Jervie: Two.

That’s the number of days left before the midterm elections where 60 million voters are
expected to troop to the polls. So we’ll open this debate with an old age issue that of political dynasty.
Philippine politics could actually be summed up with the list of names of clans that have held on
power generation after generation. Today, we ask, should they be allowed to do so? And how in the
first place do even define political dynasty? And can and should they be banished from the electoral
system?
(video) Grandfather. Son. Grandson. Husband and wife. Brothers and sisters. And sometimes even
feuding family members...
History has seen how politics has long been a family affair, from one generation to another.
While the law clearly prohibits political dynasties, it stops short of defining what political dynasty
actually is. (Article II Sec. 26 Phil. Constitution: “The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”)
While some believe children born in political families are raised and trained in matters of public
service, others say, more than the name performance matters and that politicians should be judged
based on their track records. Should Congress pass a law that could define and prohibit political
dynasties? Is this even practicable? Or will this just put restrictions and exclude deserving individuals
from public office.
Arguing for the affirmative side is the AnakMuna PatisiMisis Team. (Intro of members video
presentation). Taking on the negative side is the Grabesila Parati Team. (Intro of members video
presentation)
Judd: Lets now meet our distinguished judges: … (introducing adjudicators)
Using a modified oxford-oregon format. The debate is between two sides: the affirmative and the
negative with 3 members each.
Each debater from the affirmative side argues either the necessity, beneficiality or practicability of the
proposition
While the counterpart debaters on the negative side oppose these arguments.
Each debater is given 4 min to deliver a constructive speech and rebut the previous argument.
Each debater is given 2 min to interpolate or cross examine the opposing debater. Only categorical
questions may be asked.
Each of the 3 judges may ask one question of each speaker within that speaker’s time limit
The chief adjudicator rules in the event of ties, objections or contestations
The judges total scores determine the best speaker, the best debater and the winning team.

For the criteria of judging. We have EVIDENCE or the facts they have in their speeches is 20%;
DELIVERY or the integration, the way they speak and their clarity which is 30%; INTERPELLATION
or the part where the necessity, beneficiality and practicability speakers of both side will tend to the
judges’ questions and how they give their answers, 20%. And the REBUTTAL or where the last
speakers of both sides give the summary of the speeches is 30% for the total of 100%.
Proposition: Let It Be Resolve That: CONGRESS SHOULD PASS A LAW THAT WOULD IDENTIFY
AND DEFINE A POLITICAL DYNASTY AND PROHIBIT THE SAME.

