National Assembly by a
Convention will only propose vote of 147 to 5 with 1 abstention; and
amendments to the Constitution or Resolution No. 3 on the amendment to
entirely overhaul the present Constitution the Article on the Commission on
and propose an entirely new Constitution Elections by a vote of 148 to 2 with 1
based on an ideology foreign to the abstention. Where then is the alleged
democratic system, is of no moment; infirmity?
because the same will be submitted to the As to the period, the Constitution
people for ratification. Once ratified by indicates the way the matter should be
the sovereign people, there can be no resolved. There is no ambiguity to the
debate about the validity of the new applicable provision: “Any amendment to,
Constitution. The fact that the present or revisions of, this Constitution shall be
Constitution may be revised and replaced valid when ratified by a majority of the
with a new one * * * is no argument votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be
against the validity of the law because held not later than three months after the
‘amendment’ includes the ‘revision’ or approval of such amendment or revision.
total overhaul of the entire Constitution. The three resolutions were approved by
At any rate, whether the Constitution is the Interim Batasang Pambansa sitting as
merely amended in part or revised or a constituent assembly on February 5 and
totally changed would become immaterial

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 13 of 25

27, 1981. In the Batasang Pambansa Blg. 22, sovereignty is the power to do
the date of the plebiscite is set for April 7, anything without accountability
1981. It is thus within the 90-day period ● Even without Section 2 of Article
provided by the Constitution. Thus any 17, the people can change their
argument to the contrary is unavailing. constitution but Section 2 article
17 only clips the power of the
people in changing the
SECTION 2. Amendments to this Constitution by only proposing
Constitution may likewise be directly amendments to the Constitution
proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least WHAT ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL
twelve per centum of the total number REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID
of registered voters, of which every EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF
legislative district must be INITIATIVE TO PROPOSE
represented by at least three per AMENDMENTS TO THE
centum of the registered voters CONSTITUTION?
therein. No amendment under this 1. The petition must be signed by at
section shall be authorized within five least 12% of the total number of
years following the ratification of this registered voters and every
Constitution nor oftener than once legislative district shall be shall be
every five years thereafter. represented by at least 3 % of the
registered voters in that legislative
The Congress shall provide for the district
implementation of the exercise of this 2. There must be an implementing
right. legislation

SECTION 3. The Congress may, by a DO WE HAVE A SUFFICIENT ENABLING
vote of two-thirds of all its Members, LEGISLATION TODAY?
call a constitutional convention, or by ● YES. RA No. 6735.
a majority vote of all its Members, ● While the Supreme Court in
submit to the electorate the question Santiago v. COMELEC categorically
of calling such a convention declared RA 6735 as insufficient in
order to implement the right of
TWO MODES OF CALLING A initiative the proposed
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? amendments to the Constitution,
1. 2/3 vote of all the members of in the Resolution of the Supreme
Congress; or Court in Lambino v. COMELEC the
2. Majority vote of all its members Court noted that 10 Justices of the
and refer to the people the Supreme Court in their separate
question of calling such concurring opinion voted that RA
constitutional convention 6735 is sufficient. While in the
body of the majority decision the
CAN WE SAY THAT SECTION 2 OF ponentia did not tackle anymore
ARTICLE 17 GIVES THE PEOPLE POWER the sufficiency of RA 6735 because
TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THE in the majority opinion, the
CONSTITUTION? Supreme Court said that there is
● NO. Section 2 of Article 17 did not no need to revisit the Santiago
give the people a power but limits ruling because the question can be
the power of the people because resolved merely by determining
the power to change the the nature of the proposal whether
Constitution is inherent in the it is an amendment or revision.
people as they are the source of Since it has already declared that it
sovereignty itself. The is a revision, there is no need to
quintessential essence of determine whether RA 6735 is
sufficient or insufficient.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 14 of 25

