In the landscape of Philippine politics, the recent election results reveal more than just the triumphs of individual candidates; they unveil a calculated dance of alliances, strategic repositioning, and the quiet prelude to future power plays. As Senator Risa Hontiveros expresses her hope that her colleagues—Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan, Chel Diokno, and Leila de Lima—secured their respective seats in Congress, a deeper, more nuanced story unfolds beneath the surface: a story of political recalibration aimed at fortifying individual and collective power in anticipation of the 2028 presidential elections.
The Shifting Sands of Political Alliances Senator Risa Hontiveros’s optimism about her colleagues’ victories is commendable, yet it also underscores the complex web of political affiliations that define Philippine governance. Notably, Bam Aquino and Kiko Pangilinan, who have long been recognized as prominent figures within the Liberal Party and allied groups, found themselves aligning with the Majority Bloc in the Senate. Meanwhile, Chel Diokno and Leila de Lima, both of whom secured their seats via party-list representation, appear to be positioned within the Minority bloc. This division is hardly coincidental. It is a strategic maneuver rooted in the traditional political playbook—recalibrating alliances to maximize influence, resources, and political capital. The way they positioned themselves on different sides of the chamber, these leaders are not necessarily signaling a definitive break but rather orchestrating a subtle reorganization. Such tactics serve to broaden their support bases, access diverse resources, and maintain relevance across the political spectrum.
While public narratives often emphasize ideological divides or personal differences, the underlying strategy is often about long-term positioning. The 2025 elections, with their relatively mixed results, have provided these politicians with an opportunity to reset their alliances. The goal is not simply to win seats but to prepare for the larger contest that looms in 2028—the next presidential race. In this context, the move to join different blocs is less about ideological conviction and more about political survival and capital accumulation. By distributing their support across both the Majority and Minority, these leaders ensure they are not boxed into a single camp, thereby maintaining flexibility. This flexibility allows them to pivot as the political winds shift, especially as national issues, alliances, and public sentiments evolve.
Atty. Leila de Lima and Atty. Chel Diokno’s entries into the House of Representatives through their respective party-list groups also fit into this broader scheme. Instead of solely focusing on policy advocacy, their actions appear to be aimed at positioning themselves as key players in the ongoing political chess match. Both figures have been vocal critics of certain administrations, particularly regarding issues tied to human rights and governance. Their current focus seems to be on weakening the political capital of their rivals—in particular, President Duterte’s supporters and Vice President Sara Duterte’s allies—by pulling at the threads of Duterte’s influence and reputation. While they publicly project a narrative of political separation or independence, insiders understand that this is a strategic reorganization. They are consolidating their influence and resources to be formidable contenders come 2028.
The Philippines has long been a nation where political dynasties and alliances shape the electoral landscape. The 2028 presidential election is increasingly becoming the focal point of these strategic maneuvers. Leaders like Bam Aquino, Kiko Pangilinan, Chel Diokno, and Leila de Lima are not merely content with their current legislative roles; they are laying the groundwork for a future bid for the presidency or key executive positions. It is important to recognize that these moves are not necessarily about serving the immediate needs of the Filipino people. While they may project an image of independence or opposition, their real interest lies in building the political capital necessary to compete in the next national elections. This is a common pattern in Philippine politics—where electoral victories often serve as stepping stones toward higher office, and legislative roles are leveraged as platforms for national prominence.
This persistent focus on political recalibration and alliance-building comes at a cost. Filipino voters often find themselves caught in the crossfire of elite struggles for power, with policies and national priorities taking a backseat to political maneuvering. The genuine interests of the Filipino people—such as economic development, social justice, healthcare, and education—become secondary to the strategic interests of political clans and individual ambitions. In essence, the Filipino electorate becomes an audience to a recurring political drama—one that prioritizes power consolidation over genuine governance. The cycle of alliances, re-alignments, and strategic positioning continues unabated, often leaving the public disillusioned and disconnected from the real issues that affect their daily lives.
What we are witnessing is not a new phenomenon but a continuation of traditional Philippine political tactics, where alliances are fluid, political loyalty is transactional, and leadership is often rooted in patronage and strategic positioning rather than ideological consistency or public service. Historically, Philippine politics has been characterized by shifting loyalties, political dynasties, and a penchant for strategic alliances that serve the ambitions of a few rather than the needs of many. This pattern is reinforced by a political culture that often rewards loyalty over competence and patronage over policy.
While these political strategies are ingrained in the fabric of Philippine governance, they underscore the urgent need for systemic reform. Electoral reforms, increased transparency, and strengthening institutions that promote accountability are essential to breaking the cycle of elite dominance and restoring public trust. The Filipino people deserve leaders who prioritize genuine service over political survival tactics. They deserve a political environment where alliances are built on shared visions for the nation, not merely on strategic calculations for future elections.
Finally, the onus lies on the Filipino electorate to remain vigilant and discerning. Recognizing these political maneuvers is the first step toward demanding accountability and transparency. It is crucial for voters to look beyond the surface—beyond rhetoric and superficial narratives—and scrutinize the long-term implications of these alliance shifts. As Philippine politics continues to evolve, the hope remains that future leaders will prioritize genuine nation-building over personal and political ambitions. Until then, the strategic recalibrations and reorganization of political alliances serve as reminders of the enduring complexities of Philippine governance—complexities that require active citizen engagement and persistent advocacy for reforms rooted in the genuine interests of the Filipino people.
While the current political landscape may seem like a game of chess played behind closed doors, it is vital for Filipinos to remember that their future depends on leaders who serve with integrity, transparency, and a sincere commitment to national development—not on tactical alliances designed solely for electoral gain. The challenge is clear: to push for a political culture that values service over strategy, and governance over games. Only then can the Philippines hope to break free from the cycle of political recalibration and move toward a more just, equitable, and truly democratic society.
