1. Why Amend or Update a Law?

Policy Driver	Typical Indicators	Illustrative Examples
Constitutional inconsistency	A statute or regulation is declared partly unconstitutional, or a charter change proposal emerges	Re‑draft of the Anti‑Terrorism Act provisions struck down in Southern Hemisphere v. AFP
Social or technological change	New industries, digital tools, or public‑health realities render norms obsolete	E‑commerce and cybersecurity amendments to the Revised Penal Code and Consumer Act
International commitments	Ratification of treaties that require domestic implementation	RA 9851 (Philippine “ICC Act”) after Rome Statute ratification
Ambiguity or overlap	Conflicting provisions cause litigation or enforcement gridlock	Consolidation of customs laws into the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act (CMTA)
Disproportionate sanctions or gaps	Penalties no longer fit the offense; offenses unaddressed	RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice) redefining minimum age of criminal responsibility

2. Hierarchy and the Rule of Equal or Higher Authority

194‑page “ladder” principle: A norm can be amended only by another norm of equal or superior rank.
- 1987 Constitution ⮕ amendable only by the procedures in Art. XVII.
- Statutes (Republic Acts, Batas Pambansa, etc.) ⮕ updated only by another Act or by the Constitution itself.
- Executive / Administrative issuances ⮕ may be revised by the same or a higher executive authority, or by statute.
- Local ordinances ⮕ subject to amendment by the issuing sanggunian or by statute.
Express vs. Implied Repeal: Philippine courts frown on repeals by implication; drafters must state repealing clauses expressly whenever possible (see Art. 7, Civil Code).
Specific over General (lex specialis derogat legi generali) and Posterior over Prior (lex posterior derogat priori) operate only if both enactments are of equal rank.

3. Constitutional Amendments (Art. XVII, 1987 Constitution)

Mode	Vote Requirement	Ratification	Key Practical Criteria
Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly (“Con‑Ass”)	3/4 of all members of Congress, voting separately	Majority of votes cast in a nationwide plebiscite	Joint vs. separate voting issue must be resolved; time for COMELEC publication (generally 90 days minimum)
Constitutional Convention (“Con‑Con”)	2/3 of Congress to call or majority vote of Congress + nationwide plebiscite	Same plebiscite requirement	Funding and delegate election calendar; enabling law must define delegate qualifications
People’s Initiative	Petition signed by 12 % of total registered voters, with at least 3 % in every legislative district	Plebiscite after COMELEC verification	Subject‑matter limit: only amendments, not “revision” (per Santiago v. COMELEC and Lambino v. COMELEC)

Substantive ceilings: amendments may not abolish or eviscerate basic constitutional principles unless pursued as a “revision,” which still uses one of the above modes but must be classified as such by the Supreme Court.

4. Legislative Amendments to Statutes

Origination & Readings (Art. VI, §§ 24‑26):
- Bills amending existing laws follow the ordinary three‑reading rule in each chamber.
- Revenue/tariff bills must originate in the House of Representatives; the Senate may propose amendments.
Single‑Subject Rule (§ 26[1]): An amendatory bill must embrace one subject only, stated in the title, to prevent “riders.”
Sponsorship Criteria: Bills involving—
- Appropriations need Presidential budget certification (§ 25[1]).
- Local/sectoral consultation if a bill directly affects LGUs or IP rights (mandated by the Local Government Code and IPRA).
Bicameral Conference: For disagreeing provisions. The bicam may not introduce matters outside the differences; otherwise, it risks invalidation (Tolentino v. COMELEC).
Presidential Action (Art. VI, § 27):
- Veto may be overridden by 2/3 vote of each chamber.
- Lapse into law after 30 days if neither signed nor vetoed.
Publication & Effectivity:
- EO 200 (1987) codified Art. 2 of the Civil Code: laws take effect 15 days after full publication in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation, unless the Act provides otherwise.

5. Updating Administrative Rules & IRRs

Step	Governing Source	Mandatory Criteria
Drafting & notice	Book VII, Administrative Code of 1987; agency charters	Due‑process notice via public posting or sectoral consultation
Hearing & comments	Same	Substantial compliance; minutes form part of record
Approval & filing	Agency head, then ONAR (Office of the National Administrative Register)	Must cite enabling statute and show consistency
Publication	Official Gazette or newspaper	Effectivity mirrors statutory rule (15‑day default)
Legislative oversight	Congressional Committee review; Senate and House may suspend implementation (Revised Legislative Oversight Act)

An IRR cannot enlarge a statute (People v. Maceren). Amendments must stay “within the edge of the blade” of the parent law.

6. Amending Local Ordinances

Initiation: by any sanggunian member, the local chief executive, or qualified voters through initiative (RA 6735).
Committee & Public Hearing: mandatory under §§ 56‑58, Local Government Code (LGC).
Readings & Vote: usually three readings; simple majority suffices unless the LGU charter specifies otherwise.
Review & Publication:
- Provinces review municipal/city ordinances; DILG reviews highly urbanized cities and provinces.
- Posting in public places + newspaper publication if of general application.
People’s Recall Initiative: voters may directly amend or repeal an ordinance under RA 6735 if signatures reach 10 % of registered voters (province/city) or 5 % (barangay).

7. Jurisprudential Standards that Shape Amendatory Criteria

Doctrine	Effect on Amendments
Non‑impairment of contracts (Art. III, § 10)	An amending law that substantially impairs vested contractual rights may be struck down unless justified by police‑power necessity.
Equal‑protection & Due‑process clauses	Classifications or procedures introduced in amendments must be reasonable and accord procedural fairness.
Prospectivity of penal laws (Art. III, § 22)	Heavier penalties cannot be applied retroactively; lighter penalties (Art. 22, Revised Penal Code) must.
One‑year ban on re‑submission of defeated plebiscites (Art. XVII, § 2)	Failed constitutional amendment proposals cannot be resubmitted within 12 months.

8. Practical Drafting Checklist for Amendments

Authority Check: Does the proposing body possess equal or higher legislative rank?
Subject‑Title Alignment: Does the title clearly state the subject to meet § 26(1)?
Repealing & Saving Clauses: Are obsolete or conflicting provisions expressly repealed and transitional rights saved?
Funding & Appropriations: If new obligations arise, is an appropriation clause or separate budgetary measure included?
Penal Provisions: Are penalties proportionate, and do they observe ultima ratio principles?
Oversight & Sunset: Are performance evaluation and automatic review provisions (e.g., after five years) inserted?
Consultation Records: Has meaningful stakeholder consultation been documented for constitutional due‑process defense?
Publication Plan: Is there a timetable and budget for printing and electronic dissemination?

9. Conclusion

Amending or updating Philippine laws is never a mere editorial exercise; it must honor the hierarchy of norms, satisfy procedural safeguards, and respond to concrete policy needs. By adhering to the constitutional pathways, statutory requirements, administrative due‑process norms, and jurisprudential doctrines summarized above, legislators, regulators, and local officials ensure that legal evolution remains legitimate, participatory, and rights‑consistent—the hallmarks of a healthy and adaptive legal order.

Criteria for Amending and Updating Laws in the Philippines