HOW SOON CAN THE PEOPLE 1. The constitutional provision on people’s
EXERCISE THIS RIGHT FROM THE initiative to amend the Constitution can
EFFECTIVITY OF THE 1987 only be implemented by law to be passed
CONSTITUTION? by Congress. No such law has been
● It may be exercise 5 years from passed.
effectivity of the 1987 constitution 2. R.A. 6735 failed to provide subtitle
and once every 5 years thereof initiative on the Constitution, unlike in
the other modes of initiative. It only
WHAT ARE THE ADDITIONAL provides for the effectivity of the law after
REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED IN the publication in print media indicating
LAMBINO FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF that the Act covers only laws and not
INITIATIVE? constitutional amendments because the
1. The people must author and thus latter takes effect only upon ratification
sign the entire proposal. No agent and not after publication.
or representative can sign on their 3. COMELEC Resolution No.2300,
behalf. adopted on January 16, 1991 to govern the
2. As an initiative upon a petition, the “conduct of initiative on the Constitution
proposal must be embodied in a and initiative and referendum on national
petition. and local laws”, is ultra vires insofar as
initiative or amendments to the
Constitution are concerned, since the
SANTIAGO v. COMELEC
COMELEC has no power to provide rules
FACTS: Private respondent Delfin filed and regulation for the exercise of the
with the COMELEC a “Petition to Amend right of initiative to amend the
the Constitution, to Lift Term Limits of Constitution. Only the Congress is
Elective Officials, by People’s authorized by the Constitution to pass
amendments to the Constitution granted the implementing law.
under Section 2, Art. XVII of the 1987 4. The people’s initiative is limited to
Constitution. R.A. 6735 and COMELEC amendments to the Constitution, to the
Resolution No. 2300. The proposed revision thereof. Extending or lifting of
amendments consist of the submission of the term limits constitutes a revision and
this proposition to the people—“Do you is therefore outside the power of the
approve the lifting of the term limits of all people’s initiative.
elective officials, amending for the 5. Finally, Congress has not yet
purpose section 4 and 7 of Art.VI, Section appropriated funds for people’s initiative,
4 of Art.VII, and Section 8 of Art. X of the neither the COMELEC nor any other
Philippine Constitution?” The COMELEC department, agency or office of the
issued an order directing the publication government has realigned funds for the
of the petition and the notice of hearing purpose.
and thereafter set the case for hearing. At The Supreme Court gave due
the hearing, Senator Raul Roco, the IBP, course to this petition and granted the
Demokrasya- Ipagtanggol ang Motions for Intervention filed by
Konstitusyon (DIK), Public Interest Law Petitioners-Intervenors DIK, MABINI, IBP,
Center, and Laban ng Demokratikong LABAN, and Senator Roco.
Pilipino (LABAN) appeared as intervenors-
oppositors. Senator Roco moved to ISSUES:
dismiss the Delfin petition on the ground 1. Whether Sec. 2, Art. XVII of the 1987
that it is not the initiatory party Constitution is a self-executing provision?
cognizable by the COMELEC. 2. Whether R.A.6735 is a sufficient
Petitioners filed a special civil statutory implementation of the said
action directing respondents COMELEC constitutional provision?
and Delfin’s petition to directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through HELD: Bluntly stated, the right of the
the system of initiative under sec.2 of Art. people to directly propose amendments
XVII of the 1987 Constitution. Petitioners to the Constitution through the system of
raise the following arguments:

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 15 of 25

initiative would remain entombed in the Referendum (Subtitle III), no subtitle is
cold niche of the Constitution until provided for initiative on the
Congress provides for its implementation. Constitution. This conspicuous silence as
Stated otherwise, while the Constitution to the latter simply means that the main
has recognized or granted that right, the thrust of the Act is initiative and
people cannot exercise it if Congress, for referendum on national and local laws. If
whatever reason, does not provide for its Congress intended R.A. No. 6735 to fully
implementation. provide for the implementation of the
The conclusion then is inevitable initiative on amendments to the
that, indeed, the system of initiative on Constitution, it could have provided for a
the Constitution under Section 2 of subtitle therefor, considering that in the
Article XVII of the Constitution is not order of things, the primacy of interest, or
self-executory. Has Congress “provided” hierarchy of values, the right of the
for the implementation of the exercise of people to directly propose amendments
this right? Those who answer the to the Constitution is far more important
question in the affirmative, like the than the initiative on national and local
private respondents and intervenor laws.
Senator Roco, point to us R.A. No. 6735. We cannot accept the argument
There is, of course, no other better way that the initiative on amendments to the
for Congress to implement the exercise of Constitution is subsumed under the
the right than through the passage of a subtitle on National Initiative and
statute or legislative act. Referendum because it is national in
Contrary to the assertion of public scope. Our reading of Subtitle II (National
respondent COMELEC, Section 2 of the Initiative and Referendum) and Subtitle III
Act does not suggest an initiative on (Local Initiative and Referendum) leaves
amendments to the Constitution. The said no room for doubt that the classification
section reads: SECTION 2. Statement and is not based on the scope of the initiative
Policy.—The power of the people under a involved, but on its nature and character.
system of initiative and referendum to It is “national initiative,” if what is
directly propose, enact, approve or reject, proposed to be adopted or enacted is a
in whole or in part, the Constitution, laws, national law, or a law which only Congress
ordinances, or resolutions passed by any can pass. It is “local initiative” if what is
legislative body upon compliance with the proposed to be adopted or enacted is a
requirements of this Act is hereby law, ordinance, or resolution which only
affirmed, recognized and guaranteed. the legislative bodies of the governments
(Italics supplied) The inclusion of the of the autonomous regions, provinces,
word “Constitution” therein was a delayed cities, municipalities, and barangays can
afterthought. That word is neither pass.
germane nor relevant to said section, Curiously, too, while R.A. No. 6735
which exclusively relates to initiative and exerted utmost diligence and care in
referendum on national laws and local providing for the details in the
laws, ordinances, and resolutions. That implementation of initiative and
section is silent as to amendments on the referendum on national and local
Constitution. As pointed out earlier, legislation thereby giving them special
initiative on the Constitution is confined attention, it failed, rather intentionally, to
only to proposals to AMEND. The people do so on the system of initiative on
are not accorded the power to “directly amendments to the Constitution. There
propose, enact, approve, or reject, in was, therefore, an obvious downgrading
whole or in part, the Constitution” of the more important or the paramount
through the system of initiative. They can system of initiative. R.A. No. 6735 thus
only do so with respect to “laws, delivered a humiliating blow to the
ordinances, or resolutions.” system of initiative on amendments to the
While the Act provides subtitles Constitution by merely paying it a
for National Initiative and Referendum reluctant lip service. The foregoing brings
(Subtitle II) and for Local Initiative and us to the conclusion that R.A. No. 6735 is