Jervie: Starting off with the affirmative side is Jofel, you have 4 min to argue the need for congress to
pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties
Jof: Your honors, good morning. As much as we would like to argue the conventional perception of
the law, the novelty of the issue at hand, compels us to innovate static concepts of the law in order to
give life and meaning to the Constitution. The issue in this debate is simple. What are congress
should define and identify political dynasties. For the purpose of this debate, the common concept of
a political dynasty will be used.
A Political Dynasty exists where family members up to the 4th degree of consanguinity or affinity
either successively or simultaneously run for or occupy public offices.
The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines states in Article II Section 26: "The State shall guarantee
equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by
law."
Congress has had the duty to enact an enabling anti-dynasty law since 1987 but failed to do so for
self-serving reasons. There have been 32 attempts but not one has passed the committee level of the
House.
The public has waited 31 years for an enabling law, an unreasonable time to wait. Legislators, past
and present, have conspired to betray the Constitution for self-interest. So technically there is no
specific Republic Act that defines the limitations on political dynasty and thus it is impossible for us to
implement prohibition of political dynasty.
“checks-and-balances does not work in parties dynasties. How will the checks and balances work if
the governor is related to two to three provincial members? How will the checks and balances work if
the children of the governor is mayor in two to three towns? The result is impunity and corruption in
governance.
Citing a report by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), out of 81 provinces, 72 or
about 89 percent are dominated by political families. “We are slowly becoming less democratic over
time, particularly in the poorest areas of the country and if we don’t stop this, democracy will slowly
die” . Many of our people do not really have the power to choose our leaders and vote freely because
of the entrenched political dynasties.
Jonalyn: Are political dynasties fundamentally wrong?
Jof: According to the Constitution, they are fundamentally wrong, your honor.
The worst features are those with political dynasties. Remember the Ampatuan massacre? there, with
Maguindanao, the Ampatuan clan hometown (more than 20 relatives in local government) and 2nd
poorest province in the country, having the highest concentration of political dynasties. Violence,
intimidation, and corruption happen in areas where political dynasties are present because the
officials tend to collude with each other. End result is that there is impunity and no accountability.
Poorest provinces in the land have the highest percentage of local government positions held by the
fattest political dynasties. Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao and Sulu are in the Autonomous Region of
Muslim Mindanao (ARRM) for example.
According to the Business World Publishing, a trusted publishing organization, on 2018 based on the
study conducted by Temario Rivera. The Asian Institute of Management Policy Centers, there are
250 political families who control the country, 56% of whom come from old political elites like the
Osmeñas, Roxases and Magsaysays and 44% emerged after the 1986 Edsa Revolution.
In the Senate, 16 out of the 24 members belong to political dynasties as are 70% of the members of
Congress. An audit of their statements of assets and liabilities reveal that lawmakers who belong to
political dynasties increase their net worth by an average of 39% after every term while those who do
not belong to dynastic families increase their wealth by less than 10%.
Statistics show that the average incidence of poverty in provinces controlled by political dynasties is a
staggering 29.15% while those not under dynastic control stands at only 18.91%. Abject poverty is at
2.31% in dynastic bailiwicks and only 1.96% in non-dynastic localities.
The numbers suggest that political dynasties exacerbate the incidences of poverty rather than
improve them. This assertion is further supported by the inherent consequences of political dynasties
as follow. After 31 years, political dynasties have entrenched themselves deeply in our political
system. As a result, our institutions have become weaker, reforms are slow to implement, corruption
is rife, incompetence is tolerated and partisan politics is the name of the game in the halls of power.
As citizens, there is not much we can do but resist political dynasties. The power is still in our hands,
as voters. Resist the dynasties and vote for the aspiring, qualified candidate. It is about time we
change our cast of leaders. It is about time we infuse new talent. (TIME’S UP depends on the time
keeper)
Jervie: Thank you Jofel. First negative speaker, Jhemarie, you have 2 min to cross examine him.
Jhem: Good morning mr. speaker. The definition that you gave a while ago for a political dynasty. Let
me just clarify this fact. It this correct that you correct this definition from the pending senate bill?
Jof: No. it’s a commonly held concept of what political dynasty is.
Jhem: but would you agree that that definition is quite similar to the definition given by late senator
Miriam Santiago in her senate bill 2625?
Jof: No.
Jhem: it is actually quite similar but let me just ask. Are you aware that there is a definition for a
political dynasty in the black’s law dictionary?
Jof: yes, but it is not incorporated in our constitution nor it is incorporated in our laws.
Jhem: But would you agree that blacks law dictionary is somehow authoritative as it has been used
by the supreme court in certain cases?
Jof: It may be but it depends on the discretion of the congress.
Jhem: but that would be a qualified guess at least.
Jof: No.
Jhem: Let me move on to my next question mr. speaker. You cited article 2 section 1 a while ago.
Does the last phrase of article 1 that all government authority emanates from the people? Does that
mean that the people are empowered to select their own leaders?
Jof: yes.
Jhem: and do you agree that drafting a law defining and prohibiting a political dynasty will result in
qualification for people who desire to run for public office?
Jof: there are valid qualifications scattered all over the constitution. You have article 5.
Jhem: but an additional qualification in this case would require an amendment of the constitution.
Would you agree?
Jof: this is a constitutionally mandated qualification by the constitution itself
Jhem: Do you agree that unduly limiting their choice runs counter to the idea of a democracy?
Jof: no
*TIME’s UP
Jervie: Alright, Jhemarie, you have 4 min to rebut Jofel and argue why there is no need to pass a law
that would prohibit and define political dynasties in the Philippines.
Jhem: Good morning. While conceding that section 26 is not an enforceable right. We believe that
congress should not draft a law banning political dynasties. As defined in blacks law dictionary, a
political dynasty is either a succession of rulers in the same line or family or a powerful influential
family which continues in existence for a considerable time.
By this, it becomes clear that the concept of political dynasty is ambiguous. And an argument in the
drafting of a law prohibiting it will stand on no other leg aside from the equally ambiguous policy of
section 26. In contrast we will prove that the argument against such law is against more significant
reasons. To begin, I will first subscribe to one of the chief principles of constitutional construction and
that is to provide an interpretation that will uphold the framers’ intent. The records of commission
reveal that section 26 prohibits political dynasties because they can be used in circumventing the
three-term rule by fielding sons or daughters who will easily yield to moral influence. Therefore, the
policy was made not because political dynasties are wrong per se but because they can become an
obstacle to the real intent of section 26 which is to provide equal access to opportunities for public
service. This objective has been cited by constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas and has been used in the
leading case of Pamatong vs Comelec.
And with this intent in mind let me move on to our reasons. First of all, a law prohibiting political
dynasties is unnecessary in accomplishing equal access. The fear that a political patriarch will use his
influence to stay in power will not be eliminated by banning his family from running all together. This
is because the patriarch can just easily field in his aids or drivers who by reason of their loyalty will
prove to be an even worse kind of instrument for perpetuating for political power. In fact, this
ambiguity cuts both ways. The well documented father and son feud of the Villafuertes of the
Camarines sur, shows us that even familial ties cannot be a strong basis to assume a strong basis.
second, and perhaps more importantly, such a law is contrary to the fundamental principles of a
democratic and republican system of government – contrary to what the first speaker has said a while
ago. By imposing an additional qualification on persons who desire to run for public office. This law
unduly limits the rights of these persons to be voted for. It will deny them equal protection by
segregating them from the rest of society.
Jonalyn: are you saying then that constitutional provision is actually unconstitutional?
Jhem: it will result in an unconstitutional law if it was enforced in a way that will enact a law banning
political parties. But there is a way around it, your honor.
This additional qualification. This people will be denied equal protection. Moreover, such a law unduly
limits the freedom of choice of the electorate. In the recent study published by the PPSA, some
provinces who have established political clans actually have a high human development index core.
Suggesting that even political families can be beneficial to a community. Depriving these electorate of
the choice to decide or the chance to decide whether or not they deserve this kind of leadership is
unacceptable.
A law prohibiting political dynasties, once again, is unnecessary and detrimental to our society. If we
want to guarantee equal access, we need to aim for electoral reforms that would eliminate the abuse
of power and not the right to run for public office. To level the playing field, we need to enact a system
of voters’ education that would provide sophisticated political knowledge and not limit our
understanding even further.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the real responsibility of the state under section 26: it is not to draft a
law which is unjust and without a practical basis.
Jervie: Jofel you now have 2 min to cross examine Jhemarie
Jof: if the general experience of what political dynasties are, do you have figures that actually show
that these political dynasties are good for them?
Jhem: in the recent of the PPSA there is actually proof that high HDI score can be found in some
cases
Jof: that is false your honors because there was a recent conducted by EAMPC stating that these
poverty incidences or these poverty rates were actually higher in dynastic jurisdictions rather than in
non-dynastic jurisdictions. Do you believe that the prohibition against political dynasty is an additional
disqualification?
Jhem: It will result in a disqualification
Jof: but it is already in the constitution is it not?
Jhem: But it is not in the form of a disqualification
Jof: but how can the constitution contradict itself?
Jhem: well it does not contradict itself yet unless enact a law that follows what it says
Jof: this is a provision which requires an enabling law
Jhem: that is correct
Jof: So, if this provision requires an enabling law, congress needs to enact an enabling law to give
life to this provision
Jhem: If it will result in an unconstitutional law, congress can refuse to enact a law
Jof: How can it result in a constitutional crisis or constitutional ambiguity, when it is already consistent
with the constitutional provisions that are laid down in article 2 section 1?
Jhem: Because it will result in an additional qualification that are not laid down in article 6,7,8 of the
constitution.
Jof: how can it result in additional qualifications especially when there are disqualifications that are
scattered in the constitution. You have article 5 – the right to suffrage – which is already limited by
those who are allowed to vote. Even the right to be voted for is limited. That is why you have
nuisance candidates, is it not?
Jhem: Nuisance candidates are not provided for by the constitution. it is just a policy that is allowed
by the courts or by the law
Jof: They are provided for. You have persons who are able to read and write at least 40 years old.
Those are qualifications that are in the constitution
Jhem: that is correct. Those are qualifications
Jof: so, theses political dynasties can operate as a disqualification?
Jhem: That can be an additional qualification that is not provided in the Constitution.
Jof: How can be an additional qualification when it is already in the constitution?
Jhem: It’s not in the Constitution!!! (Time’s up)

