In the May 12, 2025 elections, we find ourselves at a critical juncture in our nation’s political landscape. The choices we make will reverberate through our society for years to come.
Consider the current political endorsements: a vice president facing multiple legal challenges is backing candidates whose qualifications are, at best, questionable. Among them are individuals with limited experience in governance, yet they are thrust into the limelight, buoyed by popularity rather than policy acumen. This includes a sitting senator, sometimes jokingly called the “yaya” of her father, who’s widely known for photobombing the former president’s pictures than for legislative insight (well, he does capitalize on “malasakit”), and a pastor with a standing warrant from the FBI for serious allegations.
Adding to the complexity is the vice president’s familial ties to figures embroiled in legal controversies. Her father, a former president, is currently detained in The Hague, awaiting trial for alleged human rights violations during his administration’s anti-drug campaign. Her brother faces allegations of assault, with video evidence circulating widely. These incidents prompt us to question the patterns of behavior within political dynasties and their implications for governance.
Then we have a television host senatorial hopeful known only for entertainment and who has not shown an ounce of interest in the legislative process, and even pointed out how the laws seem useless and sees no point in creating more. And then we have more actors, both in show business and in the theater of politics.
In contrast, there are candidates who have demonstrated a commitment to public service and integrity. Figures like Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan, Heidi Mendoza, and Luke Espiritu, as well as Leila Delima and Chel Diokno have track records that reflect their dedication to transparency, social justice, and effective governance, and have consistently advocated for marginalized communities. And yet, their accomplishments are belittled by their opponents (with some grabbing credit altogether). They’re maligned by the “supporters” of opposing parties, consistently under some form of troll attack, and remain targets of disinformation. When these things happen, shouldn’t we be asking why?
The local political arena is not without its theatrics either. Election seasons often bring a surge of exposés and allegations, many of which surface suspiciously close to voting day. This pattern begs the question: If these issues were known earlier, why were they not addressed promptly? Such tactics (used by those already in government and some of their opponents) suggest a strategic use of information for political gain rather than a genuine concern for accountability.
As voters, we must exercise discernment. We need to look beyond charisma and scrutinize the platforms, qualifications, and track records of those seeking office. If only we all had access to every candidate’s statement of assets, liabilities, and net worth (SALN), we could gain insights into their financial dealings and potential conflicts of interest. Transparency in this regard would reflect a candidate’s commitment to ethical governance. Alas! We have no such recourse, and we can only rely on publicly available information, dialogue, and expert analyses, and our own critical thinking for guidance.
This election serves as a litmus test for our collective political maturity. Are we swayed by name recognition and populist rhetoric, or do we prioritize competence and integrity?
The leaders we elect are a mirror of our values and aspirations. If we settle for mediocrity, we risk perpetuating a cycle of ineffective governance, corruption, and injustice. Conversely, by choosing leaders who embody honesty and dedication, we pave the way for meaningful progress.
The choice is ours. Let’s make our votes count.
