‘HOLLOW VICTORY’: Anti-dynasty bill won’t dismantle political clans, NAMFREL warns

By Francis Allan L. Angelo

The National Citizens’ Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) has branded the newly passed Anti-Political Dynasty Act a “hollow victory,” warning that the measure institutionalizes loopholes that would allow political clans to survive and reorganize rather than dismantle their grip on public office.

In a statement dated June 9, 2026, the election watchdog acknowledged the historic passage of House Bill No. 8389, noting that the House of Representatives had finally acted on the 1987 Constitution’s mandate to define and prohibit political dynasties after nearly four decades.

But NAMFREL said it could not “in good conscience celebrate this bill as a genuine victory for democratic reform.”

“HB 8389 is a watered-down measure that institutionalizes loopholes, offers political dynasties a legal roadmap for survival, and risks permanently closing the door on truly meaningful reform,” the group said.

The House approved the bill on third and final reading on June 3 by a vote of 267-20, with seven abstentions — the first time an anti-dynasty bill has cleared the chamber on final reading since the 1987 Constitution took effect.

Principally authored by Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III and Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos, and sponsored by House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms Chair Zia Alonto Adiong of Lanao del Sur, the measure bars spouses and relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity from simultaneously seeking or holding elective posts in the same political jurisdiction.

Proponents cite projections that the bill could affect more than 5,000 elective seats and displace up to 61% of municipal mayors with dynastic ties.

NAMFREL, however, said scrutiny of the bill’s mechanics exposes a “far more troubling reality.”

“The bill does not ban dynasties — it merely regulates which family members may sit together in the same room. Everything else remains on the table,” the statement read.

The watchdog identified three “fatal flaws” in the measure: its narrow second-degree coverage, its jurisdictional loophole, and its silence on the party-list system.

NAMFREL said Philippine dynasties operate through “tightly-knit webs” of uncles, aunts, nephews, nieces, and first cousins — relatives in the third and fourth degrees of kinship who are completely untouched by the bill.

It said electoral experts consistently argue that an effective anti-dynasty law must reach at least the fourth degree of consanguinity, the standard definition of close family under Philippine civil law.

The group also flagged the bill’s restriction to a single jurisdiction or tier as a “fatal concession,” noting that a spouse may hold a Senate seat while a sibling runs an entire congressional district, a parent may occupy a governorship while a child holds a separate congressional seat, and cousins, uncles, and nephews may blanket an entire province’s municipal governments — all perfectly legal under HB 8389.

“This is not reform; it is recognition,” NAMFREL said of the multi-tiered vertical hold of prominent clans across national, congressional, provincial, and municipal offices.

The bill likewise imposes no meaningful restrictions on the party-list system, which NAMFREL said political families have long exploited to secure national representation while retaining strangleholds on local governments.

The watchdog warned of a “token reform” trap, saying a structurally deficient law could do more lasting damage than decades of legislative inaction, as entrenched clans would have every incentive to resist reopening the question once Congress declares the dynasty problem “addressed.”

It also assailed the bill’s conflict-resolution mechanism, which allows relatives who both win to settle the conflict through voluntary withdrawal or by drawing lots, calling it “an affront to democratic principle.”

“The sovereign will of voters should never be subordinated to a coin toss or a family agreement,” the group said.

NAMFREL called on Congress to pass a genuine anti-dynasty law containing, at minimum, fourth-degree coverage, vertical bans across government tiers, party-list restrictions, strict succession and cooling-off rules against spousal or sibling swaps, and a “one seat per family” rule limiting any single family to one national seat and one local seat at any given time.

The bill now proceeds to the Senate, where NAMFREL said counterpart measures with significantly stronger provisions have been filed and deliberated.

It urged the Bicameral Conference Committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions in favor of the strongest standards rather than water down the Senate version.

“The Filipino people have waited 39 years for this law. They deserve the real thing — not a legislative shortcut that protects the dynasties it purports to dismantle,” the statement read.

NAMFREL warned that if the bicameral process produces a final law no stronger than HB 8389 in its current form, it will join and actively support the growing movement for a People’s Initiative to bring a genuine anti-dynasty measure directly to the Filipino people for ratification.

The House vote came two days after the Supreme Court posted on its website a unanimous decision declaring that political dynasties continue to defy the 1987 Constitution, which expressly bans them.

In the ruling penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., promulgated April 8 and posted June 1, the Court said: “That 80% of the district seats in the House of Representatives and 75% of the country’s cities are ‘ruled’ by political dynasties is an affront to the Constitution.”

Citing Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reports, the decision noted that, as of 2024, 216 of the country’s 253 legislative districts were represented by individuals with at least one other relative previously or currently elected to public office, while 113 of 149 cities were led by mayors belonging to political dynasties.

The Court ordered that copies of the decision be furnished to the House of Representatives and the Senate “for their reference.”

“The moment to act is now. The bicameral committee must rise to the occasion, or the people will,” NAMFREL said.