Amendment vs.

Revision
CASE: Lambino v COMELEC, GR#174153; 25Oct2006
Facts: Petitioners, through a signature campaign, gathered signatures to support a petition to
amend the Constitution by shifting from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary
system.
COMELEC, in a resolution, denied the petition on the grounds that it constitutes a revision of the
Constitution, not an amendment, and cannot be initiated through a people's initiative.
Issues:
Whether the proposed shift from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system
is an amendment or a revision of the Constitution.
Whether it can be initiated through a people's initiative.
Ruling:
The proposed shift is a revision, not an amendment, because it fundamentally alters the form of
government, including the structure of the legislative department.
A revision cannot be initiated through a people's initiative, only amendments are allowed
through this process.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case revolved around the distinction between an amendment (a change that does not alter
the basic framework of the Constitution) and a revision (a substantial change that goes beyond
mere amendment).
The Court held that shifting from a bicameral-presidential to a unicameral-parliamentary system
constitutes a revision because it involves a fundamental change in the Constitution's structure.
 Constituent vs. Legislative Power
CASE: Imbong v COMELEC, GR#L-32432; 11Sep1970
Facts: Petitioner challenged the validity of R.A. No. 6132, a law that proposed to amend certain
provisions of the Constitution.
The amendment proposed by R.A. No. 6132 was approved by the legislature and submitted to a
referendum.
Issues:
Whether the legislature has the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution.
Whether a referendum is a valid mode of ratification.
Ruling:
The legislature does not have the authority to propose amendments to the Constitution; it is a
constituent power vested in a Constitutional Convention.
A referendum is not a valid mode of ratification for constitutional amendments.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case examined the separation of powers between the constituent and legislative bodies in
the context of amending the Constitution.
It affirmed that only a Constitutional Convention, composed of delegates elected by the people,
can propose amendments to the Constitution.
 Procedure - Proposal (Sec.1-3, Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)
CASE: Defensor-Santiago v COMELEC, GR#127325; 19Mar1997 R.A.No.6735

Facts:
The case involves the people's initiative to amend the Constitution under Republic Act No. 6735.
Petitioner questioned the law's sufficiency to cover initiatives to propose amendments to the
Constitution.
Issues:
Whether R.A. No. 6735 is sufficient to cover initiatives to propose amendments to the
Constitution.
Whether the COMELEC has the authority to review the sufficiency of the initiative petition.
Ruling:
R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to cover initiatives to propose amendments to the Constitution
because it lacks an enabling law providing for the implementation of such initiatives.
The COMELEC has the authority to review the sufficiency of the initiative petition and can
exercise its power of judicial review.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case explored the procedural requirements for proposing constitutional amendments
through people's initiatives.
It emphasized the need for an enabling law specifically tailored for constitutional initiatives and
clarified the COMELEC's role in reviewing the sufficiency of such initiatives.
 Ratification
CASE: Gonzales v COMELEC, GR#L27833; 18 Apr 1969
Facts: The 1935 Constitution was ratified by the Filipino people in a plebiscite held in 1935.
In 1973, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of the
1973 Constitution and its full force and effect.
Petitioner Gonzales and other citizens challenged the validity of the ratification, alleging that the
plebiscite was marred by irregularities, and that there was no genuine and free consent of the
people.
They argued that the announcement by President Marcos was not sufficient to declare the
ratification and that the 1973 Constitution should not be recognized.
Issues:
Whether the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified.
Whether the announcement by President Marcos was sufficient to declare the ratification.
Ruling:
The 1973 Constitution was not validly ratified because the plebiscite was marred by
irregularities and lacked genuine and free consent.
The announcement by President Marcos was not sufficient to declare the ratification, as it
needed the genuine and free consent of the people.
Consequently, the 1935 Constitution was deemed to be in force and effect.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case examined the validity of the ratification process for the 1973 Constitution, with a focus
on the alleged irregularities in the plebiscite.
It emphasized the importance of genuine and free consent in the ratification of a constitution
and highlighted the significance of a credible plebiscite.
CASE: Javellana v ES, GR#L 36142; 31 Mar 1973
Facts: In 1973, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of
the 1973 Constitution.
Petitioner Javellana challenged the validity of the ratification, alleging that the people were
deprived of their right to vote freely.
He argued that there were irregularities in the plebiscite, such as voter intimidation, and that the
1973 Constitution should not be recognized.
Issues:
Whether the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified.
Whether the announcement by President Marcos was sufficient to declare the ratification.
Ruling:
The 1973 Constitution was validly ratified because there were no grave irregularities in the
plebiscite.
The announcement by President Marcos was sufficient to declare the ratification, and
consequently, the 1973 Constitution was deemed to be in force and effect.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case also examined the validity of the ratification process for the 1973 Constitution but
arrived at a different conclusion compared to Gonzales v COMELEC.
It focused on the absence of grave irregularities in the plebiscite as a basis for ratification.
CASE: Sanidad v COMELEC, GR#L 44640; 12 Oct 1976
Facts: In 1973, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 1102, announcing the ratification of
the 1973 Constitution.
Petitioner Sanidad challenged the validity of the ratification, alleging that the people were
deprived of their right to vote freely.
He argued that the plebiscite was not conducted in a credible and transparent manner and that
the 1973 Constitution should not be recognized.
Issues:
Whether the 1973 Constitution was validly ratified.
Whether the announcement by President Marcos was sufficient to declare the ratification.
Ruling:
The 1973 Constitution was validly ratified, as the absence of a formal canvass of votes did not
invalidate the ratification.
The announcement by President Marcos was sufficient to declare the ratification, and
consequently, the 1973 Constitution was deemed to be in force and effect.
Key Legal Arguments:
The case examined the validity of the ratification process for the 1973 Constitution and
addressed the absence of a formal canvass of votes as a potential issue.
It reiterated the sufficiency of the presidential announcement in declaring ratification.
CASE: Tolentino v COMELEC, GR#L 34150; 16 Oct 1971
Facts: In 1971, the Constitutional Convention submitted the proposed 1971 Constitution for
ratification through a plebiscite.
The proposed constitution was ratified by the people.
Issues:
Whether the 1971 Constitution was validly ratified.
Whether there was sufficient compliance with the legal requirements for ratification.
Ruling:
The 1971 Constitution was validly ratified because it complied with the legal requirements for
ratification.
The plebiscite was conducted in accordance with law and the Constitution.
Key Legal Arguments:
This case examined the ratification process for the 1971 Constitution and focused on
compliance with legal requirements.
It affirmed the validity of the ratification and the conduct of the plebiscite.