By Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas S. J.

Philippine Daily Inquirer

8:57 pm | Sunday, April 28th, 2013

The campaign against political dynasties is on full blast. Nothing will come out of it.
This, in fact, is not a novel issue. The constitutional provision on the subject was already a subject of
debate in the 1987 Constitutional Commission. The debate started during the deliberations on the article
on Local Governments when Commissioner Vicente Foz proposed the prohibition of political dynasties.
The arguments pro and con about prohibiting political dynasties were rehearsed during the brief debate.
Briefly Foz argued that The idea of a prohibition against the rise of political dynasties is essentially to
prevent one family from controlling political power as against the democratic idea that political power
should be dispersed as much as possible among our people.
Immediately, however, Commissioner Teodulo Natividad objected saying that this would be a diminution
of the power of the people to elect their governors.
Essentially that was Commissioner Christian Monsods argument too, saying that we have to be very
clear on what we mean and not just have a provision that can be interpreted in a very wide latitude. I say
so because this is a restrictive provision. It excludes and it disqualifies. We should think very hard about
this before we put things in the Constitution that will deprive the people of the right to a full choice as to
who should be their local leaders. He added: I just want to note that the ultimate objective in cleaning
the election process is to make sure that an elective office is accessible to all, whether rich or poor. If we
are going to say that in order to democratize we will have to disqualify somebody, this does not sound
right.
But Commissioner Jose Nolledo argued for prohibition, saying that If we adopt a provision against
political dynasties as defined by Congress, we widen the political base or the political opportunities on the
part of poor but deserving candidates to run for public office with a better chance of winning.
In the end the Foz proposal was rejected.
But the idea refused to die and Nolledo tried to revive it during the deliberation on the Declaration of
Principles. Nolledo entertained the hope that the Constitutional Commission might still approve a
prohibition of political dynasties because, as he said, It seems to me that the resolution asking for a
provision in the Constitution is very popular outside but does not seem to enjoy the same popularity inside
the Constitutional Commission. He was also faintly hoping that Congress would do what the Commission
would not do. Hence his impassioned plea: And so I plead with the Members of the Commission to
please approve this provision. . . [W]e leave it to Congress to determine the circumstances under which
political dynasty is prohibited. The Commission will not determine hard and fast rules by which political
dynasty may be condemned. But I think this is a very progressive provision and, in consulting the people,
the people will like this provision. I hope the Commission will hear the plea of the people.
The Commission responded to his anguished plea by approving what we now have: Section 26. The
State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as
may be defined by law.
As can be seen, it is a limp-wristed provision. It is like most of the provisions in the Declaration of
Principles. They are not strict constitutional provisions which bind; they merely served to shorten
Commission debates. At best they invite Congress to accept an idea and to give it substance and form.
In 2011, Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago filed Senate Bill 2649 on political dynasties. Her Explanatory
Note pretty much summed up the arguments expressed by others for the passage of such a bill. But the
bill did not get anywhere. Will a constitutional amendment by referendum and plebiscite, as suggested by
the currently disheartened Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes, succeed in drafting a provision that defines
what political dynasty means? But amendment by initiative and referendum has had its own problems.
Now we are at it again looking for an end to political dynasties. In 1986, Commissioner Blas Ople was
more optimistic. We see lots of evidences that, in fact, people disadvantaged by the accident of birth
have indeed risen through their own efforts to become successful competitors of entrenched political

dynasties in their provinces and cities. Now, however, as new dynasties are sprouting, there is not much
room for optimism.
The argument that the electorate should be left free to decide whom to choose is not without validity.
Partly for that reason, the meaning of political dynasties has been left for Congress to define. But since
Congress is the principal playground of political dynasties, the realization of the dream that the provision
on political dynasties would widen access to political opportunities, will very probably be exhaustingly long
in coming. In the end, how people vote this year and in the election years to come will determine our
future.

Follow Us