I. Outline of the Constitution based on the conceptual framework provided by the Preamble.

Preamble

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do
ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

"... We, the sovereign Filipino people."

-The Filipinos are the supreme ruler of the land and authors of the fundamental law.

"... Imploring the aid of Almighty God..."

- Recognizing the influence of religion on the Filipinos.

"...in order to build a just and humane society..."

-economic status should be treated fairly before the law.

-ARTICLE III- BILL OF RIGHTS

"...establish a government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations... "

-ARTICLE II- DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

-ARTICLE VI- THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT

-ARTICLE VII- THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT

-ARTICLE VIII- JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

-ARTICLE IX- CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

-ARTICLE X- LOCAL GOVERNMENT

-ARTICLE XI- ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICER

"... promote common good..."

-not only for the majority but for everyone

-ARTICLE XIII- SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

"...Conserve and develop our patrimony…"

-patrimony means heritage or inheritance

National Patrimony:

1. Natural resources

2. Cultural heritage

-ARTICLE XII-NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRINOMY

-ARTICLE XIV- EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE

"... secure to ourselves and our posterity…"

-posterity means future generation

-ARTICLE XV- THE FAMILY

-ARTICLE XIV- EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE

"... the blessings of independence and democracy..."

- ARTICLE I- NATIONAL TERRITORY

--ARTICLE IV- CITIZENSHIP

-ARTICLE V- SUFFRAGE

-ARTICLE XVI- GENERAL PROVISIONS

-ARTICLE XVII- AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

-ARTICLE XVIII- TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

II. Answer the following Questions:

1. What is the difference between amendment and a revision?

ANSWER:

Amendment means isolated or a change of specific provisions only as distinguished from revision
which is to revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument.

In addition, amendment is "the alteration of an existing constitution by the addition or subtraction of

material" while revision is the "replacement of one constitution by another”.

2. How do you determine if the propose changed is an amendment or revision?

ANSWER: There are 2 ways in determining if it is a proposal to amend or revise, namely:

(a) Quantitative test – asks whether the proposed change is so extensive in its provisions as to change
directly the ‘substantial entirety’ of the Constitution by the deletion or alteration of numerous
existing provisions. One examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the
degree of the change. Thus, an amendment.
 (b) Qualitative test – whether the change will accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of
our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.

3. How amendments are instituted?

ANSWER: Article XVII of the Constitution provides for the process in proposing amendments or revision to the
Constitution.

Amendments in particular can be proposed by:

(a) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members: or

(b) A constitutional convention

Section 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a
majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.

(c) By People’s Initiative-

Section 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

According to Section 4(b), Article XVII of the Constitution,

Amendments under People’s Initiative shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite
which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.

4. How are revisions instituted?

ANSWER: Revisions like amendments can be proposed by:

(a) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members: or

(b) A constitutional convention – by 2/3 vote of all the members of the Congress.

Except, People’s Initiative.

According to Section 4(a), Article XVII of the Constitution,

Amendments or revisions through the Congress or a constitutional convention shall be valid when ratified
by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than
ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.

5. What are the requisites for a valid ratification?

ANSWER:

Any amendment or revision of the Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast
in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty (60) days not later than ninety (90) days after the
approval of such amendment or revision. If through people’s initiative after the certification by the
Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition. (Section 4, Article XVII)
6. What are the different types of initiatives? Explain and define each.

ANSWER:

The Section 3 of the Republic Act No. 6735 or known as An Act Providing for a System of Initiative and
Referendum and Appropriating Funds provides that there were three systems of Initiative namely: Initiative on
the Constitution, Initiative on Statute and Initiative on Local Legislation.

Definition of these initiatives were mentioned in the said Section as follows:

(a) Initiative on the Constitution which refers to a petition proposing amendments to the Constitution. It
is further explained in Section 5 of RA 6735 that a petition for an initiative on the Constitution must
have at least twelve per centum (12%) of the total number of registered voters as signatories, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the
registered voters therein. It may exercise only after five years from the ratification of the 1987
Constitution and only once every five years after.

(b) Initiative on statutes which refers to a petition proposing to enact a national legislation.

