Supremacy and Constitutionality

The Law Process: Amendments on the Constitution

The Doctrine of Constitutional Supremacy tells us that any law which violates the Constitution is null and void and cannot be given any force or effect. It is in this precedence that we safely conclude that the Constitution is something of gravest importance and priority. As the supreme law of the land, can it be amended to deal with changing times? If yes, how?

Three modes for constitutional amendments were named in the 1987 Constitution: (1) upon ¾ votes of all members of the Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly, (2) through a constitutional convention, and (3) people’s initiative.

Congress may propose amendments or revisions. The former applies when there’s a change that reduces, adds, or even deletes but does not change the basic principle or structure in its entirety. The effect is only limited to the specific provision. On the other hand, revision refers to a change in principle or structure and alteration to the entirety of the constitution. Both of these shall only be valid after ratification by the majority through a plebiscite not earlier than 60 days nor later than 90 days after the amendment approval.

Another thing is that Congress can propose both amendment and revision through a constitutional convention, which is called by a vote of 2/3 of all the members of both houses, voting separately. It is the members of this convention that is given the right to introduce proposals.

The Congress, by a majority vote of all its members, may also submit to the electorate the question on calling such constitutional convention.

In addition, the people may also directly propose their amendment through an initiative. Section 2 of Article XVII says that this will be done in the form of a petition of at least 12% of the total number of the registered voters, with 3% in every legislative district. This must be authored and signed by the people themselves with the embodied proposal after the full text of the proposed amendments is presented. The proposed amendments  must then be assented to by affixing the people’s signatures.

Ratification is also done through a plebiscite called for the purpose. However, while the Constitution grants this right to the people, it cannot be exercised if the Congress does not give implementation.

There are cases which explain the concept and nature of constitutional amendments. Two landmark cases on this are the following:

In Planas v. COMELEC, GR. No. L-35925, January 22, 1973, where the authority of the 1971 Constitutional Convention to pass the proposed constitution was assailed, the Court held that the Convention was legally free to propose their amendments as they have the sovereign power delegated to them by the people. These amendments, however, have to be approved by the majority votes cast on the election.

The petitioners in the case of Sanidad v. COMELEC, G.R. No. L-44640, October 12, 1976 contended that the President has no power to propose amendments to the new constitution and that the referendum held has no legal basis. The Court opposed the contention, stating that in the transitory provision of the 1973 Constitution, the prerogative of the President to approve or disapprove amendments only applies to ordinary legislation. He has nothing to do with the proposition nor amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, the referendum is valid.

Our present constitution is almost 35 years old and there have been many issues surfacing its revision but none of them came up successfully. Even new laws cannot amend the Constitution. In cases when subsequent laws are in conflict with it, the law is struck down as unconstitutional, and what’s stated in the Constitution is upheld, relative to the fact that it occupies the highest tier on the hierarchy of laws. Because of this, it is only proper that we make sure it embodies the welfare and interests of its people.