DESPITE efforts to pass an anti-political dynasty law nearly four decades after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, political scientists and electoral reform advocates remain skeptical of the Marcos Jr. administration’s commitment to the measure, describing the latest proposal as a diluted reform that preserves rather than dismantles entrenched family rule.
One of the measures seeking to prohibit political dynasties is House Bill 8389, which has advanced further than previous proposals and is awaiting plenary deliberation in the House of Representatives.
The bill was principally authored by House Speaker Ferdinand Martin “Bong” Romualdez and Senior Deputy Speaker Sandro Marcos, oldest son of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.
The principal authors, however, come from political dynasties. Romualdez’s relatives hold elective posts in Leyte, while Marcos, the president’s son, also has numerous relatives in positions of power.
For Prof. Julio Teehankee, lead convenor of the Anti-Dynasty Network and a longtime scholar of Philippine electoral politics, such developments warrant “cautious optimism.”
“Since he’s not strong enough and does not have the political capital to push through with the reform, it has become performative reformism — he wants to appear reformist, but in reality, he’s not serious,” Teehankee said.
The renewed push comes amid mounting political pressures facing the administration.
Recent public opinion surveys have shown President Marcos’ approval ratings declining while Vice President Sara Duterte continues to keep higher levels of public support. At the same time, the administration coalition in the House has faced internal strains, including reports of possible realignments among major political parties.
Asst. Prof. Michelle Castillo of the University of the Philippines National College of Public Administration and Governance said the administration’s support for an anti-dynasty measure could also be interpreted as an attempt to restore public confidence.
“Mababa naman na talaga ’yong trust pero lalo lang nag-erode pa and very sobrang negative na ’yong opinion sa kanila,” Castillo said.
She added that the measure could become part of Marcos’ political legacy amid controversies that have marked his presidency.
Among the most prominent controversies confronting the administration is the investigation into alleged irregularities in government flood control projects, which has resulted in graft and corruption complaints against some public officials and contractors.
UST Department of Political Science Chair Dennis Coronacion described the anti-dynasty proposal as a “high-cost, high-benefit” reform politically.
“I don’t think that he’s really aiming for it. His role as an anti-corruption crusader happened by accident,” Coronacion told the Varsitarian.
The president’s reform push began with his remarks against corruption during his State of the Nation Address last year.
READ: ‘Mahiya naman kayo’: BBM slams corruption in flood control | The Varsitarian
As of posting time, only two contractors and 14 officials from the Department of Public Works and Highways were awaiting trial over the fiasco, despite the president’s claims of delivering justice.
Castillo added that despite the push for an anti-dynasty bill, the measure should be pursued not only as a constitutional duty.
“Hindi lang siya constitutional and legal na requirement and mandate and responsibility of Congress, it’s already a moral obligation. There’s an ethical and moral component to it,” Castillo said.
The Constitution prohibits political dynasties but requires an enabling law from Congress. Since 1987, the few attempts to fulfill this mandate have failed in Congress.
A constitutional mandate left unfulfilled
The debate over political dynasties traces its roots to the 1987 Constitution.
Article II, Section 26 states that the State shall “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Eric Alvia of the National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (Namfrel) said support for the measure from members of political dynasties should be viewed with caution.
“We are uncomfortable with that position because it only legitimizes political dynasties. It creates spheres of influence or spheres toward running for public office,” Alvia said.
“Technically, it’s not anti-political dynasty legislation,” he added, referring to House Bill 8389.
The bill prohibits only relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity and affinity from simultaneously seeking or holding certain elective positions in the same locality. These include parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and in-laws.
Critics argue that the measure would still allow members of political dynasties to retain power by seeking office in different localities or levels of government.
For Teehankee, the push for what he described as a watered-down version of the bill reflected lawmakers’ unwillingness to set aside personal interests.
“The vote of the committee in the House shows that they cannot rise above their familial interest, and they missed a very historic moment to prove that they are truly representatives of the people,” he said.
The House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms consolidated more than 25 anti-dynasty proposals into House Bill 8389, prompting some lawmakers to withdraw their authorship because of what they considered weak provisions.
Among them was Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, who called the bill a “budol,” or sham, and described it as a “pro-political dynasty bill” for failing to meaningfully regulate political dynasties.
As Coronacion explained, compromise is often necessary to pass legislation.
“If we are expecting a very idealistic version of an anti-dynasty law that will truly implement the constitutional provision, I think that’s going to face strong opposition from members of both chambers of Congress,” he said.
If enacted, House Bill 8389 would affect nearly 10,000 local elective officials, according to estimates from the Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department. In the Senate, several incumbent senators with siblings in public office could also be affected by the measure.
Politics of redemption
Teehankee said the president’s support for the bill could serve as a political smokescreen.
“He more or less instituted policies that are quite different from his father and predecessor. So this could have been a historic moment for him to redeem his family’s legacy.”
The Marcos Jr. administration has pursued policies that differ from those of former President Rodrigo Duterte, particularly in foreign policy and relations with major powers.
For Coronacion, having an “insider” in dynastic politics such as the president could help push reforms.
“Parang anti-corruption crusader, at magiging hero pa ‘yung character mo. So I think that’s a legacy that President Marcos should really think about very hard,” he added.
For Alvia, the administration’s support for the initiative could also form part of its “quest for a legacy.”
“It would also probably partially absolve the questionable history of his family and put the possible opposition on the defensive,” Alvia said.
Vice President Duterte, who also belongs to a political dynasty, has expressed her intention to run for president in 2028.
Ensuring that the bill becomes law should go hand in hand with a careful review of its provisions, said Prof. Eric de Torres of the UST Department of Political Science.
‘Exceptions rather than the rule’
For Castillo, a distinction can be made between “performing” and “non-performing” political dynasties.
“The big picture shows you that it’s not really so much about prohibiting families or individuals. It’s the system and the prevalence of dynastic families that we are trying to address,” she said.
A 2013 study by the Ateneo School of Government found that localities dominated by political dynasties tend to experience higher poverty rates and weaker political competition.
Teehankee said the public should not be overly concerned about politicians who might be displaced by such reforms.
“If it’s going to cause them inconvenience, then so be it, because it’s the people’s turn right now,” he said.
The House passed House Bill 8389 on third reading on June 3, with 267 legislators voting in favor of the measure. The bill is now awaiting action in the Senate.
Meanwhile, Senate Bill 1548, filed by Sen. Risa Hontiveros, seeks to prohibit political dynasties up to the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity.
Alvia also warned against dependence on short-term assistance from dynastic politicians.
“We cannot ever move on kung ganoon ang pag-iisip ng mga botante because we are not providing them with an alternative,” he said.
Senate Bill 1458, a broader proposal, seeks to prohibit members of political dynasties from running as party-list representatives.
Data from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) have shown that several party-list groups have links to established political families.
As De Torres noted, an anti-dynasty law was not a “silver bullet” but could serve as one step toward broader electoral reforms, including strengthening political parties.
“Nothing to lose ka naman na e, patapos ka na, e ’di gawin mo lang kung ano ’yong dapat, rather than still play politics,” he said.
