ARTICLE 17

1997 BAR QUESTION: ​State the various modes of, and steps in, revising or amending the
Philippine Constitution.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There are three modes of amending the Constitution.

1. Under Section 1, Article XVIII of the Constitution. Congress may by three-fourths vote of all its
Members propose any amendment to or revision of the Constitution.
2. Under the same provision, a constitutional convention may propose any amendment to or
revision of the Constitution. According to Section 3, Article XVII of the Constitution. Congress
may by a two-thirds vote of all its Members call a constitutional convention or by a majority vote
of all its Members submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
3. Under Section 2. Article XVII of the Constitution, the people may directly propose
amendments to the Constitution through initiative upon a petition of at least twelve percent of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by
at least three per cent of the registered voters therein.

According to Section 4, Article XVII of the Constitution, to be valid any amendment to or revision
of the Constitution must be ratified by a majority of the votes cast In a plebiscite.

2000 BAR QUESTION: ​One Senator remarked that the Supreme Court is a continuing
Constitutional Convention. Do you agree? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I do not agree that the Supreme Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention. The criticism is
based on the assumption that in exercising its power of judicial review the Supreme Court Is not
merely interpreting the Constitution but is trying to remake the Government on the basis of the
personal predilections of the Members of the Supreme Court, this is a power that properly
belongs to the people and their elected representatives.

The Supreme Court cannot decide cases merely on the basis of the letter of the Constitution. It
has to interpret the Constitution to give effect to the intent of its framers and of the people
adopting it. In Interpreting the Constitution, the Supreme Court has to adopt it to the
ever-changing circumstances of society. When the Supreme Court strikes down an act of the
Legislative or the Executive Department, it is merely discharging its duty under the Constitution
to determine conflicting claims of authority.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
To a certain extent, the Supreme Court is a continuing Constitutional Convention. When a case
is brought in court involving a constitutional issue. It becomes necessary to interpret the
Constitution, Since the Supreme Court is supreme within its own sphere, its interpretation of the
Constitution will form part of the law of the land.
2004 BAR QUESTION: ​An amendment to or a revision of the present Constitution may be
proposed by a Constitutional Convention or by the Congress upon a vote of three-fourths of all
its members. Is there a third way of proposing revisions of or amendments to the Constitution? If
so, how? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
There is no third way of proposing revisions to the Constitution; however, the people through
initiative upon petition of at least twelve percent of the total number of registered voters, of
which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered
voters in it, may directly propose amendments to the Constitution. This right is not operative
without an implementing law. (Section 2, Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.)

2005 BAR QUESTION: ​The present Constitution introduced the concepts and processes of
Initiative and Referendum. Compare and differentiate one from the other. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
INITIATIVE is the power of the people to propose amendments to the Constitution or to propose
and enact legislations through an election called for the purpose. Under the 1987 Constitution,
the people through initiative can propose amendments to the Constitution 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.
REFERENDUM is the power of the electorate to approve or reject a legislation through an
election called for the purpose. (Sec. 3, R.A. No. 6735 [1989]).

On the other hand, the Local Government Code (R.A. No. 7160) defines LOCAL INITIATIVE as
the legal process whereby the registered voters of a local government unit may directly propose,
enact, or amend any ordinance (Sec. 120) and LOCAL REFERENDUM as the legal process
whereby the registered voters of the local government units may approve, amend or reject any
ordinance enacted by the Sanggunian. (Sec. 126)

2017 BAR QUESTION: A ​ priority thrust of the Administration is the change of the form of
government from unitary to federal. The change can be effected only through constitutional
amendment or revision.

(a) What are the methods of amending the Constitution? Explain briefly each method.
(b) Cite at least three provisions of the Constitution that need to be amended or revised to effect
the change from unitary to federal, and briefly explain why?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ARTICLE 18

1988 BAR QUESTION: ​In accordance with the opinion of the Secretary of Justice, and
believing that it would be good for the country, the President enters into an agreement with the
Americans for an extension for another five (5) years of their stay at their military bases in the
Philippines, in consideration of:

(1) A yearly rental of one billion U.S. dollars, payable to the Philippine government in advance;
(2) An undertaking on the part of the American government to implement immediately the
mini-Marshall plan for the country involving ten billion U.S. dollars in aids and concessional
loans; and
(3) An undertaking to help persuade American banks to condone interests and other charges on
the country's out-standing loans.