Jervie: Alright, your time’s up. Second affirmative speaker, Alex, you now have four minutes to argue
why it would be beneficial to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties.
Alex: Good morning Your Honors. Ladies and gentlemen, the other side of the house had an
admission that by enacting a law that would prohibit political dynasty, it would result into an
unconstitutional act. But we in the affirmative bench says that Congress should pass a law, because
clearly it is a constitutionally mandated duty of Congress and the Constitution should be construed as
a single document and it can never contradict its very provisions.
So given the characterization of the necessity to enact an anti-dynasty law, allow me to dwell on the
benefits of the proposition;
1. It is beneficial because it will improve the quality of Philippine democracy by increasing the
level of political participation. We based this premise that in democratic theory, a functioning
democracy is maximized on three essential parts: accountability, representation, and
participation. Participation is manifested in the form of electoral exercise, either to vote or be
voted for.

Now the prevalence of political dynasty weakens political competition and signals the
deterioration of political participation. How is that so? The incumbency advantage enjoyed by
dynastic candidates actually discourages and excludes those non-dynastic candidates to enter
into the political arena. In essence, there results a monopoly of political power. So what
happens is that this, the monopoly of this political power, results into policies which actually
protect the interest of the few. And in order to perpetuate more themselves in power, these
political dynasties spearhead populous programs which are not sustainable at the end of the
day.

