*Dr. Rodolfo John Ortiz Teope, PhD, EdD, DM
I remember a morning in a crowded barangay hall in San Mateo, Rizal, when I was then a municipal councilor, the kind of place where the electric fan struggled against the heat and the line of people seemed endless. Mothers with children on their hips, elderly men leaning on canes, young fathers clutching worn-out envelopes—all waiting, all hoping. At the center of that room was not a cabinet secretary, not a mayor, not even a congressman. It was a woman—calm, attentive, listening as if every story mattered. She held no formal title, yet people gravitated toward her. They spoke not because she had authority but because they felt seen. And in that moment, I understood something that no textbook could fully explain: in governance, influence is often more powerful than position, and trust travels farther than authority.
It is from this quiet realization that I began to reflect on the evolving role of the First Lady, particularly in the case of Lisa Araneta Marcos. In a time dominated by narrative wars, political noise, and the subtle fractures of division, there emerges a question that deserves honest contemplation: how can the First Lady become more effective in nation-building without stepping into the turbulence that formal power often invites?
History offers both a mirror and a warning. The legacy of Imelda Marcos, especially through the Ministry of Human Settlements, reminds us that a First Lady can indeed become a central force in social transformation. There were housing programs, urban visions, and initiatives that touched the lives of many Filipinos. Yet history also teaches us that when influence becomes indistinguishable from authority, scrutiny inevitably follows. The lesson, therefore, is not to deny the potential of the role, but to redefine it in a way that aligns with the demands of modern democratic governance.
In today’s climate, where transparency is expected and perceptions of nepotism can easily overshadow intention, the path forward must be deliberate. The First Lady need not become a cabinet secretary to be impactful. In fact, it may be precisely in not holding direct operational power where her greatest strength lies.
Imagine a First Lady who operates as a national unifier of compassion. One who bridges institutions like the Department of Social Welfare and Development, the Department of Health, the Department of Education, and local government units—not by commanding them, but by aligning their efforts. In this role, she becomes the quiet architect of coordination, ensuring that fragmented programs move toward a shared national purpose. She does not hold the funds, but she helps direct the flow of intention.
This is why a more refined and expanded designation becomes not only practical, but necessary. Rather than placing the First Lady in a politically sensitive line position, a more strategic and less controversial path would be to designate her as Presidential Adviser on Social Development, Culture, and National Cohesion.
In this role, she does not exercise control—she provides direction. She does not manage bureaucracy—she harmonizes it.
Social Development allows her to engage deeply with welfare, poverty alleviation, nutrition, and community upliftment without directly intervening in agency operations. Culture enables her to champion Filipino identity, arts, and heritage, strengthening the soul of the nation at a time when identity is often fragmented. National Cohesion, perhaps the most critical of all, positions her as a unifying presence in an era of division, where leadership must not only govern, but also heal.
Through this designation, she can convene inter-agency efforts, mobilize public-private partnerships, and bring together stakeholders across sectors. She can serve as a bridge between government and society, between policy and people, between intention and implementation.
At this point, however, clarity must be emphasized. For such a role to remain effective and free from unnecessary controversy, it must be anchored on firm design principles. The First Lady, even in an expanded advisory designation, must not exercise direct control over public funds. She must not have line authority over departments or agencies. Her function must remain within the sphere of advisory, coordination, and advocacy. Equally important, all initiatives associated with her role must be transparent, measurable, and open to public scrutiny. It is precisely within these boundaries that her legitimacy is strengthened, not weakened. By choosing restraint over control, the role gains credibility and trust.
And perhaps even more important than the structure itself is how it is communicated to the Filipino people. This must never be framed as the mere appointment of the President’s spouse to a government role. That narrative, if left unchecked, will overshadow even the most sincere intentions. Instead, it must be clearly understood as the formalization of an already existing influence—an effort to give direction, coherence, and accountability to initiatives that are already being undertaken. It is not about giving power, but about maximizing service. Not about privilege, but about purpose. In essence, it is the recognition that when influence already exists, the greater responsibility is to guide it properly for the benefit of the nation.
Beyond social welfare, her functions can naturally expand into areas where the First Lady’s influence has always been most authentic—women and family development, child protection, cultural diplomacy, humanitarian response, and even international social partnerships. These are spaces where compassion meets strategy and where soft power becomes a force multiplier for governance and effective delivery of public service to the "laylayans."
At this point, I must speak with clarity and honesty. By writing this, I am fully aware that critics of the First Lady may take issue with my position. Some may question my motives, others may misinterpret my intent. But I do not write this for politics, nor for attention. I write this as a Filipino and as an educator who understands the importance of structure, of direction, and of a clear roadmap in governance.
I write this because I see, based on the numerous social development initiatives already associated with the First Lady, that there is an opportunity—not for personal elevation, but for institutional clarity. A chance to transform scattered efforts into a coherent national strategy.
Perhaps, in the remaining three years of the administration of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., it is time to consider giving her a more defined and purposeful function. Not as an extension of power, but as a partner in service. Not to dominate institutions, but to strengthen them.
What is being proposed is not the expansion of authority, but the alignment of influence. Not the creation of power, but the clarification of purpose.
Because in the end, governance is not merely about structures—it is about people. It is about the mother waiting in line, the child hoping for a better tomorrow, the family searching for dignity in the midst of hardship.
And as I return to that quiet morning in the barangay hall, I am reminded once more that the most meaningful leadership does not always come with a title. Sometimes, it comes with presence, with empathy, and with the courage to serve without needing recognition.
If that presence can be guided by a clear designation, anchored in principle, and aligned with the needs of the nation, then perhaps we are not merely redefining the role of the First Lady.
Perhaps we are finally understanding it.
________________
*About the author:
