AMENDMENT VS.

REVISION

The President proposes amendments to the Constitution advocating a shift from the Presidential
system of government to a Parliamentary one and calls for a plebiscite, appropriating public funds
therefor, in which to submit said proposal to the people for ratification. Mr. Walang Packy, a
citizen and a taxpayer, challenges the Presidential acts aforesaid. In turn the Solicitor General
contends: i) that Mr. Packy has no locus standi to bring the action; ii) that the issue is not
justiciable; and iii) that there is no law or constitutional provision that prohibits the President from
proposing amendments to the Constitution. Decide.

Ans. Mr. Packy has locus standi to bring the action. This involves a valid taxpayer’s suit. The settled rule
is that a taxpayer like Mr. Packy has substantial interest in inquiring into the legality of official acts that
involve expenditure of public funds.

The issue raised is legal and justiciable. Where the vortex of the controversy refers to the legality or
validity of the contested acts, the matter is definitely justiciable or non-political. It does not concern itself
with the wisdom of the act of the President in proposing amendments to the Constitution, but his
constitutional authority to perform such act or to assume the power of a constituent assembly. Whether
the Constitution confers on the President that power to propose amendments to the Constitution is
therefore a downright justiciable question. Since the Constitution provides how it may be amended, the
judiciary as the interpreter of the Constitution, can declare whether the procedure followed or the authority
assumed in proposing amendments thereto is valid or not. (Sanidad vs. Commission on Elections)

While it may be true that there is no law or Constitution provision that prohibits the President from proposing
amendments to the Constitution, it is equally true that there is no law or constitutional provision that empowers
the President to propose amendments to the Constitution or to assume the power of a constituent assembly.
Article XVII of the Constitution expressly provides that amendments to the Constitution may be proposed by
Congress, acting as a constituents assembly, by a constitutional convention, or directly by the people through
initiative. Amendment of the Constitution, being an exercise of sovereignty, must be construed against the
existence of the power to propose amendments in a person or entity not authorized by the people. A departure
from the procedure laid down by the people is pro tanto the establishment of a new constitution. It is doing for the
people what they have not chosen to do for themselves – a mockery of our constitutional system.**

I. On August 15, 2015, Congresswoman Dina Tatalo filed and sponsored House Bill No. 5432,
entitled "An Act Providing for the Apportionment of the Lone District of the City of Pangarap." The
bill eventually became a law, R.A. No. 1234. It mandated that the lone legislative district of the
City of Pangarap would now consist of two (2) districts. For the 2016 elections, the voters of the
City of Pangarap would be classified as belonging to either the first or second district, depending
on their place of residence. The constituents of each district would elect their own representative
to Congress as well as eight (8) members of the Sangguniang Panglungsod. R.A. No. 1234
apportioned the City's barangays. The COMELEC thereafter promulgated Resolution No. 2170
implementing R.A. No. 1234.

Piolo Cruz assails the COMELEC Resolution as unconstitutional. According to him, R.A. No.
1234 cannot be implemented without conducting a plebiscite because the apportionment under
the law falls within the meaning of creation, division, merger, abolition or substantial alteration of
 boundaries of cities under Section 10, Article X o f the 1987 Constitution. Is the claim correct?
Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Piolo Cruz’s claim in incorrect. While the Constitution and the Local Government Code
expressly require a plebiscite to carry out any creation, division, merger, abolition or alteration of
the boundary of a local government unit, no plebiscite requirement exists under the
apportionment or reapportionment provision (Bagabuyo v. COMELEC). In the case at bar, RA 1234
merely increased its representation in the House of Representatives. There was no creation,
division, merger, abolition or alteration of a local government unit that took place. RA 1234 did not
bring about any change in the City of Pangarap’s territory, population and income classification.
Hence no plebiscite is required.

2019 BAR EXAMS - quiz

Q. A proposal to change a provision of the 1987 Constitution has been put forth as follows: Original Text:
"The Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all
government authority emanates from them" Proposed Text: "The Philippines is a democratic and socialist
State. Sovereignty resides in the party and all government authority emanates from it.”

(a) Is this an amendment or a revision? Explain. (2.5%)

ANSWER: This is a revision. Using the qualitative test, the proposal will accomplish such far
reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision. A
change in the nature of the basic governmental plan also includes changes that jeopardize the
traditional form of government and the system of check and balances (Lambino v. Comelec, G.R.
No. 174153, October 25, 2006)

(b) Briefly explain the process to revise the 1987 Constitution. (2.5%)

ANSWER: There are two basic steps in this process:

(1) Proposal - a revision of the Constitution may be proposed by (a) the Congress, upon a vote of
three-fourths of all its Members; or (b) a constitutional convention. 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; and

(2) Ratification - the revision 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. (Art. XVII, Secs. 1,3&4,
Const.)

2017 BAR EXAMS – QUIZ ni Sir.. hehe

Q. A priority thrust of the Administration is the change of the form of government from unitary to federal.
The change can be effected only through constitutional amendment or revision.

(a) What are the methods of amending the Constitution? Explain briefly each method. (3%) 
SUGGESTED ANSWER 

The Constitution may be amended or revised by the vote of at least three-fourths of all the
Members of Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, by way of a proposal(Article XVII, Sec. (1)
of the 1987 Constitution). 

Any amendment or revision under this provision shall be valid upon ratification by a majority of
the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than 60 days or later than 90 days after
the approval of the amendment or revision (Article XVII, Sec, 4 of the 1987 Constitution). 

The Constitution may also be amended or revised by a Constitutional Convention. Congress may,
by the vote of at least two thirds of all its members, call a Constitutional Convention, or by a
majority vote of all its Members subject to the electorate the calling of a Constitutional Convention
(Article XVII, Sec. 3 of the 1987 Constitution). Any amendment or revision under this provision
shall be valid in the same manner as in Article XVII, Sec. 1(1) of the 1987 Constitution.

Amendments to the Constitution may be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon
petition of at least 12% of the registered voters, and at least 3% of the registered voters in every
legislative district must be represented. (Article XVII, Sec. 2 of the 1987 Constitution). 

The people cannot propose revisions and may propose only amendments. The petition must be
signed by the required number of people, and the full text of the proposed amendments must be
embodied in the petition (Lambino v. COMELEC, GR  Nos 174153 & 174299, October 25, 2006, 503
SCRA 165). 

Any amendment under Article XVII, See 2 of the 1987 Constitution, 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.(Article XVII, Sec. 4 of the 1987  Constitution). 

(b) Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need to be amended or revised to effect
the change from unitary to federal, and briefly explain why? (3%) 

SUGGESTED ANSWER : 

(b) Examples of provisions that need to be amended or revised to effect the Unitary to federal:

1. Article X, Sec. 3 Must be omitted because the legislature will no longer define the scope of the
powers of the government.

2. Article X Sec, 4 will have to be omitted. The President will no longer have the power of
supervision over local governments. 

3. Article X, Sec.5 must be omitted. Congress will no longer be allowed to impose limitations on

the power of taxation of local governments.

[Note: The panel wishes to recommend liberality in favor of the examinee for this question, as answers
can be gleaned from many articles and provisions of the Constitution, among them Articles VI, VII, and X].