In order to prove this assertion, in the study conducted by Asian Institute of Management, it
said that as a general rule, a survey of the dynastic provinces, they have higher cases of
poverty and unemployment over those non-dynastic areas. So by enacting an anti-dynasty
law, we widen the opportunities; we level the playing field; and we give opportunities to
 promising candidates. Because again, we want to prevent a concentration of political power for
we believe that no one is indispensable in running the affairs of the country.

2. On to my second benefit on how it is beneficial….because it will create a more responsible

electorate.

In the anti-dynasty bill filed by Sen. Santiago, she post that one of the reasons why these
political dynasties continued to thrive is because of a cultural mind set. Voters, out of
convenience, look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favors and elect relatives of
these politically dominant families. So we want to break this electoral culture, how so? By
opening up opportunities to new breed of politicians, because all things being equal, if we
remove the undue advantage enjoyed by dynastic candidates; the electorate will be forced to
know more about their candidate. So at the end of the day, we give more value to the sanctity
of the right to suffrage.
Charles: Are you then saying that the problem lies with the electorate, but not really with the
candidates?
Alex: Thank you for your question. The problem not necessarily lies with the electorate, but by
enacting an anti-dynasty law, we start first from the top by eliminating those options which will then
result into a more responsible electorate. So we do not only give spirit to the constitutional provisions
and the intention of the framers to prevent political dynasties, but we also reinforce the concept of a
genuine democracy and republicanism that as enshrined in the Constitution.
So with that, we really believe that it is necessary to enact a law and it will be beneficial for us to have
one. Thank you.

Jervie: Thank you Alex. Second negative speaker, Toni, 2 minutes now to cross examine Alex.
Toni: Good morning Mr. speaker . You mentioned a while ago that passing an anti-political dynasty
bill is a constitutionally mandated by the government, right?
Alex: Yes.
Toni: Okay. So, you said it will increase the number of participation?
Alex: Yes.
Toni: Isn’t that we have qualifications in the different provisions of the Constitution?
Alex: Yes.
Toni: Right. And then, do you think that passing an anti-dynasty bill will encroach disqualifications in
the Constitution?
Alex: No.
Toni: Well going back to what I’ve said, you said that it will increase the number of participation,
right?
Alex: Yes.
Toni: Are you aware in the reason of ruling in Pamatong vs. COMELEC, where it stated that the
Congress is not intended to compel the state to enact measures that would accommodate as many
people as possible to public office? So Sec 26, Art 2 is not merely encouraging everyone to run in the
public position, right?
Alex: Well, it’s not necessarily correct….
Toni: Just say yes or no, Mr. Speaker
Alex: It’s a qualified no.
Toni: Okay. So, do you agree with me that Sec 26 is clearly stating that to run to public office is not a
constitutional right?
Alex: It’s more of a privilege. Both privilege and right.
Toni: So, it’s both a privilege and a right?
Alex: Subject to conditions….
Toni: Because you were saying a while ago, to allow everyone to run in the office is like you’re saying
to run in a public office is a constitutional right?
Alex: What we’re trying to say is that by eliminating this political dynasty….
Toni: It’s just a yes or no, Sir.
Alex: So, what’s the question again?
Toni: Okay. So you are saying a while ago that it is a constitutional right to run in the public office?
Alex: No, because again it is subject to limitations, to qualifications.
Toni: Okay. So, that’s all. Thank you.

