Bill vs dynasties: Can Senate sharpen dull House version?

(Last of two parts)

President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has made legislation curbing political dynasties a priority for his administration — even as he sits on top of one of the most influential in the country, built over the two-decade rule of his late father and namesake.

He is framing this push as a pillar of his governance reform agenda that also includes changes to the party list system and transparency measures.

Article continues after this advertisement

READ: The House anti-dynasty bill: Approved, but not applauded

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

The Marcoses are entrenched in the northern Philippines, where his cousin-in-law is the governor of his home province of Ilocos Norte, his nephew the vice governor, his son the first district representative, and another nephew the second district congressman.

His sister — like him — was governor and representative before serving as senator. His mother was elected separately as an Ilocos Norte and a Leyte representative, extending the family dynasty to the south. His cousin from Leyte is the former speaker.

The president’s eldest son, House Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos III, said that lawmakers did not draft House Bill No.8389 (HB 8389) because it was what they wanted, but because it was the limit of support they could muster in the chamber.

“Should you make the bill stricter and more constrictive, support in the lower house disappears. And let’s call a spade a spade — many here in the chamber come from political dynasties,” he said. “I’d be an idiot if I said I wasn’t from one either.”

Article continues after this advertisement

He added that the proposal could still be amended and that this was not the end of the legislative effort, pointing to the bicameral talks. “I highly doubt that the Senate will adopt the House version,” Marcos said.

“It was really a matter of getting the bill through the House to start the conversation,” he said. “This is not the final result, and it is not yet law. It is simply the version the Lower House was able to produce and muster support for.”

Article continues after this advertisement

Party lists not covered

According to Rep. Zia Adiong, his committee on electoral reforms intentionally excluded party lists to avoid violating the Constitution, which mandates that a law “shall embrace only one subject.”

“The party list system is so complex that it deserves a separate discussion altogether,” he said. His panel, however, was preparing a bill that would prohibit a second-degree relative of an incumbent district representative from being a party list nominee.

Analysts said gaps in the current bill leave room for political dynasties to skirt restrictions by having several members of their family or clan simultaneously occupy national, provincial and local positions.

“We do not see the House version as an effective prohibition against political dynasties,” said Ona Caritos, executive director of Legal Network for Truthful Elections.

She said HB 8389 would allow members of a political family to hold national posts alongside several provincial, city, or municipal positions, provided they were in different localities.

Dissatisfaction noted

“The provisions of the approved House bill reflect the aversion of these officials to legislate against their interests,” Caritos said. “It is still an uphill battle to increase electoral competition and strengthen political accountability.”

Adiong acknowledged the dissatisfaction with the House bill, but he is unfazed.

“Just because some sectors in our society are not satisfied with it does not mean it is not a genuine reform,” Adiong said.

He said the true “barometer” in determining whether the bill stood for “genuine reform” was whether it would directly affect “monopoly of power.”

“On that basis alone, I can say with absolute certainty and with confidence that this is a genuine anti-political dynasty measure that Congress has proposed,” he said.

Navotas Rep. Toby Tiangco, who criticized the bill but ultimately voted in favor, said that if a bicameral conference committee convenes to reconcile disagreeing provisions, it should move to strengthen the measure by also limiting political families in the House to one seat.

“It appears that members of the House are the ones exempted from this proposed law,” he said when he explained his vote on June 3. Despite the weaknesses that he saw, Tiangco said he backed the bill as a step forward in trimming the influence of political dynasties.

He said the House “cannot make laws that we will benefit from.”

Senate counterpart

A counterpart anti-political dynasty bill is pending in the Senate on second reading. Its version extends to party list groups and prevents succession by disallowing spouses and second-degree relatives from immediately taking over after an incumbent’s term.

The Senate bill was authored by Sen. Robinhood Padilla and co-authored by Senators Panfilo Lacson, Francis Pangilinan, Risa Hontiveros, Bam Aquino, Loren Legarda, and Erwin Tulfo.

That version is much closer to the intent of the Constitution, Caritos said.

“An assessment of the other provisions shows that the Senate version leans towards fulfilling the constitutional prohibition due to its restrictions on simultaneous and successive holding of offices,” she said.

The House likely settled for a limited prohibition on elective office to balance the push for a much-needed electoral reform with the lawmakers’ own political interests, according to other political analysts.

“A second-degree ban is the only thing that a dynasty-dominated House can afford,” Anthony Lawrence Borja, an associate professor of political science at De La Salle University, said.

“That is something they can compensate for while projecting a pseudo-reformist tendency that can satisfy voters with either low standards or tolerance for dynastic rule,” he added.

An effective anti-political dynasty bill would be one that stretches up to the fourth degree of relations, according to Hansley Juliano, a political science lecturer at Ateneo de Manila University.

Can’t be too ‘drastic’

With a bicameral conference committee showdown looming, Ederson Tapia, a political science professor at the University of Makati, said the real question would be how far the congressmen and the senators were willing to go “without abandoning the principles” behind their versions.

“If there is sufficient political will, the conference committee can still produce a measure that is both constitutionally defensible and substantively meaningful,” Tapia said.

Adiong said they were preparing for the bicameral conference committee, where the House was ready to fight for its version.

He warned against any “drastic amendment” that would negate all their efforts.

“If we are to go to the extreme, then this might be open to judicial review,” Adiong said. “Some probably may go to the court to challenge the constitutionality of this measure.”

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“What I want is to have a genuine anti-political dynasty measure that is implementable and that can pass judicial scrutiny should there be any questions that others might feel like bringing to the court,” he added. /atm