Republic Of political dynasties While Congress has not defined political dynasties, these are still unlawful for

being contrary to the PUBLIC POLICY established by the Constitution. In the absence of congressional definition, it should be understood in its plain or dictionary meaning. Q: Is the Philippines a republic of political dynasties? A: Yes. And that is the problem. The law 1. The 1987 Constitution materially provides that: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law (Sec. 26, ART. II). 2. A political dynasty may be understood in two ways: a) Succession of government officials in the same line or family; b) Powerful or influential group or family in government which continues in existence for a considerable time. 3. The related concept of nepotism is generally defined as follows: Nepotism. (1) All appointments in the national, provincial, city and municipal governments or in any branch or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, made in favor of a relative of the appointing or recommending authority, or of the chief of the bureau or office, or of the persons exercising immediate supervision over him, are hereby prohibited. (Sec. 59[1], Chapter 7, Title I, Book V, Administrative Code of 1987) 4. The Commission on Elections is principally empowered to: ENFORCE and administer ALL LAWS and regulations RELATIVE TO THE CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION, plebiscite, initiative referendum, and recall (Sec. 2[1], ART. IX-C, 1987 Constitution). Comments 5. Sec. 26 appears to be a fine example of legal gobbledygook. It complicates, instead of simplify, what it means. The government, instead of assuming a mere secondary undertaking with the use of the term guarantee, should have assumed a primary undertaking to provide; and instead of mere equality of access, should have specified equality of opportunities for public service. 6. With the original proposal, the provision would have simply read as follows:

The State shall prohibit political dynasties. (id.). The prohibition would have been crystal clear. But the constitution writers apparently had other designs in their minds, which made them add the clause as may be defined by law. 7. What was the purpose for the last clause? It seems obvious the purpose was to KILL the prohibition or keep it in SUSPENDED ANIMATION for as long as possible. Thus, since 1987, the POLITICAL DYNASTIES which have consistently dominated Congress simply KILLED all attempts to pass any law which defines political dynasties. 8. Nonetheless, the PUBLIC POLICY to prohibit political dynasties STANDS alive in the fundamental charter, in spite of the clause as may be defined by law. Why? Because LAW is separate and distinct from PUBLIC POLICY. Violation of one is different from violation of the other. And one may exist without the other. 9. What is public policy? The considerations that are moved by the common good (Report of the Code Commission on the Proposed Civil Code of the Philippines, cited in Civil Code Reader, last clause, 2nd par., p. 693, U.P. Law Complex). 10. According to the Supreme Court, in the absence of express legislation... a court, in order to declare an act VOID as against public policy, must find that the act as to the consideration or thing to be done, has a TENDENCY TO INJURE THE PUBLIC (Phil. Bank of Communications v. Echiverri, 99 SCRA 508). The question, therefore, is: DO POLITICAL DYNASTIES HAVE A TENDENCY TO INJURE THE FILIPINO PEOPLE? It is respectfully submitted the answer is YES. As poignantly articulated by Commissioner Nolledo: The others who do not have POLITICAL ADVANTAGE in the sense that they have NO CONTROL of government facilities will be denied the right to run for public office. 11. The Comelec must enforce the PUBLIC POLICY against political dynasties, notwithstanding the absence of express legislation by the political dynasty infested legislature. Otherwise, Comelec itself would be violating that PUBLIC POLICY. 12. Political dynasties are either elected or appointed, or both. Thus, nepotism appears to be an appointive specie of DYNASTICISM Conclusion The specific law may not be there. But, the PUBLIC POLICY is clear in the Constitution. Either the Filipino people will tolerate violation of that policy or they will not. History will tell.

