Argumentative Essay: Political Dynasty in the Philippines

Some may say its destiny but others counter it as a dynasty. Political Dynasties in the
Philippines have been an issue now especially before every elections. The 1987 constitution of
the Philippines states in Article II Section 26, "The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." Many
have called to the Congress to pass an Anti-Dynasty Law, but this bill has been passed over since
1987. It has been a long time and now, many react on the issue of dynasties in the country.
Few notable families have been controlling the Politics in the Philippines. It is normal for
a politician's son, wife, brother, or other kinsman, to run for the same or other office in the
government. Just before Halalan 2013, about 250 families dominating the Philippine Politics
both in the national and local level, 56 percent of them come from old political elites and 44
percent emerged after EdsaR in 1986. Fifteen out of the 23 current senators in the 15th Congress
have relatives serving in elective position; eleven of them have relatives that are representative.
As a whole, 94 percent of the provinces in the Philippines have political dynasties. (Sibulan,
2013)
Although political dynasties are not illegal and the people have their own right to vote,
the Anti Political Dynasty Bill should be enacted because political clans are equated with
corruption and are not fair in the way that their name can easily capture the minds of the voters.
Though the very mention of political dynasties is enough to spark controversy and
criticism it can be inferred that the reason why political dynasties are so widespread in the
country right now is its ability to implement or bring forth new policies for the benefit of the
masses with ease. The presence of political dynasty isnt that much opposition to proposed
policies especially in local governments. Let us say, a family holding different positions in the
local government agree in a single beneficial policy or program, it would serve the peoples best
interests since there is no time wasted in arguing over a single matter. Progress is maximized in
this manner. Another point to consider is that political dynasties reflect the voters preference.
The fact that political dynasties lasts for more than one generation only strengthens the reality
that political dynasties, amidst all the criticisms, manage to serve the best interests and well
being of the people. All the people who were in Edsa 1 know that the Aquinos are great examples

of politicians that serve best for the nation. They brought democracy to the people and that is
what the people wanted.
People are powerful. They elected these officials. And that choice is backed up with the belief
that this politician could bring reform and progress. People could elect someone else, someone
who is not a part of the family but the fact that they did not, though they had the capacity to do
so suggest that like the current governance they are willing to elect this official in office and give
him or her another term for they believe that he/she has the capacity to do what is best. If people
believe that members of certain family can bring forth the life that they deserve, let them. Its not
a political dynasty; it is an exercise of democratic citizenship in those circumstances.
On the grounds of justification, we still cannot accept the presence and tolerance of political
dynasties. The constitutional policy stated in Article II-section 26 expresses a national
commitment to democratize election and appointment to positions in the government and
eliminate the principal obstacle to equal access to opportunities to public service and that is
political dynasties. The dominance of political families in the past and after Edsa 1 and 2 not
only kept more deserving but poor individuals from running or even winning in elections. It also
enabled powerful and affluent politicians to corner appointive positions for their relatives and
followers as if they are gifted with the ability to serve the country. (Mendoza, 2011)
The constitution sees the presence of political dynasties as a hindrance for national
interests and in conflict with its policies to maintain equality and a just and dynamic social order.
It seeks to prohibit political dynasties if not eradicate it for they deem it as a breeding ground of
everything this country, this constitution was founded upon. However, the state is expressly
mandated to prohibit political dynasties. Congress has no discretion on the matter except merely
to spell out the meaning and scope of the term political dynasties. So perhaps it is time to take a
step against political dynasties. Another more archaic name for political dynasties is political
warlordism The prohibition helps eliminate this event which has been the source of abuse and,
therefore lawlessness, and give young and enlightened leaders, who have no political machinery
or vested interests to speak or a chance to be elected.
In the 1987 constitution, there are many instances where our constitutional policy prevents the
presence and the growth of political dynasties both in the local and national governments from

the executive branch to the legislative. It is seen Article II section 26, Article 6 sections 4 and 5
and even in Article 10 that political dynasties or wardlordism made it impossible for qualified
and deserving individuals to enter any public offices. Prohibition in political dynasties levels the
playing field for public officials in the political arena. The constitution is considered to be the
law of the land or the supreme law governing all, it has led our country to great times and
steered our nation away from great evils as well. Now with flourishing of political dynasties, we
turn to the constitution for aid and found that our constitution is against political dynasties in all
its aspects. It has showed us the way, now it is our turn to take the next step against political
dynasties.

