Kunal Singh, the counsel for Leader of Opposition Inia Seruiratu's bloc in Parliament, says the amendment clause in the 2013 Constitution is a deliberate design to protect the Constitution from opportunist and destabilizing changes.
Singh says there have been three elections and the public at large has accepted the Constitution.
He says the referendum requirement is vital to democratic legitimacy, and it is binding on the Parliament, people and the court.
Singh also says that the 2013 Constitution affirms that the supreme law remains on all State institutions and individuals, thus the Parliament cannot assume the supremacy over the Constitution, nor can public opinion alone override the entrenched protection.
He also says some of the parties think in a referendum, 75 percent will not be achievable but this is wrong.
While responding to Justice Terence Arnold's earlier question on laws regarding a referendum, Singh agrees that there is nothing in the Electoral Act in relation to how referendums are to be conducted.
He says it is not necessary for a referendum to be held during a general election or have a particular base where people come in.
Singh adds that it could even be conducted door-to-door, similar to a Census, so people would not need to go to vote.
He also agreed with Justice Isikeli Mataitoga that the Yash Ghai Constitution has a two-third majority requirement but it changed to three-quarter overnight.
He says they would have to divulge with the makers of the Constitution, however, Justice Mataitoga told him not to sidetrack as this is about the issue of democracy and legality that Singh had raised earlier.
Justice Mataitoga told him that if he wants to make a submission then he has to back it up with in terms of what actually happened.
The hearing continues in the Supreme Court.
Click here for more stories on the Supreme-Court-Constitution-Case
Stay tuned for the latest news on our radio stations
