Is the country ready for barangay officials’ term extension?

A bill seeking to extend the term limit of barangay (local village) officials from three to six years has received the penultimate approval in the House of Representatives. The move has sparked a debate on whether such an extension would benefit local governance or simply provide an undue extension for underperforming officials. While there are valid arguments on both sides, the proposal highlights crucial considerations about balancing stability in governance and accountability at the grassroots level.

One of the most compelling reasons to extend the term of barangay officials is the issue of continuity in leadership. With only a three-year term, many barangay officials struggle to implement long-term plans or policies. Three years is often too short to make meaningful progress in a community, especially when you consider the complexities of local governance. While a single term may allow for initial ideas to be launched, it doesn’t provide enough time for those initiatives to bear fruit.

A six-year term provides the stability necessary for leaders to execute their vision effectively. This allows officials to not only complete their programs but also to address emerging issues that require long-term attention, such as infrastructure projects, social programs, or health and safety concerns. With longer tenures, barangay officials can build a legacy of accomplishments and lay the groundwork for further improvements, something often hindered by frequent changes in leadership.

Moreover, extending the term limit helps eliminate the instability that comes with frequent elections. By reducing electoral cycles, barangay councils can focus more on governance and less on campaigning.

Despite the benefits, the proposal to extend the term of barangay officials raises valid concerns, especially about accountability. The current three-year term, though short, allows voters to regularly assess the performance of their leaders. With only three years to prove their worth, underperforming officials have a clear deadline. Extending the term could lead to complacency, as elected leaders may feel they have more time to improve their image or avoid consequences for poor governance.

Furthermore, a six-year term may disproportionately benefit incumbents, especially those with political influence or resources to remain in power despite lackluster performance. The extension could perpetuate the dominance of certain families or political dynasties, further entrenching power imbalances in barangays.

A longer term could also exacerbate the risk of corruption. With more time to establish themselves, officials may develop closer ties to businesses, contractors, or other entities that could lead to conflicts of interest. While there is no clear evidence that term length directly correlates with corruption, the extended time frame could provide more opportunities for it to develop.

The challenge in extending the term limit of barangay officials lies in striking a balance between stability and accountability. While the bill addresses the need for longer terms to enact long-term projects, it must also include checks to ensure that those in power remain responsive to the people they serve. This could be achieved through improved mechanisms for evaluating performance, such as more frequent community consultations, enhanced transparency, and stronger anti-corruption measures.

Moreover, extending the term to six years should not simply be a matter of time but also of reforming the system to ensure that elected officials remain accountable throughout their tenure.
While a six-year term for barangay officials offers the potential for more effective governance, it also carries the risk of complacency and entrenchment of power. Ultimately, the debate centers not just on the length of the term but on creating a system that holds officials accountable while giving them the stability needed to make real change.