The Constitution stands as the supreme legal document in the Philippines. It is the blueprint of governance, establishing a framework to guarantee every Filipino’s rights and the rule of law. In the course of the currents of time, the 1987 Constitution emerged and evolved as a symbol of struggles and the collective aspirations of the Filipino people towards true democracy. It embodies the nation’s values, hopes, and identities.

To protect these against the caprices of transient politics and fleeting interests, the framers of the 1987 Constitution have provided necessary safeguards. One of which is found under Article XVII of the Constitution or Amendments or Revisions. It contains the lock and key before any person can change what has been written and affirmed by the Filipinos. Because of this provision, the Constitution remains unchanged since its ratification in 1987.

Article XVII has been the center of recent public discourse on changing the charter. There are debates on whether it can lead into the country’s desired economic progress, or if changing the Constitution through this Article is a Pandora’s box which could unleash the risks of unwanted modifications.

Three Modes of Change

Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution enumerates three modes to propose amendments or revision to the Constitution: (1) constituent assembly or Con-Ass, (2) a constitutional convention or Con-con, and (3) people’s initiative.
Upon a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of the Congress, the legislative branch may convene into a constituent assembly (con-ass), consisting of all senators and congressmen, to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
Alternatively, the Congress can also call for a constitutional convention (con-con) by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members. This body will be made up of elected delegates by the public and will be the ones to propose amendments to or revision of the Constitution.

Lastly, the people can also directly propose amendments through a people’s initiative. Under Section 2 of Article XVII, the Constitution prescribes that this can be done through a petition signed by at least 12% of the total registered voters, represented by at least three percent every legislative district.

The last mode can only be used to propose amendments but not revisions. Amendment entails changing one or few specific and separable provisions while revision means a change on the substantial entirety of the Constitution or alterations on the nature of the basic governmental plan. For instance, Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution states that “the Philippines is a democratic and republican State.” If only the word “republican” will be changed into “federal,” it will be considered as a revision even if only one word was replaced.

Liberalizing the Economy
In the past, attempts to revise or amend the Constitution were made. Well-known were the bids to reform the economic provisions and liberalize Philippine economy to foreign entities. Representative Edcel Lagman of Albay who is also the President of Liberal Party felt that “we must not compromise or forfeit the Filipino’s patrimony by liberalizing the foreign equity and ownership of sensitive corporations and enterprises at the expense of Filipino controlling capital and management.”
Lagman presented a study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an intergovernmental organization that discusses and develops economic and social policies. The OECD study does not include the amendment of nationalistic constitutional provisions as an imperative inducement for the entry of foreign direct investments.

Instead, the organization listed six major determinants for foreign investment: (a) ease of doing business; (b) elimination or significant reduction of official corruption; (c) predictability of government policies; (d) adequate and enabling infrastructure; (e) faster and reliable internet speed; and (f) cheaper cost of power.

Opening up the Constitution to amend the economic provisions could lead to unintended repercussions. It is akin to opening a Pandora’s box that could unleash threats to the safeguards in place against misuse of power that could crumble democracy. Once the Constitution has been opened, it could pave the way for unauthorized amendments to political provisions, including the removal of term limits of elective officials. Imagine congressmen having eight-year terms, a president seeking for re-election for a second term or a Congress without senators.

Congressional Initiative
Only the House of Representatives has been successful in passing proposals to amend the economic provisions of the 1987 Constitution. But when these proposals reach the Senate, they lie dead. To remedy this, People’s Initiative for Modernization and Reform (PIRMA) and some congressmen from the supermajority coalition led a campaign for people’s initiative. PIRMA Lead Convenor Noel Oñate admitted to have coordinated with House Speaker Martin Romualdez for this people’s initiative. Reports revealed that city and municipal mayors, under the guidance of district congressmen, have been mobilized to collect signatures from their constituents.

Since the Constitution is silent on the manner of voting for constituent assembly, their recent proposal for people’s initiative is to amend Section 1 of Article XVII of the Constitution and include the word “jointly.” This means the Congress – the Senate and the House of Representative – will convene as one body. It was designed to malevolently marginalize the Senators. The numerical superiority of the congressmen will undoubtedly outvote the 24 senators.

This move rattled the nation as reports showed bribery, signature buying, and historical revisionism. Some alleged signatories claimed that they were made to sign in exchange of aids or cold cash. PIRMA also paid for ads using the term “EDSA-pwera” which aims to disparage the EDSA People Power Revolution which installed the present Constitution. The perpetrators should be reminded that a significant majority – 16,622,111 or 76.3% of the total number of voters – voted in the affirmative to approve the present Constitution in a national plebiscite conducted on 11 February 1987. (Proclamation No. 58, February 11, 1987) The Supreme Court in Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. 174153, October 25, 2006) stated that this “approval is the unmistakable voice of the people, the full expression of the people’s sovereign will. That approval included the prescribed modes for amending or revising the Constitution.”

