Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution provides: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” After almost 40 years, that law has been nonexistent.
As a result, political dynasties have proliferated, permeating all levels of governance, from the national leadership to barangay positions. Politics by consanguinity and affinity has also bred a mindset among the governing and the governed: that power is a birthright and an entitlement for the former, and that they have no other viable options other than the status quo, for the latter.
Worse, it has hindered the inclusive growth of our economy, with advantages and opportunities limited only to the ruling class. It has perpetuated the cycle of poverty and oppression.
But a recent pronouncement by the chief executive, who is himself a product of a dynasty, has lawmakers working to propose an anti-dynasty bill to finally actualize the intent and spirit of the Constitutional provision. Thus far, there have been 24 different versions of the anti-dynasty bill, and public consultations are still ongoing.
“We are equally firm in our belief that any law we pass must be the product of wide, inclusive and sincere consultation—a law that is carefully crafted, thoroughly scrutinized and rooted on the true sentiments of Filipinos,” said House Speaker Faustino Dy, as he assured the public of their seriousness in passing a fair, just and implementable antipolitical dynasty law in the 20th Congress.
Aside from the Congress-led meetings, civil society has also been making parallel efforts.
In a joint statement released earlier this month, more than 30 organizations including the Justice Reform Initiative, the Management Association of the Philippines, and the Institute for Solidarity in Asia called for the passage of genuine anti-dynasty legislation, noting that the current bills fall short of the Constitution’s intent.
The groups want, among other particulars, to “prohibit relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity from running or simultaneously or consecutively holding elective office, in order to uphold the ‘one local, one national’ representation principle, to limit family dominance.” The law should also prohibit substitution, rotation, and position-switching among prohibited relatives to circumvent term limits.
We can imagine how difficult it must be for political scions to go against their instinct for self-preservation and go for an truly anti-dynasty law. They are there because of the random accident of birth.
But this is the call of our times. Their action or inaction today will test whether the interest of the public truly trumps their own. Has their privilege enabled them to transcend their instincts and views, or has it only fueled a desire to preserve the status quo?
The next few weeks will reveal our leaders’ sincerity – or expose their hypocrisy.
