By James Jimenez
In his explanatory note, attached to SB No. 2730, Senator Robinhood Padilla referenced academic research to show that dynasties are everywhere in the Philippines. He needn’t have bothered; all he needed to do was look down the hall from his office.
If Senate Bill No. 2730 were already in force, the Cayetanos, Ejercito-Estradas, and the Villars would be, no surprises here, dynasts. So too would the Marcoses for that matter, since President Marcos – an incumbent elected official – is a relative within the 4th civil degree of Senator Marcos, his sister.
Fortunately for them, SB 2730 contains an “excuse-me” clause which limits its own applicability “to the next elections and all subsequent elections thereafter.” The clause further provides that “in the case of incumbent elected officials who have political dynasty relationships with one another in the same city and/or province, they shall be allowed to run in all subsequent elections until they reach their term limit as provided by law.”
With present company definitely excluded, Padilla goes on to skewer dynasties by pointing out that they have, over the years, been successful in “compromising political competition and undermining accountability.” Who can disagree?
Isn’t it ironic?
If passed, Senate Bill No. 2730 – filed by Padilla less than a month after reacting positively to the news that former president Rodrigo Duterte and his two sons would be seeking Senatorial seats in the 2025 elections – promises to open the political arena to more candidates, thereby expanding the democratic space. Hopefully, this will break the stranglehold of established political families on politics – especially local – and encourage more diverse and competent individuals to take part in governance, fostering the emergence of a more competitive political arena. The enhanced political competition will, in turn, give rise to improved governance, leading eventually to demonstrably lower crime rates, higher employment, improved infrastructure and healthcare spending.
Incidentally, this euphoric vision was exactly what the framers were hoping to ensure when they included the ban on political dynasties in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they didn’t go far enough with the language they adopted, resulting instead in a provision that needed a dynasty-riddled Congress to legislate an end to dynasties. The irony clearly escaped them.
A glimmer of hope
In fact, only one piece of anti-dynasty legislation ever became a law, and that was limited in application only to the Sangguniang Kabataan, ending dynasties only in that specific sub-section of the political arena, and having, therefore, no effect on the election of the legislators who voted for its passage.
Whether out of naivete or an over-abundance of faith in politicians, the framers seem to have ignored how it is almost axiomatic that proposed legislation going against the interests of the incumbents rarely passes. The logic of the aphorism is not hard to follow.
Given that, it is equally logical to think that if the incumbents change, then the bill’s chances change as well. Get enough people in Congress who will vote against their interest in favor of what is actually good for the people, then a law like this bill envisions suddenly becomes a distinct possibility. And this is where voters come in.
The role of voters
Make no mistake about it. SB 2370 can be the fruition of the seed planted by the framers in the 1987 Constitution. By encouraging a more competitive political landscape free from the grip of dynasties, this Bill could ignite economic growth and social progress. But this happens only if the Bill passes both Houses of Congress. And with elections coming up in less than a year, there is a way to boost the chances of this Bill, but we’re all going to have to pull together.
As voters, we have the sovereign right to decide who goes to Congress to act as law-makers for the rest of us, and consequently, the kind of laws that get passed. If we send people who believe as we do, then we can help pass laws that we agree with; laws that reflect our values and collective interests. If we choose selfless leaders, we stand a better than average chance of seeing legislation passed that would not just benefit the legislators personally, but would redound to the benefit of the people as a whole – just like Senate Bill No. 2370.
Senator Robinhood Padilla’s bill exemplifies the kind of forward-thinking legislation that promotes the common good. And we owe it to ourselves to come together, and ensure our voices are heard in support of this truly transformative Bill by electing leaders to Congress who will prioritize the good of the country over their own narrow self-interest.