Filipinos do not know it yet but dynasties may actually be good for the country
Its been glaringly obvious that the Philippines is a feudal society and has been ruled by dynasties since time immemorial. Dynasties, after all, are essential in a society renowned for its Heritage of Smallness. Nick Joaquin in that seminal essay observed: However far we go back in our history its the small we findthe nipa hut, the barangay, the petty kingship, the slight tillage, the tingi trade. All our artifacts are miniatures and so is our folk literature, which is mostly proverbs, or dogmas in miniature. About the one big labor we can point to in our remote past are the rice terracesand even that grandeur shrinks, on scrutiny, into numberless little separate plots into a series of layers added to previous ones, all this being the accumulation of ages of small routine efforts (like a colony of ant hills) rather than one grand labor following one grand design. Indeed, without our oligarchs predisposition to accumulating immense wealth by mobilising the Philippines vast labour pool to develop and harvest the countrys rich natural resources at scales that are way beyond the reach of the smallness of the typical Filipinos mind, aspirations, and ambition, the Philippines today will still be a subsistence hunter and gathering barter economy. It is common knowledge that most Philippine oligarchs, taipans, and industrialists are descended from immigrants coming from societies with long track records of success in the risky businesses of global trade, exploration, and conquest Chinese traders, Spanish and American adventurers, and Indian money lenders. It was these people who brought in experience in the building of large scale stuff, whether they be complex organisations, production techniques, and multinational logistics, transport and supply chains. Contrast to that Joaquins take on native Filipinos and our native aversion to the large venture, the big risk, the bold extensive enterprise.

In short, the Philippines needs its dynasties and their collective ability to do big time stuff the sorts of world-class things that native Filipinos, left to their devices, may never have gotten around to building.

So what then are we to make of this current thinking amongst the chattering classes that Philippine dynasties need to be dismantled? Well, it depends on what ordinary non-dynastic Filipinos have to offer as an alternative. Back in the 70s and up to the mid- to late-80s, the rallying cry of the Philippine activist fiesta, for example, was that Filipinos needed to be free and democratic to prosper. So the antithesis of that aspiration was then made out to be President Ferdinand Marcos who represented the

stuff about Philippine politics that needed to be dismantled. That happened in 1986 and since then, Filipinos were supposedly free and democratic. And yet the question of whether that freedom and democracy was actually achievedin the Philippines remains a debatable notion to this day what with the creative ways some people continue to apply to game the system and the hollow-headed manner with which the electorate plays ball with them every single election. Did a transition from authoritarianism to democracy really change the Philippines at a fundamental level? I hear nothing but head-scratching Now we find people like former UP president Jose Abueva asserting thatdynasties are a threat to democracy . Are they, really? Even while the question of whether democracy is really delivering results where they matter to ordinary Filipinos remains unresolved, Abueva uses democracy to underpin the So What? test we subject the notion of dynasties to. Thus: So what if dynasties are a threat to democracy? Considering that democracys benefit to ordinary Filipinos is, by itself, debatable to begin with, why then should we worry if dynasties (if we are to believe our activists when they tell us they are baaaadddd) are a threat to it? England itself as well as much of Europe (and, for that matter, much the world from which the most excellent societies emerged from today) were ruled by dynasties. They built the wondrous structures and developed the vast systems that made their countries great. The architectural wonders of Italy that millions of tourists gawk at every year, for example, were built by warlords, avaricious popes, and wealthy aristocrats all motivated by lust for power, vanity, and addiction to conquest. In England, as I mentioned a while back, the politics and power plays amongst its dynastic rulers pretty much make up the stuff of its written history with the quaint sufferings of the peasantry serving as mere footnotes. In all ironies, it was only when the peasantry the English masses were wiped out by disease that their true power actually emerged. A series of epidemics known as the Black Death that swept across Europe over the latter half of the fourteenth century decimated its human population. In England, a population of 6 million was almost halved by the pestilence. The aftermath of that devastation yielded an interesting outcome, however. Peter Ackroyd, in his book The History of England Foundation describes what happened Yet the pestilence had slow but permanent effects on English society. The shortage of labour [as a result of the population decline] had the immediate result of increasing both the level of wages and the chances of employment. The phenomenon of the landless or impoverished peasant wholly disappeared. But the rising demands of the working people who had survived, their worth now doubled by the epidemic, provoked a reaction from the landowners and

magnates. The knights of the shires, in particular, perceived a threat to good order.

