I understand the argument for continuity, but five years is a long time in local politics. Before extending the term of barangay and SK officials, shouldn’t we first address the bigger issues in local governance?

There are already concerns about political patronage, including allegations that ayuda or other government assistance can be used to build political support, especially when elections are approaching. The assistance itself isn’t the issue. The concern is when public resources become connected to political influence.    
We should also prioritize the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill. The House has already passed its version and sent it to the Senate, but it still needs to go through the legislative process before becoming law. Why not focus on getting meaningful anti-dynasty legislation done first? 

In many barangays, the same families can remain influential, with relatives potentially moving between barangay and SK positions. If we want new leadership, that’s something worth addressing.    
And for SK, someone elected at 24 could be 29 by the end of a five-year term.

And if this becomes law, what’s next? A longer term for the mayor? Governor? Other elected officials? At some point, we have to ask whether we’re improving governance or simply making it easier for people already in power to stay there longer.

Honestly, I don’t see why 5 year term is necessary?