Lawmakers from the National Unity Party push for a Constitutional Convention
Members of the National Unity Party (NUP) in the Philippine House of Representatives are pressing for a move to convene a Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) to amend the 1987 Constitution. Citing what they describe as vague provisions and a need to modernize the country’s charter, NUP representatives say a Con-Con is necessary to address gaps that impede governance and development.
Why the NUP is advocating for a Con-Con
The NUP leadership argues that the Constitution’s language is outdated in several critical areas, including economic provisions, political processes, and administrative arrangements. Lawmakers contend that a Con-Con could offer a more nuanced, long-term approach to constitutional reform than piecemeal amendments or executive decrees. They emphasize the desire to craft provisions that are clearer, more durable, and better aligned with current and future needs of the Filipino people.
What a Constitutional Convention Could Change
Supporters of the Con-Con proposal say reforms could potentially include revisions to economic and investment rules, revisiting term limits, and refining the structure of government to improve checks and balances. They also point to possibilities for clarifying the roles of local government units, judiciary, and civil service provisions to streamline governance and reduce bureaucratic hurdles.
Constitutional reform: process and politics
Advocates emphasize that a Con-Con would involve delegates elected specifically for the purpose of drafting constitutional amendments, followed by the required ratification process. The NUP argues that a dedicated convention could offer a more comprehensive, participatory, and consultative way to reform the charter, as opposed to a single, high-stakes ballot for individual amendments. Critics, however, warn about the risks of unintended consequences and possible political overreach, urging a cautious and transparent approach.
Potential benefits cited by the NUP
Proponents highlight several potential benefits: clearer constitutional provisions that facilitate investment and growth, improved governance mechanisms, and resilience against political instability. They also suggest that a well-structured Con-Con could build broader consensus across parties and sectors, yielding reforms with wide legitimacy and durability.
Opposition and concerns
Not all lawmakers share the NUP’s optimism. Opponents worry about the cost, time, and potential for partisan manipulation. They argue that piecemeal amendments or targeted reforms may be more prudent than embarking on a full Charter change. Civil society groups and constitutional scholars also caution that any move to a Con-Con requires robust safeguards to protect constitutional rights and prevent power grabs.
Next steps for this initiative
With the call gaining traction in some corridors of power, there are questions about eligibility, timeline, and funding for a Con-Con. House committees are expected to discuss the legislative framework, including how delegates would be selected, what topics would be on the convention agenda, and how proposed amendments would be validated by the public through the ratification process. The outcome of these discussions could shape the trajectory of constitutional reform in the Philippines for years to come.
What this means for Filipino governance
Whether the Con-Con bid moves forward, the debate underscores a larger conversation about constitutional clarity, governance effectiveness, and the responsiveness of the charter to evolving economic and social realities. As the debate unfolds, citizens will be watching how lawmakers balance reform ambitions with safeguards designed to protect democratic processes and fundamental rights.
