AMENDMENTS vs. REVISIONS of the Constitution.

 AMENDMENTS vs. REVISIONS of the Constitution

AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS 

Sec. 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: 

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

(2) A constitutional convention. 

Sec. 2. Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative x x x. [ARTICLE XVII, Secs. 1 & 2, 1987 Constitution]

(Emphasis supplied)

Author's note:

Article XVII of the Constitution speaks of three (3) modes of amending the Constitution. 

The first mode is through Congress upon three-fourths vote of all its Members. (CON-ASS) 

The second mode is through a constitutional convention. (CON-CON) 

The third mode is through a people’s initiative. (People's Initiative). 

Section 1 of Article XVII, referring to the [first] and [second] modes, applies to “[A]ny amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution.” 

In contrast, Section 2 of Article XVII, referring to the third mode, applies only to “[A]mendments to this Constitution.”

(Emphasis supplied). 

Courts have long recognized the distinction between an amendment and a revision of a constitution: 

• [Revision] broadly implies a change that alters a basic principle in the constitution, like altering the principle of separation of powers or the system of checks-and-balances. 

• There is also [revision] if the change alters the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial provisions of the constitution. 

ads.

Take caution when riding. A woman has piled onto the bike.

• On the other hand, [amendment] broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. 

• [Revision] generally affects several provisions of the constitution, while amendment generally affects only the specific provision being amended. (End of phasis). 

Notes about the third mode (People's Initiative) 

In California where the [initiative clause] [allows] amendments but [not] revisions to the constitution just like in our Constitution, courts have developed a two-part test: the quantitative test and the qualitative test. 

Quantitative Test. 

The 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.” The court examines only the number of provisions affected and does not consider the degree of the change. 

Qualitative Test. 

The qualitative test inquires into the qualitative effects of the proposed change in the constitution. The main inquiry is whether the change will “accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision.” Whether there is an alteration in the structure of government is a proper subject of inquiry. 

Thus, “a change in the nature of [the] basic governmental plan” includes “change in its fundamental framework or the fundamental powers of its Branches.” 

• 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.” 

• A change in the structure of government is a revision of the Constitution, as when the three great co-equal branches of government in the present Constitution are reduced into two. This alters the separation of powers in the Constitution. A shift from the present Bicameral-Presidential system to a Unicameral-Parliamentary system is a revision of the Constitution. Merging the legislative and executive branches is a radical change in the structure of government. 

• The abolition alone of the Office of the President as the locus of Executive Power alters the separation of powers and thus constitutes a revision of the Constitution. Likewise, the abolition alone of one chamber of Congress alters the system of checks-and-balances within the legislature and constitutes a revision of the Constitution. 

Note: 

 The Supreme Court went on to explain why the "People's Initiative" should be limited to amendments:

Where the proposed change applies only to a specific provision of the Constitution without affecting any other section or article, the change may generally be considered an amendment and not a revision. For example, a change reducing the voting age from 18 years to 15 years is an amendment and not a revision. Similarly, a change reducing Filipino ownership of mass media companies from 100 percent to 60 percent is an amendment and not a revision. Also, a change requiring a college degree as an additional qualification for election to the Presidency is an amendment and not a revision. 

The changes in these examples do not entail any modification of sections or articles of the Constitution other than the specific provision being amended. These changes do not also affect the structure of government or the system of checks-and-balances among or within the three branches. These three examples are located at the far green end of the spectrum, opposite the far red end where the revision sought by the present petition is located. 

However, there can be no fixed rule on whether a change is an amendment or a revision. A change in a single word of one sentence of the Constitution may be a revision and not an amendment. For example, the substitution of the word “republican” with “monarchic” or “theocratic” in Section 1, Article II of the Constitution radically overhauls the entire structure of government and the fundamental ideological basis of the Constitution. Thus, each specific change will have to be examined case-by-case, depending on how it affects other provisions, as well as how it affects the structure of government, the carefully crafted system of checks-and-balances, and the underlying ideological basis of the existing Constitution. 

Since a revision of a constitution affects basic principles, or several provisions of a constitution, a deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake a revision. A revision requires harmonizing not only several provisions, but also the altered principles with those that remain unaltered. Thus, constitutions normally authorize deliberative bodies like constituent assemblies or constitutional conventions to undertake revisions. On the other hand, constitutions allow people’s initiatives, which do not have fixed and identifiable deliberative bodies or recorded proceedings, to undertake only amendments and not revisions. 

Lambino v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006

👨‍⚖️ CARPIO, J. 

Full text of the case:

🔗 https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2006/10/25/lambino-v-comelec-g-r-no-174153-october-25-2006/