In our discussion so far on the Philippines we have seen how the political
system was captured by an oligarchy whose consolidation was greatly
facilitated by the way the US set up their colony. Marcos tried to break the
oligarchy, but he failed and indeed if anything, as Benedict Anderson pointed
out, the oligarchy surfaced after 1986 even more powerful than ever.
The clearest manifestation of the oligarchy in the Philippines and how it
impacts politics is the existence of political dynasties. Now youd be right in
noting that every country in the world has political dynasties. The US has the
Bush dynasty, the Kennedy dynasty, Colombia has the Lpez family, the
Lleras family and the grandfather of the current president of Colombia, Juan
Manuel Santos, was president between 1938 and 1942. Winston Churchills
son was even a Member of Parliament for the Conservative Party in Britain.
But the extent to political dynasties in the Philippines is off the chart
compared to any other country in the world. 60% of congress-people elected
in 2007 had a previous relative who were also in congress. To give some
sense of how high this is, the analogous figure in the US was 7%. In roughly
half of the 80 provinces of the Philippines the governor is related to one of
the congress-people.
This family run government is not a new thing in the Philippines and it dates
all the way back to the US creation of democracy. In the first elections the US
organized, to be eligible to run you had to come from a set of elite families
recognized by the Americans, called the principalia. This was one of the ways
in which the oligarchs had a huge head start and incumbent advantage
became the way of life in the Philippines. This has led to very long-run family
advantages. For instance, in the province of Leyte, a member of the Veloso
family has been either a congress-person or the governor since 1916.
How is it that these families perpetuate themselves in power even today? For
one thing, being a member of a political dynasty massively increases your
probability of being elected to any political office. For instance, if you are
from a political dynasty and run for congress, you are 22 percentage points
more likely to get elected relative to a non-dynastic candidate. This effect is

even larger, 40 percentage points, if the dynastic candidate currently has a

member of the family in some political office.
But this correlation could mean many things. Maybe rich families with large
landholdings or wealth or some specific talent form dynasties and it is not
really the dynasty that matters but these characteristics correlated with the
formation of a political dynasty. For example, Ted Kennedy came from a
dynasty of rich Bostonians with a strong interest (and success) in politics. But
perhaps, it wasnt that his father was a senator or his brother a president
that made Ted Kennedy likely to be elected, but his familys wealth or other
characteristics of this ambitious family.
To tackle exactly this issue Pablo Querubn in his research Family and
Politics: Dynastic Persistence in the Philippines compares non-dynastic
political candidates who just win office, to those who just lose (either
dynastic or non-dynastic). The idea with this just win office strategy (or as
it is called, the regression discontinuity strategy) is that this approximates a
situation where the candidate who won did so almost randomly relative to
the candidate who just lost (think of a coin toss determining whether a
candidate with exactly 50% of the vote gets one more vote or whether his
rival does). This in particular should ensure that whether one of these just
winning candidates didnt do so because of their special talents or wealth
relative to candidates who just lost it.
What Pablo finds is that those who win in these circumstances are 4 times
more likely to have a future relative holding political office. This suggests
that, given other institutional and political features of the Philippines, just
holding office, other things equal, is enough to help create a political
dynasty.
All this means that it may have been the initial conditions that the US
imposed that shaped which political dynasties form, and perhaps even the
origins of the power of political dynasties in the first place.

