Since the advent of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, there has been attempts or proposals to change our fundamental law. In every administration, from that of President FVR and until today, under the incumbency of President BBM, talks about Cha-Cha or Charter Change filled the news. During the time of President Duterte, he was very vocal in his desire to adopt a federal system of government. But what is this so called “Cha-Cha”?
As usual, I will not discuss about any proposal to change our present constitution nor will I dwell on any current issues. But I will try the best I could in order for my readers to be informed as to what “Cha-Cha” is and how it could be done.
Charter Change (“Cha-Cha”) or constitutional reform is the act or process of amending or revising a constitution – or simply, from the word itself, “to change the charter or constitution”. Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, any change or modification of the constitution may be deemed as an “amendment” or a “revision.”
In the case of Raul Lambino vs Comelec (G.R. No. 174153, October 25, 2006), the Supreme Court lengthily explained the difference between amendment and revision by applying the quantitative and qualitative tests. The quantitative test asks whether the proposed change is so extensive as to change the substantial entirety of the Constitution. The focus is on the number of changes or the number of the affected provisions. In the qualitative test, the main inquiry is whether the proposal effects such far-reaching changes in the nature of the basic plan of government as to amount to a revision.
With this, it was ruled that 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 alter the substantial entirety of the constitution, as when the change affects substantial or several provisions of the constitution. On the other hand, amendment, broadly refers to a change that adds, reduces, or deletes without altering the basic principle involved. (Idem) In short, revision generally affects several provisions while amendment affects only the specific provision being amended. In revision, there is a change or alteration in a basic principle or the structure/form of government, in amendment, there is none.
Now, how can an amendment or a revision of the constitution may be proposed? What are the methods provided by our present constitution?
The answer is enshrined under Article XVII, Section 1 and 2, of the 1987 Constitution. Revision and amendment of the constitution may be proposed by: (1) the Congress, acting as a Constituent Assembly; (2) Constitutional Convention; and (3) People’s Initiative. Take note that People’s Initiative is applicable only in amending the constitution and may not be resorted to in revising the same.
Constituent Assembly. The Congress, after garnering the vote of 3/4 of all its members, may decide to act as a Constituent Assembly and directly propose the amendment or revision of the constitution. The term “Constituent Assembly”, however, is not used in the Constitution, Article XVII, Section 1 thereof merely states “The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members”.
Constitutional Convention. A Constitutional Convention is a body composed of selected individuals who will be tasked to propose or draft amendments or revision of the constitution. Article XVII, Section 3 states that “The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention.
The constitution did not indicate the process as to how members or delegates of a constitutional convention shall be selected. It also did not provide for their number and qualifications. Thus, it can reasonably be inferred that such discretion is left for the members of Congress to decide.
Worthy to point also that the term “Congress” as used under Article XVII pertains to both its houses: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Also, considering the silence of our constitution in the manner of voting, there has been debates as to whether the Senate and the House of Representatives shall vote jointly or separately. I joined those who believe that the voting should be done separately as to give respect to the upper house, the Senate, which is composed only of 24 senators, which is indeed outnumbered by the members of the House of Representatives. To interpret it, otherwise, will not only amount to overpowering or silencing the Senate but will also go against the very principle of a bicameral legislature.
People’s Initiative or Amendment directly proposed by the people. Article XVII, Section, to wit: Amendments to this Constitution may likewise be directly proposed by the people through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve per centum of the total number of registered voters therein. No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five years thereafter. The Congress shall provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
After a draft of the proposed amendment or revision has been made, the same shall only be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite. Plebiscite is the electoral process by which an amendment/revision of the constitution is approved or rejected by the people.
In case of amendment to, or revision of, the Constitution thru Constituent Assembly or Constitutional Convention, the plebiscite shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision by the said body. If thru, People’s Initiative, the plebiscite shall be held not earlier than sixty days nor later than ninety days after the certification by the Commission on Elections of the sufficiency of the petition.