I have learned that a Mayor in a town in one of the Congressional Districts of the province of Negros Oriental has filed for candidacy as congressperson for another District.
As someone who values integrity and public service, I am constrained now to comment on this matter.
What happened to political integrity? To the commitment to one’s people? To the trust of the voters? When elected as mayor of a town, isn’t there a duty to do everything possible to ensure the prosperity and well-being of that town?
Yet now, it seems that some resources and attention that should have been focused on the Mayor’s town are being diverted elsewhere, to another District. Does that seem right?
This leads to a deeper question: The spirit of representation, where has it gone?
At the heart of our democracy is the idea that elected officials represent the communities they know intimately, the people they’ve lived alongside, and the concerns they share.
When a mayor from one District seeks to represent another District, how can there be assurance that the needs and aspirations of a community will be genuinely understood?
While legally permissible, the moral responsibility of representation feels compromised. Can there truly be effective service to a new District, or is this just a move to further personal ambition?
Voters of the current town had entrusted this leader with their mandate, believing in the promise to fulfill duties for the entirety of the term.
However, by pursuing a different position near the end of that term, particularly in a District that isn’t home, that trust is broken.
The implicit message sent to constituents is clear: personal ambition takes precedence over the commitment made to serve them.
Is this the kind of leadership that should be accepted in public office?
Moreover, this shift in focus raises concerns about opportunism. What drives a local leader to run in a District where there aren’t deep connections? Is it truly about wanting to serve another community, or is it simply a matter of chasing higher office?
Public service should never be about advancing one’s personal political career—it should be about bettering the lives of those represented.
When leaders make moves that feel more like calculated political strategies than acts of service, the morality of their motivations comes into question.
Historically, this type of behavior is often called carpet-bagging, where politicians move to new areas solely for the purpose of seeking office. Though legal, it disrespects the propriety of local governance.
Congressional Districts are meant to be represented by those who know them best—those who have lived in them, and understand their particular needs.
When a politician moves into a new District simply to run for office, it undermines the value of genuine local representation.
Finally, this issue speaks to a broader problem in the political system: the need for political reform.
Residency requirements for congressional candidates are too easily sidestepped, allowing politicians to treat Districts as mere stepping stones for career advancement.
If there is to be a restoration of faith in the electoral system, there must be assurance that candidates for Congress are deeply rooted in the communities they wish to represent.
Our people deserve leaders with long-term ties to their Districts, not those who see them as convenient places to run.
In the end, this is not just a question of legality, but of morality and commitment. A mayor running for Congress in a District other than his/her own may not be breaking the law, but is certainly challenging the moral fabric of what it means to be a true public servant.
When ambition takes priority over duty, the people lose.
It’s time to ask more from our leaders—and demand that they prioritize their constituents over their political careers.
Gaspè Gonzalez Umbac
