The Philippine Senate is now pushing to scrap the six-year, single-term limit for the president and vice-president. That move, advanced by a Senate committee on April 29 in Manila, targets Article VII of the 1987 Constitution. The change would let Ferdinand Marcos Jr. and future leaders run for multiple terms. Proponents say it brings stability. Opponents say it piles too much power in one place.
The committee reviewed the draft resolution line by line. The chair noted the need for clear wording to avoid legal trouble. The session itself was a formal step in a longer process. But the core fact is simple: the two-term cap for the presidency and vice-presidency is on the table for removal.
This is not the first time the Senate has gone after term limits. The 1987 charter was written after the Marcos dictatorship. It was designed to prevent another strongman from holding power indefinitely. That history hangs over the current debate. Supporters of the amendment argue that the world has changed. Economic uncertainty and geopolitical tension, they say, require longer horizons for planning. A president who knows he can stay, they argue, can make hard choices without worrying about the clock.
Opponents see it differently. They point to the same history. The single six-year term was a deliberate check. Removing it, they warn, opens the door to the kind of concentrated authority the constitution was written to prevent. The debate on April 29 did not settle that. It only moved the resolution forward.
The draft resolution does not specify a new limit. It suggests either lifting the restriction entirely or replacing it with a system that allows re-election without limit. That is a wide range. The committee spent its session examining the text to avoid unintended consequences. The chair said as much during the meeting.
This matters because the presidency is the most powerful office in the Philippines. The president appoints cabinet members, controls the military, and has a large say in legislation. A president who can serve multiple terms has years to shape every branch of government. That is the worry opponents keep returning to. They see it as a slow drift back toward the system the 1987 charter was meant to bury.
Proponents do not deny the power. They argue it is needed. Economic instability and external threats, they say, require a steady hand. A president who knows he is leaving in six years, they claim, becomes a lame duck too quickly. The argument is about stability versus rotation. The committee chose stability.
The resolution now moves to the full Senate. From there it would need to go to the House of Representatives. Any amendment to the constitution requires a supermajority. That is a high bar. But the committee vote on April 29 shows the Senate is serious. The session was not symbolic. It was a working meeting, with lawmakers going through the text sentence by sentence.
Marcos Jr. himself has not publicly pushed for the change. But the resolution is clearly aimed at him. He is in the middle of his single six-year term. If the amendment passes quickly enough, he could benefit directly. That timing is part of what makes the debate so sharp. Opponents say the process is being rushed for one man. Proponents say it is about the system, not the person.
The committee chair did not name a timeline. But the April 29 session was a concrete step. The draft resolution exists. The wording is being refined. The political fight is now in the open.
