Read Part I of the article here.
With reference to the Declaration of Policy, all of the bills subscribe to Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution as its constitutional basis and mandate which hereby declares that, “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law”. Although there are is slight modification on the rewording without explicitly and alluding to such constitutional provisions after before mentioned such as, “It is hereby declared the policy of the state to guarantee equal access and opportunity to public office and public service” in SBN 2649 (Santiago), the same goes with, “It is hereby declared the policy of the State to guarantee equal access and opportunity to public office and service to the public” which is found predominantly in the succeeding versions of SBN 1906 (Ejercito), SBN 49 ( Lacson), SBN 230 (Drilon), SBN 897 (Ejercito), SBN 1258 (Legarda), SBN 1688 (Aquino) which incorporates the modification from the “public service” of SBN 2649 to “service to the public” as well.
On the other hand two bills, namely, SBN 1137 (Poe) and SBN 1765 makes an explicit and direct reference to Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution as the basis of the declaration of policy and added the phrase “ to any qualified Filipino” which now reads, “It is hereby declared the policy of the State to guarantee and provide equal access to opportunities for public office and public service to any qualified Filipino, pursuant to Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution”.
In a nutshell, the divergence of the declaration of policy among bills lies on the “public service” and “service to the public” debate, and the insertion of the phrase “any qualified” Filipino”, and the direct reference to the constitutional mandates, Section 26, Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution. The “public service” and “service to the public” debate arises from the fact that public service can connote a more specific term relative to occupation and services rendered by an elective public official which makes it a close and restrictive term while “service to the public” may imply a more encompassing and pervading concept as it may refer to both services in both the public and private sphere, hence, making it more a flexible and dynamic term. The term” public service” may refer to solely to the political elites which are an elective public official within the government service, while “service to the public” may refer to the public as a wider, fuller and larger entity beyond the political and government actors, stakeholders, processes and structures which includes private sector, civil society organizations, market institutions, and other social institutions.
The insertion of the phrase “to any qualified Filipino”, ensures that equal access to public office and public service are only open those who possess the necessary qualifications, skills and capabilities necessary befitting of an elected public official in terms of age, residence, citizenship, and literacy requirements. In other words, this phrase also guarantees political equality among equals as a basic notion of social justice. It is through the passage of anti-political dynasty law that such qualifications and requirements are even more prominent and vital as it withers away the competitive edge of candidates coming from dynastic families and enables the candidate’s qualifications, competence and skills as the stringent basis of election and not the dynastic family affiliation.
The most recent anti-political dynasty bill, Senate Bill No. 1765 otherwise known as the Anti-Political Dynasty Act of 2018, a consolidated bill introduced by Senator Francis Pangilinan (senate.gov.ph, n.d.) at the Second Regular Session of the Seventeenth Congress of the Philippines seeks for the abolition of political dynasties in the Philippines when it describes how political dynasty relationships exist in two ways. Political dynasties “exist when the spouse or any relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity of an incumbent elective official, runs to public office to succeed or replace the incumbent, or runs for or holds any elective local office simultaneously with the incumbent within the same province, legislative districts, city or municipality, and within the same barangay or barangays within the same legislative district. The relationship also exists if the incumbent is a national elective official, including incumbents in the party-list system, and the spouse or relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity run for any position in the national level or in the local level as barangay captain, mayor, governor or district representative in any part of the country.”
This proposed law is a consolidated bill which is very much different with Senate Bill Number 2649, the original bill filed by the late Senator Defensor Santiago in the First Regular or Session of the Thirteenth Congress, prohibition only applies and covers within the same province or with any other previous anti-political dynasty bills or versions filed and authored in the Senate. The latest proposed law is different in three ways. First, it extended the application and coverage of the prohibition not only within the same city and/or province but within legislative districts, municipality, and within the same barangay or barangays within the same legislative district except that of Senator Grace Poe’s Senate Bill No. 1137 which has the same application and coverage. Second, it expanded the coverage of the prohibition even up to the party-list organizations and representatives. Finally, it specifically mentioned the local elective posts which dynastic families are barred from running any part of the country i.e. barangay captain, mayor, governor, or district representative in any part of the country.
The passage of this Pangilinan consolidate version of anti-political dynasty law prevents the recurrence of same family members within the second degree of consanguinity vying for similar local and national posts just like what happened in the 2019 Makati mayoralty race in which the Binay siblings, Junjun and Aby, ran for the same posts, and the 2019 Iriga City mayoralty contest in which the Alfelor cousins, Emmanuel Jr. and Ronald Felix, fought each other for the mayoralty post in future elections.
These sibling rivalries bid for power has left questions on whether blood is really thicker than water in politics or such blood ties that binds family members can be shackled by political ambition and unbounded by desire for power is a fertile ground for future research and investigation. More importantly, the passage of anti-dynasty law could bring about greater benefits to the people and society in terms of leveling the playing field in electoral politics through the guarantee of equal access and opportunity to public office and public service, promotion of inclusive democracy, fostering political participation, and championing political equity which are essential preconditions for achieving real and genuine democracy.
Dennis V. Blanco is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science at UP Diliman. He was formerly Associate Dean of the College of Administrative and Financial Sciences at AMA International University Bahrain (now University of Technology Bahrain) and former Program Head of Political Science and Social Science in Colegio de San Juan de Letran-Manila.
