Banning

Serious attempts have been made before to come up with an enabling law to ban political dynasties in our country. Varied versions in fact have previously been separately filed at both the Senate and the House of Representatives. But at the end of these congresses past, those initiatives to impose this ban never got through the legislative mill.

It is not as if there weren’t any real efforts to pass the ban into law. 

Fact one, we have already the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Reform Law or Republic Act (RA) 10742 that contains an anti-political dynasty provision. It specifically prohibits relatives within the second civil degree of consanguinity of incumbent officials from running for SK positions in the same locality.

And we have the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) enacted as part of its Bangsamoro Electoral Code (BEC) adopted in March 2023. The BEC prohibits participating political parties from fielding nominees who are related within the second degree of consanguinity and affinity. The violation of this provision shall result in the disqualification of one nominee, as decided by the party.

These two existing laws are start-up models that could eventually result in a broader and more comprehensive national anti-dynasty law. 

The latest initiative to ban political dynasties at the national level was filed under House Bill (HB) 6771 in the present Congress by two lawmakers who belong to well-established political dynasties in the Philippines. HB 6771 was jointly authored by the Speaker, Isabela Rep. Faustino Dy III, and House Majority Leader, Ilocos Norte Rep. Sandro Marcos. They both seek to disquality husband and wife and the rest of the family and relatives up to the “fourth civil degree” to run for elective positions at the same time. 

As the co-author of this bill, the presidential son and his father, President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr. (PBBM), along with the latter’s eldest sister, Sen. Imee Marcos, will be covered by this proposed ban. That is, if this ever gets approved into law during their incumbency. Their political dynasty traces its roots to PBBM’s namesake father, the late president Ferdinand Sr. (FM).

What could strike one as odd or seemingly illogical to the revival of the political dynasty bills is that it came on the heels of the national outrage on reported “ghost” flood control projects. 

In a privilege speech last week at the Lower House plenary session, Liberal Party (LP) Rep. Edgar Erice of Caloocan City officially announced he would file a petition before the Supreme Court (SC) to compel Congress to perform its constitutional mandate to enact the enabling law for the anti-dynasty provision in the 1987 Constitution. 

Erice squarely blamed unscrupulous powerful political dynasties for the pervasive corruption in government. He stopped short of identifying them in public. But he cited as example the reported “ghost” and other anomalous flood control projects found in congressional insertions in the annual budgets of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH). 

Notably accused in these alleged corrupted DPWH projects is resigned Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Zaldy Co, who has other family and kin holding elective posts. Several Co family-owned construction firms were among the contractors now charged at the ombudsman for some of the flood control project anomalies. 

In a strong pitch to ban political dynasties, Erice believes going to the 15-man SC could put to good use its judicial legislation to enforce this anti-dynasty law. For almost 40 years, Erice conceded all related bills have languished and died in Congress, which have allowed these dynasties to become deeply entrenched in politics.

“And I swear to you, Mr. President: I will do whatever I can to help you fight for political reforms. This is the true way to improve the governance of our country,” Erice vowed.

The President had already asked lawmakers to include the anti-dynasty and three other bills identified as additional “priority” bills under the common legislative agenda of Malacañang and Congress. PBBM reached with leaderships of both chambers of Congress this agreement during the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council (LEDAC) meeting held at the Palace last week.

But opponents of the bill argued the proposed anti-political dynasty bill cannot stand without amending the Constitution. Ako Bicol party-list Rep. Alfredo Garbin Jr., vice chairman of the House committee on constitutional amendments, raised this argument. Garbin took over Co’s slot when the latter resigned from Congress afer being implicated in the “ghost” flood control projects as then House committee on appropriations chairman.

Actually, methinks the problem lies with our country’s 1987 Constitution that called for such an enabling law. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution mandates the State to “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

This was imposed upon us by the 50-man Constitutional Commission appointed by the late president Corazon Aquino to craft our new Charter. Mrs.Aquino abolished the Batasan Pambansa and virtually put up a revolutionary government after FM’s ouster from Malacañang Palace at the end of the February 1986 EDSA People Power uprising. 

Aside from requiring the passage of an enabling law to ban political dynasties, the new Constitution also called for other enabling laws. These included separate enabling laws for a system of elected party-list representatives in Congress as well as setting up of local autonomous governments in the Cordillera and in Muslim Mindanao. All required enabling laws, except the ban on political dynasty, were subsequently passed and approved into law. 

If there is indeed sincere desire to ban political dynasties in the Philippines, the framers of our Constitution should have stated and declared it outright as a national policy. After all, a Constitution is the basic law of the land.

So it is not surprising that these demands to finally pass this into law has cropped up anew. “Been there, done that.” This could be perhaps the quiet retort of many of the incumbent lawmakers who still remain in Congress. They banned the ban before. So what is else is new?