An Ordinance of Labourers was passed by a parliament in 1349, forbidding employers to pay more for labour than they had before the pestilence. The same Act deemed that it was illegal for an unemployed man to refuse work. The measures were not realistic. Many workers and their families could simply move to another district and to a more generous employer who was willing to ignore the law. Some migrated to towns, for example, where there was great demand for manual labourers such as masons and carpenters. A ploughman might become a tiler. More than enough work was available. [...]

Many younger people now possessed their own holdings of land. And the best land did not remain vacant for long. There had once been too many farmers and labourers working too little soil, but now they were dispersed over the countryside.

Indeed, Abueva himself seems quite aware of what the real issue is in the Philippine setting today

The rapid expansion of our electorate, consisting of more and more poor people, insecure and dependent voters, and increasing political competition have increased the cost of campaigning and incumbency for the political leaders acting as patrons of their constituents. Our continuing semifeudal society and premodern political culture shape our dysfunctional elections, political parties, presidential form of government and unitary system of national-local government relations.

Unfortunately, like most Filipinos brought up on the notion that rich and powerful people left to their devices will necessarily do the right thing as far as the greater good is concerned, Abueva fails to see the wisdom in that little snippet he wrote. Instead his call is directed towards Philippine legislators to do, this right thing that runs counter to all their personal interests to enact that much-vaunted anti-dynasty law. Good luck with that. As English history has shown, the oligarchy will not change unless there is a clear and present threat to their personal wealth and power. Only Filipinos can provide that threat. But the power to do so comes at a cost.

Political dynasty violates public policy Are political dynasties constitutional, considering that no law defining the term has been passed by Congress? It is respectfully submitted the answer is NO. The Law 1. The 1987 Constitution declares as part of public policy that: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. (Sec. 26, ART. II) 2. What is the meaning of dynasty? According to Blacks Law Dictionary, it is a: (a) Succession of rules in the same line or family; (b) Powerful or influential group or family which continues in existence for a considerable time. 3. Hence, a political dynasty would mean: (a) Succession of government officials in the same line or family; (b) Powerful or influential group or family in government which continues in existence for a considerable time. The Problem 4. What is the ratio behind the prohibition? According to its sponsor, Jose Nolledo: . . . I would like to summarize the reasons behind this prohibition realizing what is happening in different parts of our country. This provision will widen political opportunities contrary to the opinion of Commissioner Monsod because I feel that when we talk of equal political opportunities, we have also to talk more or less of equal conditions under which candidates run for public office. And with this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many parts of our country, Mr. Presiding Officer, we seem to approve of the practice that public office is inherited (This) is designed to avoid circumvention of the provision limiting reelection of public officers to give a chance to others in running for public office In the case of local government officials like governors, for example, we allow them to have two reelections. If he is reelected twice, he can no longer run for reelection in which case, he will ask his close relativea son, or a daughter or a brother or a sister

