Motion: Resolved that, the term of office of Barangay Officials and members of
Sangguniang Kabataan be extended from three to five years.
The motion before us proposes the extension of term of office for Baranggay Officials
and members of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) from three to five years. Hearing this for the first
time, this may seem like a practical solution to enhance political stability and reduce costs.
However, beneath this façade lies a deeply flawed motion, yes you heard me right, it’s flawed.
That’s the very reason why I am standing here before you today, to present to you why Barangay
and SK terms should not be extended as it is unnecessary.
ARGUMENT 1: Extending the term to five years is unnecessary as it poses a risk of
stagnation and complacency.
What happens when we give the same leaders control for five years? We lose the
opportunity for change, for renewal, and for progress. We replace hope with stagnation.
Extending the term of office to five years is a direct invitation to stagnation. This five year term
allows elected officials to grow complacent, they know that they will remain in power for an
extended period, regardless of their performance. Let’s not forget that leadership must be
dynamic and responsive to the ever-evolving needs of the community and of our youths. The
current three-year term encourages officials to maximize their time in office, making them more
attuned to their constituents needs. Studies by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
(PCIJ) reveal that grassroots leaders often lose their sense of urgency when given extended
terms. Prolonging their tenure dilutes the pressure to innovate, solve problems swiftly and
maintain consistent engagement with the community. Are we willing to risk governance that
drags its feet, leaving communities underserved for years?
ARGUMENT 2: Extending the term to five years is unnecessary as it reduces
accountability and weakens democratic participation
Democracy thrives on regular cycles of accountability. The most accessible leaders in the
Political system are the Barangay and SK officials. The three-year term allows voters to evaluate
their leaders regularly, providing an avenue for communities to remove those who fail to deliver
their duty.
Extending the term diminishes this vital feedback loop. It gives underperforming officials
a prolonged free pass, fostering a culture of mediocrity. Research by Transparency International
Philippines confirms that shorter electoral cycles empower the people, making them active
participants in governance rather than bystanders. When we reduce the opportunities for electoral
turn over, we erode the fundamental principle that power of our country ultimately resides with
the people. This motion not only threatens accountability but also undermines the vibrancy of
our democracy.
ARGUMENT 3: Extending the term is unnecessary as Barangay and SK issues do
not require longer terms
Often Barangay Officials and members of SK deals with immediate, localized concerns
such as health programs, disaster preparedness, of course community development and youth
engagement. These responsibilities calls for leaders who are proactive and results oriented, not
those officials clinging to office for five years. Barangay Manggalang 1 Sariaya, Quezon was
hailed the best performing SK for three consecutive years, from 2010-2013. They have shown
exemplifying performance for their three year term resulting to a successful SK affair in the
barangay. During 2013-2016 SK councils successfully launched initiatives like SK Reform Act
which modernized governance at the youth level and managed youth-focused programs which
was accomplished even within the confines of a three-year term. These demonstrates that current
three-year cycle is more than sufficient to address the concerns at grassroots level of our country.
After all governance is not a function of time but competence, focus, and the ability to mobilize
resources. The assumption that time alone equals’ better leadership is flawed, it’s the quality of
leadership not the duration.
ARGUMENT 4: Extending the term is unnecessary as youth leadership requires
Frequent Turnover
The very essence of the Sangguniang Kabataan is to empower young people, to give
them a voice in governance and a platform to lead. Extending SK terms to five years betrays this
purpose. Youth leadership thrives on frequent turnover. It allows new faces, fresh ideas and
diverse perspectives that aligns with the ever changing needs of the youths. Just imagine the loss
of energy, creativity and the drive if the young leaders are locked out for five long years. Our
youth deserve more opportunities to lead, not fewer.
ARGUMENT 5: Electoral Costs do not Justify Term Extension
The affirmative side might argue that extending the term reduces frequency of elections
and thereby minimizes costs. However this reasoning overlooks the long-term democratic, social
and governance costs of fewer elections, which far outweigh the financial savings. Election do
incur costs, but remember that frequent elections are an investment in democracy. Viewing
elections as financial burden rather than an investment undermines their democratic importance.
Outro: With this grounds, we, the house of opposition firmly stand that this motion is
unnecessary.
