Who Wrote It
Among the principal authors of the approved substitute bill: Representative Sandro Marcos — the President's son and a member of the most powerful political family in the country today — and Representative Bojie Dy of Isabela, a province long dominated by the Dy political family.
This is not a disqualifying fact. Lawmakers from politically prominent families can legislate in good faith on any topic. But a bill that restricts political dynasties, authored by members of political dynasties, passed by a House majority composed significantly of political dynasties, deserves a level of skepticism proportionate to the obvious conflict of interest. That skepticism was largely absent from the coverage.
It is also worth noting that five of the bill's original authors withdrew their co-authorship before the committee vote, publicly calling the approved version "watered down." When the people who signed onto a bill pull their names from it and say it no longer does what it claimed to do, that is news — and it was reported, but not with the emphasis it deserved.
What the Bill Actually Does
The approved substitute restricts simultaneous office-holding for relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity and affinity — but only within the same locality or the same level of government. A spouse can hold local office while their partner holds national office. A sibling can run for senator while another runs for mayor of a different city. Family succession within the same post is not explicitly barred.
For smaller regional dynasties — the kind that control a single town or district — this may have some effect. For the country's major national dynasties, with members already distributed across different government levels and different geographic areas, the practical constraint is minimal. A family with a senator, a governor, a congressman, and a mayor in different provinces is untouched by this bill.
The 1987 Constitution mandates Congress to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. What the House approved last week fulfills that mandate in its most technical, minimal sense — a law exists — while leaving the underlying structure of dynastic power largely intact.
Why Now
Timing matters here too. This bill moved through committee in the same week that the House — controlled overwhelmingly by Marcos and Romualdez allies — advanced the impeachment of Vice President Sara Duterte on a 54-1 vote. Sara Duterte is herself the daughter of former President Rodrigo Duterte and the scion of Davao's most powerful political family.
Passing a dynasty bill in the same news cycle as a politically charged impeachment offers the majority a reform credential at a convenient moment. It signals concern for democratic principles while the actual exercise of power — using an overwhelming House majority to pursue an opposition-aligned vice president — tells a different story.
That is not to say the dynasty bill should not have been passed. It should have been passed, properly, in 1987 when the constitution mandated it. But a diluted version advanced in the middle of an intensely political moment, by a House dominated by dynasties, co-authored by a president's son, should be examined for what it is: a partial gesture that costs its authors very little.
The Longer Failure
The 1987 Philippine Constitution was explicit: "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." Congress was tasked with writing that law. For 39 years, every Congress has found a reason not to — and when one finally moves, it does so in a form its own authors disown.
The political dynasty problem in the Philippines is not a footnote. It is structural. Studies on legislative productivity, local governance quality, and resource allocation consistently show that dynasty-controlled constituencies receive less effective representation. The concentration of power in a small number of interconnected families has shaped who gets to run, who gets funded, who gets prosecuted, and who does not. A bill that leaves that structure functionally intact is not a solution. It is the appearance of one.
The Bottom Line
A dynasty bill that does not meaningfully threaten dynasties is not anti-dynasty legislation. It is legislative theater — and in a week when the House simultaneously advanced the impeachment of the sitting Vice President, it is theater with particularly convenient timing. Both the Marcos administration and House leadership deserve credit for moving at all, after 39 years. They deserve scrutiny for how little they were willing to move.
Sources: Rappler – Dynasty bill approved · Philstar – Authors withdraw co-authorship · GMA News – Impeachment timeline · Constitutional mandate – Article II Section 26, 1987 Philippine Constitution
