Opinion: NORTH EXPRESS By Reginald B. Tamayo (Marikina City)

Comparing Approaches: Amending or revising an ordinance and constitution

DURING THE Barangay Seminar on local legislation in Marikina City, I was approached by a Barangay Kagawad who posed a question regarding the difference between amending and revising an existing ordinance. His main question: When it comes to the process of amending or revising an ordinance, is it comparable to the process of amending or revising the constitution?

I willingly took up the task of addressing his queries. Allow me to present the gist of my personal view:

An ordinance can be modified through two distinct processes: amending and revising. Understanding the dissimilarities between these procedures is crucial in comprehending the potential changes that can be made to the ordinance.

On the one hand, amending an ordinance refers to the act known in the sanggunian parlance as an amendatory ordinance of making specific alterations or additions to particular provisions within the existing ordinance. This process allows for targeted modifications, ensuring that only specific areas of concern are addressed. It is a more focused approach, enabling the ordinance to adapt to the evolving needs of the local government unit without undergoing a complete overhaul. For instance, changing the cash fine from P1k to P2k in the penalty provision of an ordinance is tantamount to amending the ordinance.

On the other hand, revising an ordinance involves a more comprehensive and extensive transformation of the entire document. This process entails a thorough examination and modification of various provisions, with the aim of creating a more comprehensive and updated ordinance. Revising an ordinance is often pursued when there is a need for substantial changes that go beyond the scope of mere amendments. A case in point is when the entirety of the penalty provision of an existing ordinance is deleted- this means the existing ordinance is revised.

To make this distinction clearer, let us consider an analogy. Amending an ordinance is akin to making minor repairs or adjustments to a house, such as fixing a leaky faucet or replacing a broken window. These changes are specific and targeted, addressing individual issues without altering the overall structure of the house. Conversely, revising an ordinance is comparable to a complete renovation of the house, involving significant modifications to its layout, design, and functionality.

It is important though to note that both amending and revising an ordinance require a deliberate, meticulous process, and utmost care. These processes provide avenues for the LGU, thru the sanggunian, to adapt to the changing times, ensuring that the subject ordinance remains relevant and responsive to the needs of the constituents. Otherwise, the sanggunian has no other legislative recourse but to repeal the same.

Applying this understanding to the constitution, we encounter a similar differentiation. Amending the constitution involves making targeted changes to specific articles or provisions, while the fundamental principles and structure of the constitution remain unchanged. Conversely, revising the constitution entails more comprehensive modifications, potentially impacting multiple articles or even the basic principles upon which the constitution is built.

As a final note, it is important to remember that the process of amending or revising an ordinance differs from that of the constitution. Ordinances are typically amended or revised through the legislative act of the sanggunian. Conversely, the constitution usually requires a more rigorous and formal process, often involving a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly, or the controversial people's initiative. (RBT)