[OPINION] End dynasties now, obey Constitution

As a constitutional professor and scholar, I have argued for many years that the 1987 Constitution leaves Congress with no discretion on whether political dynasties should be prohibited. Article II Section 26 commands the State to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and to prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. The constitutional choice is unequivocal. Congress is not authorized to regulate political dynasties, accommodate them, or merely limit their excesses. It is required to prohibit them.

The phrase “as may be defined by law” does not qualify the duty to prohibit. It qualifies only the authority to define. Congress has discretion over scope and coverage, not over whether dynasties are allowed to exist. Legislative discretion lies in determining how broad the prohibition is, not in transforming prohibition into regulation. Any statute that allows dynastic succession, rotation, or substitution violates both the text and spirit of the Constitution.

This distinction matters because much of the legislative history of anti-dynasty bills has involved a quiet but consequential shift in meaning. Prohibition has been reinterpreted as regulation. Structural exclusion has been softened into technical disqualification. What the Constitution demands as a democratic reset has been diluted into rules that preserve dynastic power while appearing to comply with constitutional language.

Nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from adopting the strictest possible anti-dynasty law. On the contrary, the historical context of the 1987 Constitution, drafted in reaction to entrenched family rule under a dictatorship, strongly supports a robust and comprehensive prohibition. The framers did not intend Congress to protect itself. They intended Congress to dismantle inherited political power and open public office to all.

Comparison of legislative proposals

House Bill No. 6771, filed by Speaker Faustino Dy III and Representative Sandro Marcos, invokes Article II Section 26 and adopts the language of equal access and prohibition. Its operative provisions, however, reveal a fundamentally regulatory design. The bill defines political dynasty narrowly as the simultaneous holding of elective office by relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity. It disqualifies such relatives only from holding identified elective positions at the same time.

Crucially, HB 6771 does not prohibit immediate succession, rotation within families, or the alternating occupation of offices across electoral cycles. It treats political dynasties as a problem of concurrency rather than continuity. This ignores the reality that dynastic power in the Philippines is consolidated primarily through succession. Fathers are replaced by sons, governors by wives, mayors by siblings. The bill leaves this core mechanism entirely untouched.

The Akbayan bill, House Bill No. 5905, represents a meaningful step away from this minimalist approach. It begins from the correct constitutional premise that political dynasties must be prohibited, not merely managed. It defines political dynasties as the concentration, consolidation, or perpetuation of political power by persons related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity. It prohibits relatives within that degree from running for or holding elective office when doing so would perpetuate dynastic control.

HB 5905 addresses both simultaneous holding of office and immediate succession. It explicitly includes spouses and de facto partners, closing a common loophole in Philippine political practice. At the same time, the bill reflects careful calibration. Its enforcement mechanisms are designed to withstand constitutional challenge and its structure reflects legislative realism. These choices reflect strategy, not retreat from constitutional principle.

The most comprehensive House proposal is House Bill No. 209, introduced by Representatives Antonio L. Tinio and Renee Louise Co of the Makabayan bloc. This bill begins from an unambiguous understanding of political dynasties as systems of power that operate over time. Drawing on empirical research, it distinguishes between fat dynasties, where relatives hold office simultaneously, and thin dynasties, where relatives occupy positions sequentially. Both are treated as equally corrosive to democratic equality.

Consistent with this analysis, the Makabayan bill prohibits relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity from running for or holding public office in ways that perpetuate dynastic control. It directly targets succession, rotation, and continuity. Its explanatory note situates political dynasties within a broader political economy of inequality, patronage, and elite capture. It documents how dynastic dominance correlates with poverty, corruption, and the concentration of public resources.

In the Senate, the principal vehicle for implementing the constitutional ban is Senate Bill No. 1548, filed by Senator Risa Hontiveros and titled the Kontra Dinastiya Act. The bill explicitly anchors itself in Article II Section 26 and proceeds from the premise that the prohibition of political dynasties is mandatory. It defines political dynasties broadly, covering relatives within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity, and prohibits the establishment and continuation of dynastic control over elective public office.

Significantly, the Hontiveros bill embeds enforcement within the election law framework by treating violations as election offenses. This ensures that the constitutional prohibition is not merely declaratory but operational. While calibrated for Senate passage, it rejects the narrow focus on simultaneity and affirms the Constitution’s deeper objective of breaking inherited political power. It provides a credible Senate anchor for bicameral convergence.

Civil society and the road ahead

Outside Congress, the Anti Political Dynasty Network (disclosure: I am a member) has articulated the clearest and most concrete civil society standard for what a constitutionally compliant anti-dynasty law must contain. In formal statements issued in December 2025, the Network explicitly rejected House Bill No. 6771 as inadequate. It warned that measures limited to simultaneous office holding risk becoming performative reforms that leave the real machinery of dynastic power intact.

The Network correctly identifies dynastic succession as the central mechanism by which political families entrench themselves. It insists that no anti-dynasty law can be meaningful if it allows immediate replacement of an incumbent by a spouse or close relative. Accordingly, it calls for a categorical ban on immediate succession and for coverage extending to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity. It also demands prohibitions on overlapping constituencies and the use of the party list system as a dynastic fallback.

Crucially, the Anti Political Dynasty Network situates anti-dynasty reform within a broader governance and anti-corruption framework. Its statements link dynastic dominance to corruption scandals, weak service delivery, and the concentration of public resources. 

This is a point I strongly agree with. Ending political dynasties is not symbolic reform. It is a prerequisite for accountable governance, climate resilience, and democratic equality.

There is a realistic path to enactment. The first quarter of 2026 presents a critical window. With explicit presidential support and a united front of progressive forces in Congress and civil society, resistance from entrenched political families can be overcome. The Constitution has already made the fundamental choice. What remains is for Congress to finally obey it. – Rappler.com