Jervie: Okay Toni, 4 minutes now to rebut Alex and why it would not be beneficial to pass a law that
defines and prohibits political dynasties.
Toni: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Political dynasty has long been a standing issue in the
Philippines. The Constitution clearly prohibits it. But was it even a good remedy to have the courts act
on issue as such that are purely legislative matters?
In response to the present issue of whether or not Congress may be compelled to exercise their
legislative power by the judiciary through a petition filed with the Supreme Court? We respond in the
negative. This house believes that the Congress may not be compelled to exercise their legislative
powers to pass an anti-political dynasty bill by filing a petition with the Supreme Court simply for two
main reasons. First, the Supreme Court is co-equal with the legislative and cannot order a co-equal
branch of the government of what law to pass. And second, granted that there are exceptions to such
doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in the present case.
On the first proposition, we believe that the Constitution has created the three branches of the
government co-equally. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court, especially in the case of
Francisco vs. House of Representatives, where it is said that one of the fundamental doctrines of a
republican government is the separation of powers. Furthermore, it emphasizes the importance and
this I quote: “The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It
obtains not through express provision, but by actual division in our Constitution. It is now our
concession that the separation of powers is a well-known doctrine which cannot be trifled with
through a petition to compel the performance of the primary functions of each branch”. The
Constitution has laid down the duties and responsibilities of each branch and did not fail to emphasize
that they are equal……
Charles: So if you cannot compel Congress to enact a law, do you believe that the Supreme Court
should define what a political dynasty should be?
Toni: No, your honor. It’s just that… I am saying that the Supreme Court cannot encroach on such
duties that are primarily legislative in character.
The Constitution has laid down the duties and responsibilities of each branch and did not fail to
emphasize that they are equal and cannot be supreme over the other. Thus, in the case of
Alejandrino vs. Quezon, the Court ruled that the Supreme Court cannot compel the performance of a
duty purely legislative in their character which, therefore, pertained to their legislative function and
over which they have exclusive control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without gross
usurpation of power….
Charles: If the Supreme Court cannot compel the Congress to define political dynasty, can the
Supreme Court compel the Congress to at least consider defining political dynasty?
Toni: Well, it’s still discretionary Sir. It’s still discretionary in the Congress to define the law since the
language of Sec 26 is discretionary.
Going back. Moreover, even if one of the purposes of such doctrine is to have an elaborate system of
checks and balances which provides to certain exceptions; it cannot be applied in this case. The
matters are purely legislative in character.
Now on our second point, Your Honor…
Granted that there exceptions to said doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in this case. Sec 3, Rule
65 of the Rules of Court specifically allows the people to file a petition for mandamus, in which the
Supreme Court may compel any government to perform an act required which is neglected to
perform. It is now our concession that such is not applicable in this case. Art 2, Sec 26 prohibits
political dynasties, however it does not provide a deadline for certain law to define said provision. A
petition for mandamus can be filed when the government unlawfully neglects a required duty that
should be done. Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Pamatong vs.
COMELEC, as I have mentioned a while ago, Sec 26 is not intended to compel the state to enact
positive measures that would have accommodate as many people as possible into public office. The
Constitution has left the discretion to the Congress when it comes to exercising its legislative powers.
Compelling the Congress would mean usurpation of these powers. Also, filing a petition for
mandamus to compel the exercise…..

Jervie: Time’s up Toni. Alex, 2 minutes now to cross examine Toni.

Alex: Good morning. Is it your position that we cannot compel….?
Toni: Yes.
Alex: But in any of our speeches, the constructive, did we mention that we can compel the Supreme
Court through a mandamus? Did any of us mention…
Toni: Well, that’s the issue that was presented here.
Alex: No. What I am asking…I understand that, but did any of us bring up the idea that we can
actually file a mandamus to the Supreme Court?
Toni: No, but I was citing a….
Alex: No? So, clearly Your Honors that argument will not fly in this debate because it’s not responsive
to what…..
Toni: That’s not what I mean. We just dwell on the main issue.
Alex: Yes. Thank you. So, is it your position that political dynasties are fundamentally wrong?
Toni: **shrugs**
Alex: No?
Toni: No.
Alex: So, there are dynasties which are good, dynasties per se are not bad, correct?
Toni: Yes.
Alex: So, are you aware the study conducted by Asian Institute of Management about the political
dynasties in the 15th Congress?
Toni: Please enlighten me.
Alex: So, are you aware that in that study, they use socio-economic and demographic properties
profiles of legislators and correlate these with criteria of development: poverty incidence,
unemployment…So are you aware that 70% of the 15th Congress belongs to political dynasties?
Toni: No.
Alex: And also, are you aware that in that same study, generally the rule is that, political dynastic
provinces have higher poverty incidence and unemployment? So clearly Your Honors, while there
may be exceptions that of good political dynasty…..
Toni: Sorry Sir, but what is your question?
Alex: So, are you aware of that findings or do you deny that findings that as a general rule, dynastic
provinces have higher poverty incidence? Do you deny that assertion?
Toni: Well, yeah.
Alex: Yes? But clearly in the study therefore, it is very clear how this study co-related while there
might be exception of dynasties but the general rule is that……. (ting ting ting)

