DEPUTY Speaker and National Unity Party (NUP) chairman Ronaldo Puno on Monday called for the convening of a constitutional convention (ConCon) to undertake a sweeping review of the 1987 Constitution, correct “enduring ambiguities,” and institute reforms that will reinforce its reliability as the nation’s supreme law.
In a privilege speech, Puno said the Concon is “the most prudent, transparent and participatory mechanism” to correct vague provisions and institute much-needed reforms in the 1987 Charter.
“Today, I submit to this august chamber that while the provisions of our Constitution are noble in aspiration, certain provisions are marked by ambiguity and procedural deficiency. These deficiencies do not merely complicate interpretation; they obstruct reform, hinder effective governance, and erode public trust,” Puno said.
Puno said his proposal “is not a call to discard the Constitution. It is a call to complete and correct it.”
The NUP chaired by Puno has 44 members in the House of Representatives, making it the second largest political party in the Chamber, next to the Lakas-CMD.
According to Puno, a Concon allows the people, “through their chosen delegates, to correct textual deficiencies, reconcile contradictions, remove ambiguities, institutionalize much-needed reform, and ensure that the foundational law of the land meets the needs of a dynamic and democratic society.”
The Concon route, rather than a constituent assembly, ensures “singularity of purpose”, freeing delegates from being preoccupied or derailed by lawmaking, oversight functions, and impeachment concerns, Puno said.
“Conflict of interest would be avoided, broader representation guaranteed, and risk of political expediency is reduced,” he added.
In pointing out the urgency of instituting reforms in the Constitution, Puno discussed several instances in which ambiguous provisions and textual flaws weakened the Charter’s legal foundations.
The most recent example, Puno said, is the interpretation of the word “forthwith” in Article XI, Section 3(4) on impeachment, which should have been a procedural safeguard against delay, but has instead become a source of deadlock and controversy.
He said this issue has raised serious constitutional and jurisprudential questions.
“Does the legislature now view the recent interpretation of ‘forthwith’ as applicable to ALL similar clauses in the Charter? Can the clear urgency mandated by constitutional language now be indefinitely stalled under the guise of interpretive discretion?” Puno said.
This case alone shows how a single ambiguous word “can become the justification for legislative inaction, procedural manipulation, or worse, the loss of accountability itself,” he said.
“A Constitution that fails to provide clear, unambiguous guidance undermines its own purpose as the country’s fundamental law. When its wording is subject to multiple interpretations, the predictability of law dissolves, opening the door to legal confusion and arbitrary application,” Puno said.
In his privilege speech, Puno also cited other instances of constitutional ambiguity: These are:
• Article VIII, Section 8 on the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), which states that members of the JBC should include “a representative of Congress,” without specifying how this would be done within a bicameral legislature. The Supreme Court had to rule on this ambiguity, stating that only one member of Congress can serve in the JBC at any given time. This has resulted in an awkward compromise of only one member of Congress, alternating between the Senate and the House of Representatives, sitting in the JBC, Puno noted.
• Article VI, Section 28, paragraph 4 on the grant of tax exemptions. This provision states that “no law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of the Congress.” Should Congress act as a joint body or separately? The ambiguous wording has implications not only on how tax exemption laws are passed, but also in determining quorums and voting thresholds.
• Article VII, Section 19 on the presidential grant of amnesty, which needs to be concurred in by “a majority of the members of Congress.” The provision fails to specify whether this should occur through a joint vote or as separate votes by the Senate and the House. This lack of procedural clarity has led to intense debates when presidential amnesty was granted to members of the Magdalo Group, including former Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV.
• Article X, Section 8 on setting a fixed three-year term for elective local officials, except barangay officials. The provision, which allowed Congress to pass at least five laws to postpone the holding of the barangay elections, has been abused either for political expediency or because of budgetary constraints, eroding “democratic accountability at the most local level of governance,” Puno said.
“A Constitution that allows repeated legislative interference in electoral timelines, without limit, is a Constitution vulnerable to manipulation,.” Puno pointed out.
The recurring pattern of deferring the barangay elections through legislation “reinforces a perception that political convenience can override democratic principles, and it places incumbents in a position of extended power without renewed consent from their constituents,” he said.
Puno said this and the other examples of constitutional vagueness he had cited create loopholes, lead to political crises and institutional paralysis, undermine the rule of law, erode the people’s trust and leave them disillusioned and alienated from the institutions meant to serve them.
“Mr. Speaker, I do not stand before this Chamber to prescribe solutions to these complex legal dilemmas. But I do contend, with deep conviction, that the Filipino people deserve a Constitution that speaks plainly and very clearly,” Puno said.
Puno pointed out that “As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution must speak with clarity and force; its provisions must be comprehensible not only to courts and legislators but to the citizens whose rights it enshrines.”
About the Author
