Why banning political dynasties is harder than it looks

The House suffrage committee held its first hearing of 2026 to tackle bills seeking to regulate or ban political dynasties, in the wake of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s order to prioritize such legislation.

More than 20 bills are up for consideration, and are far from being consolidated. The proposals clash significantly on various points: what is considered a political dynasty, what scenarios are prohibited (simultaneous holding of office, immediate succession by a relative, or both), and how many people from the same family are allowed to be in elective office at the same time.

Tuesday’s hearing led by committee chair Zia Alonto Adiong, still, gave anti-political dynasty experts outside Congress time to weigh in on the proposals.

Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Garcia, among those invited to speak, said that while the poll body fully supports bills seeking to institutionalize the Constitution’s anti-dynasty provision, enforcing such legislation would be difficult unless it is clear and definite.

If the law has room for ambiguity, the Comelec may be left to interpret congressional intent, a potential vulnerability that may be challenged by dynasts before the Supreme Court.

Here are some issued that Garcia raised.

Play Video

Issue: When can Comelec stop a dynast from running?

The Comelec asks: when can it actually go after politicians violating an anti-dynasty law?

The Supreme Court in Penera v Comelec said that a politician becomes a candidate only when the campaign period begins. However, the campaign period usually kicks off only four to five months after the filing of certificates of candidacy (COCs).

This means that even though dynasty violations may be known as early as the filing of candidacy, the Comelec’s hands may be tied until the campaign season actually begins. This raises the need for the poll body to redefine when candidacy begins.

Issue: Should the Comelec disqualify the candidates or cancel their candidacies?

Cancellation of a certificate of candidacy and disqualification may sound synonymous, but they are actually legally distinct remedies.

Disqualification addresses the eligibility of the candidate (e.g., whether she or he has committed an election offense), while cancellation of candidacy is anchored on material misrepresentation — whether the candidate lied in his or her documents submitted to the poll body.

Both operate on different timelines based on the Omnibus Election Code. The petition to cancel a candidate’s COC must be filed within 25 days after filing, and must be resolved up to 15 days before election; a petition for disqualification can be filed anytime and may be resolved by the Comelec even after the polls are over.

These distinctions matter in the context of an anti-political dynasty legislation because proposals vary on how the offending dynast will be barred from running. Mamamayang Liberal (ML) Representative Leila de Lima’s bill, for instance, says a verified petition seeking to cancel a dynast’s COC may be filed with the Comelec; other proposals prefer the petition for disqualification route.

Political dynasty status is not a required disclosure in the COC, complicating the cancellation of a dynast’s candidacy should they violate an anti-political dynasty legislation. Many of the bills filed in the 20th Congress though seek to compel candidates to submit a sworn statement declaring they do not have a political dynasty relationship.

“The candidate can also say, ‘I acted in good faith, I didn’t know another relative is running.’ Good faith is a defense, and therefore, there can be no misrepresentation,” Garcia also explained.

The SK Reform Act, passed in 2016, has an anti-dynasty provision, but it did not operationalize how the Comelec would implement it. In the last Sangguniang Kabataan elections in 2023, the Comelec asked candidates to submit an oath declaring they don’t have a political dynasty relationship so that misrepresentation will come into play if they violate the law’s provision.

Issue: Can the Comelec handle case volume constraints?

The Comelec has a ministerial role to accept all certificates of candidacy, so it cannot refuse COCs even if a dynast appears disqualified.

Some bills explicitly allow the Comelec to disqualify a dynast on its own, but the poll body still has to respect the right to due process.

Garcia said that with thousands of potential cases, the commission may be unable to resolve all of them in time.

“You need a full-blown hearing. You need to prove that this person is really related to the candidate,” he added.

Issue: How will this potential law work with party-list nominees?

Some anti-dynasty bills, such as those filed by Akbayan, De Lima, Caloocan 2nd District Representative Edgar Erice, also have provisions that cover party-list nominees. After all, research shows that dynasts have hijacked the party-list system of representation.

Numerous Supreme Court rulings say that while party-list nominees are considered members of Congress, it is the party-list groups that are considered candidates.

This poses a conflict for the Comelec: how can it disqualify party-list nominees when they are not considered candidates?

“If our intention is to disqualify even the nominees, then we declare that the nominees are candidates themselves,” Garcia said.

A call for comprehensive reform

Garcia said that the passage of an anti-dynasty law alone may not suffice. Several existing election laws would also need to be amended to align with Congress’ intent, particularly the Omnibus Election Code, which was enacted even before the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution.

“If we will not properly amend other provisions of the election code and other election laws, we will not be able to properly enforce a proposed measure on political dynasties,” he said. – Rappler.com