Political dynasty ban: Beating around the bush

The Supreme Court’s unprecedented rebuke of Congress for its scandalous failure to ban political dynasties for the past 39 years will continue to sting until the legislature passes an enabling law that implements Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.

While “the definition of what constitutes a prohibited political dynasty is ultimately left to Congressional design,” the Supreme Court did not leave the issue open-ended. Doing so would have risked years of renewed debate over the scope and extent of dismantling the political dynasties that have kept oligarchs and the landed class in power since the last century, while most citizens remained bystanders in the tug-of-war between the ruling class, election after election.

Elements of the prohibition. Although careful not to intrude into the domain of Congress, the Supreme Court provided parameters for legislating a blanket ban “if the evils of concentrating power and political opportunity were to be truly addressed.” The Supreme Court said the ban must include four elements: covered relationships, timing, scope of covered positions, and geographical location.

It’s instructive to compare the version passed by the House of Representatives with the pending Senate bill, both of which bar spouses and relatives up to the second civil degree of consanguinity and affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half-blood, from holding elective office.

Passed on third and final reading last June 3, House Bill No. 8389, or the “Anti-Political Dynasty Act,” defines political dynasty as the “concentration, consolidation and dominance of elective political power by spouses or persons related to one another.”

‘Simultaneously and successively.’ It then prohibits dynasty relationships, or spouses or relatives up to the second degree, from simultaneously holding any national elective position; sitting as members of Congress within the same legislative district; and holding elective office within the same provincial government, or within the same city or municipal government.

However, the Supreme Court ruling explicitly mentioned that covered relationships extend to “relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity, including half-blood, adoptive, step, and common-law relationships, as well as both legitimate and illegitimate filiations.” It cited as justification for the much-wider coverage the Family Code, Civil Code, Republic Act No. 6713, the Revised Penal Code, and Article 7, Section 13(2) of the Constitution.

As to timing, the Supreme Court ruling says that a political dynasty exists when relatives run for an elective office “both simultaneously and successively for the same or any other covered position.”

Both HB 8389 and Senate Committee Report No. 33 on Senate Bill No. 1901, adopted by 12 senators on Feb. 24, but still awaiting second-reading debate and approval, ban dynasties in national elective posts.

If the bill is passed, no two siblings (or covered relatives) can serve in the Senate at the same time, and a president or vice president cannot have siblings (or their parents) serve as senators either, since all are nationally elected. The Senate version is more detailed: it bans spouses “or two or more relatives” not only from holding simultaneous terms but also from holding overlapping terms in national elective offices (such as the Senate). The prohibition extends to the party-list system.

Contrary to the Senate version, the House bill does not impose a general ban on covered persons holding elective offices successively; instead, it treats it as an election offense only if an elective official resigns to allow a spouse or relative to assume or seek the same position.

The House bill bars members of a political family from simultaneously holding a House seat in the same district (which is already prohibited), but it’s a subtle way of ensuring that most political dynasties can still be elected if they run in different legislative districts within a given province or city.

But this modus vivendi, in which multiple family members of a dynasty reside in different districts, is precisely the evil the Constitution mandates be vanquished. Dynastic power remains a fixture in local politics, with spouses and their children currently holding House seats simultaneously—and, if not alternately, successively—representing different or contiguous congressional districts, while others occupy positions as governors, vice governors, mayors, or vice mayors.

The House bill discourages, but does not explicitly ban, covered persons from running in the same political unit. When two or more relatives are elected to positions with multiple seats (e.g., Senate or provincial/city/municipal councils), or to distinct positions (like a House member or governor), the candidate with the highest number of votes, or the candidate elected to a higher office, respectively, shall assume the contested post. What a way to beat around the bush!

To have a meaningful anti-political dynasty law, only two members of a political family may run for public office: one in national elections and the other in local elections.

—————-

For comments: [email protected]