On August 12, 2025, the debate over amending the Philippines' 1987 Constitution gained fresh momentum, as lawmakers, legal experts, and the President’s office all weighed in on the need to clarify what many now call its "ambiguous" and "outdated" provisions. The renewed push for Charter change—commonly referred to as "Cha-cha"—has ignited both hope and skepticism across the political spectrum, with proponents emphasizing the urgency of reform and critics warning against hasty or politically motivated overhauls.
At the heart of the current discussion is the longstanding confusion over the Constitution’s structure for the Philippine Congress. According to Inquirer, Deputy Speaker and Antipolo 1st District Rep. Ronaldo Puno highlighted on August 11 that the 1987 Constitution, though establishing a bicameral Congress, contains language and provisions that reflect an original intent for a unicameral legislative body. "You know, everybody has been saying for the past 20, 30 years that the Constitution needs a lot of correction already because the Constitution was first drafted for a unicameral government, unicameral legislature. But towards the end of the Constitutional Convention, there was a sudden change to a bicameral legislature," Puno remarked at a press briefing at the Batasang Pambansa complex.
Puno explained that this late-stage switch left numerous passages in the charter referencing a single legislative body, sowing confusion about how Congress should operate. One particular sticking point is the phrase "a vote of Congress," which, as Puno noted, "was not mentioned if it was the Senate or the House. The majority of Congress did not specify, as all members of Congress, because they were rushing towards the end. So all of the previous provisions of the constitution that applied to unicameral have failed to be corrected."
This ambiguity has led to practical problems. For instance, the Judicial Bar Council—tasked with screening candidates for the judiciary—allows only one member from Congress to participate at a time. As a result, the House and Senate justice panel chairpersons alternate seats every six months, a system Puno believes was never intended by the Constitution’s framers. "We should correct that because, for example, as I mentioned yesterday, the Judicial Bar Council, it has so many members. But it only allows one member from Congress, so the senator and congressman, the representative, they exchange seats every six months," he said. "But all of the other members continue, every year, the whole year, they sit as members until the end of their terms. So I think, the constitution’s framers did not intend to have the elected congressman or senator share terms, and serve half-terms."
Puno’s call for reform is not new. Former Albay 1st District Rep. Edcel Lagman, as reported by the Inquirer in March 2024, echoed similar concerns, arguing that if Charter change moves forward, the Senate and House should convene and vote as a single body—reflecting the unicameral approach originally envisioned by the Constitution's drafters. Lagman stated, "We also need to stick with the previous provisions of the Constitution, of the constituent assembly that they should meet jointly first, jointly because that’s two Houses of Congress, not separate. What we’re doing now is separate, like a couple being divorced. But that’s not the case, it should be a joint meeting, because congressmen and senators do not attend the constituent assembly as legislators."
The debate over how to amend the Constitution—whether through a constituent assembly, a people’s initiative, or a constitutional convention (Con-Con)—has also taken center stage. On August 12, Palace Press Officer Claire Castro told reporters that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr. is open to supporting a Con-Con, provided its primary aim is to clarify and strengthen the Constitution’s ambiguous sections. "If this is to enhance and clarify so that no provision in the Constitution is violated, the President will not oppose it," Castro assured, as reported by Daily Tribune. She emphasized that the Palace is closely monitoring developments and awaits a comprehensive proposal, noting, "There are probably instances when even clear definitions or terms are blurred to favor someone."
A Con-Con, as explained by Daily Tribune, is one of three legal avenues to amend the Constitution. Under this method, delegates elected from each legislative district are tasked with reviewing and recommending changes. The two other methods are a constituent assembly—where Congress itself proposes amendments—and a people’s initiative, which requires a nationwide petition. Each method has its proponents and detractors, and the choice of mechanism often reflects deeper political and ideological divides.
Meanwhile, the Senate has seen its own shake-up in the leadership of constitutional reform efforts. On August 12, Senator Francis "Kiko" Pangilinan, a lawyer and former chair of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, formally replaced Senator Robin Padilla as committee chair. GMA News reported that the motion was approved by Senate President Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada with no objections. Pangilinan accepted the role "with humility and a firm resolve to safeguard the democratic ideals enshrined in our Constitution," stating, "The Constitution belongs to the people, and any move to change it must be anchored on their aspirations and welfare. It must also undergo a thorough, principled, and participatory process."
Senate Majority Leader Joel Villanueva, speaking a day prior, acknowledged that Padilla’s replacement was partly due to the consideration that Pangilinan, as a lawyer, brings legal expertise to the role. Padilla, for his part, had earlier refiled a resolution seeking to revise the 1987 Constitution through a constitutional convention—a sign that the Senate remains divided but active in the Charter change debate.
The House of Representatives, for its part, has not been silent. On July 15, Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin filed Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 1, which seeks to amend the Constitution’s provisions on national territory and the economy. Garbin’s proposal aims to incorporate the 2016 Permanent Court of Arbitration ruling, which affirmed the Philippines’ exclusive rights over its waters. According to Inquirer, Garbin and Manila 6th District Rep. Bienvenido Abante Jr. believe that even as the current administration enters its second half, there remains enough time to tackle Cha-cha proposals.
It’s clear that calls for constitutional reform have long sparked intense debate in the Philippines. Proponents insist that outdated or vague provisions hinder effective governance and national development, while critics—often wary of political motives—warn of potential abuses or unintended consequences if the process is rushed or lacks transparency. As Daily Tribune noted, "Calls for constitutional reform have long sparked debate in the Philippines, with proponents arguing that outdated or vague provisions hinder governance and development, while critics often warn against potential abuses of the process."
As the country watches and waits, the stakes remain high. The outcome of this renewed push for Charter change will shape not just the structure of government, but the very rules by which the nation’s democracy operates. Whether the process leads to greater clarity and unity—or deeper division—will depend on the careful balance of legal precision, political will, and public trust.
