I make this analysis not to annoy anyone, but to educate, to provide
perspective, and to help end a crisis that has long damaged the Partido Federal
ng Pilipinas (PFP). To be honest, I was even confused about whether I should
write this piece at all. I know that putting my thoughts into writing might
create the impression that I am taking sides and could even earn me enemies
from the other faction. However, I believed that remaining silent when truth
and clarity were required would cause more damage.
When I first heard about the Supreme Court’s decision, I was not in my home office or in
a business meeting. I was at the gym, supervising my daughter’s taekwondo
training as she prepares for a competition this September. It was in that
ordinary moment, while being a father, that a political leader called me. He
was asking about the Supreme Court ruling, mistakenly thinking that the
petitioner Rodriguez was their incumbent Congressman Eulogio “Leo” Rodriguez. I
corrected him immediately, explaining that it was Antonio Rodriguez Jr., not
the congressman. That conversation sparked my curiosity. Later, I downloaded
the decision online and read it for myself.
That is how I found myself writing this commentary . I have friends on both
sides of the dispute. I respect Leandro Verceles Jr., Antonio Rodriguez Jr.,
and others who stood in the other faction. They are my friends. But friendship
does not mean silence, especially when silence allows a wound to deepen. The
longer this party crisis lingers, the more it damages not only individuals but
also the very mission of the PFP: to prepare the Filipino people for a federal
system of government that can evolve with our democracy.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Partido Federal ng Pilipinas v. Commission on
Elections (G.R. No. 276456, February 25, 2025) finally put closure to the
leadership question. The Court affirmed the Commission on Elections’ decision that PFP President
Governor Reynaldo Tamayo Jr., Secretary-General Thompson Lantion, and the PFP
General Counsel remained the legitimate officers and administrators of the PFP
until September 2024, under the party’s 2022 Constitution and By-laws. To me,
even as a non-lawyer, the decision made sense not only in law but also in
common sense and simple logical reasoning. I was a professor of so many generals who are even lawyers; when it comes to discussing facts and analysis, we have never encountered conflicts when it comes to common sense and logical reasoning. Even judges base the foundations of decisions on common sense and logical reasoning when there are conflicts in the interpretation of law.
The Court was very clear: “The COMELEC’s ruling, that the 2022 Constitution and
By-Laws are the prevailing authoritative documents governing the PFP, [is] supported
by substantial evidence” (Supreme Court, 2025, p. 17). This indicates that
there was neither a governance vacuum nor a constitutional crisis in the party,
as Tamayo and his team were still serving within their three-year term. The
claim that their authority expired in 2023 was simply not true.
This is why Verceles' petition and Rodriguez's failed. They argued for a
two-year term based on the 2018 Constitution, but the Court reminded them that
the 2022 Constitution was already on record with COMELEC, officially recognized
during the 2022 elections, and never objected to at that time. As the Court
quoted from Verceles himself during the COMELEC hearings: “Yes, at that time,
your Honor, they still have the authority because it happened April 7, 2022, but
after September 18, 2023, no more na” (Supreme Court, 2025, p. 17). Yet the
Court emphasized that authority did not end in 2023—it lasted until 2024, and
therefore Tamayo, Lantion, and Party Legal Counsel were still the rightful
officers.
But even beyond the legal reasoning, this case is really about the importance
of continuity. Imagine if every time a leader’s term “expired,” the whole
organization collapsed until a new election was held. Who would sign documents?
Who would represent the party? Who would keep things running? The Court wisely
noted that even if the 2018 Constitution applied, there was nothing in it
prohibiting “the principle of holdover capacity” (Supreme Court, 2025, p. 15).
In other words, officers can continue serving to prevent paralysis.
That is common sense. We do not stop managing a household just because the
father is late coming home from work. We did not end our love and care for our
children when our wife left us for another man. Someone needs to take the lead.
Tamayo and Lantion did exactly that. They were not clinging to power; they were
carrying responsibility. And during that time of leadership vacuum up to the
time of the election of the new set of officers by the other faction,
petitioners Verceles and Rodriguez are in constant communication with Tamayo
and Lantion. Why didn’t they exert efforts to talk Tamayo into calling for an
election, and if they claim that they are mandated by the majority of the PFP,
why didn’t they attend the election held on September 16, 2024, and let the
members decide so that there will be no more courtroom drama, and if Tamayo
loses in that election, then we say that the issue is settled and political
party democracy prevails.
Meanwhile, the so-called election of December 14, 2023, where Verceles and
Rodriguez declared themselves leaders, was invalid. The Court adopted COMELEC’s
findings that there was no proper notice to key officers, no quorum, and no
authority to call the meeting. “The elections conducted by Verceles and
Rodriguez produced no legal effect” (Supreme Court, 2025, p. 12). That is as
straightforward as it becomes. To ordinary people, it looked less like
democracy and more like a rushed backroom maneuver.
