In a political landscape plagued by ongoing corruption scandals and a erosion of public confidence, a bold, even “radical” proposal has been put forward that is shaking up the entire power structure. Senator Alan Peter Cayetano, a prominent figure in the political scene, has loudly called for a historic general resignation of the entire national leadership – from the President, Vice President, to all Senators and Representatives. This is not just empty talk; it is a direct challenge to the system, an “extreme solution to an extreme problem” that has eaten into the core of the nation.

This proposal, presented by Senator Cayetano as a path to “national regeneration” and restoration of lost confidence, immediately sparked a heated debate. Is this the bitter but necessary medicine to save a polity rotting under “cyclical” corruption? Or is it just a risky move that could plunge the country into a greater political crisis and weaken an already fragile democracy?

Background to a Shocking Proposal: Endless Corruption

Corruption in the Philippines is not a new problem. It has become a deep scar in the political history, recurring through different generations of leaders and regimes. From high-level scandals to questionable “insertions” and “amendments” in the budget, public trust in government institutions is at an all-time low. Revolutions like EDSA 1, EDSA 2, or even EDSA 3, while bringing temporary changes, according to Senator Cayetano, have not been able to address the “cyclical” problem of corruption.

It was in this context that Senator Cayetano, with his long experience in both the House and Senate, made what he believed was a necessary call: a massive “sacrifice.” He did not believe that a conventional presidential change or another “people power” revolution would be enough to clean up the system. Instead, he proposed an unprecedented scenario: the resignation of the President, Vice President, and the entire Senate and House of Representatives. Not only that, he proposed that these people would not be allowed to run for office in the next election cycle.

“I’m Ready to Be a Pioneer”: A Challenge for Innovation

When asked if he was willing to take the lead in resigning, Senator Cayetano bluntly stated: “Pangunahan ko. Payag ako mauna. No problem doon.” – I will take the lead. I agree to be the first. No problem. This statement, coming from a former Speaker of the House and former Secretary of State, added weight to his proposal. He emphasized that this was not a solo act but a “national renewal” that required collective commitment. “Kung gusto niyong mauna ako, basta’t may assurance akong susunod kayo.” – If you want me to take the lead, as long as I have the assurance that you will follow.

His proposal goes beyond resignation. It also includes a constitutional mechanism to fill the power vacuum. Cayetano cited Article 7, Section 10 of the Constitution, which stipulates that if the President and Vice President resign together, Congress must convene within three days and within seven days pass a law to hold elections within 45 to 60 days. He asserted that this is completely constitutional, contrary to those who have called his proposal “extra-constitutional.”

The biggest challenge, however, is not the legal aspect, but the political will. “Paano magkaroon ng national commitment to each other and to the nation na yung qualified tumakbo, hindi tumakbo?” – How to get a national commitment among the parties and to the country that those who are qualified to run for office will not run? This is the core of Cayetano’s proposal: to create a space for “new breeds” of leaders, those untainted by the old system, to step up and lead the country.

Unanswered questions and doubts

While the idea of ​​a “national reinvention” may sound appealing, many remain skeptical about its feasibility and consequences. Some commentators have questioned whether President Marcos would be willing to step down, especially given his family history and their resilience in the face of calls to resign. “Hindi ‘yan magre-resign,” one commentator argued, arguing that the current leaders would not resign because they were “too thick-skinned” (sobrang kapal ng mukha). They argued that in the Philippines, unlike many other countries, public calls to resign are often ignored.

Moreover, if all leaders resign, is there any guarantee that their successors will be truly “new breed” and not be influenced by the old system? Can dishonest “opportunists” be prevented from infiltrating the power vacuum? These are big questions that Cayetano’s proposal cannot answer convincingly.

Others worry that a general resignation could create a dangerous power vacuum, leading to political instability or even a military coup. Cayetano acknowledges these risks, but he also emphasizes that this is why he wants a “transformation and revival” rather than a “revolution.” He believes that past models of revolution, whether communist, fascist, or even “people power,” have not provided a lasting solution to corruption.

The future of a bold proposal

For now, Senator Cayetano’s proposal remains a “moon punch” (suntok sa buwan)—an idea that seems far-fetched but not impossible. It is forcing the public and leaders to confront an uncomfortable question: Is there a limit to people’s patience with corruption? And are we willing to accept such an “extreme solution” to achieve a true “national regeneration”?

Meanwhile, the Senate Committee on Blue Shirts, under the leadership of acting chairman Sen. Erwin Tulfo (who Sotto endorsed), continues its investigations into corruption scandals, such as the flood control projects. While Cayetano did not directly mention his replacement of Sotto, the video suggested that the change in the committee’s leadership was part of the ongoing political landscape. Tulfo, with his outspoken style, is pushing for hearings and publicly challenging witnesses and accused persons, suggesting a change in approach to investigations.

Whether or not Cayetano’s proposal becomes a reality, it has succeeded in sparking an important conversation about the future of the Philippines. It raises questions about political will, about personal sacrifice for the national good, and about a country’s ability to reinvent itself. Can the Philippines overcome the vicious cycle of corruption and find a path to more honest and trustworthy politics? Or is this just one of many bold proposals that will fade into oblivion in the country’s turbulent history?