sic itur ad astra

THE 1987 CONSTITUTION AMENDMENTS AND REVISION S  With the passage of time, the members of the House of Representatives increased with the creation of new legislative districts and the corresponding adjustments in the number of party list representatives. At a time when the House membership was already 290, a great number of the members decided that it was time to propose amendments to the Constitution. The Senators, however, were cool to the idea. But the members of the House insisted. They accordingly convened Congress into a constituent assembly in spite of the opposition of the majority of the members of the Senate. When the votes were counted, 275 members of the House of Representatives approved the proposed amendments. Only 10 Senators supported such proposals. The proponents now claim that the proposals were validly made, since more than the required three-fourths vote of Congress has been obtained. The 14 Senators who voted against the proposals claim that the proposals ...

Political Law | 1987 Constitution Under Proclamation No. 3 (March 25, 1986), the Provisional (Freedom) Constitution was promulgated to act as the interim basic charter pending the drafting and ratification of a new constitution. It retained certain provisions of the 1973 Constitution, introduced new articles on executive powers and administrative reorganization, and provided for the creation of a Constitutional Commission with 30–50 members to draft a new constitution. Saturnino Bermudez, a lawyer, petitioned the Supreme Court via declaratory relief asking for interpretation of Section 5, Article XVIII of the proposed 1986 Constitution, which states: “The six‑year term of the incumbent President and Vice‑President elected in the February 7, 1986 election is … extended to noon of June 30, 1992 .” Bermudez sought clarification whether this extension applied to President Corazon Aquino and Vice‑President Salvador Laurel, or to the previously elected Ferdinand Marcos and Arturo Tolentino....

Political Law Review | The 1973 Constitution  Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly, passed Resolution No. 2 (1967) and Resolution No. 4 (1969) calling for a Constitutional Convention . Congress later enacted R.A. No. 6132 on August 24, 1970 to implement these resolutions. Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of R.A. No. 6132, arguing it was not passed by a three-fourths vote of both Houses voting separately , as required for constitutional amendments under Article XV of the 1935 Constitution. Whether R.A. No. 6132 is invalid for not being passed by a three-fourths vote of Congress voting separately. NO The law is constitutional .  Once Congress had exercised its constituent power by passing Resolutions Nos. 2 and 4 with the required three-fourths vote, it could then use its legislative power to enact laws like R.A. No. 6132 to implement those resolutions. The doctrine of “ necessary implication ” allows Congress acting in its legislative capacity to enact sta...

Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal By the people thru initiative  On June 23, 1997, a group known as People’s Initiative for Reform, Modernization, and Action (PIRMA) filed a petition with COMELEC seeking to amend the Constitution through a people’s initiative. The proposal included lifting term limits on elected officials and shifting to a parliamentary system. The petition was supported by an estimated five million signatures, in compliance with Republic Act No. 6735, and followed COMELEC Resolution No. 2300 procedural guidelines. Petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin filed a civil action for prohibition under Rule 65, arguing the initiative power in Article XVII, Section 2 is not self-executing , and that lifting term limits would amount to a revision, not an amendment. Whether Article XVII, Section 2 (people’s initiative power) is self-executing, so that RA 6735 can suffice as its implementing law. NO Article XVII,...

Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal By the people thru initiative  Atty. Jesus Delfin sought to amend the 1987 Constitution by removing term limits for elective officials through a people’s initiative. He asked COMELEC to set dates for signature gathering and to assist in the process. COMELEC granted due course and proceeded under COMELEC Resolution No. 2300, based on R.A. No. 6735 (the Initiative and Referendum Act).  The petitioners Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago, Alexander Padilla, and Maria Isabel Ongpin sought to stop implementation on the grounds that the initiative process for amending the Constitution was defective.  Whether R.A. No. 6735 adequately implement the people’s initiative clause under Article XVII, Section  2 of the 1987 Constitution for proposing amendments The Court ruled that R.A. No. 6735 is insufficient to implement the system of initiative for constitutional amendments . Though the law mentions initiative on the Constitution, it lack...

  Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal By Constitutional Convention Congress passed Joint Resolutions Nos. 1 and 3 on March 16, 1967: RBH No. 1 : Proposed increasing the maximum membership of the House of Representatives from 120 to 180. RBH No. 3 : Allowed Senators and Representatives to serve as delegates to a future Constitutional Convention without forfeiting their seats. Congress enacted Republic Act No. 4913 , which scheduled the ratification of these amendments during the general elections on November 14, 1967. Gonzales filed a petition to prohibit the implementation of R.A. 4913, arguing it was unconstitutional. Whether constitutional amendments be submitted for ratification during a general election. YES On Holding the Plebiscite During General Elections The Court ruled that the Constitution does not require a special election for ratifying amendments. The phrase “at an election” in Article XV was interpreted broadly to include general elections , unless explic...

  Political Law Review | Amendment by Proposal Petitioners Samuel C. Occena and Ramon A. Gonzales are both lawyers and former delegates to the 1971 Constitutional Convention. The Interim Batasang Pambansa passed three resolutions proposing amendments to the 1973 Constitution. Petitioners challenged the validity of these resolutions, arguing that: The 1973 Constitution was not valid (despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in Javellana v. Executive Secretary ). The proposed amendments were too extensive and amounted to a revision. The method of proposal and submission violated constitutional requirements. Whether the Congress can choose the method of proposing amendments (directly or via a convention ). YES The Court reaffirmed the Javellana ruling. The 1973 Constitution is in force and effect. Any argument to the contrary is futile. The 1976 Amendments explicitly granted the Interim Batasang Pambansa the power to propose amendments . The Court held that the legislature, when convened ...

Political Law Review | The 1987 Constitution On February 15, 2006, Raul Lambino and Erico Aumentado began gathering signatures for a people’s initiative to amend the 1987 Constitution. On August 25, 2006, the Lambino Group filed a petition with the COMELEC to conduct a plebiscite to ratify their proposed constitutional changes. The petition claimed support from 6,327,952 registered voters, representing at least 12% of the national electorate and 3% from each legislative district. The proposed changes included amendments to Sections 1–7 of Article VI (Legislative Department), Sections 1–4 of Article VII (Executive Department), and the addition of Article XVIII (Transitory Provisions). The initiative sought to change the form of government from a bicameral-presidential system to a unicameral-parliamentary system. On August 30, 2006, the Lambino Group filed an amended petition modifying the transitory provisions. On August 31, 2006, the COMELEC denied due course to the petition, citin...