Dynasty ban seen as move against Duterte clan

By Adrian H. Halili, Reporter

THE Marcos administration’s push to ban political dynasties is being viewed by some analysts as an effort to curb the Duterte family’s political ambitions, amid a widening rift between two of the country’s most influential clans.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. has included anti-dynasty legislation in the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council’s priority measures, reviving a long-debated constitutional provision that prohibits political dynasties “as may be defined by law.”

Hansley A. Juliano, a political science lecturer at the Ateneo de Manila University, said isolating the Dutertes could benefit the Marcos bloc in the short term but might also energize their supporters ahead of the 2028 elections.

“Isolating the Dutertes would be useful in the short term, but also risks consolidating pro-Duterte forces for 2028,” he said in a Facebook Messenger chat.

Ederson DT. Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said the initiative could be read in two ways.

“Some will see it as an institutional reform measure,” he said via Messenger. “Others will read it as a political maneuver aimed at recalibrating the competitive landscape, particularly in relation to families with strong regional machinery.”

The rivalry between the Marcos and Duterte camps has intensified in recent months. Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio, daughter of former President Rodrigo R. Duterte, was once Mr. Marcos’ running mate.

Tensions have since escalated, culminating in Mr. Duterte’s arrest by the International Criminal Court and impeachment moves against Ms. Duterte.

Both families are entrenched political dynasties. The Marcoses have long dominated politics in Ilocos Norte, while the Dutertes have held power in Davao for decades. Both patriarchs have served as President.

Mr. Juliano said Mr. Marcos might gain short-term moral advantage from backing anti-dynasty reform, particularly among civil society groups that have long pushed it.

“Mr. Marcos’ position is likely to capture short-term moral high ground,” he said, though he added that the President’s own dynastic background complicates the optics of the proposal.

Mr. Tapia cautioned that an anti-dynasty law would not target just one family.

“Anti-dynasty legislation would not only affect one family,” he said. “It could potentially reshape the entire electoral map, especially in provinces where local power has been consolidated within extended kinship networks.”

He also noted that banning dynasties would not automatically dismantle patronage politics, weak party structures or the influence of money in elections.

The reform might become symbolic if it is not paired with broader institutional strengthening, including campaign finance regulation, party development and enforcement capacity, he added.

Several bills have been filed in both chambers of Congress seeking to define and prohibit political dynasties, almost four decades after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Despite the constitutional mandate, no enabling law has been passed.

Joy G. Aceron, convenor-director of transparency group Government Watch, said a well-crafted anti-dynasty measure could curb the concentration of power that weakens accountability.

“A proper anti-dynasty measure can check concentration of power that undermines accountability,” she said, noting that the reform would affect all major political families, including both the Marcoses and the Dutertes.

She added that limiting dynastic control could improve transparency and widen political participation.

“Political efficacy can increase if people know that the playing field is leveled — if opportunities are not limited to a few families who have been there for a long time,” Ms. Aceron said.

The Senate and House electoral committees are conducting hearings on the m measure, with lawmakers still divided over how broad the ban should be and which relatives should be covered.