to run for public office under his patronage. And in this case, we circumvent the rule against further reelection because it may also happen that his younger son may run for governor and he is still strong enough to exercise moral as well as effective influence upon the son. And the son becomes a subaltern, subjecting himself to the will of the father who has apparently retired. And so, in the case of the President, for example, under the provision of the Constitution, the President cannot run for reelection. So if the incumbent President cannot run for reelection, she can ask, for example, Noynoy Aquino assuming that he is already of age to run for President thereby negating the laudable purpose for prohibiting reelection. That seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term. In the case of the governor, Mr. Presiding Officer, if he has run for two reeelections and he decides that a close relative run for election for the same position, the governor, who is now incumbent, must have built fortunes and even private armies to assure the perpetuation through the election of the close relatives. His built-in advantages over his opponents will not widen political participation in an election (BERNAS, The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers; 1995; pp. 141-150. Emphasis supplied.) 5. Commisioner Blas Ople, upon the other hand, commented: There are other provinces where you find the word dynasty probably misapplied to a distinguished family, let us say, to the Cojuangco and the Aquino family in Tarlac, or the Padilla family in Manila and Pangasinan, or the Rodrigo family in Bulacan, or the Laurel family in Batangas, and the Sumulong-Cojuangco family in Rizal, the Calderon family in Nueva Vizcaya, and Peps Bengzon has been calling my attention to the existence now of a Bengzon line of political office holders in Pangasinan. This is not to say, Mr. Presiding Officer, that the Philippine society has been immobile. We see lots of evidence that, in fact, people disadvantaged by the accident of birth have indeed risen through their own efforts to become successful competitors of entrenched political dynasties in their provinces and cities. I can sympathize with Commissioner Nolledos concern about dynasties because he comes from a province which tends to be governed by political dynasties . . . (Ibid., p. 151) Comments 6. Is it correct to say political dynasty has no meaning under the Constitution? NO. It must be understood in its plain signification based on the authoritative Blacks Law Dictionary which no less than the Supreme Court cites with approval from time to time upon the apparent ground of intrinsic merit. Thus, the term would mean: (a) Succession of government officials in the same line or family; (b) Powerful or influential group or family in government which continues in existence for a considerable time.

To rule otherwise would lead to the absurdity of having to conclude that the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission had no idea of the meaning of the term. Their deliberations show they had a clear idea of such meaning. 7. What is the import of the clause as may be defined by law? The keyword is define, which means to make definite as opposed to something indefinite. It refers to the SCOPE or LIMITATIONS that may be provided by Congress with respect to the MEANING or essential idea constitutive of the term under consideration. 8. Thus, the absence or pendency of a legal definition is not the same as having NO MEANING. A meaning may be general or specific in scope. It seems quite obvious that, for purposes of lawful prohibition, the meaning of an act or omission must be specific in scope. It would be impractical, if not impossible, to prohibit an act or omission that is too broad or general in scope. 9. Is it correct to say, since Congress has passed no law prohibiting political dynasties, that the sovereign Filipino people have no choice but to suffer the proliferation of such dynasties? NO. Violation of law has the same effect as violation of PUBLIC POLICY. It makes the act or omission VOID from the beginning (Art. 1409, Civil Code). No less than the Constitution establishes the prohibition against political dynasties a matter of STATE or PUBLIC POLICY. 10. Hence, unless we all pretend we do not see, hear, or understand the evil of dynasties, they are actually VOID from the beginning, and it is up to us to uphold or ignore this Rule of Law.

Whats wrong with political dynasties?

Whats wrong with having a father and son (Sen. Juan Ponce Enrile and candidate Jack Ponce Enrile), or a brother and sister (Senators Alan Peter and Pia Cayetano), or two brothers (Sen. Jinggoy Estrada and candidate JV Ejercito) sitting together as senators in a 24-member chamber? Whats wrong with having the wife succeed her husband for the same position (candidate Cynthia Villar and outgoing senator Manny Villar)? Or a son his father (candidate Juan Edgardo Angara and outgoing senator Edgardo Angara)? A lot. The use of the family as a platform for political recruitment goes against an explicit state policy. Section 26 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declares: The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. The failure of Congress to pass a law defining the terms and scope of this constitutional mandate is not an excuse for ignoring it. The language and intent are clear. If the nations legislators cannot be deterred by the ethical principle behind this provision, why do we expect public officials at the lower levels of government to abide by it?

