Advanced Consti Discussion

1. Amendment vs. Revision

Quantitative and Qualitative test the proposed change can satisfy
either test.
Lambino vs. Comelec even if there is only 1 provision will be
changed, it can still result to a fundamental change in the Constitution
under the quantitative test.
3 ways in changing the Constitution by constituent assembly
(Congress performing constituent power); constitutional convention;
and initiative.
CON-ASS voting separately or jointly? 2 schools of thought:
o Look at the background explanation why there is an
incomplete phrase in Sec 1 of Art 17. When the Constitution
was drafted, several committees were assigned for several
articles. The committee on amendment was done already with
the draft while the committee on legislative has not yet decided
on won to adopt a bicameral congress. Bernas explained this.
In applying intent, it should be voting separately.
o It should be voting jointly because Congress acting as
constituent body and not as a legislative body which requires
application of bicameral congress.
Constitutional Convention how may congress do this? Is congress
permitted to pass a resolution and call for a con con and later on split
and a law will be passed providing for the con con? In the case of
Tolentino vs. Comelec the SC said Congress has 2 options:
o Exercise constituent power, call a resolution and provide for
the details as to how the con con should be created.
o Congress may divide or split acting as a legislative body
passing a law on how a con convention should be made.
2. The Doctrine of Fair and Proper Submission requires that the manner and
time of the proposed change should give the people proper time to go over
the proposed changes.
a. As to time 60 90 days
b. Manner constitution is still silent. But as a rule, plebiscite for a
revised constitution must not be held at the same time with the
regular election.
c. Gonzales vs. Comelec it can be done at the same time if the proposed
change is a simple one like changing the retirement age of the judges.
3. Judicial Review (specific; includes the determination of the validity of a
governmental act) vs Judicial Power (broader concept)
a. Actual case or controversy under the 1st requisite there is twin
requisites. Actual case or controversy and ripeness of adjudication.
b. First (ACC) it will require only a real conflict of rights legally
enforceable and demandable.
c. Second (ROA) requires that the governmental agency must have
already done an act before it can be subject to judicial review.
Otherwise, the controversy is not yet ripe for adjudication. This is in
Tan vs. Macapagal.