MOTION: This House shall form Constitutional Assembly that will

propose revisions to the Constitution. Affirmative

Proponents:
Alfredo Bardaje Jr.
Dr. Glenn O. Labnao
John Paul Sacendoncillo
Introduction

“The inn that shelters for the night is not the journeys end; The
Constitution, like the traveller, must be ready for the morrow”. The
Constitution like any living law must move with the moving society it is
supposed to govern. A law that has ceased to grow has ceased to be.1
The Constitution being the supreme law of the land should have
avenues for it to grow. The 1987 Constitution provides the methods for
amendment or revisions in Article 17, which states that:

Section 1. 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.

Section 2. 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, of which
every legislative district must be represented by at least three per
centum of the 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 provision says nothing about a joint session. The provision thus
raises two questions: First, must Congress assemble in joint session
before it can propose amendments or call a constitutional convention?
Or, alternatively, may the two Houses as they are and where they are
propose amendments or call a constitutional convention by a vote of
three fourths of their respective membership?
Since nothing is said about a joint session, it is submitted that
each House may separately formulate amendments (and resolutions) …
and pass it on to the other house for a similar process. Disagreements
can be settled through a conference committee.
Alternatively, however, it is also submitted that Congress may
decide to come together in joint session and vote separately on
proposed amendments and revisions. Since the Constitution is silent
about that method and since the amendatory process has been
committed to Congress, under the “political questions” doctrine of
Congress should be free to choose whichever method it prefers.
It is also submitted, however that what is essential, is that both
House vote separately. This is because the power to propose
amendments (and resolutions) is given not to a unicameral body but to
a bicameral body. The meaning of a constitutional command can also be
drawn from the known government set up by the Constitution.2
(emphasis supplied)
It has been a long standing question as to whether or not
resolutions to the current constitution is best made through a
constituent assembly or a constitutional convention as both provide a
lot of questions regarding implementation. The Constitutional
provisions in Article 17 do not provide specificity on how these
processes should be done. Thus, it is the hope of this paper to show that
a constituent assembly is the better choice.

Arguments

1. The Congress’s job is to create legislature thus to delegate the

very important task of creating revisions to the Constitution
though it may seem appropriate as it is provided for by the
Constitution itself, it is the other option. Otherwise the
constitution should have been worded saying that changes to
the Constitutions should be done through constitutional
convention first and constituent assembly next. Furthermore,
the creation of a constitutional convention (Con-con) will be
decided upon by Congress itself with regard to the election of
the participants of the constitutional convention. Why take the
extra step? The Congress, being elected by the people represents
the sovereign people’s interest. And each legislator knows
personally (should know personally) his constituent’s needs and
what could be done in order to meet those needs either thru
creation of laws that will help or amending or revising the
current system to adapt to the changing needs of his
constituents. The 1987 Constitution was created thru con-con
mainly because there was no option at that time since the
 Philippines was under a revolutionary form of government and
the existing system was overridden by the revolutionary form of
government. Cost, practicality and proper decorum was never
questioned. Which not the case today.
2. By using constituent assembly, it will avoid the unnecessary
expenditure of public funds for calling a constitutional
convention. In an article published in 2016 in Inquirer.net.
House Speaker Davao del Norte Rep. Pantaleon Alvarez said that
Mr. Duterte made the decision on Wednesday night after the
National Security Council (NSC) meeting when he was told that a
constitutional convention (Con-con) would cost P6 billion to P7
billion. The President had originally wanted the amendment to
be done by a constitutional convention, but changed his mind
after learning its cost to be so staggering during a discussion
with the Speaker, Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III and
Budget Secretary Benjamin Diokno.3 Although it is provided in
the constitution that Congress should “provide” for process of
making changes in the constitution, their main mandate is to
ensure that government spending is efficient and that no
unnecessary costs should be provided for otherwise funding for
more important aspects of the government would be routed to
budget items that aren’t necessary. To quote a article in
cnnphilippines.com in July 31, 2016, House Majority leader
Rodolfo Farinas said that “It’s simply practical and plain
common sense. A constitutional assembly would spend no more
 that P2 billion, while a Con-con, from P6-P7 billion, and that
figure is only for the election of delegates”.5 It is clear that
although constitutional change is needed, it shouldn’t stand that
the government should go all out regarding expenditures just so
that these changes are realized. We all have to be logical and
practical about it.
3. In a constituent assembly, there is a principle of checks and
balances that can be closely monitored by congress, as suppose
to a constitutional convention wherein, the con-con itself is an
independent body free from the scrutiny of congress when it
comes to that will be discussed regarding the resolution it will
pass. Doing so would provide a better chance that irregularities
can happen. To quote Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri in a recent
abscbn.com article “Wala tayong control kung ano ang
paguusapan nila sa con-con… Sa amin may check and balance
eh”4. The principle of checks and balance is enshrined in the
current constitution to ensure that not one facet of government
will overstep another. It should follow that in creating changes
to the supreme law of the land, the process should have that
system too in order to ensure that not one person or party’s
vested interest go unchecked.
Summary

It is established that the Constitution being a living law should be

able to grow and adapt to the changing times. The methods for which
these changes can be done (though unclear regarding specificity) are
enshrined in the Constitution itself. Whatever process is chosen should
take into consideration the practically of the endeavor, the safety of the
sovereign people’s interest and insurance that it is the sovereign
people’s interest that is reflected in the change not the vested interest of
a selected few.

1. iPhilippinePolitical Law – Isagani Cruz 2014 p804

2. Constitional Law – Bernas p1349-p1350
3. Inquirer.net article “It’s Con-ass not Con-con” July 29, 2016
4. Abscbn.com article “Alamin Pagkakaiba ng Con-ass at Con-con” 4-13-2018
5. Cnnphilippines.com “Law makers argue about mode for charter change”
July 31 2016