The documents filed by both groups also reveal a lesson in discipline. Tamayo’s
team filed their Sworn Information Update Statement (SIUS) electronically on
September 29, 2023, before the deadline. Verceles and Rodriguez filed theirs on
December 20, months late. The Court affirmed that COMELEC “committed no error
in refusing to acknowledge Verceles and Rodriguez’ SIUS, which was submitted
late and without authority” (Supreme Court, 2025, p. 17). Deadlines matter. In
school, a late exam is not accepted. In business, a late bid is disqualified.
Missing deadlines is a sign of disarray in politics.
This crisis has already inflicted real damage on the PFP. Recruitment at the
grassroots slowed. The perception of a divided party weakened unity. Even the
senatorial candidates who carried the PFP banner—Abalos, Tolentino, and
Pacquiao—were somewhat affected, because voters hesitated to support a party
that could not even present a clear and united leadership. As Atienza (2010)
has argued, weak and fragmented parties undermine democratic consolidation in
the Philippines. Internal strife momentarily paralyzed the PFP, preventing it
from being a strong vehicle for reform.
For this reason, I believe we should accept the ruling as final. The Court did
not only affirm legality; it gave the PFP a chance to heal and move forward.
Governor Tamayo now has the space to focus not only on leading the party but
also on fulfilling his other crucial roles: as Governor of South Cotabato, as
President of the League of Provinces, and as Vice Chairman of the National
Anti-Poverty Commission. These positions give him influence not only within the
party but also across local governance and national reform platforms. Instead
of wasting energy fighting internally, the PFP can now harness Tamayo’s
leadership to push federalism and other political reforms into mainstream
debate.
Federalism has always been at the core of PFP’s mission. However, Hutchcroft
(2019) cautions that federalism in the Philippines is merely a political
slogan, not a genuine reform agenda. This is why parties like PFP must take
their educational role seriously. We could have used the months lost to
infighting to organize forums in the provinces, publish studies, and draft
detailed proposals for constitutional change. These are the responsibilities of
a party that claims to champion federalism.
Now is the chance to regain focus. The PFP can realign itself with groups that
share this advocacy, including Timpuyog Pilipinas, founded by General Thompson
Lantion through the instruction of Presidential Legal Counsel and former Senate
President Juan Ponce Enrile in 2022. This non-government organization
representing more than 10 million Ilocanos worldwide with an international
mass-based support in Honolulu, Hawaii, and a strong membership in Northern Luzon
and Metro Manila has been consistent in campaigning for federalism and can
serve as a natural international and local partner for the PFP in policy
development, spreading awareness, organizing educational drives, and building
alliances across sectors. Together with civil society, academe, and even
private sector partners, the PFP can design a new roadmap for evolving
federalism—one that is not abstract theory but a program linked to
decentralization, local empowerment, and stronger accountability.
Political reform requires coalitions. Brillantes and Cuachon (2022) remind us
that public administration in the Philippines must constantly evolve through
partnerships between state institutions and civil society actors. For the PFP,
this means moving past the wounds of the recent dispute and embracing
collaboration rather than exclusion.
I write these words with respect to my friends in the other faction. I
understand their frustrations, and I do not question their sincerity. But the
facts and the law are settled. The Supreme Court has spoken. Continuing to
fight will weaken the PFP, and a weakened PFP cannot achieve its higher
mission. As I reflect on this, I am reminded that political parties are not
ends in themselves—they are vehicles of education, reform, and national
transformation. If we let personal rivalries consume us, we betray that larger
mission.
The cause of federalism is bigger than any of us. It is bigger than positions
and titles. It involves giving the provinces a voice, redistributing power, and
reshaping the political landscape to prevent Metro Manila from monopolizing
development. If we truly believe in this cause, then unity must begin at home,
within the PFP itself.
The time for division has passed. The PFP must now heal, rebuild, and move
forward with clarity of leadership and unity of purpose. We must end this
chapter and start a new one for the sake of federalism, political reform, and
the Filipino people who deserve better than chaos.
References
Atienza, M. E. L. (2010). Party politics in the Philippines. Philippine
Political Science Journal, 31(54), 55–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/01154451.2010.9754245
Brillantes, A. B., & Cuachon, N. G. (2022). Introduction to public
administration in the Philippines: A reader. National College of Public
Administration and Governance.
Hutchcroft, P. D. (2019). Federalism and the Philippines: A cautionary tale.
Journal of Southeast Asian Economies, 36(3), 341–356. https://doi.org/10.1355/ae36-3e
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (2025). Partido Federal ng Pilipinas v.
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 276456, February 25, 2025. Manila: Supreme
Court En Banc.
___________________________________________________