Similar with referendum, the initiative on statute was explained further in Section 5 of the RA 6735
that resolution or ordinances passed by the legislative assembly of an autonomous region, province or
city is deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the
registered voters of the province or city, of which every legislative district must be represented by at
least three per centum (3%) of the registered voters therein, provided that if the province or city is
composed only of one legislative district, then at least each municipality in a province or each
barangay in a city should be represented by at least three per centum 3% of the registered voters
therein.

(c) Initiative on local legislation refers to a petition proposing to enact a regional, provincial, city,
municipal, or barangay law, resolution or ordinance.

Required number of registered voters to file a petition:

Autonomous regions- not less than 2,000; Provinces and Cities- not less than 1,000; Municipalities-
not less than 100; Barangay- not less than 50

The petition shall be signed before the Election registrar in the presence of the representative of the
proponent, representative of the regional assembly, and local legislative body concerned. If the
required number of the signatures is obtained, the Commission shall set a date for the initiative.

When the proposition is approved by the majority, it shall take effect 15 days after certification by the
Commission. If it fails to obtain the majority of votes, the proposition is considered defeat.

7. What are the different types of referendum? Explain and define each.

ANSWER:

The different types of referendum according to Section 3 of the Republic Act No. 6735 are the following:

1. Referendum on statutes-

Refers to a petition to approve or reject an act or law, or part thereof, passed by Congress. It is
further explained in Section 5 of the RA 6735 that resolution or ordinances passed by the legislative
assembly of an autonomous region, province or city is deemed validly initiated if the petition thereof
 is signed by at least ten per centum (10%) of the registered voters of the province or city, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum (3%) of the registered
voters therein, provided that if the province or city is composed only of one legislative district, then at
least each municipality in a province or each barangay in a city should be represented by at least
three per centum 3% of the registered voters therein.

2. Referendum on local law

Refers to a petition to approve or reject a law, resolution or ordinance enacted by regional

assemblies and local legislative bodies. It is expounded in section 4 of the R.A. 6735 that any local
legislative body may submit to the registered voters of autonomous region, provinces, cities,
municipalities and barangays for the approval or rejection, any ordinance or resolution duly enacted
or approved.

Furthermore, the said referendum shall be held under the control and direction of the Commission
within sixty (60) days in case of provinces and cities, forty-five (45) days in case of municipalities and
the thirty (30) days in case of barangays.

8. In Defensor – Santiago vs. Comelec did the court mention whether Section 2 of Article XVIII is Self –
executory or not? How did the Court arrive at the conclusions?

ANSWER:

Yes, the court did mention that Section 2 of Article XVII is not self-executory, meaning, it needs
further legislation for it to become operative. From the book “The Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines, A Commentary” authored by Joaquin Bernas who was a member of the 1986
Constitutional Commission, the court quoted that: “Without implementing legislation Section 2
cannot operate.”

The court extracted portions of the interpellations involving on Section 2 showing that the details for
its implementation are left to the legislature and that so long as Congress does not enact a law to
implement that section, it will not become operative. The interpellations also showed that Section 2
applies only to amendments to the Constitution, and not revision. Furthermore, the court showed the
part wherein Hilario Davide, Jr. introduced amendments to the proposed Section 2 wherein it can be
read that “The National Assembly shall by law provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right.” This made the court hold that legislation is necessary to carry out Section 2.

The court then arrived in the conclusion of the aforementioned case by stating that petition must
then be granted, and the COMELEC should be permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking
cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall
have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.

However according to the court, that the system of initiative to propose amendments to the
Constitution should no longer be kept in the cold; it should be given flesh and blood, energy and
strength. Congress should not tarry any longer in complying with the constitutional mandate to
provide for the implementation of the right of the people under that system.
9. In the same case, was RA No. 6735 found to be a full compliance with the power of Congress to implement
the right to initiate constitutional amendments? Why or why not?