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 16 of 25

incomplete, inadequate, or wanting in exercise of the right of the people to
essential terms and conditions insofar as directly propose amendments to the
initiative on amendments to the Constitution through the system of
Constitution is concerned. Its lacunae on initiative. It does not have that power
this substantive matter are fatal and under R.A. No. 6735. Reliance on the
cannot be cured by “empowering” the COMELEC’s power under Section 2(1) of
COMELEC “to promulgate such rules and Article IX-C of the Constitution is
regulations as may be necessary to carry misplaced, for the laws and regulations
out the purposes of [the] Act. referred to therein are those promulgated
The rule is that what has been by the COMELEC under (a) Section 3 of
delegated, cannot be delegated or as Article IX-C of the Constitution, or (b) a
expressed in a Latin maxim: potestas law where subordinate legislation is
delegata non delegari potest. The authorized and which satisfies the
recognized exceptions to the rule are as “completeness” and the “sufficient
follows: (1) Delegation of tariff powers to standard” tests.
the President under Section 28(2) of
Article VI of the Constitution; (2) DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE
Delegation of emergency powers to the POWER TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS
President under Section 23(2) of Article VI OR REVISIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION
of the Constitution; (3) Delegation to the ACCORDING TO THE CASE OF SANIDAD
people at large; (4) Delegation to local v. COMELEC?
governments; and (5) Delegation to ● YES. The Supreme Court sustained
administrative bodies. the authority of President Marcos
Empowering the COMELEC, an to exercise the power to propose
administrative body exercising changes to the 1973 Constitution
quasi-judicial functions, to promulgate because under the 1973
rules and regulations is a form of Constitution legislative power
delegation of legislative authority under rests on the Interim National
No. 5 above. However, in every case of Assembly during a period of
permissible delegation, there must be a transition and during a period of
showing that the delegation itself is valid. normalcy the regular National
It is valid only if the law (a) is complete in Assembly. The power to propose
itself, setting forth therein the policy to amendments or revisions to the
be executed, carried out, or implemented Constitution also rests on the
by the delegate; and (b) fixes a Interim National Assembly during
standard—the limits of which are transition and National Assembly
sufficiently determinate and during a period of normalcy but
determinable—to which the delegate the 1973 Constitution vests the
must conform in the performance of his power to the President to call or to
functions. A sufficient standard is one convene the Interim National
which defines legislative policy, marks its Assembly which means that if the
limits, maps out its boundaries and President does not call the Interim
specifies the public agency to apply it. It National Assembly then they
indicates the circumstances under which cannot discharge their power.
the legislative command is to be effected. ● The power to propose
Insofar as initiative to propose amendments or revisions to the
amendments to the Constitution is Constitution is adjunct to the
concerned, R.A. No. 6735 miserably failed legislative power of the Interim
to satisfy both requirements in National Assembly. Since the
subordinate legislation. The delegation of President is already discharging
the power to the COMELEC is then the legislative power of the Interim
invalid. National Assembly with reason
It logically follows that the that he can also discharge the
COMELEC cannot validly promulgate power of the Interim National
rules and regulations to implement the Assembly to propose amendments

