Charter Change

What Charter Change is

Charter Change is any effort to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution. Article XVII opens three doors: Congress convening as a constituent assembly, which requires a vote of three-fourths of all its members; a constitutional convention, which Congress calls by a two-thirds vote; or a people's initiative, which needs the signatures of 12% of registered voters nationwide, with at least 3% from every legislative district.

Whichever door is used, nothing takes effect until a majority of Filipinos ratify it in a plebiscite held 60 to 90 days after the proposal is approved.

In 39 years, no attempt has ever made it that far.

Looking back

The charter was drafted in the year after a dictatorship fell, by people who had lived under it, and much of it is a list of things that must never happen again. One six-year presidential term with no reelection. A restored bicameral Congress. A judiciary explicitly empowered to strike down "grave abuse of discretion" by any branch of government.

It also built walls. Article XII caps foreign ownership of land, natural resources and core public utilities at 40%. Article XVI closes mass media to foreign ownership entirely. Those provisions were written before the internet reached the Philippines.

The clause that never became law

Article II, Section 26 states that the government "shall prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

Congress has never passed that law. It has now been 39 years. The Supreme Court has ruled the provision is not self-executing. So, without an enabling statute, it does nothing at all.

Roughly 70% of House members and 80% of senators come from political families. The party-list system, created to seat the marginalized, is now a documented route into Congress for the powerful.

The Philippines has done this before

In 1973, a constitutional convention produced a draft. The promised plebiscite was called off four days out. Marcos Sr. replaced it with "citizens' assemblies" — residents 15 and older, voting by show of hands, then proclaimed that 95% had approved. In Javellana v. Executive Secretary, the Supreme Court let it stand.

That charter is what gave martial law its legal clothing.

Thirty-nine years later, the name is on both sides of the question again. The 2024 economic amendments carried the sitting president's endorsement. The 2026 term-extension allegations came from his sister, and his palace denied them.

Recent attempts

In January 2024, a people's initiative drive collected signatures nationwide. Senate hearings produced witnesses who said they had been offered social aid, or at least ₱4,000 for a signature. PIRMA's lead convenor admitted coordinating with the Speaker. The Senate rejected the drive unanimously.

In Santiago (1997) and again in Lambino (2006), the Supreme Court held that no adequate enabling law exists for a constitutional people's initiative — and that the route is limited to amendments, never a full revision.

RBH 7 cleared the House on third reading and died in the Senate. In August 2024, RBH 8 was filed to extend House terms to five years. It died in committee.

Pros — Rules that can finally be enforced

Ordinary law cannot touch the 40% foreign ownership caps, the media ban, or the anti-dynasty clause Congress has left dead for 39 years. Only an amendment reaches them. The cost of leaving them shows: $7.79B in foreign investment last year, against Vietnam's $20.35B.

Cons — Whoever holds the pen writes their own rules

Under a constituent assembly, the people rewriting the Constitution are the people it governs. 70% of the House and 80% of the Senate come from political families. The last signature drive ended in testimony about ₱4,000 payments. And the 2022 reform laws already opened telecoms, shipping, railways and retail — without touching the charter at all.