Indeed, a glance at the local electoral landscape would instantly reveal this distressing feature of our current political reality. Political families no longer bother to disguise their vise-like grip on entire towns, cities, and provinces by nominating proxies to public office. They now brazenly allocate government positions to members of their own kin group as if these were part of the family heirloom. We have all heard the excuses they offer in defense of this premodern practice: one, that their family members are perfectly qualified, and that the younger generation of the same family is often better trained for public service; two, that political leadership is not any different from other professions where parents pass on to their children the same passion and aptitude for their chosen line of work; three, that society is better off when there is continuity in public service than when there is disruption in leadership; four, that the power to install individuals to public office in any case remains with the electorate, not with the family; and lastly, the fact that Congress has been unable all these years to craft a law defining a political dynasty signifies the impracticality of this constitutional provision. If it expresses anything at all other than the greed and shortsightedness of our politicians, I think the failure of Congress to affirm what the Constitution says merely reminds us of the folly of legislating solutions for which society itself is not ready. The question we ought to ask then is not why our politicians defy the Constitution, but why political clans persist, and what will make them obsolete. Political clans belong to traditional society. And ours is very much a traditional society in at least two ways: first, our society remains stratified according to social rank and power; and second, the family still determines to a great extent an individuals life chances and place in society. It is true that occupations and professions at the top are now more accessible to people born to the middle and lower classes. But, whether in business or in politics, the economic and political resources that a family member can tap at the starting line often spell the difference between failure and success. The framers of our Constitution sought to break political monopolies by prescribing term limits and prohibiting political dynasties. Both tools failed to loosen the grip of elite families over the nations political life. Why? Because the political system failed to develop an alternative structure that could challenge the existing kinship networks as mechanisms of political recruitment and leadership formation. That is the work of political parties. But, instead of functioning as durable tools for aggregating diverse interest groups, our political parties have become no more than family-owned franchises to be sold and transferred like material assets. Bereft of ideological commitment, they have no distinct identity to preserve, and no world view to pass on to a younger generation. Rather than recruit and groom young leaders from a wide pool of talent, these parties have been content to nurture scions of the old political clans and to assimilate celebrities spawned by the mass media.

Not surprisingly, our so-called political parties have no permanent members, no rigid screening of applicants, no finances of their own outside of those provided by their current leaders. But, more importantly, they neither command nor demand from their elected members strict compliance with any party line. Thus, Filipino politicians are never taken to task for switching parties whenever it suits them. Indeed, so insignificant is formal party membership that they have no problem retaining their nominal party affiliations even as they run as guest candidates in another party. These traits may make politics more fun in the Philippines, but they are also the reasons why our institutions are weak. We cannot continue to assign to a few families the work that in modern societies belongs to political parties. A nations political system, like its economy, must be able to draw from the best and brightest of its population if it is to survive the growing complexity of the modern world. It can only do this by professionalizing politics. Does the Presidents party, the ruling Liberal Party, have the will to achieve this?

12 questions for young political scions

The family political legacy (political dynasty)
Was running in the coming elections genuinely your idea or someone else's? Did you actually think about running yourself or were you pressured to run? Whose idea was it? How do you feel about it? How important is it for you to help perpetuate your familys name in politics? Certain members of political families, predominantly male heirs (and some female ones), have the burden of carrying on the family tradition in politics. Assuming this is your case, how important is it for you to personally maintain such famous last name in your area? If it is very important, why is this so? How long have you believed this? Do you consider political positions (in your city, province or country) as your family birthright? Do you consider politics as your family business? What prompted this? If you go forward with your candidacy and win the position, are you intending to run for two other consecutive terms to max out the 3-term rule? What happens once you finish your third term (assuming this occurs)? Will you then pass on the political baton back to your father or mother, or pass it forward to a younger brother or sister or interested cousin? Reason for running What is your primary reason for running? Is it for legitimate public service? Or because history seems to beckon you? Are you running because you have that famous last name advantage, is this the truth?

