“While Padilla’s resolution may be beneficial to regions, cities and municipalities, the extension of term limits becomes controversial”
It is not too well known that last year (2023), Senator Robinhood “Robin” Padilla, chairman of the Senate Committee on Constitutional Amendments and Revision of Codes, filed Resolution 5 of both houses of Congress seeking to amend the 1987 Constitution mainly on its political provisions on both the executive and the legislative, specifically on term limits.
Because of its controversial nature, both chambers of Congress did not endorse it.
Upon reading the resolution which Padilla justified as imperative to provide longevity of term office to maintain continuation of policies, I had doubts that Senate President Migz Zubiri and Speaker Martin Romualdez would endorse it and neither would the majority of the senators.
Honestly, however, despite its controversial contents, I believe there are some logical and well-thought contents which need study for the good of both executive and legislative, and the nation in general.
For instance, as contained in Padilla’s resolution, the joint candidacy of both President and Vice President is urgently needed because for so long we have had Presidents and Vice Presidents who have been at loggerheads, with the Vice President always opposing the President.
We have seen this in the case of former President Duterte and former Vice President Leni Robredo, who were always at loggerheads.
Because of political unity between President Marcos Jr. and Vice President Sara Duterte, not only was Sara made a member of the Cabinet as education secretary, but she has been supportive of BBM.
There’s also the proposal to disqualify former Presidents from further seeking public office.
To me, this is good because former presidents are prone to seek public office again, whether it’s in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
But what I find controversial is the proposal of Padilla to enlarge the composition of the Senate from the current 24 to 54, retaining the current 24 who would be elected for 8 years, but electing another 30 by regions for 4 years only.
Obviously, this is in line with Padilla’s advocacy for Federalism where regions should have more representation in Congress.
Personally, I believe in Federalism where regions can have more representation in Congress, but, I also believe the time has not yet come for Federalism.
While I agree with Padilla as regards his advocacy for Federalism, he has a long way to go considering the mentality of Congress.
The proposal for regional senators, for instance, states the 30 additional senators shall be elected proportionately from cities and municipalities of the regions.
Well and good for regions for better representation, but how to convince the people is another thing because we all know how dynasties tend to control regions.
Term limits is another thing because people are so used to the current term limits.
To enable a President, for instance, to have another term would be controversial.
While the resolution allows two terms, his other term of office will be limited to four years, together with the Vice President, and allowed to serve for more than two terms.
The term of office of local officials is limited to three terms, but the term limits shall be extended to four years.
In other words, while Padilla’s resolution may be beneficial to regions, cities and municipalities, the extension of term limits becomes controversial.
Clearly, this is the controversial aspect of the Padilla resolution, which the Senate itself is against, especially in the case of the Senate President who has sworn that if the Cha-cha would involve political amendments he would resign.
But, Santa Banana, I believe Senator Padilla should be given his day in court to explain his resolution before his colleagues because there are also good aspects to Padilla’s resolution which both chambers of Congress could consider.