“The Supreme Court has spoken with clarity: the policy mechanism may have been flawed, but the officials who implemented it in good faith were not”
Various anti-dynasty bills have been filed in Congress aimed at implementing the Constitutional prohibition on political dynasties in the country.
But can we expect the legislature to pass an anti-dynasty law considering that it is dominated by political dynasties themselves?
The 1987 Philippine Constitution (Article II, Section 26) mandates that political dynasties shall be prohibited “as may be defined by law.”
However, no enabling law has ever been enacted—which means the Constitutional provision has remained unenforceable for 38 years, allowing dynastic politics to persist and even grow exponentially since 1987.
At present, political dynasties are widely prevalent across levels of government, with civil society data showing large majorities of governors, representatives, and local officials coming from dynastic families.
But a sea change may be in the offing if Congress passes an acceptable anti-dynasty bill. As of now, several bills have been filed in both chambers of Congress with varying definitions and prohibitions.
In the Senate, there’s the Anti-Political Dynasty Act filed by Sen. Francis Pangilinan this year.
Its definition of a political dynasty includes relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity (spouses, parents, children, siblings).
It prohibits relatives within this degree cannot simultaneously hold or run for elective office at national or local levels. It applies to all elective positions, including barangay and party-list.
The Senate bill’s enforcement mechanism allows citizens to file petitions with the Commission on Elections to cancel a candidate’s Certificate of Candidacy for violations.
It also includes penalties for violations and mechanisms to implement the ban. This version is considered among the stronger ones because it directly ties enforcement to electoral processes and covers all elective posts.
Over at the House of Representatives, House Bill 6771, filed by Speaker Faustino Dy III and Rep. Sandro Marcos in December this year, seeks to prohibit relatives up to the fourth civil degree from holding or running for office in the same jurisdiction at the same time.
It applies across barangay, municipal, city, provincial, and national levels, but tailored per level.
Opponents of this proposed law argue it does not actually ban dynasties in effect because families can still hold multiple positions in different jurisdictions or levels simultaneously.
This bill has attracted controversy because critics contend it could legitimize existing dynastic practices rather than curb them.
There’s also HB 5905, filed by the Akbayan Party-List group, which defines dynasties up to the fourth degree of kinship and prohibits concurrent office-holding among relatives within that degree anywhere in the country.
Apart from this, HB 209 by the Makabayan bloc also defines dynasties up to the fourth degree, prohibits both simultaneous holding and immediate succession in the same position, and applies to all elective offices.
These versions are generally broader in scope than some Senate versions but still subject to debate on effectiveness and legal robustness.
As we said, prospects for enactment of an anti-dynasty bill are slim since political dynasties dominate Congress numerically and institutionally, making it structurally difficult to pass laws that would limit the power of sitting lawmakers and their families.
Previous versions of similar bills (in the 18th and 19th Congresses) stalled at committee levels or failed to progress.
But there’s hope in the horizon. President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has publicly urged prioritization of an anti-dynasty bill alongside other reforms, signaling executive support for passage.
Multiple bills now refiled in both chambers create political momentum that some observers interpret as unusually strong compared to past Congresses.
Civil society groups such as the National Movement for Free Elections are pushing for an “authentic” version with broader bans and succession limits.
Despite these, a compromise text that modifies dynastic behavior without fully banning all familial office-holding could emerge.
The passage of a strong version featuring strict second-degree ban with enforcement remains uncertain due to vested interests of many lawmakers who benefit from the current system.
Hence, sustained public pressure could increase the odds that some form of legislation will be enacted, but robust anti-dynasty reform would require persistent advocacy.
We probably cannot expect a strong law providing for fourth-degree, simultaneous and successive bans, geographically-specific and party-list coverage, as well as transparent kinship disclosures at filing, but civil society and youth groups can push for minimum standards.
(Email: ernhil@yahoo.com)
