By Farah G. Decano

THE intensifying legislative debate over regulating political dynasties centers on the proposed Anti-Dynasty Bill. The urgency has escalated, with numerous bills filed in Congress, even before the President’s call to prioritize the measure.

​A recent proposal by Representatives Sandro Marcos and Faustino Dy III has already drawn skepticism from political experts. Many argue that the bill fails to align with the core spirit and intent of the constitutional directive against families in politics.

*          *          *          *

​The framers of the 1987 Constitution mandated Congress to enact anti-dynasty laws. They recognized that the simultaneous or successive holding of multiple elective positions by family members fundamentally weakens democracy and undermines fair competition.

​The constitutional order is rooted in several critical objectives:

• ​Preventing the “Crowding Out” of Qualified Leaders: When a single family dominates the political arena, it discourages and effectively pushes out other qualified individuals from seeking office. Elections risk becoming a mere “battle of surnames” instead of a genuine contest of platforms and competence;

• ​Eliminating Disproportionate Opportunity: Dynastic families possess inherent, often overwhelming, advantages in wealth, name recognition, and political machinery. This structural imbalance makes it exceedingly difficult for non-dynastic candidates to compete, thereby violating the democratic principle of equal access to opportunities for public service;

• ​Reducing the Perpetuation of Power: The successive or simultaneous tenure of family members allows a political family to institutionalize and cement its power over decades, hindering the public’s ability to effect meaningful change through the ballot;

• ​Promoting Accountability: When close family members hold positions designed to check and balance each other (e.g., mayor, governor, or legislator), accountability is severely compromised. A family member is inherently less likely to criticize, investigate, or oppose another’s actions; and

• ​Eradicating Rent-Seeking: The concentration of political and economic power provides greater opportunities for the family to utilize public resources and positions for private gain—a practice known as rent-seeking—instead of directing them toward public benefit.

*          *          *          *

​The Marcos-Dy bill has already triggered alarms among political analysts, who suggest it is a watered-down version of earlier, stricter proposals. A significant danger, they warn, is that if this bill were to pass, it could, paradoxically, permanently legitimize certain forms of dynasties under the guise of regulation, providing a legal veneer to the very practice the Constitution sought to curb.

​The citizenry must exercise extreme vigilance. Not every proponent of an “Anti-Dynasty Bill” is genuinely committed to the spirit of the Constitution. The public cannot afford to be nonchalant. A law that passes without proper scrutiny could permanently enshrine the situation where members of the same family simultaneously or successively hold various elective positions.

*          *          *          *

​It is important to acknowledge that legitimate counterarguments exist against excessively strict anti-dynasty laws. These often include the potential to restrict voters’ choices and to value the familiarity and experience in governance held by those already in power.

​Ultimately, legislators face a difficult balancing act: they must strive to properly capture the essence of their constitutional mandate to dismantle the institutionalization of dynastic power while simultaneously upholding fundamental democratic principles, particularly the sanctity of the vote.

*          *          *          *

One thing about being in the private sector is that the courage to be disliked seems to be more attainable.

I ran the risk of being disliked when I recently communicated a professional concern to a government counsel.

The issue brought to his/her attention is the “disparity” in court attendance protocol, where he/she has reportedly attended hearings for PRIVATE cases online. At the same time, all other practicing lawyers are required to be physically present.

The public and professional communities anticipate that this lawyer will fully abide by his/her Lawyer’s Oath and the high ethical standards required of a government official, ensuring that his/her professional actions are above reproach.