1 month ago
24
Upgrade to High-Speed Internet for only ₱1499/month!
Enjoy up to 100 Mbps fiber broadband, perfect for browsing, streaming, and gaming.
Visit Suniway.ph to learn
February 19, 2026 | 6:22pm
MANILA, Philippines — While the first consultation in Carmona, Cavite exposed a pronounced split over the anti-political dynasty bill, the next forum held in Cebu showed wider support and more specific recommendations on its scope and restrictions.
The House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms held its second public consultation on the proposed anti-political dynasty measure on Thursday, February 19, at the University of the Philippines Cebu.
Most of the province's students and residents, who shared their opinion on what the anti-political dynasty law should look like, said they are in favor of the restrictions outlined under House Bills 209 and 4784.
These were just two of the 24 proposed measures seeking to prohibit political dynasties in the country, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution, and were filed by the three-member Makabayan bloc.
Specifically, these bills define political dynasties as families or clans that "concentrate, consolidate, or perpetuate their political power by holding public office simultaneously or successively."
They prohibit relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity from running for public office at the same time as another relative or succeeding a relative. This includes family members ranging from great-great-grandparents to parents, children, aunts and uncles, cousins, in-laws and great-grandchildren.
It is the blanket ban that covers local and national posts, which residents believe is necessary to reduce poverty incidence in rural localities nationwide and minimize chances of government corruption.
According to a UP Political Science Society member, political dynasties have long perpetuated injustice, and research links them to poverty and underdevelopment, stressing the need for the anti-political dynasty bill to impose a blanket ban rather than continue debating its framework.
"The policy should be blanket, should be comprehensive, and should be harsh because dynasties have been harsh. We shouldn't debate if it's second [degree of] consanguinity or fourth [degree of] consanguinity," he said.
Focusing on specific findings, Cristina Oganiza of the Akbayan Citizens Action Party said that despite Cebu's overall decline in poverty, rural areas outside highly urbanized cities like Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu continue to experience high poverty, with families lacking adequate income and access to basic needs and opportunities.
"The anti-political dynasty is necessary given the systemic problem in which the rich remain rich and get richer, while the poor remain poor and get poorer," she said.
Oganiza added that without such a measure, the country will continue to be riddled by challenges in governance, concentration of power, political competition, biased allocation of public resources, patronage politics, limited accountability to constituents, and reduced innovation in local governance strategies.
A student and member of the League of Filipino Students in Cebu also argued for a blanket ban because there is no such thing as "good" political dynasties.
"Sa sistemang ito, nagiging instrumento ang pampulitikang, pampublikong opisina para sa pribadong yaman ng iilang mga pamilya," she said. (This system turns public political office into an instrument for the private wealth of a few families.)
Meanwhile, a member of the Kabataan Kontra Korapsyon said political dynasties have turned leadership positions into family property or business, with corruption as a direct consequence.
The Supreme Student Council of San Carlos shared this sentiment, saying that the concentration of political power in the hands of a few families has enabled repression, as these families gain control over state forces and mechanisms used to suppress and intimidate critics.
Cebu City Vice Mayor Tommy Osmeña, who recognizes he is a member of a political family, also said he is in favor of an anti-political dynasty bill to ensure that other members of society, regardless of social class and sector, would be given a chance to pursue public service.
While lawmakers debate restrictions on political dynasties, a biology student from UP Diliman warned that bills that do not enforce a blanket ban risk legitimizing and institutionalizing dynasties rather than prohibiting their proliferation.
In other words, the student argued that if relatives are still allowed to hold public office simultaneously or successively, regardless of their level of consanguinity or affinity, then the government would not be heeding the 1987 Constitution's mandate of completely banning dynasties in the country.
