An Extension of Service or an Extension of Power?

By IVY BETALMOS

The Barangay and Sangguniang Kabataan Elections, originally scheduled for November 2, 2026, have been postponed to November 2028 under Republic Act No. 12326, signed by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The government presents the extension as an opportunity to improve public service, complete projects, and strengthen continuity. But if additional time is supposed to mean additional service, the public has every right to ask: Where is the proof?

An extension of office is not simply an extension of a calendar. It is an extension of authority, responsibility, and access to public resources. More importantly, it delays the opportunity for voters to decide whether their current leaders deserve another mandate. If the government believes this postponement will benefit communities, then greater accountability must accompany it.

For incumbent barangay officials, the additional time should not be treated as a reward but as a responsibility. Residents deserve to know what has been accomplished, what remains unfinished, and how public funds have been used. Leadership should not be measured by photographs, ceremonies, or announcements, but by visible improvements and meaningful results.

The same standard applies to the Sangguniang Kabataan. Youth leadership should be more than organizing events and activities. Young people deserve programs that address their actual needs, create opportunities, and produce lasting benefits. How many young people have benefited? How much was spent? What difference did the programs make? If the election had happened this year, what would you have shown the youth to prove that you deserved another term?

The government must also answer difficult questions. Why was the postponement necessary? Why must voters wait until 2028 to choose their leaders? What safeguards will prevent the extension from becoming an opportunity for complacency rather than better governance? These are not attacks against the government; they are legitimate questions in a democracy. Continuity may have its benefits, but it should never come at the expense of accountability and the people’s right to choose.

An election postponed should not mean accountability postponed. Citizens should continue examining projects, questioning budgets, attending barangay assemblies, and demanding transparency. Public officials should welcome these questions because public office is not private property. It is a public trust that must be earned through action, not merely maintained through position.

If the postponement was intended to improve public service, then communities should see tangible results. If it was intended to give leaders more time to fulfill their promises, those promises should become accomplishments. Otherwise, one question remains: Was the additional time really about serving the people, or simply about remaining in power?

When voters finally return to the ballot box, they should have evidence, not just campaign promises. They should know which leaders delivered, which projects were completed, and which commitments were abandoned. The additional years should give citizens more opportunities to observe their leaders, not give leaders permission to become complacent.

The postponement may have moved the election to 2028, but it did not suspend accountability or silence the people. It did not guarantee that incumbents deserve another term. It only gave them more time.
Now, they have to prove what that time was worth.