A political family or political dynasty is a family in which several members are involved in
politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by blood or marriage; often
several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.
Political dynasties are prohibited. No less than the Constitution (Article 2, Section 26)
provides that: The State shall guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political
dynasty as may be defined by law. This provision, while explicitly prohibiting political
dynasties, also requires an enabling law.
The most recent attempt to pass a law to prohibiting political dynasties is Senate Bill No.
2649, introduced by Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago during the First Regular Season of
the 15th Congress. SB 2649 proposes a law to be known as the Anti-Political Dynasty Act.
One of the problems in crafting an anti-political dynasty law, aside from the demonstrated
resistance of politicians to pass one, is the definition of political dynasty. SB 2649
provides that political dynasty shall exist when a person who is the spouse of an incumbent
elective official or relative within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of an
incumbent elective official holds or runs for an elective office simultaneously with the
incumbent elective official within the same province or occupies the same office
immediately after the term of office of the incumbent official. It shall also be deemed to exist
where two (2) or more persons who are spouses or are related within the second civil degree
of consanguinity or affinity run simultaneously for elective public office within the same
province, even if neither is so related to an incumbent elective official.
The characterization of political dynasty includes terms/concepts that require further
definition. A spouse refers to the legal and common-law wife or husband of the incumbent
elective official. The term second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity refers to
the relatives of a person who may be the latters brother or sister, whether of full or halfblood, direct ascendant or direct descendant, whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted,

including their spouses. The term running for an elective office is deemed to
commence upon the filing of the certificate of candidacy by a candidate with the COMELEC.
Holding an elective office is deemed to commence from the moment the public official
takes his oath of office.

NO, political dynasty is not good.

Political Dynasty is not good because it is very likely to form a dictatorship , like Naziz in
Germany , etc.Also sometimes people do not get their personal rights too, as the ruling
government is political dynasty . The people are not allowed to elect their representatives
who would run the government ,like India and many other countries. No one is allowed to
take part in politics as in the political dynasty it is already decided the member or the son of
the person ruling will the next head of the government . I"m not saying that the requests of
the people are not being fulfilled but very less likely to be fulfilled. At last I would like to say
a very common thing that this type of government will be nudge in increasing corruption.
No good governance

In the Philippines it is obvious that our government dint do well enough in improving the
country. That only means that people who are in position does not have a good governance
so why continue it by electing the son daughters and etc. of the current politician. Lets take
for example binay who has a SALN of 100 000 thousand in late 1980's which gone up 100
billion last 2014. How ?. Come??

THE only way to end political dynasties is to change the

Constitution, former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno said on
Saturday as he led the launch of Bagong Sistema, Bagong Pagasa, a new movement seeking to change the countrys
political system by revising the 1987 Charter.

Puno is leading the movement to press the President and

Congress to call for a constitutional convention (Con-con) to
propose changes to the Constitution.
We cannot eliminate political dynasties by relying on Congress
to pass the necessary laws, Puno told a crowd of almost 3,000
that attended a gathering of advocates of constitutional change
at the San Andres Sports Complex in Manila, and the thousands
more gathered in at least 11 regions who watched him through
Internet live streaming.

The elimination of political dynasties is one good reason for

changing the 1987 Constitution, Puno said.
The only way to eliminate political dynasties is through the
Constitution, by providing a self-executing provision that does
not need any implementing law from Congress, Puno pointed
out.
Nearly 30 years after the 1987 Constitution took effect, which
prohibits political dynasties in accordance with law, Congress
has yet to pass any law to give flesh to the constitutional
provision.
Puno described political dynasties as the modern resurrections
of the discredited monarchs, kings and queens of the medieval
times [who] believe that political power comes from bloodline
and not from the ballot box.
We will never attain full democracy until we eliminate these
political dynasties, for in a true democracy political power
cannot be a monopoly of a few but should be in the hands of
the many, he said.
Puno had earlier called for revision of the Constitution as the
alternative to the proposed Bangsamoro basic law now pending
in Congress.
In his speech on Saturday, Puno reiterated that the Mindanao
problem cannot be solved by a mere law that will establish a
Bangsamoro government.
Said Puno: Mali po iyang sistemang ginagawa natin upang
magkaroon ng kapayapaan sa Mindanao. Bumuo tayo ng

