MANILA — In a move that could finally give life to a long-dormant constitutional mandate, the House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms on Tuesday approved a proposed anti-political dynasty measure — but not without triggering sharp criticism over what opponents call a watered-down definition that may still allow powerful families to dominate elective posts.
The panel endorsed House Bill 6771, principally authored by Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III and House Deputy Majority Leader Sandro Marcos, seeking to restrict spouses and relatives of incumbent officials from seeking or holding office within the same jurisdiction at the same time.
Under the proposal, family members of an incumbent or candidate for a national elective post would be barred from simultaneously holding any other national office. Similar prohibitions would apply at the congressional, provincial, city, municipal and barangay levels, preventing close relatives from occupying posts within the same area during the same period.
However, committee chair Zia Adiong clarified that the version approved by the panel narrows the scope to relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, rather than the broader coverage stated in earlier drafts.
“This is a big step forward. We need a balanced, enforceable anti-political dynasty bill. This ensures that an Anti-Political Dynasty law will be in place before the next elections in May 2028,” Adiong told reporters after the hearing.
The measure immediately drew opposition from House Deputy Minority Leader Edgar Erice, who argued that limiting the coverage to second-degree relatives weakens the intent of the bill and still allows political families to maintain influence across multiple areas.
“It was approved as is [as filed by Congressman Marcos and the Speaker]. Five congressmen in five districts, 10 mayors in 10 cities — all related,” Erice said. “Everybody in public office (is) now relatives.”
Erice maintained that the measure falls short of fulfilling the constitutional mandate to prohibit political dynasties.
“This is not what is in the Constitution. They do not want to limit family members in public office. From a fat dynasty, now we have an obese one,” he said.
The 1987 Constitution provides that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as defined by law. Nearly four decades since its ratification, Congress has yet to pass an enabling statute clearly defining and banning such dynasties, making the committee’s action a potentially pivotal — though still contentious — step toward reform./PN
