04/03/2026
𝐀𝐧𝐭𝐢-𝐃𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐲 𝐍𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 (𝐀𝐃𝐍) 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐁𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐃𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐃𝐲𝐧𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬
3 March 2026
The Anti-Dynasty Network (ADN) notes the ongoing movement in the House of Representatives to pass a substitute bill defining and regulating political dynasties. After decades of delay in implementing the constitutional directive against political dynasties, any legislative action on this issue deserves close public attention.
At the same time, we strongly emphasize that the quality of the law matters. The issue of political dynasties is not about targeting particular families. It is fundamentally about addressing the concentration of political power in ways that weaken political competition, limit opportunities for new leaders, and reduce accountability in government.
Recent controversies, including the flood control spending scandal, underscore why institutional design matters. Public expenditures require effective oversight, credible competition, and independent scrutiny. Where political authority is concentrated within a narrow network over extended periods, the incentives for rigorous oversight are substantially diminished. While dynasties do not automatically produce corruption, sustained concentration of power can weaken the checks that help prevent misuse of public funds.
From our initial review, the current House substitute bill prohibits simultaneous holding of national elective offices by relatives within the second degree and restricts concurrent occupancy of positions within the same provincial, city, municipal, or barangay government. These provisions prevent direct overlap within a single political unit and bar multiple relatives from occupying national posts at the same time.
However, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐚𝐩𝐬.
𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙝𝙞𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙨 𝙡𝙞𝙢𝙞𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙚𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙖𝙣𝙜𝙪𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙤𝙧 𝙖𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮. While this covers spouses, parents, children, and siblings, it excludes broader kinship networks through which dynastic power is often exercised. We reiterate our long-standing position that an effective prohibition should extend to relatives up to the fourth degree. Limiting coverage to the second degree significantly narrows the reach of the law and allows extended family networks to continue operating within the same political sphere.
𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙘𝙪𝙨𝙚𝙨 𝙚𝙭𝙘𝙡𝙪𝙨𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙞𝙢𝙪𝙡𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙚𝙤𝙪𝙨 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙤𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚. It does not prohibit immediate familial succession in the same elective position. Without such a safeguard, a relative may lawfully replace an incumbent family member in the next election cycle, preserving continuous control over the same office. It is our position that a credible reform must prohibit both successive and simultaneous dynastic arrangements. Regulating only one form preserves and legitimizes alternative pathways for political entrenchment.
𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙡𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙤𝙨𝙨 𝙡𝙚𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙤𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩. Members of the same family could still hold offices such as governor, mayor, and district representative at the same time, or occupy multiple mayoral posts within one province. Where offices exercise authority over substantially overlapping constituencies, the risk of concentrated influence remains. The law must clearly prevent relatives within the prohibited degree from running for or holding positions that govern the same political territory, even if the offices differ in level.
The substitute bill also prohibits spouses or relatives within the second degree from simultaneously holding membership in the House of Representatives within the same legislative district. In practice, this situation cannot occur because each legislative district elects only one representative. Two relatives, therefore, cannot simultaneously occupy the same seat. As written, the provision is misframed and may cause confusion during implementation if this version becomes law.
𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝, 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙙𝙤𝙚𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙙𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙙𝙮𝙣𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙖𝙙𝙖𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙮-𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙨𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙢. No relative of an incumbent national or local official within the prohibited degree should be allowed to be nominated or serve as a party-list representative. The party-list system was designed to promote sectoral representation. Allowing it to serve as an alternative route for dynastic expansion undermines its constitutional and social justice purposes.
For ADN, an anti-dynasty law must do more than acknowledge the problem. It must reduce the concentration of political power and widen access to leadership. The reform should create genuine space for capable leaders from across communities, professions, and civil society who are often disadvantaged in political systems dominated by entrenched family networks.
As the measure proceeds, 𝙬𝙚 𝙘𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙧𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝, 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙨𝙪𝙗𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙙𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙗𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙧𝙮. Legislators should clearly address the scope of the prohibition, the treatment of succession, the regulation of overlapping constituencies, and the degree of kinship covered. These choices will determine whether the final law genuinely fulfills the constitutional directive.
We also urge that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙚𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙬𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙃𝙤𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙎𝙚𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙚 𝙢𝙪𝙨𝙩 𝙗𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙𝙪𝙘𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙪𝙩𝙢𝙤𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙮. The public should be able to see how the differences are reconciled and how the final provisions are shaped.
𝙁𝙞𝙣𝙖𝙡𝙡𝙮, 𝙬𝙚 𝙚𝙢𝙥𝙝𝙖𝙨𝙞𝙯𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙖𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙜𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞-𝙙𝙮𝙣𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙮 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙖𝙧𝙮, 𝙞𝙩 𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙪𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙞𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙬𝙣 to transform our political system. Dynastic dominance is reinforced by weak political parties, high campaign costs, limited regulation of political finance, and institutional gaps in electoral governance. 𝙈𝙚𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢 𝙧𝙚𝙦𝙪𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙩𝙞-𝙙𝙮𝙣𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙮 𝙡𝙖𝙬 𝙗𝙚 𝙥𝙪𝙧𝙨𝙪𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙨𝙞𝙙𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙖𝙧𝙮 𝙥𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙤𝙧𝙖𝙡 𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙢𝙨.
The country has waited almost forty years for this enabling law. Congress now has the opportunity to enact legislation that meaningfully reduces the concentration of political power, strengthens accountability, and advances a more competitive and inclusive democratic system.