ANSWER:

No. The Supreme Court (SC) held that while RA 6735 intended to include the system of initiative on
constitutional amendments, it was also nevertheless insufficient to cover that system. There were
three (3) reasons enumerated by the SC explaining their position on the issue concerning the said law-

First. Section 2 of RA 6735 is silent as to amendments on the Constitution. The word "Constitution"
was only added later as an afterthought. The word was also found to be irrelevant in that section.
While the section may sound that, through initiative and referendum, people may "directly propose,
enact, approve, or reject, in whole or in part, the Constitution,” it is not the intent of the framers of
the 1987 Constitution as found from the interpellations of that constitution. Initiative on the
Constitution is restricted only to proposals for amendments and not revisions. Revisions are only
applicable to laws, ordinances, or resolutions.

Second. While Section 3 of RA 6735 defines initiative as “the power of the people to propose
amendments to the Constitution or to propose and enact legislations through an election called for the
purpose” and provides that initiative on the Constitution as one of the three systems of initiative, and
that Section 5 of the same law provides for the minimum proportion of registered voters needed to
file a petition for an initiative on the Constitution and the frequency of when the petition may be
filed, the law does not provide for the contents of the said petition unlike in the initiatives of statutes
and local legislations. Accordingly, the wording of Section 5, paragraph (c.1) which reads “proposed
laws sought to be enacted, approved or rejected, amended or repealed” leaves the SC to conclude
that this law excludes the petition for an initiative on the Constitution.

Third. Unlike the initiative on the Constitution, RA 6735 provides for the initiatives on statutes and
local legislations subtitles, namely, National Initiative and Referendum (Subtitle II) and Local Initiative
and Referendum (Subtitle III), respectively. According to the SC, this omission of the subtitle for the
initiative on the Constitution supports the idea that this law covers only the two other initiatives.
Furthermore, if the law intends to cover the initiative on the Constitution, the former could have
provided a subtitle for the latter.

The SC rejected the argument that initiative on amendments to the Constitution is covered by Subtitle
II because its scope is national. Accordingly, Subtitles II and III does not classify the initiatives
according to scope, but rather, to the nature and character of the initiative. It is “national initiative” if
the petition concerns statutes and it is “local initiative” if the petition concerns local legislations. The
SC also finds the subtitling inaccurate. There are provisions found in Subtitle II which are irrelevant to
the title.

While the SC finds RA 6735 some provisions concerning or mentioning the initiative on amendments
to the Constitution as a forecited, it however concluded that the law in question is “incomplete,
inadequate, or wanting in essential terms and conditions insofar as initiative on amendments to the
Constitution is concerned.”
10. Does the people’s initiative to change the Constitution apply only to a revision of the Constitution? Explain.

ANSWER:

No. The people’s initiative to change the Constitution DOES NOT apply to a revision of the
Constitution, but rather, it DOES ONLY apply to an amendment of the Constitution. This right is
provided in Section 2 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution, which reads –

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through
initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three per centum of the registered
voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the
ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter.

The word “revision” or “revisions” can nowhere be found in the aforementioned section, but rather, it
is “amendments” that is expressly mentioned. While there is no exact wording stating that people’s
initiative is applicable only to an amendment of the Constitution, the Supreme Court en banc in
Santiago vs. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325) held that Section 2 is limited to amendments, not revisions,
to the Constitution. The court cited the interpellations on Section 2 wherein Mr. Suarez said that “this
process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and should not expand into a revision…” In
the same interpellations, Mr. Davide said that Section 1 of Article XVII covers both amendments and
revisions, while Section 2 covers only amendments.

11. Were the proposals for amendments in Gonzales vs. Comelec deemed submitted to the people for their
ratification? Explain

ANSWER:

Yes. The proposals for amendment in the case of Gonzales v Comelec was deemed submitted to the
people for ratification because there were insufficient votes to declare RA 4913, which mandated
concerned agencies to carry out the ratification, unconstitutional and invalid.

The resolutions increasing the members of the House of Representatives and authorizing the Senators
and Representatives to become delegates of the proposed constitutional convention without
forfeiting their seats in the Congress were approved by three-fourths of the members of the Senate
and the House of Representatives, voting separately, satisfying the requirement of Section 1 of Article
XV of the then enforced 1935 Constitution, which reads –

The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the
House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this Constitution or call a
convention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when approved by a
majority of the votes cast at an election at which the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.