In return, the President agreed to allow American nuclear vessels to stay for short visits at
Subic, and in case of vital military need, to store nuclear weapons at Subic and at Clark Field. A
vital military need comes, under the agreement, when the sealanes from the Persian Gulf to the
Pacific, are threatened by hostile military forces.

The Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition comes to you for advice on how they could legally
prevent the same agreement entered into by the President with the US government from going
into effect. What would you advise them to do? Give your reasons.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If the Agreement is not in the form of a treaty, it is not likely to be submitted to the Senate for
ratification as required in Art. VII, sec. 21. It may not, therefore, be opposed in that branch of the
government. Nor is judicial review feasible at this stage because there is no justiciable
controversy. While Art. VIII, sec. 1, par. 2 states that judicial power includes the duty of the court
of justice to "determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government," it is
clear that this provision does not do away with the political question doctrine. It was inserted in
the Constitution to prevent courts from making use of the doctrine to avoid what otherwise are
justiciable controversies, albeit involving the Executive Branch of the government during the
martial law period. On the other hand, at this stage, no justiciable controversy can be framed to
justify judicial review, I would, therefore, advice the Nuclear Free Philippine Coalition to resort to
the media to launch a campaign against the Agreement.
2015 BAR QUESTION: ​The Philippines and the Republic of Kroi Sha established diplomatic
relations and immediately their respective Presidents signed the following: (1) Executive
Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to establish its embassy and consular offices
within Metro Manila; and (2) Executive Agreement allowing the Republic of Kroi Sha to bring to
the Philippines its military complement, warships, and armaments from time to time for a period
not exceeding one month for the purpose of training exercises with the Philippine military forces
and exempting from Philippine criminal jurisdiction acts committed in the line of duty by foreign
military personnel, and from paying custom duties on all the goods brought by said foreign
forces into Philippine territory in connection with the holding of the activities authorized under
the said Executive Agreement.

Senator Maagap questioned the constitutionality of the said Executive Agreements and
demanded that the Executive Agreements be submitted to the Senate for ratification pursuant to
the Philippine Constitution. Is Senator Maagap correct? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Senator Maagap is correct in so far as the second Executive Agreement is concerned. The first
Executive Agreement is in such a nature that such need not be concurred in by the Senate. In
Bayan Muna v. Romulo, the right of the Executive to enter into binding agreements without the
necessity of subsequent congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the
earliest days of our history, we have entered executive agreements covering such subjects as
commercial and consular relations, most favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and
copyright protection, postal and navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims.
However, for the second Executive Agreement which is in the nature of an International
agreements involving political issues or changes on national policy and those involving
international arrangements of a permanent character, is deemed as a treaty (Commissioner of
Customs v. Eastern Sea Trading), in which case must be concurred in by the Senate (Section
21, Article VI, 1987 Constitution). Hence Senator Maagap is only correct as regards the second
Executive Agreement which must be submitted for the concurrence of the Senate.

1996 BAR QUESTION: ​Under the executive agreement entered into between the Philippines
and the other members of the ASEAN, the other members will each send a battalion-size unit of
their respective armed forces to conduct a combined military exercise in the Subic Bay Area. A
group of concerned citizens sought to enjoin the entry of foreign troops as violative of the 1987
Constitution that prohibited the stationing of foreign troops and the use by them, of local
facilities.
As the Judge, decide the case. Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) As a judge, I shall dismiss the case. What Section 25, Article XVII of the Constitution prohibits
in the absence of a treaty is the stationing of troops and facilities of foreign countries in the
Philippines. It does not include the temporary presence in the Philippines of foreign troops for
the purpose of a combined military exercise. Besides, the holding of the combined military
exercise is connected with defense, which is a sovereign function. In accordance with the ruling
in Baer vs. Tizon, 57 SCRA 1, the filing of an action interfering with the defense of the State
amounts to a suit against the State without its consent.