Anti-political dynasty bills: What went down in the first Congress deliberations?

Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!

Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.

Visit Suniway.ph to learn

MANILA, Philippines — Deliberations on long-stalled anti-political dynasty bills formally began in the 20th Congress on Tuesday, January 27, as the House Committee on Suffrage kicked off hearings with expert opinions and recommendations on what considerations should be made in shaping the measure. 

House lawmakers have filed 21 bills seeking to define and curb political dynasties. However, constitutional and procedural concerns first need to be resolved before a blanket ban, if any, can be passed.

Some considerations include how far family ties should be restricted, when candidates should be barred, and whether the measures would violate the public's right to vote and run for public office.

The issue is especially magnified as the 2028 national and local elections draw near, with prevailing definitions of political dynasties indicating their deep entrenchment across all branches and levels of government.

Reforms in election laws

While supporting an anti-political dynasty law, Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chair George Garcia cautioned that passing a single measure is not enough.

He said comprehensive reforms in election laws are needed to uphold equal opportunity in public office and mitigate the negative consequences of dynasties, including increased poverty rates, corruption and a weakened rule of law.

"Kindly consider the other provisions of the law, simply because if we do not properly amend other parts of the election code and other election laws, we will not be able to properly implement this very promising measure on political dynasties," Garcia said in a mix of English and Filipino. 

Garcia also explained that preventing political dynasties may require specific remedies, such as disqualifying candidates or canceling their candidacy.

Cancellation happens when a candidate commits a material misrepresentation, which is why candidates take an oath when filing. Disqualification applies to election offenses, like vote-buying, and can be filed in a petition after candidates submit their papers. 

Garcia said substitution rules should be made clear, warning that otherwise anyone could be substituted and candidates could withdraw during a certain period, referring to scenarios where a disqualified candidate might be replaced by a relative.

"Should we or can we allow substitution for somebody whom we believe is a dynast under our definition provided for by Congress?" he asked.

According to Garcia, it is better to cancel a candidacy rather than disqualify a candidate to prevent substitutions. If no disqualification petitions are filed, the candidate's name stays on the ballot, and questions would arise as to whether votes for them are valid or stray.

Limits on right to vote, run for office

On the legal dimension of anti-political dynasty bills, lawmakers debated whether limiting political dynasties could clash with democratic rights.

Rep. Rufus Rodriguez questioned whether banning members of political families from running for office might violate people’s rights to vote and to run for public office.

Rep. Miro Quimbo disagreed. He said the Constitution allows limits on certain rights if they promote fairness and equal opportunity. He argued that the right to vote and run for office is “never absolute.”

“If we accept that, then we cannot put any prohibition or limitation on the right of people to vote and be voted upon,” Quimbo said.

In saying this, Quimbo was disagreeing with Rep. Roman Romulo, who argued that the Constitution’s statement that power belongs to the people should come before restrictions on political dynasties.

Romulo, however, said he is not against an anti-political dynasty law. His point was about how the Constitution should be interpreted and how democratic rights should be understood.

Must cover appointive posts

Rep. Antonio Tinio, meanwhile, raised the question of whether the Constitution’s guarantee of equal access to public service should apply solely to elected offices, or whether the ban on political dynasties should extend to appointed positions as well.

One of the resource persons, senior lecturer Lee Edson Yarcia of the University of the Philippines (UP) College of Law, answered Tinio's question, saying the prohibition refers to both elective and appointive offices. 

He also explained that the college's stance, based on multistakeholder consultations, is that defining political dynasties does not necessarily mean adding a new requirement to holding public office. This is because the "command prohibiting political dynasties has been a condition for public service since the birth of the constitutional framework in 1987," Yarcia added.

For Congress, he said, passing a measure is simply about defining political dynasties and not deciding whether or not to prohibit them, as it is already required by the Constitution. 

Yarcia also stressed that this demonstrates how the right to vote and the right to run for public office are already limited by eligibility requirements, not solely by the prohibition on political dynasties.  

Second degree of consanguinity. The UP College of Law also held the position that the prohibition should apply to both simultaneous and successive office-holding, covering relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. This would prevent siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, and in-laws of officials at the same level from holding office concurrently or consecutively.

Several laws, however, have set prohibitions ranging from the second to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, which Congress may consider when determining the scope of any anti-dynasty measure.

Include voter literacy, empowerment

Like the Comelec's stance, Yarcia said the anti-political dynasty measures should include reforms that address voter literacy and empowerment.

"The existence of political dynasties is a manifestation of weak democratic institutions that is linked to poverty. This new law should be seen as the first step towards achieving comprehensive electoral reforms in the country towards a broader socio-economic reform," he added.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines National President Allan Panolong also said the issue surrounding political dynasties is not about family relations but the "consolidation of public power into private networks."

"A political dynasty in practice is sustained not merely by popularity but the accumulation of durable advantages, control of local party structures, patronage channels, access to state resources and the capacity to deter challengers," he added. 

Michelle Castillo, assistant professor of the UP National College of Public Administration and Governance, also said political dynasties create systemic barriers that prevent qualified citizens from running for office, pointing to high election costs, incumbency advantage, name recognition, and inherited political connections that limit voter choice.

"Rather than protecting the right to elect, the presence of dynasties often reduces the choice of the electorate to a pre-selected group of family members," she added. 

What about 'honest' dynasties?

Congressional Policy and Budget Research Department (CPBRD) Director David Yap, speaking in a personal capacity, stressed that the structure and influence of political dynasties are more complex than they seem.

He explained that families unrelated by blood or marriage could potentially bypass existing definitions by forming political alliances. In such a case, allied families may survive "by leapfrogging between political election cycles," he said. 

Yap also argued that a blanket ban on political dynasties could prevent several families from fully participating in the democratic process, particularly individuals who are honest and capable of serving in public office but are barred because a relative currently holds the position.

He said an anti-political dynasty law could infringe on voters' rights by reducing their choices, especially when citizens may wish to support candidates from political dynasties. 

For him, the key question for Congress is whether lawmakers trust Filipino voters to be "discerning and responsible." If they do not, he said, it raises a fundamental concern about democracy — because voters have the power to dismantle political dynasties even without legislation.

Human rights lawyer Neri Colmenares nonetheless pointed out that passing an anti-dynasty law is a constitutional mandate that Congress must fulfill.

House Committee on Suffrage Chair Zia Alonto Adiong said kicking off committee deliberations on anti-political dynasty measures is a step to ensuring equal access and fair competition in government, as well as restoring public trust. 

The first hearing of these long-awaited committee deliberations comes more than a decade after the previous anti-political dynasty bill advanced through the committee level.