By Chloe Mari A. Hufana, Reporter
THE PHILIPPINES’ long-delayed attempt to ending political dynasties risks amounting to little more than a symbolic gesture unless it meaningfully disrupts family-based succession in power, analysts said over the weekend, as President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. urged lawmakers to prioritize the passage of such the measure.
Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said the proposed anti-political dynasty bill, filed by House Speaker Faustino G. Dy III and House Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander A. Marcos III, both scions of political families, appears deliberately cautious — a sign, he said, of the political constraints imposed by a Congress dominated by dynastic interests.
“When I read the anti-political dynasty bill, my reaction was not excitement but recognition,” Mr. Tapia said via Facebook Messenger. “The language felt careful, almost cautious, as if written with a clear awareness of the institution it must pass through.”
Political dynasties have long shaped Philippine politics, with power concentrated in families that dominate national and local offices through successive or simultaneous terms.
House Bill (HB) No. 6771, filed last Dec. 10, seeks to bar spouses and relatives up to the fourth civil degree of national or local officials from running for office in the same legislative district, province or city.
It defined a political dynasty as the concentration of elective power among relatives. A “political dynasty relationship” includes spouses, direct ascendants or descendants, siblings, and relatives up to the fourth civil degree, whether legitimate or not.
Under the measure, if an individual holds or seeks a national office, their spouse and relatives, as defined, would be barred from running for any elective national position.
The same restriction would apply at the district, provincial, city, municipal and village levels. Candidates would also have to submit a sworn statement to the Commission on Elections affirming they have no such political dynasty ties.
During a Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council meeting last week, the President “ordered” both chambers of Congress to prioritize a bill that, to an extent, prohibits political dynasties, despite being a member of one himself.
According to Mr. Tapia, HB 6771, in its current form, reads more as an opening move than a structural intervention.
While the measure breaks Congress’ longstanding silence on dynasties, symbolism alone is insufficient if it fails to alter how political power is reproduced, he noted.
“The real measure of seriousness is simple,” Mr. Tapia said. “Does it meaningfully disrupt family-based succession, or does it merely regulate it in a way that leaves the system intact?”
Hansley A. Juliano, a political science lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University, said the measure, as currently written, does little to address how dynastic power is sustained in practice.
“In the current version, we do not see [many] changes,” Mr. Juliano said via Facebook Messenger, noting how political families have historically relied on placeholders and “seat warmers” to maintain control despite formal restrictions.
He pointed to recent political arrangements in Cavite and Pasig as examples. In the province of Cavite, the Remulla family backed then-governor Erineo “Ayong” S. Maliksi against the Revillas before later sidelining him when he sought to establish an independent political base.
In Pasig City, the Discaya family initially served as political stand-ins for the displaced Eusebio clan before becoming central figures in flood control infrastructure controversies.
“Unless we follow the logic of dismantling assets and networks (the way an antitrust law breaks up a monopoly or a conglomerate), we will not see much here,” Mr. Juliano added.
‘QUIET DILUTION’
Mr. Tapia said the larger constraint remains in Congress itself. With the legislature dominated by political families, sweeping reform is more likely to be weakened quietly than rejected outright.
“What usually follows is not open resistance, but quiet dilution,” he said. “Definitions narrow. Exemptions expand. Enforcement softens.”
As a result, the bill should not yet be seen as a turning point, Mr. Tapia said. Its significance will depend on whether it sustains a deeper reckoning with political dynasties as a structural choice rather than a cultural accident.
“If it opens that conversation and refuses to close it too early, it matters,” he said. “If it allows us to declare reform without real disruption, then it becomes part of the problem it claims to address.”
Although numerous measures to ban political dynasties have been filed over the past decades, Congress has yet to pass such a law nearly 40 years after the 1987 Constitution required it.
Even if the House passes an anti-political dynasty measure, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate, where about a third of lawmakers are siblings from entrenched political families — including the Tulfos, Cayetanos, Villars and Estrada-Ejercito — raising questions about whether the chamber can impartially approve a law that could limit their own influence.
Malacañang said the presidential “order” to prioritize such a measure comes as he saw how dynasties abused government resources amid a widening graft scandal in the country.
Mr. Marcos, the son and namesake of a late president who ruled the country for two decades, exposed a massive corruption scheme during his fourth State of the Nation Address last July.
He alleged high-ranking government officials colluded with government contractors to receive billions of pesos in kickbacks from public work projects, particularly in flood mitigation plans.
“What the President wants is for the power of the people to be strengthened, not that of a few abusive politicians,” Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro told a news briefing in Filipino last week.
She noted Mr. Marcos wants the Filipino public to be able to choose leaders based on merit and not on family names.
