By Kaela Patricia B. Gabriel
AN ANTI-POLITICAL dynasty law could reshape electoral competition in the Philippines by limiting family control of elective posts, but broader electoral reforms would be needed to produce lasting changes in the country’s political system, analysts said.
“The anti-political dynasty law is only a start and would not be enough to alter significantly the prevailing political landscape,” Edmund S. Tayao, president and chief executive officer of Political Economic Elemental Researchers and Strategists, told BusinessWorld via Facebook Messenger.
“Only the establishment of a real political party system can result in more meaningful changes in the overall political setup,” he added.
The Supreme Court last week ordered Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law “at the earliest opportunity,” ruling that lawmakers have a constitutional duty under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution to define and prohibit political dynasties.
The court said Congress’ failure to enact such a law for 39 years constituted grave abuse of discretion, although lawmakers retain authority to determine the definition and scope of the prohibition.
The Senate’s focus on the impeachment trial of Vice-President Sara Duterte-Carpio could delay action on the measure, although the Supreme Court ruling could increase pressure on senators to act, said Amr Solon S. Sison, a political science instructor at Far Eastern University.
“The general political landscape of the Philippines is but an extension of dynastic competition,” Mr. Sison told BusinessWorld via Messenger. “The bill, if passed, can now formalize the extension and limitation of political participation of individuals or groups in Philippine elections.”
Mr. Sison said restrictions on political dynasties could alter competition in both local and national elections.
The House of Representatives approved House Bill No. 8389, or the proposed Anti-Political Dynasty Act, on third and final reading on June 3 by a vote of 267-20, with seven abstentions. The measure was transmitted to the Senate on June 8.
The Senate version, Senate Bill No. 1901, remained pending on second reading as of last week.
Mr. Tayao said passing the measure could prove more difficult in the Senate because several senators have relatives who also hold seats in the chamber.
Eric Daniel C. de Torres, a University of the East political science professor, said lawmakers would have to agree on the extent of the restrictions as they reconcile the House and Senate bills.
“While the Constitution prohibits political dynasties and the Supreme Court ruled as such, the determination now will be on what version will and should prevail — will it be the House or the Senate version or perhaps again what would be a formidable version?” he said via Facebook Messenger.
Under the House bill, spouses and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity would be prohibited from simultaneously or successively holding or seeking certain elective posts within the same jurisdiction.
Mr. de Torres said restrictions on political dynasties should be accompanied by measures to strengthen political parties, discourage politicians from switching parties and increase transparency in campaign financing.
“The anti-political dynasty law is not a silver bullet that would cure and or respond to all political and governance issues in the country,” he said. “We also have to push electoral reforms.”
He also called for limits on campaign donations and stronger auditing of political party finances.
Mr. Tayao said the Commission on Elections could enforce an anti-dynasty prohibition in the 2028 elections if Congress passes a law before then and provides a clear definition of a political dynasty.
“As soon as certificates of candidacy are filed, the election body can already proceed with the process of determining and eliminating those that cannot be allowed to push through with their candidacy,” he said.
The Supreme Court separately ruled that the Commission on Elections cannot impose a political dynasty ban on its own because no law yet defines which candidates would be covered or establishes the grounds for their disqualification.