Citing the "enduring ambiguities" in the 1987 Constitution--one of which was seen in the impeachment case against Vice President Sara Duterte--Deputy Speaker Antipolo City 1st district Rep. Ronaldo "Ronnie" Puno sought the creation of a constitutional convention (Concon) for the purpose of fixing such problems once and for all.
00:00For nearly four decades, the 1987 Philippine Constitution has stood as the bulwark of our democratic institutions.
00:08It emerged from a moment of national renewal, embodying the collective aspiration for justice, liberty, and accountable governance.
00:19Yet time, historical experience, and the evolving exigencies of governance compel us to revisit the Constitution's wording with objectivity.
00:30Certain unclear provisions bear the unmistakable marks of drafting errors, deficiencies that must be addressed with the aim of coming up with a Charter founded on unambiguous language.
00:44I rise today not in opposition to the 1987 Constitution, but in fidelity to its enduring promise.
00:52The Constitution is a living and breathing instrument, not because it is meant to bend to every political trend, but because its vitality depends on its clarity, coherence, and adaptability to the needs of the people.
01:10The imperative of textual clarity in constitutional drafting cannot be overemphasized.
01:18The Constitution draws its authority from the definitiveness of its language.
01:23When its provisions are vague or inconsistent, the result is not a richer interpretative tradition, but a weaker legal foundation.
01:36Madam Speaker, the law derives its authority from the precision of its language.
01:41As the supreme law of the land, the Constitution must speak with clarity and force.
01:49Its provisions must be comprehensible not only to courts and legislators, but to the citizens whose rights it enshrines.
01:58Unclear constitutional provisions strain judicial resources and time.
02:05Ambiguities invite constant litigation, requiring the Supreme Court to resolve textual uncertainties rather than focus on pressing constitutional questions or develop coherent doctrine.
02:20High-profile constitutional disputes are time-consuming and delay other urgent matters.
02:26Turning the judiciary into an arbiter of political standoffs rather than a guardian of constitutional order.
02:36We have seen how ambiguity has led to political crises and institutional paralysis.
02:43These gaps in the constitutional text erode the stability that they are meant to preserve.
02:49Even worse, the erosion of legal certainty undermines the rule of law itself.
02:57Vague provisions permit multiple interpretations, encouraging selective or politically motivated enforcement, and blurring the line between lawful governance and abuse of discretion.
03:10It is within these gray zones that power is most easily exploited.
03:17Constitutional loopholes, often rooted in imprecise language, allow opportunistic actors to justify unlawful conduct under the guise of plausible interpretation.
03:31Without clarity, checks and balances can be undermined, and constitutional protections rendered hollow.
03:39Today, 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.
03:55These deficiencies do not merely complicate interpretation.
03:59They obstruct reform, hinder effective governance, and erode public trust.
04:05As we have seen with recent events, even a phrase as seemingly as, to forthwith proceed, can cause considerable discord in its interpretation.
04:21Article 11, Section 3 and 4 on impeachment states that,
04:25In case the verified complaint or resolution of impeachment is filed by at least one-third of all the members of the House,
04:34the same shall constitute the articles of impeachment, and the trial by the Senate shall forthwith proceed.
04:44While the word forthwith was intended to signal urgency and mandatory action, its implementation has been repeatedly delayed, sidesteped, or redefined,
04:58with the Senate, through a majority vote, remanding the articles of impeachment to the House of Representatives.
05:05Very recently, we witnessed the institutional friction caused by the legislative branches' inconsistent interpretation of this mandate,
05:16one which sparked public confusion and which continues to do so.
05:22What should have been a procedural safeguard against delay has instead become a source of deadlock and controversy.
05:30This development raises serious constitutional and jurisprudential questions.
05:38Does the legislature now view the recent interpretation as forthwith, as applicable to all similar clauses in the Charter?
05:48Can the clear urgency mandated by constitutional language now be indefinitely stalled under the guise of interpretative discretion?
05:58This episode illustrates the far-reaching implications of imprecise constitutional terminology.
06:08Even a single, ambiguous word can become the justification for legislative inaction, procedural manipulation, or worse, the loss of accountability itself.
06:21Among the clearest examples of constitutional ambiguity are provisions that were the result of acknowledged drafting lapses,
06:32a fact admitted by no less than the framers themselves.
06:36These are not matters of judicial interpretation.
06:40These are clear textual flaws identified from the very beginning, yet left unresolved in the body of the Charter.
06:48In a 2021 article published in the Cambridge University Press entitled
06:55The Constitution of the Philippines and Transformative Constitutionalism,
07:01International Constitutional Law Academic Professor Surabhi Chopra
07:06observed that vague and aspirational provisions in the Philippine Constitution
07:11have contributed to a disconnect between constitutional rhetoric and enforceable policy.
07:18While Professor Chopra focused on constitutional provisions involving social justice and human rights,
07:26we need not look far to see examples of what she describes as vague and unclear provisions.
07:34For example, Article 8, Section 8 on the Judicial Bar Council outlines the composition and mandate of the JBC,
07:44which is tasked with recommending appointees to the Judiciary.
07:49The provision lists the members of the Council.
07:53It says, including a representative of Congress, without specifying how that representation should function within a bicameral legislature.
08:05This lack of clarity led to years of alternating representation between the Senate and the House,
08:13and eventually a Supreme Court ruling in Chavez v. JBC,
08:18where it was ruled that only one member of Congress, and not one from each chamber,
08:24may sit in the JBC at any given time.
08:27The Court faced this ruling on the textual use of the single term A-representative,
08:37concluding that any deviation from this would constitute a circumvention of the Constitution.
08:44While this settled the legal question, the broader debate remains unresolved.
08:50Critics argue that the ruling elevated a drafting oversight to binding doctrine,
08:55thereby limiting the intended Congressional role in judicial appointments.
09:01Others contend that the framers may have deliberately sought to limit legislative influence in this process,
09:08treating Congress as a unicameral body for JBC purposes.
09:13It does not look like that is actually what happened.
09:17In either view, the result remains an awkward compromise.
09:22A single Congressional representative alternating between the Senate and the House, six months each.
09:29They serve on a collegial body that is otherwise stable in composition.
09:35They are the only ones that share a term.
09:39Several reform proposals have since emerged,
09:42including constitutional amendments to clarify the JBC provision.
09:46Until these reforms are undertaken, however,
09:50the current arrangement reflects a literal but limited reading of the constitutional text.
Be the first to comment