Ambiguities in the 1987 Constitution Fuel Charter Change Debate
MANILA, Philippines — The confusing wording of the 1987 Constitution, which features a bicameral Congress but reflects a unicameral spirit, has become a major reason to push for Charter change, Deputy Speaker and Antipolo 1st District Representative Ronaldo Puno said on Tuesday. The exact four word keyphrase “1987 Constitution” highlights the root of ongoing legislative challenges.
During a press briefing at the Batasang Pambansa complex, Puno explained that the framers of the Constitution originally intended to establish a unicameral Congress. This design would have allowed district representatives and senators to sit as a single legislative body.
Uncorrected Provisions Cause Legislative Confusion
However, when the decision was made to retain a bicameral legislature, the Constitution’s wording was never fully revised to reflect this change. “You know, everybody has been saying for the past 20, 30 years that the Constitution needs a lot of correction already because the Constitution was first drafted for a unicameral government, unicameral legislature. But towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, there was a sudden change to a bicameral legislature,” Puno said.
He added, “Many of the provisions in the Constitution remained as provisions for a unicameral legislature. And so this has led to a lot of problems over the many decades past. There’s always been disagreement about whether votes should be joined or separate, whether the Constitution meant this or that.” According to sources, Puno believes that updating the Constitution now could prevent many disputes that have long plagued Congress.
Vague Language on Voting Procedures
Puno pointed out that the 1987 Constitution is unclear on whether the House of Representatives and the Senate should vote jointly on certain matters or separately. The phrase “a vote of Congress” appears without specifying if it refers to all members voting together or in separate chambers.
“A vote of Congress, but it was not mentioned if it was the Senate or the House. The majority of Congress did not specify, as all members of Congress, because they were rushing towards the end. So all of the previous provisions of the constitution that applied to unicameral have failed to be corrected,” Puno explained, according to officials familiar with the briefing.
Impact on Judicial Bar Council Representation
This ambiguity also affects Congress’ membership in the Judicial Bar Council. Currently, only one member from Congress serves on the council, resulting in senators and representatives alternating seats every six months. Puno criticized this arrangement as inconsistent with other council members who serve full terms.
“We should correct that because, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, the Judicial Bar Council, it has so many members. But it only allows one member from Congress, so the senator and congressman, the representative, they exchange seats every six months,” he said. “But all of the other members continue, every year, the whole year, they sit as members until the end of their terms. So I think, the constitution’s framers did not intend to have the elected congressman or senator share terms, and serve half-terms.” Community members noted this inconsistency has created procedural challenges.
Calls for Charter Change Gain Momentum
On Monday, Puno delivered a privilege speech urging amendments to the Constitution to fix these ambiguous provisions. He is not alone in this call. Former Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman also emphasized in March 2024 that if Charter change proposals move forward, the Senate and House should convene as a single body and vote jointly, aligning with the framers’ original unicameral vision.
Lagman remarked, “You know, former Chief Justice Puno said this about Article 17, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states that amendments can push forward through a three-fourths vote. Chief Justice Puno said this is an inadvertence, they forgot to fix the original provisions because the members of the Constituent Commission thought Congress would be unicameral.” He further stressed the importance of joint meetings in the constituent assembly, describing the current practice as “like a couple being divorced.”
Legislative Moves on Charter Change
Despite ongoing debates, the House leadership has remained largely silent on the prospects of Charter change during the 20th Congress. However, on July 15, Ako Bicol party-list Representative Alfredo Garbin filed RBH No. 1, seeking to amend provisions on national territory and the economy in the 1987 Constitution.
Garbin’s proposal mirrors those approved by previous Congresses, but it includes updates reflecting the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling affirming the Philippines’ exclusive rights over its waters. Alongside Manila 6th District Representative Bienvenido Abante Jr., Garbin expressed optimism that there is still sufficient time during the current administration’s term to address Charter change proposals.
For more news and updates on 1987 Constitution, visit Filipinokami.com.