Jervie: Okay time’s up. Third affirmative speaker, Janette, you have four minutes to argue the
practicability of passing a law that defines and prohibits political dynasty.
JANETTE: Good morning. To recap, 7 out of 10 members of the 15 th Congress belong to political
dynasties. Ninety-four (94%) of our provinces are ruled by political dynasties. Incidentally, the
Philippines remain to be a third world country. Two attempts have been made to ban the
perpetrations of families in the government - both of them failed. And sadly, members of the political
dynasties has already entrenched themselves deeply in both the executive and legislative branches.
Hence, what do we do? We go to Supreme Court, the last bulwark of the democracy, but obviously
the Supreme Court cannot compel the Congress by mandamus of because this violative of
separation of powers.
The stand therefore of the affirmative is simple: What the Supreme Court should do is to
declare that the inaction of Congress as amounting to malice, and hence, unconstitutional. This would
send a strong message to Congress and will leave no room for doubt that their continued inaction
constitutes neglect of a constitutional mandate and hence a betrayal of their very duty as members of
the legislature.
This is based on the preposition on Section 26, Article 2, provides for a clear mandate and
imposes not just a power, but rather a duty on Congress to craft a law. The difference between a duty
and power is that a duty can never be abdicated. To bolster these arguments, let us look at the
wording of the provision itself. Whenever a law provides a legislative act as necessary, the provision
is qualified by either “as provided for by law”, or “as may be defined by law”. And there is a material
difference between these two. Because when we say as provided for by law, the supposition is that
there is still no law. To provide, after all, means to give. And when we say as maybe defined by law,
there is already a mandate, or a clear duty, but what is lacking is simply the details to enforce that
mandate. When you define what the word define means, it means to fix or laydown the parameters.
What has to be defined therefore is not what the law is or what the law should be but rather the
operative concepts of the law – who will be covered, up to what degree of consanguinity, and the
likes.
When we look at the entire constitution, there are only two provisions where the phrase “as
may be defined by law” was used. The first one was Section 26, Article 2 which provides for two
mandatory duties – guarantee equal access to opportunities for public office and to prohibit political
dynasties. The second one is Section 22 of Article 18, dealing with idle and abandoned lands for land
reform. In both sections, the constitutional framers used the mandatory word “shall”. In Section 22 of
Article 18, there was a question as regards R.A 3844 because it was argued that the law did not
provide for expropriation but only for temporary planting but at the end of the day it was ruled that
there is no need for such as because Section 22 specifically authorized appropriation………….
Marcial: Question, Janette. It is possible to operationalize the prohibition against political dynasties if
there is no law defining what political dynasties is?
JANETTE: That’s why we need to craft a law defining political dynasties. By declaring the inaction of
Congress as unconstitutional, we empower the people, we give them something to hold on to and use
against Congress. Now, if the people feel that the inaction is unconstitutional, as declared by the
Supreme Court, the people themselves may go to the court and say that this constitutes a betrayal of
public trust. We leave them as such…….
Marcial: If the court gives that declaration, is that practical?
JANETTE: Yes, Madam, we say that that is practical because there is no encroachment. At the end
of the day, you don’t compel Congress but rather you leave it to the hands of the people themselves.
What you only provide is the inaction is unconstitutional. Whatever the people will do is up to them.
Let’s look at the deliberation of the constitutional constitution. Constitutional Sarmiento said that the
prohibition was included in the 1987 to command the state to prohibit political dynasties.
Jervie: Sorry Janette, Your time is up. Third Negative Speaker Athina you have 2 minutes now to
cross-examine her.
ATHINA: Good morning everybody. Madam Speaker, are you against political dynasties?
JANETTE: The constitution is against political dynasties.
ATHINA: Oh, okay. So for the sake of this debate, obviously you are. So, do you believe political
dynasties are inherently evil?
JANETTE: The constitution says yes.
ATHINA: Oh, okay. Is Murder inherently evil?
JANETTE: Yes.
ATHINA: Yes, is theft inherently evil?
JANETTE: Mala In Se.
ATHINA: Yes, Is Rape inherently evil?
JANETTE: Mala In Se.
ATHINA: So would you agree with me that the basis of inherently evil is the very nature of the act?
Yes or no?
JANETTE: No, you cannot associate the constitution and the Revised Penal Code.
ATHINA: Madam, is it a yes or no?
JANETTE: You cannot compare!
ATHINA: Okay. Let us move on to the next question. So, being in a political family, is it wrong?
JANETTE: No.
ATHINA: Nooo. Yes! But wanting to be a politician, for example, just like my dad or my grandfather,
does that make it wrong?
JANETTE: No.
ATHINA: Does it make me necessarily bad?
JANETTE: No.
ATHINA: Now, do you believe that really creating a law to ban a person from doing so is necessary?
JANETTE: Because the constitution is against it.
ATHINA: No, it is a yes or no question Maam.
JANETTE: It is necessary because that constitution says it.
ATHINA: Do you believe that really creating a law to ban a person from doing so necessary?
JANETTE: Yes.
ATHINA: It is not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are bad:
JANETTE: That’s why we need to have a law defining what a political law is.
ATHINA: Yes or no Maam? It is not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are
bad?
JANETTE: No.
ATHINA: It’s not? It’s not?
JANETTE: No.
ATHINA: Thank you so much Maam.
Jervie: Alright Athina, you have 4 minutes to rebut Janette and advance your argument.
Athina: Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Today’s debate is about a topic that has grip the
country since time in memorial. It is about the perennial problem of Political Dynasties. But let
me ask you this, “Is it really a problem?”. Our first speaker explained to you that Section 26,
Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution is not an enforceable right and that is in fact it is only a state
policy. Our second speaker on the other hand does effectively proven that Congress may not
and cannot be compelled by the Judiciary to create a law that would define and prohibit
Political Dynasties because creating a law is purely discretionary act of Congress. I am here
today to explain to you that it is impracticable for such law to be passed and assuming in
arguendo that such a law has been passed, it is in self unduly limits the constitutionally
protecting political rights of Filipino Citizen to be voted for and to vote. But it actually would not
have any effect on what could happen in Philippine politics in general.