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 17 of 25

to the Constitution. But note that Constitution through a plebiscite on
the ruling of the Supreme Court in October 16, 1976.
this case saying that the power to Petitioner Sanidad filed suit for
propose amendments is just an Prohibition and Preliminary Injunction,
adjunct to the legislative power of seeking to enjoin the COMELEC from
interim national assembly should holding and conducting said
only be taken within the factual Referendum-Plebiscite on the basis that
circumstances of this case. This under the 1935 and 1973 Constitution,
cannot be considered as a there is no grant to the incumbent
doctrine. This cannot be taken as a President to exercise the constituent
judicial precedent under the power to propose amendments to the
doctrine of stare decisis because new Constitution, hence, the
during the Sanidad v. COMELEC Referendum-Plebiscite on October 16 has
case there were only two no legal basis.
operating departments - the Office Petitioner Guzman filed another
of the President which discharges action asserting that the power to
legislative and executive powers propose amendments to or revision of the
and the Supreme Court. So the Constitution during the transition period
Supreme Court said that definitely is expressly conferred to the interim
the power to propose amendments National Assembly under sec.16, Art. XVII
to the Constitution is alien to the of the Constitution.
judicial powers of the Supreme A similar action was instituted by
Court. Again by default the petitioners Gonzales and Salapantan
President was given that authority arguing that:
just because there was no other 1. Even granting him legislative powers
department existing at that time under the martial law, the incumbent
that can discharge that power. So President cannot act as a constituent
the exigencies to require the assembly to propose amendments to the
President to act because if the Constitution
President shirked away with this 2. A referendum-plebiscite is untenable
responsibility then he will do under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973,
injustice to the Filipino people. 3. The submission of the proposed
amendments in such a short period of
time for deliberation renders the
SANIDAD v. COMELEC
plebiscite a nullity,
FACTS: President Marcos issued P.D. 991 4. To lift martial law, the President need
calling for a national referendum on not consult the people via referendum,
October 16, 1976 for the Citizens and
Assemblies (“Barangay”) to resolve, among 5. Allowing 15-year-olds to vote would
other things, the issues of martial law, the amount to an amendment of the
interim assembly, its replacement, the Constitution, which confines the right of
powers of such replacement, the period suffrage to those citizens of the
of its existence, the length of the period Philippines 18 years of age and above.
for the exercise by the President of his The Solicitor General, in his comment for
present powers. respondent COMELEC, maintains that:
Thereafter, P.D.1031 was issued, 1. Petitioners have no standing to sue
amending P.D. 991 by declaring the 2. The issue raised is political in nature,
provisions of P.D. 229 applicable as to the beyond judicial cognizance of the court
manner of voting and canvassing of votes 3. At this state of the transition period,
in barangays for the national referendum- only the incumbent President has the
plebiscite of October 16, 1976. P.D. 1033 authority to exercise constituent power
was also issued, declaring therein that the 4. The referendum-plebiscite is a step
question of the continuance of martial law towards normalization.
will be submitted for referendum at the
same time as the submission of his
(President) proposed amendments to the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 18 of 25

ISSUE: Does the President possess the members of the National Assembly. In
power to propose amendments to the times of transition, amendments may be
Constitution as well as set up the proposed by a majority vote of all the
required machinery and prescribe the members of the interim National
procedure for the ratification of his Assembly upon special call by the interim
proposal, in the absence of an interim Prime Minister.
National Assembly? This Court in Aquino v. COMELEC
had already settled that the incumbent
HELD: The amending process, both as to President is vested with that prerogative
proposal and ratification, raises a judicial of discretion as to when he shall initially
question. This is especially true in cases convene the interim National Assembly.
where the power of the Presidency to In general, the governmental
initiate the amending process by powers in crisis government—the
proposals of amendments, a function Philippines is a crisis government
normally exercised by the legislature, is today—are more or less concentrated in
seriously doubted. the President. According to Rossiter,
What is in the heels of the Court is “(t)he concentration of government power
not the wisdom of the act of the in a democracy faced by an emergency is
incumbent President in proposing a corrective to the crisis inefficiencies
amendments to the Constitution, but his inherent in the doctrine of the separation
constitutional authority to perform such of powers. x x x There are moments in the
act or assume the power of a constituent life of any government when all powers
assembly. Whether the amending process must work together in unanimity of
confers on the President that power to purpose and action, even if this means the
propose amendments is therefore a temporary union of executive, legislative,
downright justiciable question. and judicial power in the hands of one
Whether, therefore, that man. The more complete the separation
constitutional provision has been of powers in a constitutional system, the
followed or not is indisputably a proper more difficult and yet the more necessary
subject of inquiry, not by the people will be their fusion in time of crisis. x x x
themselves—of course—who exercise no The power of the state in crisis must not
power of judicial review, but by the only be concentrated and expanded; it
Supreme Court in whom the people must also be freed from the normal
themselves vested that power, a power system of constitutional and legal
which includes the competence to limitations.” x x x The rationale behind
determine whether the constitutional such broad emergency powers of the
norms for amendments have been Executive is the release of the
observed or not. And, this inquiry must be government from the “the paralysis of
done a priori not a posteriori, i.e., before constitutional restraints” so that the crisis
the submission to and ratification by the may be ended and normal times restored.
people. The presidential exercise of
—There are, therefore, two periods legislative powers in times of martial law
contemplated in the constitutional life of is now a conceded valid act. That sun
the nation, i.e., period of normalcy and clear authority of the President is saddled
period of transition. In times of normalcy, on Section 3 (pars. 1 and 2) of the
the amending process may be initiated by Transitory Provisions.
the proposals of the (1) regular National Would it then be within the
Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of bounds of the Constitution and of law for
all its members; or (2) by a Constitutional the President to assume that constituent
Convention called by a vote of two-thirds power of the interim Assembly vis-a-vis
of all the Members of the National his assumption of that body’s legislative
Assembly. However the calling of a functions? The answer is yes. If the
Constitutional Convention may be President has been legitimately
submitted to the electorate in an election discharging the legislative functions of
voted upon by a majority vote of all the the interimAssembly, there is no reason

