Some political observers have long pointed to Alan Peter Cayetano’s failed 2016 vice-presidential bid as a possible turning point in his national ambitions. While he has since remained a dominant figure in Philippine politics, the loss is often interpreted in commentary circles as having influenced his subsequent political calculations, leadership pursuits, and coalition-building strategies. These interpretations remain speculative, but they continue to surface in discussions about his long-term trajectory.
(In those elections, Duterte garnered 15M+ votes while his running mate then (Cayetano) netted but a dismal 5M votes compared to eventual winner Leni Robredo’s 14M+, just a little over 300K+ votes against PBBM that year.)
From this perspective, Cayetano’s political career is often seen less as a straight ascent and more as a series of strategic resets. He has managed to stay within the core of national power structures, shifting alliances and navigating institutional contests while maintaining relevance in both legislative and leadership arenas.
Critics, however, argue that his rise to key leadership positions has often been shaped not just by consensus, but also by calculated political maneuvering and shifting loyalties within changing legislative coalitions.
One of the most cited episodes was his ascent to the Senate presidency, where realignments among senators ultimately shifted the balance of power. In that context, a crucial and controversial factor was the entry of Ronald dela Rosa into the Senate leadership equation. Cayetano himself later acknowledged that he played a role in bringing dela Rosa—who had been largely absent from legislative work at the time—into the Senate session dynamics during the leadership contest.
That move was widely interpreted in political circles as a high-stakes gamble: securing a decisive vote that helped tilt the leadership contest away from then-Senate President Tito Sotto III. It also drew scrutiny because dela Rosa had been publicly associated with international legal controversies, including an outstanding warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, a factor that intensified debate over the political symbolism and implications of his role in the Senate balance of power.
Supporters of Cayetano argue that such maneuvers are part of the reality of parliamentary-style coalition building, where numbers ultimately determine leadership outcomes. Critics, however, view it as evidence of a willingness to make bold—and controversial—political calculations to secure institutional control.
The 2019 House speakership battle under the administration of Rodrigo Duterte is another frequently cited example. Cayetano entered into a term-sharing agreement with Lord Allan Velasco, under which he would serve as Speaker before eventually yielding the position mid-term.
When the turnover period arrived, however, the agreement unraveled into a tense power struggle that exposed deep fractures within the House leadership. The episode reinforced perceptions of how fragile political deals can become when tested by competing ambitions and shifting loyalties.
Beyond institutional contests, Cayetano has consistently projected the image of a principled public servant, often invoking faith, reform, and governance ideals in his public speeches. His allies cite this as evidence of conviction and consistency in leadership.
His critics, on the other hand, see a contrasting narrative: a politician defined by strategic flexibility, adept at coalition-building and political survival in ways that ensure continued influence within shifting power structures.
Whether interpreted as political skill or opportunistic calculation, what remains clear is that Cayetano’s career has repeatedly intersected with high-stakes struggles for leadership and control—making him one of the most scrutinized figures in contemporary Philippine politics.
