Poland’s constitutional debate over confiscation, debt limits, and defense funding

The Polish ruling party, PiS, argued during the second reading that constitutional changes would improve how the state functions and could enable seizing property believed to be linked to funding Russia’s aggression. Opponents from KO and Poland 2050 said the draft was unnecessary and urged rejection.

In response to amendments tabled at the second reading, the Sejm’s Extraordinary Committee once again considered the draft bill that would amend the Constitution of the Republic of Poland.

Last year, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, PiS deputies presented a parliamentary draft of constitutional amendments. The proposal aims to empower the Treasury to take over property used to finance Russia’s aggression in the event of an armed attack on Polish soil. It also proposes that spending on defense would not count toward the public debt ceiling.

Rapporteur Marek Ast (PiS) noted that the extraordinary committee held a thorough discussion, with strong disagreements about excluding defense spending from the national debt limit and about adding a constitutional provision allowing confiscation of assets tied to financing Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

Parliamentary MP Michał Jach (PiS) stressed that Russia’s brutal war underscored gaps in the current constitution. He explained that under the draft, supporters of aggression could face confiscation, in line with applicable laws, while defense spending would be excluded from the debt cap.

The PiS member argued that such changes would strengthen state functioning and bolster national security.

In contrast, MP Robert Kropiwnicki (KO) moved to reject the draft.

The critique, framed as a critique of the lawmaking approach, suggested that the proposal resembles a push to rapidly expand debt for a wide range of projects, including large-scale national initiatives like the Central Communications Port, Radom investment, and Vistula Bay defense measures. The speaker asserted that a consensus could not be reached on these grounds.

He argued that the mechanism to seize property to support Russia’s aggression could be achieved through statutory provisions and amendments to the Penal Code, with the court deciding whether property should be taken.

Anna Maria Żukowska (Left) stated that the extraordinary committee’s work demonstrated that the legislative change is not necessary. She warned that the proposed changes could provoke friction with EU institutions and the Court of Justice of the European Union, potentially crossing prudential thresholds, and she questioned the confiscation provisions as leaving too many doubts.

According to MP Jacek Tomczak (KP-PSL), some provisions about confiscation in the event of armed attack do not face major controversy. He noted, however, that Poland already has confiscation under ordinary laws and argued against amending the constitution in its current form.

“There seems to be no need to amend the Polish constitution or add new articles,” he said, indicating his group cannot support the project as it stands.

MP Mirosław Suchoń (Poland 2050) remarked that the proposal appeared to leave the committee without a clear majority. He warned against harmful changes and urged rejecting the project.

“One should not change the constitution with those who break it,” Suchoń commented. Poland 2050 then filed a motion to reject the project, urging that it be considered and defeated.

Stanisław Tyszka (Confederation) also voiced his party’s opposition, while suggesting that constitutional changes could proceed only with a different set of entries that protect Poland’s finances.

Another participant, Jarosław Sachajka (Kukiz’15), urged collective support for the proposed changes, arguing that historic resistance to taxes and armament spending in earlier centuries should push the chamber to back these solutions.

Łukasz Schreiber, the Minister at the Prime Minister’s Chancellery, reminded the Sejm that the proposed changes could not be implemented without constitutional amendments. He dismissed the opposition’s accusations as misguided and pointed to several inaccuracies, notably that changes could be made under current regulations without a constitutional revision.

Judiciary and Human Rights Committee Chair Marek Ast told PAP that the draft would be put to a vote at the Sejm’s June session, scheduled for mid-month.

Financing the defense needs of the Republic of Poland

The amendments include, among other provisions, a change to Article 216 paragraph 5 to exclude defense expenditures from the public debt limit of up to 3/5 of annual GDP, enabling funding for defense needs without breaching the debt cap.

Currently, Article 216(5) bars loans or guarantees that would push public debt beyond 60% of annual GDP. Article 47 of the Constitution states that confiscation can occur only under law and after a final court decision.

Another change adds Chapter XIa, titled “threat to state security,” and proposes Article 234a: in the event of an armed attack on Poland or an armed attack on another state that poses a direct external threat, property located in Poland may be taken over by the Treasury by operation of law and without compensation if it can be shown that the property is used or could be used to finance or support the attack, including through ties to the aggressor by ownership, management, or finances.

Before committee work, the draft already referred to property owned by non-Polish citizens, other entities, or entities not fully Polish, with the acquisition and use of seized assets to be defined by law.

Under the constitutional process, a law amending the constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the Sejm with at least half of the deputies present and a simple absolute majority in the Senate with at least half of its members present.