President Gustavo Petro used the May 1 International Labor Day marches, particularly a rally in Medellín, to call for the creation of a National Constituent Assembly and to launch a campaign to collect around five million signatures and public donations in support of the initiative. Both opposition and government-aligned sources agree that he arrived hours later than scheduled, that unions such as the CUT played a central organizing role, that public employees and sectors like SENA personnel were visibly present, and that security and police deployment were significant. Coverage converges on the facts that Petro explicitly framed the marches as a starting point for a constituent process, tied this to his stalled reform agenda, and signaled July 20 as a key date for presenting signatures and confronting the new Congress with what he describes as a popular mandate.

Across outlets, there is also agreement that Petro linked the push for a Constituent Assembly to broader institutional and political dynamics, including friction with Congress and the courts that have slowed or blocked his reforms on health, pensions, and labor. Media on both sides report that he portrayed the Assembly not as a replacement for the 1991 Constitution but as a mechanism to add new chapters on social rights and anti-corruption, and that he traced the idea to the difficulty of advancing structural changes through ordinary legislative channels. They also concur that Petro used the stage to defend his government’s performance, citing indicators like employment gains, improved living conditions, and reductions in hunger, and to argue that social mobilization in the streets is a necessary complement to institutional politics.

Areas of disagreement

Nature of Petro’s shift. Opposition outlets frame Petro’s call for a Constituent Assembly as a stark and opportunistic reversal from earlier statements that such a mechanism was unnecessary, emphasizing the contradiction as evidence of improvisation or power ambitions. Government-aligned coverage acknowledges the change in position but attributes it to accumulating institutional blockages and court defeats that, in their telling, forced a strategic reassessment of how to realize the 2022 electoral mandate. While opposition media spotlight Petro’s past quotes and portray the new line as deceptive or imposed, pro-government sources cast it as an evolution driven by experience with an uncooperative establishment.

Legality and democratic legitimacy. Opposition coverage raises sharp doubts about the legal feasibility of Petro’s proposal, underscoring that collecting signatures and donations cannot circumvent constitutional procedures and warning that invoking a “popular mandate” could pressure institutions or edge toward constitutional rupture. Government-aligned outlets focus more on presenting the Assembly as fully compatible with the 1991 charter, stressing that it would add social and anti-corruption chapters and would still require Congress, the courts, and the electorate to validate the process. For critics the emphasis on street mobilization and future Congresses sounds like an attempt to override checks and balances, whereas supportive media portray these same elements as deepening participatory democracy.

Characterization of the May Day mobilization. Opposition sources describe the Medellín rally as partially empty, delayed, and heavily dependent on organized transport, free lunches, and alleged pressure on public-sector workers and SENA staff to attend, framing the day as a thinly veiled political campaign event. Government-aligned reports highlight turnout, union protagonism, and a festive or historic atmosphere, presenting the marches as an authentic expression of working-class support for Petro’s reforms and constituent push. Where opposition accounts stress logistical failures and coercion that undercut claims of grassroots backing, pro-government narratives emphasize voluntary participation and depict the crowds as evidence of a living social mandate.

Framing of motives and stakes. Opposition media depict Petro’s constituent bet as a reaction to judicial and legislative defeats meant to bypass institutional constraints and entrench his project beyond his term, suggesting personal or ideological radicalization. Government-aligned outlets instead portray the initiative as a structural response to entrenched elites and governance bottlenecks, arguing that without constitutional upgrading, promised social and anti-corruption reforms will remain blocked. The former underline risks of polarization, investor uncertainty, and institutional destabilization, while the latter underscore an historic opportunity to deepen rights, discipline political corruption, and realign the state with popular demands.

In summary, opposition coverage tends to portray Petro’s May Day constituent push as an improvised, legally dubious maneuver to pressure institutions and disguise a weakened government through choreographed street shows, while government-aligned coverage tends to frame it as a democratically grounded, participatory strategy to unlock blocked reforms, consolidate social gains, and update the 1991 Constitution in line with an enduring popular mandate.