The Constitution has already set forth certain qualifications and disqualifications for people
who aspire to join government or be elected into public office to serve the Filipino people. In
the case of those wishing to be elected, such qualifications are in shrine to the Constitution
specifically Section 2 of Article 7, Section 3 and 6 of Article 6, and Section 3 of Article 10, are
also reminds you there are already set rules such as the Omnibus Election Code, the Comelec
Resolutions, and the Local Government Code to name a few.

Case and point. Let’s assume that the law was passed, what would then stop a person from
endorsing a friend or someone does not related to him but within the scope of his influence to
the office supposedly where his family members were banned. Is there certain Fabian Ver
comes to mind? What we have to understand is that the reason why Political Dynasties need
not be defined nor prohibited is because there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The
Constitution itself tells you that the power to elect these people is in our hands. To quote from
Section 1, Article 2 of the Constitution, “Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them”. You know this so called Political Dynasties will not be there if
the people had not elected them there in the first place. The reality of it is that the creation of
such a law will not stop the propagation of Political Dynasties in the country, it will just be a
catalyst to spur the creative minds of these power-hungry politicians. Look! When one group
of people of a certain class commits a mistake or does something wrong…Yes your honour.

Marcial: Ms. Speaker, are you saying that Congress should just ignore Section 26, Article 2?

Athina: Your honour, it is not an ignorance because we already know what Political Dynasties
are. To define it would just limit, will just put a wall in the act and what if these politicians come
up with another ingenious plan to go against that, will you create another law? It is just very
cumbersome. As I was saying earlier, when one group of people of a certain class commits a
mistake or does something wrong do we automatically punish the entire class for that mistake
or that wrong doing? Of course we don’t. That would be unfair and unjust. What I am trying to
say here is that, we should not ban the method of execution rather we should focus on
abolishing the illegal act all together. The illegal act here is the abuse of the electoral process
and yes, the method of execution is the Political Dynasty. But I will remind you that not all
 political dynasties are bad. To quote Mr. Willian Esposo in his column in the Philippine Star,
“The political dynasties do not equate to a legal problem. In principle, there is nothing wrong
with political dynasties and that’s why in the US they celebrate political dynasties like those of
the Kennedys of Massachusetts. For so long that the Filipinos vote freely, nobody can question
the emergence of political dynasties. That is the reality.” (end of quote). So in sum, there are
just three main points we would like to stress here. First, it is not necessary to pass that law
because equal acts is to elective opportunities can be better provided through electoral
reforms. Second, the Judiciary can never compel the Congress to exercise discretion in
passing a law. Third, even if the law were there, it would really not make any difference. The
only way to change the sad reality is not by creating a new law that would actually be
cumbersome in execution but it is having an intelligent electorate and an electoral process that
is not abused. Thank you.

Jervie: Alright. Thank you Athina. Janette, two minutes now to cross examine her.

Janette: Just to clarify, what you’re saying is that political dynasties should not be banned.

Athina: Exactly! Yes.

Janette: So what is your interpretation of Section 26 when the Constitution specifically states that it
should prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

Athina: That’s why we are talking about of not passing a law but creating electoral reforms. It’s up to
Comelec to do that.

Janette: Ok. When you say a law, you’re definition of a law is that an administrative agency should
be the one crafting the law.

Athina: But earlier we were talking about Congress passing a law.

Janette: No, that’s exactly the point. So what you are saying is that an administrative agency,
Comelec in this case should be the one crafting the law?

Athina: The reform. Yes, if that is what you are trying to say.

Janette: Ok. Let’s go on to statutory construction. Is it not true when you interpret the Constitution, it
should be interpreted in its entirety and not on a per provision basis?

Athina: Of course! Yes.

Janette: So if the Constitution provides that there are qualifications and the Constitution also states
that people are free to run and be voted for, then this two should be harmonized?

Athina: Yes.

Janette: So in effect there could be no conflict if one of the qualifications as set forth by the
Constitution is that political dynasties will be banned.

Athina: Of course there will be a conflict.

Janette: Ok let’s go on to your last point. What you’re saying is that these politicians can
nevertheless use their drivers or maids to run for public office.
Athina: Mind you, I never said that. But ok in that sense, yes.

Janette: So in effect what you’re saying is, if we cannot do something about it we just let it be.