panukalang batas, iyangBBL at iyong Framework

Agreement. Dito sa BBL, binibigyan natin angBangsamoro ng
ibang structure of government, ng ibat-ibang kapangyarihan
na higit pa sa ipinagkaloob ng ARMM [Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao]. Wala pong masama dito kung ito ang
pangangailangan nila, kung ito ang tunay na magdudulot ng
kapayapaan sa Mindanao. Ngunit ang tanong po ay maibibigay
ba natin ito,magagawa ba natin ito ng hindi natin nilalabag ang
ating 1987 Constitution?
Puno said Congress cannot give the powers demanded in the
BBL without destroying the unitary character of our
government, without violating our 1987 Constitution, even as
he warned of a crisis regardless of the fate of BBL.
Kaya po sinasabi natin na nasa crisis tayo, dahil ang sitwasyon
natin ay isang no-win situation. Kapag hindi pinagtibay
ang BBL, may gulo saMindanao. Kapag pinagtibay ng walang
pagbabago, ito ay labag sa Saligang Batas at ibabasura ng
Korte Suprema, at gulo sa Mindanao.Kapag pinagtibay ng
maraming amienda, gulo pa din dahil it will not satisfy
anybody, he pointed out.
The solution, he said, is to bring the Mindanao issue before a
Con-con so that the proper framework for the distribution of
power can be put in a new Constitution.
That way, the solution will be permanent, Puno said.
He said the problem in Mindanao is about balance of power
between the national government and Muslim Mindanao,

between the national government and local governments,

between the three branches of government, even the powers of
the constitutional commissions.
Puno also proposed that socio-economic rights should be
included in the Bill of Rights, like political and civil rights, so
that they become demandable and the poor have a better
chance of improving their lot in society.
But he said the Con-con must truly represent the interest of the
Filipino people and not be dominated by traditional politicians,
political parties, political dynasties and interest groups.
To make this happen, we must have both elected delegates
and those who will be appointed as representatives of different
sectors of society, and from the ranks of national luminaries
known for their integrity, probity and patriotism.
He proposed that the election of delegates be held
simultaneously with next years presidential elections.
Puno said having both elected and appointed delegates to a
Con-con is not new, citing the case of Australia when it
amended its constitution in 1998.
The Australian Con-con had equal number of elected and
appointed delegates, he noted.
The reality is this the political dynasties that are now spreading like a dreaded plague have been
created by our under informed and under educated Filipino voters. The political dynasties did not make
the political dynasties the under informed and under educated voters did. The voters have the power to
create as well as end political dynasties and so its with the voters that we should work out anti dynasty
measures.

Lets stop dreaming and aspiring for an anti-political dynasty the law, Tuazon said, adding that political
dynasties will continue to dominate the countrys political landscape and election, in fact, it only
legitimizes their presence. Political dynasties, he said, cannot be dismantled by law or policy. The
government itself must be restructured.

A possible solution is before the Philippine Congress right nowthe Anti-Political Dynasty
Bill. This bill would prohibit any spouse or first-degree relation (including parents, siblings,
and children) of an incumbent elected official from seeking elected office. Although
individuals may run once their relatives term is up, they may not immediately succeed that
relative in the same elected office. (The bill would have aenormous effect on the
upcoming 2016 electionsVice President Jejomar Binay, who has already announced his
candidacy, and whose daughters term in the Senate runs until 2019, would be precluded
from running for President.) At first blush, the bill may seem antidemocratic, as it
(temporarily) suspends the rights of many individuals to seek elected office. Still, in the
Philippines, where the concentration of political power has bred such a strong culture of
corruption, certain rights may need to be sacrificed. It is a drastic problem in need of a
drastic solution.
There are several reasons why Congress should pass this bill and limit the influence of
political families:

First, political dynasties corrupt the system of checks and balances. One
recent example is Vice President Binay, who, for the past few months, has
been under investigation by a Senate Blue Ribbon Committee for alleged
corruption. One might question how effective the investigation will be
given that Binays two daughters are members of Congress. The problem is
even more pronounced in smaller localities. By packing every major office,
its quite easy for clans to organize local militias, siphon off public funding,
and perpetuate their rule by cycling through the ranks.