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 19 of 25

why he cannot validly discharge the proposals are ratified any
function of that Assembly to propose challenge on the steps leading to
amendments to the Constitution, which is ratification are already cured. It
but adjunct, although peculiar, to its gross must be made a priori, meaning
legislative power. This, of course, is not to prior to the ratification. Once the
say that the President has converted his ratification is done then the
office into a constituent assembly of that sovereign will of the people has
nature normally constituted by the corrected all the defects attendant
legislature. Rather, with the in the amendment or revision
interimNational Assembly not convened process. This is also the principle
and only the Presidency and the Supreme involved in the case of Javellana vs.
Court in operation, the urges of absolute Executive Secretary.
necessity render it imperative upon the
President to act as agent for and in behalf CAN THE PRESIDENT GUARANTEE
of the people to propose amendments to THAT NEEDED CHANGES TO THE
the Constitution. x x x The President’s CONSTITUTION WILL BE
action is not a unilateral move. As early as IMPLEMENTED?
the referendums of January 1973 and ● NO. If the President does not have
February 1975, the people had already the power to propose changes to
rejected the calling of the interim the Constitution with more reason
National Assembly. that the President does not have
In the Philippines, a republican and the power to guarantee that
unitary state, sovereignty “resides in the changes to the Constitution shall
people and all government authority be implemented. (Province of
emanates from them.” x x x This is the Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel of
concept of popular sovereignty. It means Ancestral Domain)
that the constitutional legislator, namely,
the people, in sovereign. In consequence, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE
the people may thus write into the PRESIDENT IS TOTALLY WITHOUT ANY
Constitution their convictions on any PARTICIPATION IN AMENDMENT OR
subject they choose in the absence of REVISION PROCESS?
express constitutional prohibition. ● NO. The President can participate.
While the President does not have
legislative powers, the President
The Sanidad v. COMELEC did not
can recommend to the Congress
establish a new doctrine. The doctrine
the needed laws to be
remains in Gonzales v. COMELEC, this
implemented. Similarly, while the
is still the controlling doctrine, that the
President does not have the power
power to propose amendments or
to propose changes to the
revisions is not inherent in Congress. It
Constitution, the President can
is a constituent power that can only be
recommend to the Congress the
exercised by Congress upon an express
needed changes to the
provision of the Constitution
Constitution as long as it is still
incumbent upon the Congress
UP TO WHAT EXTENT MAY ANY whether to adopt or to reject the
CONTROVERSY OR MAY ANY recommendations of the President.
CHALLENGE ON THE AMENDMENT OR Similarly while the President, as a
REVISION PROCESS BE ELEVATED TO public officer, cannot exercise the
THE COURT OF JUSTICE FOR JUDICIAL right of initiative because the right
REVIEW BEYOND THAT, NO MORE, of initiative must be exercised
EVEN IF THERE IS A DEFECT IN THE directly by the people, the
STEPS UNDERTAKEN BY THE President can also suggest to the
CONGRESS? people the needed changes to the
● Before the ratification of the Constitution as long as the
proposal. Meaning, once the participation of the Office of the

