28/04/2026
OPINION | It’s High Time to Abolish the Sangguniang Kabataan — But Let’s Be Honest About What That Means
Corruption. Incompetence. Absenteeism. Misconduct. Across many barangays, these are no longer isolated issues in the Sangguniang Kabataan—they’ve become recurring patterns. Funds misused, programs performed for optics, leaders who disappear after elections. The promise of youth representation is, for many, turning into frustration.
So yes—let’s say it: it’s time to abolish the Sangguniang Kabataan.
But if we stop there, we miss the bigger truth.
Because these problems are not unique to SK. If corruption is the standard for abolition, then why stop there? Should we not also question the very institutions that tolerate, reproduce, and even normalize the same behavior? In the Philippines, issues of corruption, inefficiency, and lack of accountability are not confined to youth governance—they exist across local government units, national agencies, and even some of the most powerful offices in the country. Yet we don’t hear the same urgency to abolish those.
What does it say when two or three SK officials commit wrongdoing and the response is to dismantle the entire institution—while large-scale corruption in other government bodies is met with silence, justification, or slow reform?
This is where the argument becomes uncomfortable: calling for the abolition of SK without addressing the broader governance crisis risks being selective, even hypocritical.
The SK did not create corruption—it inherited a political culture shaped by patronage, weak accountability, and elite dominance. Many SK officials operate within systems controlled by barangay captains, local dynasties, and political machinery that limit genuine youth autonomy. In some cases, they are pressured, co-opted, or sidelined. In others, they mirror what they see: politics as power, not service.
So if we are serious about reform, we need to ask harder questions:
- Why are accountability systems weak across all levels of government?
- Why are young leaders not given the support, training, and independence they need?
- Why do we tolerate corruption among the powerful but punish it more harshly among the young?
Abolishing SK alone will not eliminate corruption. It will simply remove one of the few institutional spaces where young people can participate in governance—flawed as it may be.
And that comes with a real cost.
Because despite its failures, the SK has also been a training ground for grassroots leadership, civic engagement, and youth empowerment. Many young leaders who now advocate for transparency, human rights, and social justice started in SK. It is one of the few formal entry points for youth—especially those from marginalized communities—into public service.
To abolish it without building a better alternative risks silencing youth voices even further.
So if we are to push for abolition, then let’s be consistent. Let’s demand the same standards across all institutions. Let’s confront corruption not just where it is easiest to attack, but where it is most entrenched.
Or better yet—let’s move beyond abolition as the default solution.
Instead of asking “Should we abolish SK?”, maybe the more urgent question is:
“How do we transform a broken political system so that even young leaders are not set up to fail?”
Because until we answer that, removing SK will not fix the problem.
It will only hide it.
