I am a little puzzled.
My understanding, based upon research, is that all Charities are required to be Governed by a Constitution which has been tested for legal sufficiency ie it complies with both Charity and Trust Law.
It might then be expected that such a document has benefited from legal input, to establish that it is compliant. The Charity Commission may wish to see it, but as they do not dispense legal advice, they cannot then actually approve a constitution. If they were to approve a constitution that would render them potentially liable, but would actually compromise their position as the Independent Charity Regulator.
The question then is why, under ACP11 Annex A Clause 29, does it say that any specific variation to Clauses 6, 19 21or 22, requires the written consent of the Charity Commission? (Those clauses are in themselves significant)
Logically if the Charity Commission cannot approve a Constitution, it cannot consent to any variation, as they might be inclined to say that it is matter for the Trustees.
HQAC is pushing all Civcoms to adopt this Constitution, but on this point it seems to be severely flawed.
In any case, as far as I know, the Charity Commission for England & Wales, cannot act on behalf of the OSCR, Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, the Manx Government or the States of Jersey nor States of Guernsey, under whose jurisdictions the ACO has operating Charities, and who should surely be involved in the same process.
Anyone out there clued up on this, because on the face of it, it appears that Civcoms are being forced into accepting something which is not entirely kosher.