RICHEALYN C.

TADEO, PTRP, MPA

Bachelor of Laws - 4
th
Year


POSITION PAPER

Amendment of the 1987 Constitution by the Congress
voting separately not in a joint session
is unconstitutional

As our society is progressing, there is a need to amend the
Constitution as to adjust with the moving society it is supposed
to govern. However, it is important to note whether how it can
be amended. Amending the Constitution by the Congress by a vote
of three-fourths of all its Members voting separately not in a
joint session is unconstitutional.

Under the 1987 Constitution, Article 17 sec. 1, it reads
that:
Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
proposed by:
(1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its
Members; or
(2) A constitutional convention.

Even though nothing is said about a joint session, we
should look into what is the real intention of the law. In this
regard, we should go back to the 1935 Constitution of which the
provision read thus:

The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of
three-fourths of all the Members of the Senate and of the House
of Representatives voting separately, may propose amendments to
this Constitution or call a convention for that purpose. Such
amendments shall be valid as part of this Constitution when
approved by a majority of the votes cast at an election at which
the amendments are submitted to the people for their
ratification.

Under this provision, it specifically states that the two
Houses of Congress had to come together in joint session in
order to propose amendments. And as such, though the 1987
Constitution is not specific whether it should be in a joint
session or not, we should take it as it should be in a joint
session for if there is any disagreement it can be settled
automatically without the need to sort the conference committee
which will add to the complexity of the amendment process.
ernas (2003) argues that the reason why the present
provision is worded the way it is, is because when the 1986
Constitutional Commission discussed the provision at the time
when the expectation was that Congress would be in a unicameral
body. Thus, the model adopted was a copy of the amendatory
provision for the Batasang Pambansa, a unicameral body, under
the 1973 Constitution. And that although the deliberations show
that there was an intention to adjust the provision in case a
bicameral Congress should be approved, the adjustment never
happened.

In the above arguments of Fr. Joaquin G. ernas, if the
real intention is to adjust but never happened and that the
model adopted was that of a unicameral body and in reality we
have a bicameral body then it would be safe to conclude that an
action of the bicameral body should be done as one as in voting
in joint session. Therefore, Congress voting separately not in
joint session is unconstitutional.

In the case of Jceana v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1, which is
authority for the principle that the choice of method of
proposal, i.e., whether made directly by Congress or through a
Constitutional Convention, is within the full discretion of the
legislature.

Talking about the full discretion of the legislature then,
who has the power to amend the Constitution, for them to act as
one or jointly in order to come up with a vivid and precise
proposal is better than to vote separately not in a joint
session. For if not in a joint session, the process will be of
more time consuming and not practical because if problem arises
between the two bodies of Congress another time will be consumed
and thus entails unnecessary expenditure of public funds.

As it was known that the guiding original intention of
amending the Constitution is to improve specific parts or to add
new provisions or to suppress existing ones according as
addition or subtraction might be demanded by existing
conditions, it is imperative that the Congress should vote in a
joint session in order to form a harmonious whole. And that
there is no good reason why the Congress should settle for the
second best if the legislature can do the best, that is to vote
in a joint session.

Moreover, Constitutional Conventions, 4
th
ed., Sec. 535 was
reiterated by Judge Jameson, which states that an alteration of
the Constitution proposed today has relation to the sentiment
and felt needs of today and, if not ratified early while the
sentiment may fairly be supposed to exist, it ought to be
regarded as waived and not again to be voted upon unless for a
second time proposed.

The aforementioned statement would mean that time is of
much important and so the Congress should vote in a joint
session so that whatever problem it may possibly arise it can be
resolved as immediate as possible.

Jf all what is said and mentioned, I proposed: (1) not to
let the legislature decide whether they vote jointly or not; (2)
that the Supreme Court should be firm to decide that voting
separately by the Congress is unconstitutional; (3) that
Sovereign people should be educated on the dreadful effect of
not voting jointly by the Congress.

In conclusion, amending the Constitution should be voted
jointly by the Congress in order to attain harmonious decision
of the bicameral body, to pass a timely proposal, to realize
practicality, and to eliminate complexity which may possibly
arise. And this should be non-debatable for we have a common
goal, that is, to amend the Constitution in a constitutional way
that the sovereign people will be the one to benefit.























BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Books

Nachura, Antonio . (2009) Outline Reviewer in Political Law

Cruz, Isagani A. (2003) Philippine Political Law

The 1935 Philippine Constitution

The 1987 Philippine Constitution

ernas, S.J., Joaquin G. (2003) The 1987 Constitution of the
Republic of the Philippines: A Commentary

Jceana v. Comelec, 104 SCRA 1