While it raises the issue of constitutional change. The main reason cited for the change is a tension between the role of the President and the role of Government in the Executive branch of State power.
This tension is considered responsible for the blockade to facilitate the appearance of reform and political instability. Political instability is a negative element that prevents Romania to progress. To solve this problem you need to remove the source of political instability is not temporary, but structural, determined by the formula semiprezidentiala the Constitution of 1991.
There is a more profound question of whose answer depends on the way they think about constitutional change. To wit: what is the purpose of a Constitution?
Is the purpose of a Constitution and governance reform fast? If this is the answer, then the change is urgently needed. Or purpose of the existence of a Constitution is another? Affirming and guaranteeing the fundamental rights of citizens and to guarantee a functioning institutional system that ensures both the reflection of the will of the citizens and their rights.
Theoretically, but practically, the Constitution creates a framework more predictable action for its citizens, even better. In terms of politics, the most effective model Constitution in relation to this end is that of the American Constitution, and this is due not to the fact that the President is the head of the Executive, but that keeps unchanged the basic principles for 200 years.
A Constitution is therefore all the more valuable as it is more stable. Constitutional rules have special feature that increase their value over time. There is a very important advantage in maintaining the constitutional rules as long even though they would be bad. Constitutional change costs equates to the cost of changing the status quo for the formation of the society with very difficult consequences envisioned and usually unacceptable to the majority of citizens.  The Romanian Constitution does not make exception to this rule. There is a threshold beyond which the costs of the status quo only losses and then should be changed. The question that arises is whether in fact Romania has reached that threshold.
My answer is that it's not. On the contrary. The Romanian Constitution now only proves its extraordinary power to compel change policy class. This is contrary to the desired effect of parents who wanted the Constitution that his Government could be possible only in the presence of a broad consensus, so that no reform is not too radical.
The Constitution makes it possible to censure the President reciprocated and Government. In a country that has just scapase of a dictatorial system in which the Executive was everything, the solution to split the Executive is most appropriate in order to ensure that no one can fully seize power. An effect of this constitutional thinking has been the appearance of a competing between the President and premier.  If the President wants reform, he will be counterbalanced by the Prime Minister who opposes reform. But if the President does not want reform, he will be counterbalanced by the reformist Prime Minister. Only a wide majority would be able to overcome this impasse, a majority capable of simultaneously impose a President and a Prime Minister, or a large majority according to the current Constitution involves the participation of all political forces of the country.
In theory, an ideal Constitution would be that it would be adopted unanimously, in which every citizen would have the right of veto if it considers that he is violating their rights. In practice this is not possible, but it may be something else, namely as a political strongman will be hard to govern if it does not secure the support of a large number of citizens. In this way we can have the guarantee that it will respect the rights of all. Since political forces need a wide support, they will have to take into account an increasing number of citizens
The premise from which leaves those who support the constitutional reform is that in Romania there are two strengths, one conservative and reform and I should like this to be clear and the winner takes all (and make you happy, if reform is reform or to hold everything in place, if we have the misfortune to be conservative).
We can ask ourselves in this situation the question of Karl Popper: which is the most desirable, the system that gives them total power to the best (reformists or not) or the system that eliminates the most incompetent people quickly and not allow them to make a river too wide?
Analysing rational answer this question is the second variant. Times just this is the Variant that works now according to the Constitution. It is enough to have a President of one color and the other a premier color so that none of them can not grab all the power, which would lead, we know from experience, rather than at large to abuse reforms.  The effects of this competition are always good from the perspective of citizens ' rights guarantee. Each of the opponents must persuade a large number of supporters. In this way, the rights of a large number of citizens are respected, being either devices, either President. Any abuse will be immediately charged. Any slippage from the strict legality will be promptly disclosed as weapon in battle of the palate. The Government is obliged to govern well. The President is obliged to respect legality.

If there is a problem that is not political instability, a natural phenomenon in a parliamentary democracy with proportional voting system, but the lack of alternatives to current policy class. The effect of the introduction of a pervert threshold that cripple any attempt of a newly formed party to enter Parliament and blocking policy scene. If you need to make any change that would be the most crucial. Romania suffers due to too multei Democrats but because of a dearth of democracy. But this can be changed without having to walk so far to the Constitution. It's enough to amend the electoral law.