Quack quandary

Anti-dynasty bill? We’ve been grumbling about this long enough. Only a few families control government and its vast resources --and we’ve seen how only a privileged few can tear off horrific chunks of wealth from our coffers. So it is time to finally pay heed to the anti-dynastic mandate of the Constitution.

Perhaps, to get some respite from the loud shrieking of the seriously-upset masses, and in order to further legitimize his public stance against corruption, the president certified as ‘urgent’ key governance measures being pushed by the opposition, chief among them the anti-dynasty bill.

What a smart move. Pres. Marcos has just washed his hands of a niggling problem and simultaneously dumped this sore point on Congress --and if this bill doesn’t get enacted into law, it’s no longer his fault. The bill has been cannonballed into the halls of Congress --and who knows how long it’s going to pingpong among the various subcommittees, legal consultants and junior staff before it arrives, in a completely different state, for voting in the plenary?

Who knows what the conflicted congressmen will do to the bill? Will they prioritize other measures until their term expires? Will they chip away at it until it becomes meaningless? Will they file an alternate version packaged as an anti-dynasty bill but, gasp, actually legitimize it?

What’s that? Congressman Sandro Marcos has filed a bill that does precisely this? Double gasp! We are, indeed, being taken for fools.

Alex Lacson, former Senatorial aspirant, has done some analysis of Sandro’s House Bill 6771, and his conclusions are alarming, but well, expected. If this bill is passed into law, Lacson says “one family can have relatives in all national, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay levels. In effect, under HB 6771, one family can have 1 President, 2 Congressmen, 1 Governor, many Mayors, several Barangay Captains.”

Well done, Sandro. Thanks for pulling some lambcloth over our eyes before you wolves devour us.

It might be worthwhile to, instead, train our sights on another version proposed by a former Commission on Elections Commissioner. No, not the Rolex and Gucci one, but the much more restrained Luie Tito Guia, who, through his group Democratic Insights Group, has also released a discussion draft.

Full disclosure: I haven’t read it myself, but I promise I will (also, in the spirit of disclosure but actually just a flex, commissioner Guia was my classmate). But what I’ve read in the idiot guides they so pro-actively released is promising.

Yes, they tackle which relatives are covered by the prohibitions, and which positions are to be guarded against. That’s all to be expected. But the drafters have gone even beyond these issues, and anticipated simultaneous filings by “rival” relatives. Well, not to worry. The drafters have solutions. Very woke ones, actually. Solutions that Trump and MAGA will hate.

If there are two covered relatives that file candidacies, and one is a man and one is a woman, then the drafters propose that it is the woman’s candidacy that will proceed. The man will be ejected. Further, if the candidates are of the same sex, then age will matter, and it is the younger candidate that will be allowed to proceed. The older relative will be disqualified. Ageism, you know.

What if one candidate is gay? That doesn’t seem to have been tackled yet.

Perhaps the drafters could take a cue from the forthcoming free train rides to members of the LGBTQ community. When pressed as to how the members of this community are to be identified by train employees, the simple response was, there will be no interrogation as to the legitimacy of their self-identification. Whoever proclaims themselves as “them” will be allowed to ride free.

In our scenario, all that the candidate needs to do will be to just out himself. Problem solved. No need to prove who he or she slept with, or how many times they need to sleep with members of their own sex. See? Practical solutions abound if one has the political will.

Interesting times.