Athina: We do not let it be. We prohibit it through electoral reforms. Remember the debate here is
about creating a law and we are telling you it’s not the way to do it. There are many other ways
to fight for this spirit of this provision in the Constitution. If we want to prohibit political
dynasties, there are many other ways to do it. Creating a law would be cumbersome. Likewise,
telling earlier if you create the law you will put parameters on the political dynasty. There are
so other ways.

Jervie: Ok guys time is up. Now for the rebuttlist of the affirmative side, Rhea you have 4 minutes for
your speech.

Rhea: “WE MUST VIEW PUBLIC OFFICE AS A WAY TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, NOT TO PROFIT
AT THEIR EXPENSE.”
YOUR HONORS, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN GOODMORNING!
Political dynasty has been long a problem in our country but let us again review what a
political dynasty is? POLITICAL DYNASTY is established in two instances. First, when an elected
government official is succeeded by a member of his household up to the first degree of
consanguinity or affinity. Second, when several members of a family occupy various positions in
government simultaneously.

STUDY SHOWS that there are 250 political families who control the country, 56% of
whom come from old political elites like the Osmeñas, Roxases and Magsaysays and 44% emerged
after the 1986 Edsa Revolution.

In the Senate, 16 out of the 24 members belong to political dynasties as are 70% of the
members of Congress. Let me emphasized 70%. An audit of their statements of assets and
liabilities reveal that lawmakers who belong to political dynasties increase their net worth by an
average of 39% after every term while those who do not belong to dynastic families increase their
wealth by less than 10%.

Among local governments, 73 out of 80 provinces are controlled by political dynasties.

Statistics show that the average incidence of poverty in provinces controlled by political dynasties is a
staggering 29.15% while those not under dynastic control stands at only 18.91%. Abject poverty is at
2.31% in dynastic bullwark and only 1.96% in non-dynastic localities.

The numbers suggest that political dynasties exacerbate the incidences of poverty rather than
improve them. The monopoly of “political power” and public resources by such families affects the
citizenry at the local and national levels. The socio- economic and political inequities prevalent in
Philippine society limit public office to members of ruling families. In many instances, voters for
convenience and out of cultural mindset look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favors, and
thus elect relatives of these politically dominant families.

Political dynasties are more likely to utilize their budgets doling out scholarships, funeral aid
and basketball courts rather than investing in social development programs, economic initiatives and
infrastructure.

These dynastic families are easily recognized — they operate in areas where “tarpaulin
politics” is prevalent. Politicians who grab credit by posting their names and faces on every corner
via tarpaulin banners is a tell-tale sign of a poorly managed dynastic territory.

Your honors it is high time therefore, that we must empower the people to give pressure to the
Congress to pass a law that would IDENTIFY and DEFINE a POLITICAL DYNASTY and PROHIBIT
the same. It is specifically stated in OUR VERY OWN CONSTITUTION… ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2:
THE PHILIPPINES IS A DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN STATE. SOVEREIGNTY RESIDE IN
THE PEOPLE AND ALL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY EMANATES FROM THEM.

Furthermore, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 26 provides: THE STATE SHALL QUARANTEE EQUAL

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, AND PROHIBIT POLITICAL DYNASTIES
AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW.

However, CONSTITUTIONAL CONSTRUCTION will tell us that the above quoted provision is by its
term not self-executing. Section 26 remains TOOTHLESS unless activated by the CONGRESS. Your
HONORS, OUR PRESENT TIME NEEDS LAWS ALREADY THAT WILL GIVE EXECUTION TO THE
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION. WE NEED TO PROPERLY PUT A DEMARCATION ON THE
PROVISION SO THAT IT CAN PENALIZE THE TRANSGRESSORS, AND GIVE LEEWAY TO
THOSE WHO CAN SERVE BUT CANNOT DO SO BECAUSE OF THE DYNASTY AND ITS
PRIVATE ARMIES.

In theory, the constitution prohibits political dynasties. However, it still lacks an enabling law
that defines what a dynasty is and its repercussions.

Congress has had the duty to enact an enabling anti-dynasty law since 1987 but failed to do so for
self-serving reasons. There have been 32 attempts but not one has passed the committee level of the
House.
 The public has waited 31 years for an enabling law, an unreasonable time to wait. Legislators,
past and present, have conspired to betray the Constitution for self-interest.

After 31 years, political dynasties have entrenched themselves deeply in our political system.
As a result, our institutions have become weaker, reforms are slow to implement, corruption is rife,
incompetence is tolerated and partisan politics is the name of the game in the halls of power.

As citizens, there is not much we can do but resist political dynasties. The power is still in our
hands, as voters. Resist the dynasties and vote for the aspiring, qualified candidate. It’s about time
we change our cast of leaders. It’s about time we infuse new talent.