Notwithstanding the approval of the Congress of the aforementioned resolutions, the petitioners
argued that those resolutions are null and void because (1) the members of the Congress approving
the said resolutions are de facto Congressmen, (2) Congress may only opt to either propose
amendments or call a convention, but not both, (3) the ratification must be conducted in a special
election, not general election, and (4) proposals for amendments was not submitted to the people for
ratification.
 Let us discuss how did the court respond to the four arguments of the petitioners.

First. The court did not agree that the concerned members of the Congress were de facto officers. The
Congress enacted RA 3040 asserting to make the apportionment required by Section 5, Article VI of
the 1935 Constitution, which according to the petitioners was violated by the members of the
Congress. Assuming, arguendo, that they were de facto officers, it did not make the laws they enact
as null and void because as far as the public is concerned, actions made by de facto officials are valid.

Second. While the wording in Section 1 of the Constitution reads “xxx may propose amendments to
this Constitution OR call a convention xxx,” the disjunctive “or” has been held oftentimes to also mean
“and” or vice versa, whenever the spirit or intent of the law warrants it. The court added that RBH 1
and 3 were subject to ratification years before that of RBH 2 which proposed for a convention,
implying that the subject matters of the first and third RBH were different than that of RBH 2.

Third. The court held that Section 1 of Article XV does not limit ratification in a special election. This
means that it can also be done in a general election. The circumstance that three previous
ratifications for constitutional amendments were held in special elections merely shows the stand of
Congress that it is better to hold ratifications in special elections, so as not to influence the voters by
the personalities in general elections. While it is better to hold ratifications in special elections, there
is no legal basis to prohibit it in a general election.

Fourth. The citizenry had 8 months to be informed of the provisions of the proposed amendments,
which satisfies the requirements of Section 2 of RA 4913. That being said, if the proposal was not
submitted to the people for ratification, the amendments would result in its unconstitutionality. The
ruling of the court denies this view and showed that the merits of the case are still constitutional.

12.What were the evils that the Court sought to avoid when it invalidated the plebiscite in Tolentino vs.
Comelec?

ANSWER:

We have seen the following evils which were sought to avoid by the Court when it invalidated the
plebiscite in this case: (1) intrusion into the power of the legislature to call and hold a plebiscite
by allowing the Convention to exercise this power, (2) making some parts of the Constitution
disharmonious with other parts by holding separate plebiscites for the ratification of each
proposed amendments, and (3) not giving to the people a good frame of reference by the same
reason in (2).

The court invalidated the plebiscite in this case on the ground that the calling and holding of such
plebiscite is lodged in the Congress, not in the Convention, and on the ground that the proposed
amendment in question cannot be submitted to the people for ratification separately from other
proposed amendments by the Convention. The latter reason violates Section1, Article XV of the
1935 Constitution, which reads –

The Congress in joint session assembled by a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the
Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to this
Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such amendments shall be valid as part of this
Constitution when approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which the
amendments are submitted to the people for their ratification.
 First. If the court allows the Convention to assume the power of Congress to call and hold
plebiscites for ratification of proposed constitutional amendments, there will be an intrusion into
the powers of the legislature. There will be a disruption to the balance of the tripartite powers of
the State.

Second. The court held that the Congress or a convention can propose more than one
amendment as suggested by the wordings “xxx may propose amendments xxx”, but these
amendments can only be submitted to the people for ratification in only one election as
suggested by the wordings “xxx votes cast at an election xxx.” When the whole constitution with
the entire amendments thereof is presented to the people in a single election, they can review it
and decide for themselves the merits and demerits of the document as a whole and of each and
every one of its constituent sections before casting their votes.

Third. The people were not given a proper “frame of reference” in arriving at their decision
because they had at the time no idea of what the rest of the revised Constitution would
ultimately be. The people were unable to assess the proposed amendment in light of the entire
document. So, the Court invalidated the plebiscite to give the people more time to study the
proposed changes and to ensure the needed careful study of the proposed amendments.

-GROUP 2-