Constitutional Revision Needed to End Supreme Court Overreliance
Manila officials have emphasized that constitutional revision is crucial to stop the frequent rush to the Supreme Court over every political dispute. A senior House lawmaker stated that amending the 1987 Constitution would significantly reduce the number of cases brought before the highest court.
Antipolo Representative Ronaldo Puno highlighted the pressing need to “correct and update” the 1987 Constitution through a constitutional convention. He explained that many current legal conflicts could be avoided with clearer and more precise provisions in the charter.
Calls for a Constitutional Convention Gain Momentum
Sources revealed that Puno, who also serves as a top official in the National Unity Party, recently endorsed a joint resolution calling for a constitutional convention. This process would allow Filipino voters to elect delegates tasked with proposing amendments, which would later be subject to ratification through a plebiscite.
Community leaders noted that Puno, a former interior secretary during the Arroyo administration, pointed out the steady influx of cases filed in the Supreme Court related to constitutional interpretations. These disputes often stem from ambiguous wording in the charter.
Ambiguities Fuel Legal Disputes
Officials reported that one ongoing debate involves the interpretation of the word “forthwith” in the Senate’s role in impeachment trials. Additionally, ambiguity surrounds Article VI, Section 28, which requires the concurrence of a majority of all Congress members to pass laws granting tax exemptions. This has caused confusion over whether both chambers must act jointly or separately.
Furthermore, former Justice Adolfo Azcuna recently highlighted confusion arising from Article XI, Section 5. The provision states that “no impeachment proceedings can be initiated more than once a year,” but its wording has led to differing views on whether this limits the number or frequency of complaints.
“These little things, like the meaning of certain words, always cause disagreement and confusion among everyone,” Puno said. “It’s embarrassing to our countrymen that this is the level of discourse that we are at.” He added, “We can’t always run to the Supreme Court every time we don’t understand something, or even just one word.”
Charter’s Inflexibility Hampers National Issues
Local leaders also pointed out that the current charter lacks the flexibility to address critical matters such as the territorial disputes in the West Philippine Sea. Recently, Ako Bicol Representative Alfredo Garbin passed a measure proposing amendments that would incorporate the 2016 arbitral award affirming the Philippines’ exclusive rights over its waters.
Long-standing Resistance to Charter Change
Historical attempts to amend the Constitution, especially after the EDSA Revolution, have repeatedly faltered. Officials attributed this mainly to Senate opposition, which fears that constitutional change could lead to a shift toward a unicameral parliamentary system.
Despite these challenges, community members confirmed that House proponents of Charter change are willing to impose clear restrictions on the scope of a future constitutional convention. Their priority remains to update the charter without altering the government’s form or enabling power entrenchment.
“All we are thinking of is to fix the vagueness, ambiguities of our charter. We are not thinking about changing the form of government, perpetuating anybody in power, nothing of the sort,” Puno stressed. He further suggested the possibility of implementing a fair law to clearly define the convention’s limits once it is convened.
For more news and updates on constitutional revision, visit Filipinokami.com.