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 20 of 25

President shall cease upon the leading to a ceasefire status between the
suggestion. the Office of the parties. This was followed by the
president cannot set aside budget Implementing Guidelines on the
for the gathering of signatures Humanitarian Rehabilitation and
because this is now an Development Aspects of the Tripoli
interference on the initiative on Agreement 2001, which was signed on
the Constitution. (Province of May 7, 2002 at Putrajaya, Malaysia.
Cotabato v. GRP Peace Panel of Nonetheless, there were many incidence
Ancestral Domain) of violence between government forces
and the MILF from 2002 to 2003.
Meanwhile, then MILF Chairman Salamat
PROVINCE OF COTABATO v. GRP
Hashim passed away on July 13, 2003 and
PEACE PANEL
he was replaced by Al Haj Murad, who was
FACTS: When President Gloria then the chief peace negotiator of the
Macapagal-Arroyo assumed office, the MILF. Murad’s position as chief peace
military offensive against the MILF was negotiator was taken over by Mohagher
suspended and the government sought a Iqbal.
resumption of the peace talks. The MILF, In 2005, several exploratory talks
according to a leading MILF member, were held between the parties in Kuala
initially responded with deep reservation, Lumpur, eventually leading to the crafting
but when President Arroyo asked the of the draft MOA-AD in its final form,
Government of Malaysia through Prime which, as mentioned, was set to be signed
Minister Mahathir Mohammad to help last August 5, 2008. Before the Court is
convince the MILF to return to the what is perhaps the most contentious
negotiating table, the MILF convened its “consensus” ever embodied in an
Central Committee to seriously discuss instrument – the MOA-AD which is
the matter and, eventually, decided to assailed principally by the present
meet with the GRP. petitions bearing docket numbers 183591,
The parties met in Kuala Lumpur 183752, 183893, 183951 and 183962.
on March 24, 2001, with the talks being Commonly impleaded as respondents are
facilitated by the Malaysian government, the GRP Peace Panel on Ancestral Domain
the parties signing on the same date the and the Presidential Adviser on the Peace
Agreement on the General Framework for Process (PAPP) Hermogenes Esperon, Jr.
the Resumption of Peace Talks Between On July 23, 2008, the Province of North
the GRP and the MILF. The MILF Cotabato[and Vice-Governor Emmanuel
thereafter suspended all its military Piñol filed a petition, docketed as G.R. No.
actions. 183591, for Mandamus and Prohibition
Formal peace talks between the with Prayer for the Issuance of Writ of
parties were held in Tripoli, Libya from Preliminary Injunction and Temporary
June 20-22, 2001, the outcome of which Restraining Order. Invoking the right to
was the GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on information on matters of public concern,
Peace (Tripoli Agreement 2001) petitioners seek to compel respondents
containing the basic principles and to disclose and furnish them the complete
agenda on the following aspects of the and official copies of the MOA-AD
negotiation: Security Aspect, including its attachments, and to prohibit
Rehabilitation Aspect, and Ancestral the slated signing of the MOA-AD,
Domain Aspect. With regard to the pending the disclosure of the contents of
Ancestral Domain Aspect, the parties in the MOA-AD and the holding of a public
Tripoli Agreement 2001 simply agreed consultation thereon. Supplementarily,
“that the same be discussed further by petitioners pray that the MOA-AD be
the Parties in their next meeting.” declared unconstitutional. This initial
A second round of peace talks was petition was followed by several other
held in Cyberjaya, Malaysia on August 5-7, petitions by other parties. The Court
2001 which ended with the signing of the ordered the consolidation of the
Implementing Guidelines on the Security petitions.
Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement 2001

