By Herman M. Lagon

It started with a faint mumble from across a cramped café table — someone sighing, “The elections are rigged anyway.” She said it not as a provocation, just a weary comment that barely rippled over the murmur of grinders and steaming milk. But somehow, the line stuck. Not because it was shocking, but because it was familiar. It echoed the quiet resignation that simmers beneath so much of our everyday talk about politics. That sense that no matter who runs, the game is already fixed.

In the days that followed, I found myself passively tagging along with friends who were far more invested in the Senate campaigns than I was. Some were first-time volunteers, others seasoned advocates. They handed out flyers, posted explainers online and spent evenings hopping between barangay forums. I mostly observed. I listened. I watched how they wrestled not just with political opponents, but with fatigue and cynicism — the invisible walls that make people tune out.

Then came May 12. When the vote counts started flashing on screens, something shifted. Paolo Benigno “Bam” Aquino, long sidelined by surveys, rocketed to second. Francis “Kiko” Pangilinan, whose campaign had been branded as underfunded and out-of-touch, landed in the Top 5. For many pundits, this was a plot twist. For those who had paid closer attention, it was more like a story quietly waiting for its climax.

Comelec data showed that over 20 million voters were from Gen Z and millennial brackets. That is not a footnote — it is the headline. Many of these young voters, so often underestimated, were not just clicking like buttons. They were engaging with platforms, showing up at town halls and anchoring their decisions in values, not just vibes. Campus preference polls — dismissed in the mainstream — had long shown Bam and Kiko near the top. The official results simply confirmed what some circles already sensed.

But the wins of these two senators cannot be pinned on demographics alone. There was groundwork — years of it. Bam Aquino has long been associated with education reform, notably through the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act. Kiko Pangilinan remained an active voice in agricultural development and food security even after his 2022 loss. These were not pivot-to-popularity moves. These were steady, issue-driven advocacies that built credibility brick by brick.

Another storm cloud that helped fuel this surge was the increasingly visible rift between the Marcos and Duterte camps. Their once-solid alliance had frayed into a public spectacle of political spite and jostling egos. Strangely, this opened up space — not for a third force to dominate, but for it to slip through. The old adage “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” seemed to work both ways. Disillusioned loyalists from either side, fed up with the noise and infighting, looked instead to candidates who neither played victim nor bully. In that vacuum, Kiko and Bam’s brand of steady, values-based politics started to look refreshingly sane.

What I found compelling was how little their campaigns resembled the usual political theater. No dancing mascots, no sweeping motorcades with canned jingles. Instead, I saw volunteers holding small meetings in gyms, streets and barangay halls, answering tough questions, and staying well after sundown. They listened more than they talked. It felt oddly academic in the best sense — more teach-in than spectacle. Like teachers who stay after class just to make sure their students truly grasp the lesson.

Endorsements came late — names like Governor Gwen Garcia, Mayor Joy Belmonte and groups like Jesus is Lord. These added reach, but the groundwork had already been laid. The endorsements were not the engine; they were more like wind at the back of a boat already moving steadily forward. It was a campaign that had earned its momentum.

This election also reminded me of a recurring flaw in how we read voter behavior. As noted by researchers like Peter Cayton and Ranjit Rye, polls are often snapshots, not forecasts. They reflect familiarity, not finality. And many voters — 46 percent, for OCTA, and 62 percent (26 percent of voters decided just a week before, 25 percent the day before, and 11 percent on election day itself), according to Pulse Asia — make up their minds in the final stretch. Bam and Kiko did not peak early; they surged late.

In a race framed as a Marcos-Duterte binary, their presence was disruptive. They did not ride on noise or nostalgia. They banked on clarity. And clarity, it turns out, has an audience. Particularly among the young, who have grown tired of gimmicks. These voters are fluent in fact-checking and allergic to fluff. They saw through theatrics and asked for substance — and they got it.

Of course, this is not a fairy tale. Kiko and Bam are entering a Senate still shaped by traditional alliances and enduring machinery. They may not tip the balance immediately. But presence matters. So does persistence. Their return is not just a win on the scoreboard; it is a breach in the dam of defeatism. A signal to watchers like me that not all hope is naïve.

There is a concept I return to often, especially in classrooms: quiet leadership. The kind that does not demand applause, only effort. The kind I see in teachers who soldier on with crowded classrooms and creaking chairs, who show up day after day because kids still need learning. That same ethic hummed underneath this campaign. Show up. Do the work. Let the results speak.

Bam and Kiko’s resurgence is not a blueprint. But it is a reminder. Even in an environment shaped by spectacle, there is room for sincerity. And when that sincerity aligns with courage, consistency and community, it creates something rare: trust. That may be the perfect storm we all witnessed.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a “student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with./WDJ