Laws & Jurisprudence
AMENDMENT AND REVISION
6:46 PM
AMENDMENT is an isolated or
piecemeal change merely by adding, deleting, or reducing without altering the
basic principle involved. While in REVISION,
there is a revamp or rewriting of the whole instrument altering the substantial
entirety of the Constitution.
Both
amendment and revision signify change in the constitutional text. An amendment
envisages of one or a few specific and isolated provisions of the Constitution.
Its guiding original intention is to improve specific parts or to add new
provisions or to suppress existing ones accordingly as addition or subtraction
might be demanded by existing conditions.
In
revision, the guiding intention and plan contemplate a re-examination of the
entire document or an important cluster of provisions in the document to
determine how and to what extent it should be altered. The end product of a
revision can be an important structural change in the government or a change
which affects several provisions of the Constitution.
A
revision of the Constitution cannot be effected through initiative and
referendum. The change authorized by Art. XVII, Sec. 2 through initiative and
referendum can only be amendment. The main reason is that formulation of
provisions revising the Constitution requires both cooperation and debate which
can only be done through a collegial body.
TEST
TO determine whether a proposed change is an amendment or a revision.
1.
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.
2.
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.
(Lambino v. Comelec, G.R. No. 174153, Oct. 25, 2006)
How the Constitution be amended or revised
1.
Proposal
a.
By Congress upon a
vote of ¾ of all its members acting as Constituent Assembly (ConAss) (Occena
vs. COMELEC, 104 SCRA 1).
While the substance
of the proposals made by each type of ConAss is not subject to judicial review,
the manner the proposals are made is subject to judicial review.
Since ConAss owes
their existence to the Constitution, the courts may determine whether the
assembly has acted in accordance with the Constitution.
b.
By Constitutional
Convention (ConCon)
Congress may call a ConCon:
1. By a vote of 2/3 of
all its members; or
2. By a majority vote
of all its members, submit such question to the electorate.
If Congress, acting
as a ConAss, calls for a ConCon but does not provide details for the calling of
such ConCon, Congress by exercising its ordinary legislative power may supply
such details. But in so doing, the Congress (as legislature) should not
transgress the resolution of Congress acting as a ConAss.
The manner of
calling a ConCon is subject to judicial review because the Constitution has
provided for voting requirements.
It should be noted
that the choice of which ConAss or ConCon should initiate amendments and
revisions is left to the discretion of Congress. In other words, it is a
political question.
Congress, as a
ConAss and the ConCon has no power to appropriate money for their expenses.
Money may be spent from the treasury only pursuant to an appropriation made by
law.
c.
By People’s
Initiative upon a petition of at least 12% of the total number of registered
voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by 3% of the
registered voters therein.
The Constitution
may be amended not oftener than every 5 years through initiative.
2.
Ratification
Amendments or
revisions to the Constitution should be ratified by the majority in a
plebiscite which should be held not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days
after the approval of such amendment.
Doctrine
of Proper Submission
Plebiscite may be held on the same day as
regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC,
G.R. No. L‐28196, Nov. 9,
1967),
provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted
upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine
manner. Submission of piece‐meal amendments is
unconstitutional. All amendments must be submitted for ratification at one
plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in
arriving at their decision. (Tolentino v.
COMELEC, G.R. No. L‐34150, Oct. 16,
1971)
DISCLAIMER: The author is not lawyer nor an authority on this topic. It is a product of humble research and study of law. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer.
0 comments