Speaker should go

In the shadow of President Marcos’ plight, Romualdez must bear the weight of the night.

Throughout Philippine history, relatives of presidents have often found themselves embroiled in various political scandals, showing a pattern of nepotism and corruption that has plagued the country’s leadership.

Familial connections have always raised questions about the integrity of political processes and shown how personal relationships can intersect with governance.

High-profile cases involving presidential relatives have sparked public outrage and skepticism about how power and privilege can influence political decisions that affect the nation’s trust in its leaders.

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s recent call for courtesy resignations from all Cabinet members has sent ripples throughout the country, a swift and bold move aimed at recalibrating his administration’s priorities following the dismal electoral performance of his team.

While the intention behind this initiative may appear commendable, it reveals a much deeper issue festering at the heart of the administration: House Speaker Martin Romualdez.

Romualdez has emerged as the central figure in a series of scandals that have undermined the government’s credibility and the ruling coalition’s integrity. His controversial push for the impeachment of the Vice President was viewed as a strategic maneuver to advance his seemingly unattainable presidential ambition, significantly fissuring a unity coalition that propelled the administration to power.

Allegations surrounding him, particularly the P241-billion budget insertions and various criminal complaints involving falsification of legislative documents, paint a troubling picture of self-interest overshadowing public service. Such issues distract from key governance challenges and put the administration at risk of being seen as ineffectual in enacting meaningful reforms.

What is particularly alarming is that while the President can wield authority to reshape his Cabinet, he is somewhat handcuffed when addressing Romualdez directly. Which brings us to this valid question: How can genuine recalibration occur if the very symbol of excess and entitlement remains in power, seemingly impervious to the fallout surrounding him? Public faith in the government is built on accountability. Without it, any attempts at reform risk being dismissed as mere window dressing.

Romualdez’s initiatives, such as his controversial proposal for a so-called “people’s initiative” to amend the Constitution in 2024, actions that appear to be self-serving, are being presented as populist measures. Even the President has distanced himself from this initiative, distancing himself even further from the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte.

These challenges beg the question: Could Romualdez’s continued ascendancy thwart the President’s vision of unity, reform, and public service? The answer lies in how the administration navigates the murky waters of its internal politics. Enhancing his government’s credibility requires tackling the very sources of discord head-on.

It would be prudent for Speaker Romualdez to embrace the ethos of delicadeza — the moral obligation that emphasizes honor and accountability.

While it may be unrealistic to expect him to resign willingly, there needs to be a shift in how he approaches leadership — one that sees the House not as a springboard for personal ambition but as a platform for advancing the interests of the Filipino people.

As the dust settles from the President’s Cabinet overhaul, the focus must shift to how the administration addresses its internal dynamics.

Meaningful change cannot happen while political liabilities like Romualdez linger unchecked. Any potential for a unified narrative grounded in reform and progress will falter unless the leadership recommits to accountability, starting with those who have the most to lose without it.