By Clark Semilla, a political science student at the University of Cebu-Main Campus
The Senate of the Philippines has for a long time been regarded as one of the most stable democratic institutions in the country. Often called the “last bastion of democracy,” the Senate is expected to provide checks and balances, uphold accountability, and represent the interests of the Filipino people. But looking at the 20th Congress lately, you have to wonder if the “bastion” is starting to look more like a revolving door.
As of the 20th Congress, the Senate has already seen multiple changes in leadership. In less than a year, the Senate Presidency has swapped hands like a hot potato. We started with Chiz Escudero in July 2025, moved to Tito Sotto by September and now, as of May 2026, Alan Peter Cayetano has taken the gavel amidst the chaos of Vice President Sara Duterte’s impeachment.
The position of Senate president is not merely ceremonial. Let’s be clear, the Senate president isn’t just a figurehead who bangs a gavel. It is one of the highest positions in the Philippine government and serves as the guiding force of the Senate’s legislative agenda. The Senate president influences committee leaderships, determines the flow of deliberations and symbolizes the direction of the institution. Because of this, frequent changes in leadership create uncertainty not only within the Senate but also among citizens who expect consistency and principled governance.
In Philippine politics, leadership changes are often defended as part of democratic practice. Politicians will tell you this is just “democracy in action.” They’ll cite constitutional rights and the need for a chamber that reflects the “will of the majority.” But let’s call it what it actually looks like to the average Filipino: a game of musical chairs played by the elite. When leadership shifts are triggered by shifting loyalties and proximity to power rather than genuine policy disputes, the institution loses its soul and many Filipinos begin questioning whether public service remains the true priority.
The changes in Senate leadership during the 20th Congress reflect the fluid nature of Philippine politics. Alliances can quickly shift depending on political advantage and proximity to power. While compromise and coalition-building are normal in democratic systems, excessive political maneuvering risks damaging public trust in institutions. The Senate may begin to appear less as a legislative body dedicated to nation-building and more as an arena for elite political competition.
Moreover, instability in Senate leadership can affect legislative productivity. The real danger here isn’t just the optics; it’s the output. Every time there’s a “coup” or a reorganization, committee assignments are shuffled. Staff are moved. Priorities are rewritten. While the senators are busy counting votes for the next leadership bid, the rest of us are still dealing with the same old problems like inflation that won’t quit, a struggling education system and an economy that needs more than just “political maneuvering” to survive.
Still, leadership changes are not entirely negative. In some instances, they may serve as a form of accountability. Sure, a change in leadership can be a good thing if it’s about accountability. If a leader isn’t cutting it, they should be replaced. But there’s a thin line between “principled change” and “political opportunism.” Right now, that line is looking incredibly blurry. Ultimately, the Senate doesn’t belong to the senators; it belongs to the people. We aren’t looking for a soap opera or a constant display of political gymnastics. We’re looking for a legislative body that cares more about the price of rice than the seating chart in the plenary hall.
The changing of Senate presidents during the 20th Congress should therefore serve as a reminder that leadership is not simply about occupying a powerful position. True leadership isn’t about how long you can hold onto the chair or how many alliances you can forge in the backrooms. It’s about whether you actually move the needle for the country. If the 20th Congress keeps focusing on the crown instead of the work, the “last bastion of democracy” might just find itself losing the one thing it can’t legislate back: the public’s trust.
