MY view on term limits is like my view on our prohibition on divorce. Whatever its merits in principle and theory, it has failed in practice. To explain my analogy, let me recap my views on banning divorce in the Philippines. First, has banning divorce worked? Has it stopped couples from separating, from some having second or more families, or protecting the offended spouse and children? A clear no. Is divorce completely banned anyway? No, as Muslims and Filipinos married to foreigners (again subject to a ridiculous requirement that the foreign spouse initiate the divorce), can get divorced and marry again and in the case of Muslims the men can have multiple wives but not the other way around. Then lastly, has the availability of divorce everywhere else except for us and the Vatican led to social breakdown and the ills scare-mongered by the anti-divorce crowd? No. Whether in other Catholic countries, other Asian countries and those richer and poorer than us. Yet, are we so incapable of joining all other real countries in having a basic human right? If you listen to the anti-divorce crowd, we are uniquely incapable of acting like adults everywhere else. If you say I don't believe in divorce, or I am in a happy marriage (by the way I am married with children and grandchildren, and not divorced or separated), then don't divorce, but you have no right to deny others being deprived of a basic human right and choice.

This is a point to reiterate as it also aids my thinking on term limits. Have they worked? Meaning, did we avoid political dynasties, have effective and less corrupt governance? Did it lead to a higher quality of elected officials compared to what we had before when there weren't term limits? Except for limiting the president from two four-year terms to one six-year term, which prevented perpetuation of one person rule, I don't think term limits worked based on the many laments I read from columnists I respect on the quality of our governance, elected officials and candidates.