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 21 of 25

since, if either process is interrupted, the
ISSUE: Whether there is a violation of the flow inevitably ceases.”
people’s right to information on matters In the same way that free
of public concern (1987 Constitution, discussion enables members of society to
Article III, Sec. 7) under a state policy of cope with the exigencies of their time,
full disclosure of all its transactions access to information of general interest
involving public interest (1987 aids the people in democratic
Constitution, Article II, Sec. 28) including decision-making by giving them a better
public consultation under Republic Act perspective of the vital issues confronting
No. 7160 (LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE the nation, so that they may be able to
OF 1991? criticize and participate in the affairs of
the government in a responsible,
HELD: YES. The right of the people to reasonable and effective manner. It is by
information on matters of public concern ensuring an unfettered and uninhibited
shall be recognized. Access to official exchange of ideas among a well-informed
records, and to documents, and papers public that a government remains
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or responsive to the changes desired by the
decisions, as well as to government people.
research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE THE
citizen, subject to such limitations as may POWER TO CREATE COMMITTEES? IS
be provided by law. THE POWER OF THE CONSULTATIVE
As early as 1948, in Subido v. COMMITTEE TO STUDY THE NEEDED
Ozaeta, the Court has recognized the CHANGES TO THE 1987 CONSTITUTION
statutory right to examine and inspect AND TO RECOMMEND THE NEEDED
public records, a right which was CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION
eventually accorded constitutional status. CONSTITUTIONAL?
The right of access to public ● The power to create the
documents, as enshrined in both the 1973 committee rests from the
Constitution and the 1987 Constitution, “take-care-power” of the President
has been recognized as a self-executory under Section 17 of Article 7 the
constitutional right. power to ensure that laws are
In the 1976 case of Baldoza v. Hon. faithfully executed so the power of
Judge Dimaano,the Court ruled that the President to ensure that laws
access to public records is predicated on are faithfully executed gives him
the right of the people to acquire the authority to create fact finding
information on matters of public concern committee - ad hoc committee in
since, undoubtedly, in a democracy, the order to study the implementation
pubic has a legitimate interest in matters of the law and the study of the
of social and political significance. The Constitution
incorporation of this right in the ● As long as the work of the
Constitution is a recognition of the Consultative Committee is only
fundamental role of free exchange of recommendatory it is not binding
information in a democracy. There can be on the Congress which means that
no realistic perception by the public of the Congress is free whether to
the nation’s problems, nor a meaningful adopt or to reject the proposal of
democratic decision-making if they are the consultative committee
denied access to information of general
interest. Information is needed to enable
the members of society to cope with the SECTION 4. Any amendment to, or
exigencies of the times. As has been aptly revision of, this Constitution under
observed: “Maintaining the flow of such Section 1 hereof shall be valid when
information depends on protection for ratified by a majority of the votes cast
both its acquisition and its dissemination in a plebiscite which shall be held not
earlier than sixty days nor later than

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 22 of 25

CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE
ninety days after the approval of such SUBMITTED TO THE PEOPLE FOR
amendment or revision. THEIR RATIFICATION
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A GENERAL
Any amendment under Section 2 ELECTION?
hereof shall be valid when ratified by a ● YES
majority of the votes cast in a
plebiscite which shall be held not HOW CAN WE RECONCILE THEN THE
earlier than sixty days nor later than WORD PLEBISCITE AND AS
ninety days after the certification by DISTINGUISHED FROM THE RULING OF
the Commission on Elections of the THE SUPREME COURT IN GONZALES
sufficiency of the petition. THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
SPECIFY THE TYPE OF ELECTION?
HOW ARE PROPOSED CHANGES TO ● The word plebiscite under Article
THE CONSTITUTION, WHETHER 17 should be interpreted to mean a
AMENDMENT OR REVISION RATIFIED? process. It is a process whereby a
● majority of the votes cast question is submitted to the
people for their approval or
rejection. The word plebiscite
ATTY GAB: Do not use majority of the under Section 4 of Article 17 does
registered voters because the not refer to a day. It refers to a
Constitution only requires that the process, the day of the holding of
proposal shall be valid when ratified by that process which is called
a majority of the votes cast plebiscite shall be held not earlier
than 60 days but not later than 90
CAN THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE days either after the approval if it
CONSTITUTION BE SUBMITTED TO is through Section 1 or a
THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR RATIFICATION certification by the COMELEC if it
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A GENERAL is through Section 2. Since it refers
ELECTION? to a process, not a day, there can
● YES. The proposed changes to the be two separate processes held in
Constitution can be submitted to the one day. Thus on the day of the
the people for their ratification election there is a special election
simultaneously with the general which is the plebiscite and a
election. (Gonzales v. COMELEC) general election. So on that day
● In Gonzales v. COMELEC, the SC every registered voter shall receive
said that the The Constitution two ballots. One for the election of
used the word election which can their representatives and another
either be special or general. The for the ratification of the
Constitution does not qualify. Constitution.

IS THAT DOCTRINE STILL APPLICABLE CAN THE CONSTITUTIONAL
UNDER THE 1987 CONSTITUTION? CAN CONVENTION OR THE CONGRESS
WE SAY THAT THE 1987 CONSTITUTION ACTING AS A CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY
DOES NOT QUALIFY? THE 1987 SUBMIT TO THE PEOPLE THE
CONSTITUTION DID NOT USE THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE
WORD ELECTION BUT USED THE CONSTITUTION AHEAD OF OTHER
WORD PLEBISCITE. PLEBISCITE PROPOSALS? CAN THERE BE
DEFINITELY IS NOT A GENERAL PIECEMEAL SUBMISSION?
ELECTION BUT A SPECIAL ELECTION. ● NO. Under the doctrine of proper
SO CAN WE SAY NOW THAT THE submission, all the proposed
CONSTITUTION MAKES A DISTINCTION changes to the Constitution,
SINCE THE CONSTITUTION SPECIFIES whether it is a revision or
THE TYPE OF ELECTION? THE amendment, shall be submitted all
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE at once to the people in one

