Anti-Dynasty Legislation

The framers of the 1987 Constitution, the Constitutional Commission, included in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law”. The Commission was framing the 1987 Constitution following the EDSA “People Power” revolution and consequent demise of the Marcos dictatorship. At that time there was clearly a desire to prevent a repeat of the political, economic, and human rights abuses of the previous twenty years. So, the reason for the inclusion of this clause is understandable, but the Commission must have known how difficult it would be to turn a righteous concept into a just and enforceable law. The framers must equally have been aware that passing the responsibility for defining political dynasties to future legislators would be akin to persuading turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving or Christmas.

Unsurprisingly, since the adoption by plebiscite of the 1987 Constitution, there have been twelve Congresses, each of which has steadfastly resisted its constitutional duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.

The public outrage provoked by the so-called "Floodgate” exposures in the latter half of 2025, have prompted lawmakers, including some who are themselves members of dynasties, to promote the cause of anti-political dynasty legislation. Some twenty or more bills are being considered in House and Senate committees and even in public discussion groups. Such are the differences and vested interests within these various bills that the chances of a consolidated bill being anything other than symbolic are low, even assuming the Congress passes it.

Given that 80% of the current congress are at least minor dynasts, I do not believe it is possible now for Congress to enact a just and enforceable anti-political dynasty law, and even in 1987 the framers of the Constitution were optimistic to believe legislators would do so.

It is time to appoint an independent body, drawn from the judiciary, academia, labour leaders, business leaders and even faith leaders, with a brief to consider and recommend, or not, amendments to the 1987 Constitution in respect of the following specific matters:

1. Codifying passive suffrage, including, if deemed not in conflict with individual rights granted elsewhere in the Constitution:
   • the definition of a political dynasty, in respect of all elected national, regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay positions,
   • the nomination requirements for all candidates at all levels,
   • term limits,
   • consecutive and non-consecutive terms, and
   • down-ballot candidacies.
2. The need for a second chamber of Congress (the Senate) and whether its members should be elected other than nationally.
3. Government funding of elections at all levels and defined limits for campaign funding for all elected offices.
4. The need for a Party List provision.
5. Transition arrangements, which reflect the urgency necessary to implement any recommended amendments without undue delay.

Any recommendations of the independent body should be put to a binding national referendum within 30 days of their publication.

Only a handful of democracies in the world have anti-political laws. Could the reason be that such laws are inherently undemocratic in that they diminish equal rights? I believe the way to tackle dynastic political power is to level the playing field, not try to remove the players. Being a member of a political dynasty, however defined, is an accident of birth, not unlike sex. Surely in 2026 no supporter of democratic rule would contemplate banning an individual from access to elected office based on their sex.

As with many of life’s conundrums it is always a good idea to follow the money. Due to their wealth, inherited or otherwise acquired, dynasties can buy power in the form of influence and patronage. Only those with equal wealth can compete. Government could place limits on the amount of dynastic wealth that can be used in pursuit of such power. This will lower the angle of the slope but will not level the playing field. Government should therefore take full responsibility to ensure equal access to elected office by providing equal funding opportunities for election campaigns for all qualified candidates, including those from dynastic families, within readily enforceable limits.