Second, the centrality of dynasties to politics lowers the costs associated

with committing corrupt acts. Even if they face corruption or other criminal
charges, political actors can continue to reap the benefits of power by
having spouses or children take their seats. After one representative was
found guilty of murdering the sons of his political rival, his seat in the
House was taken over by his wife, ensuring that the family name remained

relevant long enough for him to seek reelection after the appellate court
cleared him of all charges.

Third, the continued success of political families despite corruption

charges undermines the rule of law, and perpetuates a system of
corruption in government. Well-intentioned individuals are deterred from
seeking office, leaving positions open to individuals who view government
as an opportunity to amass more wealth and power.

Political dynasties refer to groups whose members are involved in politics. In the Philippines, political
dynasties can be seen in families that have been part of the government for several generations.
This can occur in two ways. One way is for members of a family to occupy a same certain
government position in every term. If a politician's term is over and a relative of that politician gets
elected for the same position, that family can be labelled as a political dynasty. The second way is
for a number of family members to occupy government positions at the same time. [1] As of the
moment, there are no legal documents or laws that officially define a political dynasty in the
Philippines. There have been bills that attempt to define a political dynasty such as the Anti-Dynasty
Bill.

What is Political Dynasty?

According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a dynasty is a succession of rulers of the
same line of descent. Political dynasties are groups whose members occupy the same

elective position for many successive elections. The COMELEC defined political
dynasty as a situation where people related to each other within the third civil degree
of affinity hold elective office simultaneously or some offices successively in a region,
legislative district, province, city or municipality.
Political dynasties started a long time ago even before Magellan went to our country.
In a book by Renato Constantino entitled Making of a Filipino, he explained that
communities in this era were accustomed to an early form of government and politics.
They had the datu, raja and the maharlika as their leaders in the tribal community. As
said by Stephanie Cabigao in a post in University of the Philippines System Website,
the datu, raja and maharlika may serve as archetypal models for the formation of
political dynasties. Recently, the Philippines started using the automated election
system in May 2010 for the first time nationwide and it was seen in a study done my
CenPEG that there are even more political dynasties in both of the national and local
levels.
It was in 1987 when Commissioner Vicente Foz proposed that political dynasties
should be prohibited because he believed that the idea of restricting this is to prevent
one family from controlling political power as against the democratic idea that
political power should be given among our people. Commissioner Teodulo Natividad,
with the support of Commissioner Christian Monsod, objected to Foz' proposal
because he thinks that this would diminish the power of the people to elect who they
would want to be in position. However, Commissioner Jose Nolledo agreed with Foz
saying that if political dynasties were to be restricted, we would have more political
opportunities on the part of the poor but deserving people to run for a position with a
better chance of winning. Despite their good arguments, the proposal was rejected.
Nolledo fought for his stand in the debate and so the government heard his plea. In
the Philippines Constitution, Article II, Section 26 says that "The State shall guarantee
equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibits political dynasties as
may be defined by law." This excludes the accident birth or marriage. The definition of
political dynasty must not contradict the provision of guaranteed equal access for the
opportunity of public service and the essence of democracy should prevail. (Tirol,
2012)
To support Article II, Section 26, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago attempted to pass
a law to prohibit political dynasties in the Senate Bill No. 2649 during the first regular
season of the 15th Congress in 2011. Sen. Santiago proposal is to be known as the AntiPolitical Dynasty Act. SB 2649 provided the definition of political dynasty as "shall
exist when a person who is the spouse of an incumbent elective official or relative
within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of an incumbent elective
official holds or runs for an elective office simultaneously with the incumbent elective
official within the same province or occupies the same office immediately after the

term of office of the incumbent official. It shall also be deemed to exist where two (2)
or more persons who are spouses or are related within the second civil degree if
consanguinity or affinity run simultaneously for elective public office within the same
province, even if neither is so related to an incumbent elective official." This definition
was provided because it is one of the problems in making an anti-political dynasty
law since they have different perspectives on what the definition of political dynasty
is.
Until now, political dynasty is a big issue in our government for it has affected all of us
in many ways. Commissioner Foz, Commissioner Nolledo and Senator Santiago have
shared their thoughts on political dynasty and so it is our turn to be more aware of
this issue and how we, as citizens of the Philippines, can do something about it.