Lambino also listed two requisites for people’s initiative to prosper: (1) the people must author and sign the entire proposal; and (2) as an initiative upon a petition, the proposal must be embodied in the petition. The recent efforts for a people’s initiative evidently have not completed these requisites: the people were not the “real” author of the entire proposal as a number of signatories claimed that they did not understand what they signed.

Eventually, everything became clear. This recent version of people’s initiative is virtually an initiative of the House of Representatives. Contrary to the spirit of people’s initiative, the proposal to change the Constitution did not emanate from the public. It stemmed from the interests of a selected few.

Not the First Time

It may be recalled that this is not the first time PIRMA attempted to amend the Constitution through people’s initiative. During the presidency of President Fidel V. Ramos in 1997, PIRMA started a signature campaign to extend the term limits of elective officers such as the president, vice president, senators, congressmen and other local elective officials. However, in Defensor-Santiago v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 127325, March 19, 1997), the Supreme Court enjoined their petition. The Court clarified that Section 2 of Article XVII of the Constitution is not a self-executing provision. In other words, an enabling law is required before the said provision can be implemented. The existing law, Republic Act No. 6735 or “The Initiative and Referendum Act,” was deemed insufficient because it only covers the people’s initiative to amend local legislation and not the Constitution. Absent a complete statute to cover people’s initiative on Constitution, it will be fatal to any attempts to resort to this mode.

It must be highlighted that the Supreme Court in Defensor-Santiago has ordered COMELEC to be “permanently enjoined from entertaining or taking cognizance of any petition for initiative on amendments to the Constitution until a sufficient law shall have been validly enacted to provide for the implementation of the system.”

However, there are claims that the ruling in Defensor-Santiago was already abandoned in Lambino v. COMELEC (G.R. 174153, October 25, 2006) where the petition for people’s initiative was rejected by the Supreme Court because it proposed a full-scale revision of the Constitution from presidential to parliamentary system, while people’s initiative is just limited to amendments. As noted by the renowned Constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., ten justices expressed the view that there was already an initiative and referendum law for amendment of the Constitution.

Contrarywise, Rep. Lagman emphasized that the Defensor-Santiago ruling was not abandoned in Lambino: “This view expressed by the ten justices in a brief resolution denying the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner Lambino was a mere obiter dictum which was not determinative in the ruling of the High Court, unnecessary, and did not constitute a precedent. It was not necessary in deciding the principal issue in Lambino. In layman’s parlance, an obiter dictum is a “by the way” comment similar to “incidentally”, which is not the ratio desidendi or rationale for the decision.”

An Enabling Law

Only an enabling law on people’s initiative passed by Congress can cure this fatal defect. On 5 February 2024, Rep. Lagman proposed House Bill (HB) 9868 or the “Enabling Law on People’s Initiative to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.” Once HB 9868 is passed, this will serve as an enabling, adequate and compliant law to truly allow the people to directly propose constitutional amendments. This legislation aims to prevent ill-willed entities from exploiting the process of people’s initiative as a means to manipulate the people into modifying the Constitution for their own benefit
.
Verily, as Lagman puts it in an interview, “the Constitution is a living instrument. It is not a relic of the past. The Constitution gives guidelines to the present and guidepost for the future. It should not be amended at whip or whim. It should be stable. It should not be blamed for the failures of the administrators to fully implement the wiser and more important policies in governance.”

The public must remain steadfast and vigilant against attempts to amend or revise the Constitution. The pledges of economic progress may sound alluring but we must look beyond these promises and enticements and unveil ulterior motivations and self-serving interests. We must ensure that the proposed changes genuinely serve the welfare of the general public.

Now, while the nation is witnessing the superfluous debacle among the members of the House and the Senate to amend or revise the Constitution, other more pressing issues are left out. The honorable legislators must be reminded that the Philippines is also faced with various crises in food security, unemployment, health, education, nation’s debt, and the presence and aggression of China in the West Philippine Sea.

(Sef Gozon obtained his Juris Doctor degree at the University of Makati School of Law (UMak Law) as a full-time scholar in 2023. He passed the Bar Examinations that same year. Currently, he serves as an associate attorney at Belmonte Sison & Associates. Before becoming a full-fledged lawyer, Sef worked as a legislative and communication officer of Quezon City 6th district Rep. Kit Belmonte for two years, and spent five years as head researcher and segment producer at GMA News.)