There was a time when proceedings at the Senate of the Philippines were treated with a sense of reverence. Senators stood to debate matters of national importance. Speeches were delivered not for social media consumption, sometimes on livestreams, but for the public record. Disagreements were expected, but the institution itself remained larger than the ambitions of the men and women who occupied its chambers. Today, one cannot help but wonder whether that tradition is slowly being replaced by political theater.

Recent events at the Senate have invited ridicule rather than respect: propaganda videos shown during Senate sessions, railroaded rules amendments to permit participation through videoconferencing, and walkouts designed to challenge the existence of a quorum. These are no longer isolated incidents; rather, they are symptoms of a political culture increasingly consumed by optics rather than outcomes.

At a time when the nation faces rising costs of living and inflation, infrastructure challenges, energy security concerns and questions about economic competitiveness, public attention has instead been diverted toward a seemingly endless cycle of political maneuvering. The reason is not difficult to discern, and the year 2028 casts a long shadow over Philippine politics.

Far too many decisions today appear calculated not on the basis of what benefits the Filipino people, but on how they may affect future electoral fortunes. Every hearing becomes a campaign stage. Every controversy becomes an opportunity for political positioning, and alliances are measured according to their usefulness in the next election.

Even appointments to key government positions are increasingly viewed through a political lens. When appointments are perceived as rewards for voter influence or political utility, rather than merit and competence, public confidence inevitably suffers. Government service was once regarded as a noble calling. It risks becoming merely another instrument in the pursuit of political power. This is where presidential leadership becomes indispensable.

The President alone possesses the political capital and moral authority to set the tone for governance. He need not concern himself with whether every decision is popular. The public does not expect perfection from its leaders. It expects decisiveness, clarity and the courage to make difficult choices when circumstances demand them. And he must have the gravitas to do it here in the Philippines, not abroad in countries such as Japan and the United States.

A firm and unmistakable signal from the highest office that governance must take precedence over politics would go a long way toward restoring discipline across the political spectrum. The good news is that there remains time to correct course.

The institutions of our Republic are stronger than the political storms that pass through them. The Senate can recover its dignity. Government service can reclaim its nobility. And this administration can still earn another mandate from the Filipino people based on performance and results, not political theatrics. The challenge is whether our leaders choose statesmanship over spectacle while there is still time.

For comments, email darren.dejesus@gmail.com.