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 23 of 25

election in order to give the people HELD: The Court holds that there is, and
a proper frame of mind in making it is the condition and limitation that all
an intelligent decision the amendments to be proposed by the
● Another aspect of the doctrine in same Convention must be submitted to
proper submission which is the people in a single “election” or
already constitutional lies is that plebiscite.
the people shall be given sufficient In order that a plebiscite for the
time to study the proposal. It is ratification of an amendment to the
already institutionalized because Constitution may be validly held, it must
Section 4 of Article 3 specifies the provide the voter not only sufficient time
date which is not earlier than 60 but ample basis for an intelligent appraisal
days but not later than 90 days of the nature of the amendment per se as
well as its relation to the other parts of
the Constitution with which it has to form
TOLENTINO v. COMELEC
a harmonious whole. In the context of the
FACTS: A Constitutional Convention was present state of things, where the
called upon to propose amendments to Convention has hardly started
the Constitution of the Philippines, in considering the merits of hundreds, if not
which, the delegates to the said thousands, of proposals to amend the
Convention were all elected under and by existing Constitution, to present to the
virtue of resolutions and the people any single proposal or a few of
implementing legislation thereof, them cannot comply with this
Republic Act 6132. The Convention requirement. Under Section 1, Article XV
approved Organic Resolution No. 1, of the Constitution, a proposal to
amending section one of article 5 of the amendment the Constitution should be
Constitution of the Philippines so as to submitted to the people not separately
lower the voting age to 18. Said resolution from but together with all the other
also provided in its Section 3 that the amendments to be proposed by this
partial amendment, which refers only to present Convention.
the age qualification for the exercise of
suffrage shall be without prejudice to SUPPOSING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
other amendments that will be proposed CONVENTION SUBMITS ALL THE
in the future by the 1971 Constitutional PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OR
Convention on other portions of the REVISIONS TO THE CONSTITUTION
amended Section or on other portions of ALL AT ONCE TO THE PEOPLE IN A
the entire Constitution. PLEBISCITE FOR THAT PURPOSE. CAN
The main thrust of the petition is THE PEOPLE CHOOSE WHAT
that Organic Resolution No. 1 and the PROPOSAL TO REJECT AND WHAT THE
other implementing resolutions thereof PROPOSAL TO RATIFY? OR IS IT A YES
subsequently approved by the Convention TO ALL OR NO TO ALL? CAN THE
have no force and effect as laws insofar as PEOPLE PARTIALLY APPROVED
they are in contravention to Section 1 PARTIALLY REJECT THE PROPOSAL?
Article XV of the Constitution. Under the ● It depends on the nature of the
said provision, the proposed amendment proposal.
in question cannot be presented to the ● There are two kinds of formal
people for ratification separately from changes to the Constitution either
each and all of the other amendments to amendment or revision and the
be drafted and proposed by the difference is that an amendment is
Convention. a piecemeal isolated change while
a revision is a complete overhaul of
ISSUE: Is there any limitation or the Constitution. If the proposal is
condition in Section 1 of Article XV of the just an amendment and an
Constitution which is violated by the act amendment is an isolated change
of the Convention of calling for a to the Constitution the people can
plebiscite on the sole amendment choose what proposal to ratify. But
contained in Organic Resolution No. 1?

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 24 of 25

if the proposals are in the nature
of revision the people can just
accept all or reject all because in
revision the approval or rejection
of one has an effect on the other
proposal because the Constitution,
in a revision, is considered as
being rewritten.

WHO HAS THE POWER TO SUBMIT THE
PROPOSAL TO THE PEOPLE FOR THEIR
RATIFICATION? IS IT THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION? IS IT
THE PRESIDENT? IS IT THE COMELEC?
● The proposal shall be submitted to
the people in a plebiscite which is
a special election. And plebiscite as
an electoral process requires a
budget. Who has the power to
schedule an election? Who has the
power to appropriate funds for the
election? Answer to both questions
is the Congress. So since it is the
Congress that has the power to set
the date of the plebiscite and the
power to appropriate budget then
the Congress has the power to
submit the proposal to the people
for their ratification.

A.Y. 2019-2020 YOU DO NOTE(s) 25 of 25

Part 2. Amendments and Revisions

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

Part 2. Amendments and Revisions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sa Bed Colleg of Law

POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER

You might also like