Hold Your Applause for the Anti-Dynasty Bill

The political winds in the country are shifting with dizzying speed. In a spectacle that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, stalwarts of the most entrenched political families are suddenly lining up to support an Anti-Political Dynasty Law.

The message seems uniform: We are ready to reform.

But before the public breaks out the champagne, we must read the fine print. This sudden pivot is not a moral awakening; it is a strategic retreat. The battle for genuine democracy has moved from the streets to the dictionary, specifically in how we define “dynasty.” And if we are not careful, we may end up with a law that reformists call a “trapo’s ruse”—a measure that prunes the branches of political clans while letting the roots dig deeper.

The danger lies in the details of House Bill No. 6771, the version currently garnering support from administration allies like Rep. Janette Loreto-Garin. While supporters call it “workable,” critics argue it is effectively a “Trojan Horse.” The bill seeks to ban “obese” dynasties – families hoarding multiple seats in the same territory simultaneously – but leaves the door open for “thin” dynasties.

Under this framework, a family could effectively partition the province. A father could be Governor, while his son runs for Congress in a specific district, provided they are not technically succeeding each other in the same post or running for the same office. This is not a ban; it is a diversification strategy.

Contrast this with the “genuine” reform proposed by NAMFREL. Their recommendation is surgical and severe: a prohibition on relatives within the second degree of consanguinity holding any elective post simultaneously within the same province, and a ban on succession for at least one intervening term. If the law allows a Governor father and a Congressman son to serve concurrently, simply because their jurisdictions are technically distinct, we have not dismantled the dynasty; we have merely legalized its flowchart.

Why the sudden change of heart from Iloilo’s elite? The answer lies not in a newfound love for meritocracy, but in the old mechanics of patronage.

This is the paradox: we are relying on the ultimate patronage system – the Presidency – to dismantle patronage politics. Support for this bill is fragile because it is built on obedience, not conviction. If the political calculation in Malacañang changes, or if the “boss” decides the bill is no longer a priority, the support will vanish as quickly as it appeared.

Furthermore, these families are reading the room. Public tolerance is plummeting. According to WR Numero, acceptance of political dynasties crashed from 56% in September 2024 to just 44% in February 2025. A striking 57% of Filipinos now reject family members running in the same Senate race. When dynasties control 80-90% of seats, public tolerance breaks, with a plurality (39%) finding it unacceptable.

Politicians like Rep. Garin admit there are “bullets to swallow” because they must “listen to public clamor.” They know that clinging to total monopolies is becoming a liability. By supporting a watered-down bill now, they hope to appease a frustrated electorate while securing a legal framework that allows their influence to survive in a modified form.

The public must not be lulled into complacency by the headline “Congress Passes Anti-Dynasty Law.” We must demand a clause-by-clause scrutiny of the final bill. We need the strict definitions proposed by NAMFREL, not the comfortable compromises of HB 6771.

If we settle for a law that bans only the most egregious excesses while validating the quiet consolidation of power, we will have squandered a historic opportunity. The goal is not just to make dynasties “thinner”; it is to make our democracy broader.