 Do you honestly believe that you are the most qualified for the position you are running for? Whatever your response is, what made you say that? Are you certain about this? Do you know the qualifications of the other candidates for the same position? Are you running to solidify your familys hold or control of that elected position? There are many reasons why you are running. Public service could in fact be one of them. But is there a family-control or family-consolidation reason behind your candidacy even if this is just a secondary or less important motivation of your campaign? Are you running to enable your family to retake such position (after a loss in the past)? Are you running so that your win will effectively prevent, forestall or discourage the course of other political scions from competing political families? The reality is, family political dynasties are omnipresent and are becoming stronger. They are, unfortunately, here to stay. In most jurisdictions, there will always be at least two or three strong political families. Your family is not the only one, and you know that. With the above caveat, is it fair to say that you are running so that your win will enable your family or clan to consolidate under its wing certain elected positions and, in the process, prevent other competing family dynasties from taking control? Example: your cousin is the congressman, your uncle is the governor, a distant relative is in the Executive branch and you are running for Mayor. Your family wants to maintain this hegemony and consolidate such positions. Is your family deserving of all positions? How much is competition from other political families a factor in your desire to run/win? Level and depth of experience Are you experienced enough, educated enough and truly caring enough to be voted for? What is your experience (not someone else in your family) in public service? Assuming you have served before, were you effective, transparent and accountable? What is your level of education? Did you finish college or attained some college units? If you are still studying, how will you balance public service duties with your classes, exams, thesis writing, social interactions, social media use and other student activities? Do you or do you not think that public service at a young and raw age may deprive you of your youth and everything else that comes with it? Have you ever served in your schools student council in past years? Campus orgs? If one of your constituents comes to your house or office asking for donations for a sick parent, child or sibling and such sickness is confirmed what would you do? Do you believe that compassion and good governance exactly correspond to doling out goods and money to people? All the time? Will this bring goodwill or breed dependency? Robredo-ism Do you know much about good, effective and Robredo-esque public governance? Do you have a political role model? Abroad or domestic? Who and why?

 If elected, would you have Robredo-esque qualities such as humility, efficiency, transparency, good governance, pure and clean record, and anti-Epal thinking? If you win (e.g. as congressman), will you put up large billboards around your area advertising government-sponsored projects with your picture, name and message? Do you believe there are very outstanding, determined and conscientious but relatively undiscovered leaders out there who can do a lot of good for the community? Or do you believe that political talent is already overflowing within political dynasties thus there is little or no need to infuse new, fresh, unconnected and undiscovered blood? How beneficial is Robredo-ism? Or do you not subscribe to such point of view? Other alternatives apart from politics What options do you have in terms of continuing education, business opportunities or professional achievement if you do not push through with your political campaign? Did you have other plans besides running in the elections? What are those plans? Did you plan to study further? Earn a specialization? Enter the workforce? Start an innovative business idea or establish an IT start-up? Start a family? Work abroad? If you run and win this term but then realize that politics or public service is not your cup of tea, would any of your prior plans still be doable as an alternate career or path? If you later on realize that you are not fit for public service, can you stop yourself from running again? Can you stop your family or clan from pressuring you to run again? If you did not have that famous last name, do you think you would have even given any thought about running in the coming (or any future) elections? This goes back to family pressure. Assuming your surname is Dela Cruz or Cruz and not ________, do you think you would even run? If you are a so-called commoner and not a member of the privileged few, do you think there would be an enormous burden on your shoulder to continue on what your father, mother, grandfather or other relatives started? The fact of the matter is, you do have and bear that famous last name. What then do you intend to do with it, if anything? If you dont run in the coming (or any future) elections, do you think the public would lose a valuable, knowledgeable and benevolent political leader? If out of nowhere you decide not to run (or re-run in the succeeding years), what do you think would be the impact of that decision on the public? It will most likely be hurtful to your family, but the more important consideration is how it will impact the constituency. Do you think the public would have lost a great deal? Or do you think, in the alternative, that the public would be better off not having you as an elected representative? These are tough questions, yes. But these questions are not aimed to scare or discourage young political scions from entering local or national politics. Perhaps a few of them will turn out to be genuine leaders and sincere stewards who are not in the mold of their politico-forefathers.