Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano’s recent call for “radical honesty” is getting him some in return.
The senator’s weekend appeal for all government officials to resign and face snap elections has been shot down by political analysts, who questioned the proposal’s constitutionality and Cayetano’s credibility to make it.
In a statement posted on his social media pages Sunday, October 5, Cayetano called on officials from Congress to Malacañang to step down for “a completely new set of leaders,” describing it as the only way to rebuild public trust after the current corruption scandal involving public works projects.
The proposal, which Cayetano framed as an act requiring “radical honesty” and a “national reset button,” has been met with skepticism from observers due to the 1987 Constitution having no actual provision allowing for snap elections.
Two political analysts have also noted that Cayetano made no explicit commitment to resign himself, despite calling leadership “about stewardship, not self-preservation.”
Wrong messenger
Aside from the proposal being legally impossible, former presidential political adviser and political analyst Ronald Llamas said Cayetano’s own credibility weakens his suggestion.
“He’s calling for snap elections because people are dismayed with politicians,” Llamas said in an interview with TeleRadyo on Monday, October 6. “But he appears to be among the politicians people are dismayed with.”
Beyond the current flood control corruption probe, Llamas pointed out that Cayetano and former Senate President Chiz Escudero are themselves facing controversy over the delayed and eventually scrapped impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte and the 2025 budget deliberations, particularly the unexplained insertions.
It was Cayetano who nominated Escudero to the Senate presidency in 2024 following the ouster of then-Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri.
“They’re too tainted to suggest this kind of political proposal,” Llamas said.
If Cayetano were serious about his proposal, Llamas said, “he should resign first as an example, so others might follow.”
Unconstitutional, unpopular
Political scientist Ranjit Rye, who teaches at the University of the Philippines and is president of OCTA Research, said the plan has no footing in either the Constitution or current public opinion.
‘On the face of it, it’s unconstitutional,’ Rye said in a DZBB interview. ‘It also has no basis in terms of public clamor.”
Rye added that while Cayetano may mean well, his idea ignores what Filipinos’ more concrete demand for government reform.
“The solution is accountability and reform of the system, not extra-constitutional shortcuts,” he said.
Cayetano’s plan depends entirely on voluntary resignations, creating obvious problems, Llamas pointed out.
“If half resign and half don’t, what happens?” Llamas asked. “Only half would have elections.”
Cayetano offered no details on implementation or what would happen if officials refused in his press release.
His own press release also quoted unidentified “administration allies” dismissing the idea as “political theater” – an unusual admission for a senator’s own statement promoting the proposal.
The Commission on Elections (Comelec) itself has likewise ruled out Cayetano’s proposal as impossible under current laws.
Comelec Chairman George Garcia explained that the 1987 Constitution fixes the terms of elected officials and provides no mechanism for nationwide snap polls outside the normal electoral calendar.
“We cannot conduct a special or snap election without a law,” Garcia said in a DZBB interview.
Presidents, vice presidents and members of Congress serve fixed periods that cannot be cut short without triggering succession provisions already spelled out in the charter, the Comelec chairperson said.
Garcia said parliamentary systems allow snap elections through no-confidence votes, but the Philippines has no such provision.
He added that the current fixed terms were spelled out by the 1987 Constitution to prevent the concentration of power that existed under the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos Sr., who called snap elections in 1986 under a super-presidential parliamentary system.
“The snap elections before were conducted under an authoritarian setup, not in a democratic system like the one we have now,” Llamas said.