A public hearing in Cebu on political dynasties

The House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms will hold a public consultation on anti-political dynasty measures this Thursday, February 19, 2026, at 9:00 A.M. at the Performing Arts Hall, University of the Philippines Cebu, Lahug, Cebu City.

It is part of the nationwide public hearing initiatives of the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, which is chaired by Lanao del Sur 1st District Rep. Ziaur-Rahman “Zia” Alonto Adiong. The activity aims to provide a platform for students, faculty, and community members “to participate in informed and constructive dialogue on electoral reform and democratic governance.”

The irony is not lost, however, that Adiong himself comes from a prominent political family in Lanao del Sur, with several relatives holding top posts. Still, this consultation process deserves a fair chance. Adiong is relatively young, at 46, well educated, and a 2019 Ten Outstanding Young Men awardee. At the very least, these are reasons to hope the committee will draw serious inputs from a wide range of stakeholders.

The 1987 Constitution contains a provision that prohibits political dynasties, but its framers left the definition of the term “political dynasty” to lawmakers. The absence of an enabling law from a Congress dominated by dynastic politicians has become the bottleneck that has prevented this constitutional provision from being given life.

A study by professors Rollin Tusalem and Jeffrey Pe Aguirre (2013) links dynasties to clientelism and worse governance outcomes. They argue that political dynasties should be treated as a political economy problem because they shape how public resources are allocated and how accountable officials feel they must be.

Electoral institutions established during the American period created the impression that people could freely choose their leaders regardless of clan or class, but they did not break the entrenched dominance of dynastic elites who had already locked in client-patron relations during the Spanish period. Many voters still gravitate toward paternal providers of goods and favors rather than leaders who can deliver better policy performance.

In areas governed by the worst dynasties, political violence is seen as a pathway to preserve a clan’s dominance. Incidentally, these are also among the poorest areas of the country. Meanwhile, in relatively more-developed areas like Cebu, dynastic clans remain major features in local politics, but at least no single clan dominates. Even those who emerge as leaders on their own merit and charisma without political pedigree (think of Governor Pam Baricuatro) may still need to negotiate power or form alliances with established political clans.

Of course, it may not be only political dynasties that cause poor governance. Dynasties are a symptom as much as a cause. Even if you legislate against them, without parallel institutional reforms in the economy, the agrarian sector, and governance in general, no meaningful change will happen. Local state functions will still be captured, one way or another, by dynastic clans.

For me, the immediate goal is to prevent monopoly by one family, reduce automatic succession within the immediate family, such as from father to son, mother to daughter, or between spouses. The long-term goal is to create more room for new, qualified leaders to emerge from grassroots or organic, community-based groups. We should strengthen professionalization in the civil service and promote digital transparency in the bureaucracy. We should also improve service delivery so access to health, education, and social protection is less mediated by politicians.

In other words, this requires a whole package of reforms, and an anti-dynasty law is only one piece of it.