Political dynasties in the Philippines

Politics in the Philippines has been under the control of a few notable families. It is
normal for a politician's son, wife, brother, or other kinsman, to run for the same or other government office. The
term coined by Filipinos to describe this practice is "Political dynasty", the equivalent of an oligarchy in political
science.One can trace its roots from the Spanish colonial times where favored families of the mestizo stock, or
the Illustrados were given responsibilities of Gobernadorcillo, or Alcalde. As such, these men have wielded some
influence in their communities, and patronage politics was a common undertaking.
During the early years of American rule of the Philippine Islands, these Illustrados joined the democratic process
introduced by the Philippine Bill of 1902. During this period, family names such
as Cojuangcos, Lopezes, Marcoses, Osmeas and Aquinos started to emerge, later on becoming household names.
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."
Many have called for the Congress to pass the Anti-Dynasty Law, but this bill has been passed over by each Congress
since 1987. Some have pointed thatoligarchy is the root problem of all the corruption in the Philippine government.
[1]

Despite the entry of the Party List System in the 11th Congress, the proportion of lawmakers with relatives in elective
positions have remained the same in the post-Marcos political scene.
[2]
The table below illustrates the percentage:
Political scientist Dante Simbulan, in a study of the elites of Philippine politics from 1946 to 1963 lists 169 prominent
families. These families have produced 584 public officials, including seven Presidents, two Vice Presidents, 42
Senators, and 147 Representatives





The Tables below outlines the demographics of families in politics.
156E: Political Dynasties Are Bad For The Philippines

There's been a lot of debate as of late when it comes to the subject of political dynasties in Philippine
politics. The usual argument against legislation preventing the proliferation of such dynasties is the need to allow the
skills and merit of the individual win out over any desire to stop such dynasties from thriving.
I mean come on, there is a Wikipedia article dedicated solely to discussingPhilippine political dynasties. WHY DOES
THIS EVEN EXIST?

The article does indicate that at least 60% of the Philippine Congress involves representatives with relatives (whether
by blood or through marriage) in some sort of an elected position. And this has not changed since before the Marcos
era either.

My boss had an interesting way of describing the effect of political dynasties in the country - when families ties their
personal economy to public office, then nothing good can come of it. People should not be making money from
entering public service in this manner, and yet time and time again it happens.

To be fair, it's not accurate to say that all members of a political dynasty are necessarily bad. That would be an
unfair generalization. But there are far too many negative effects of such dynasties that the benefits do not outweigh
the consequences.

For time immemorial, it seems that families of influence continue to shape the direction of this country. Presidents
rise and fall but the same people continue to rule. Being career politicians is pretty much a family business at this
point where every new offspring is expected to follow in his or her parent's footsteps and ensure that the cash flow
continues. And thus the reason why I feel that the only way to really effect meaningful change is to implement
enabling meaningful legislation to restrict the activities of political dynasties in the country. We lose some of the
good, but we take out even more of the bad.

And I don't think it should be as simplistic as banning anyone with a family relation in political office from also
running for a position. But I think we can somehow limited family remembers from either (1) holding political office
at the same time and (2) holding office for consecutive terms. It sounds overly restrictive, but I feel it'll be of greater
benefit in the long run.

Let's face it - these political families have gathered enough wealth and resources to ensure that they win any election
whether through the strength of the family name or through more "creative" electoral strategies. And by that I
obviously refer more to vote buying, strong arm coercion and of course implementing fluffy laws and ordinances that
shower gifts on the poor and less fortunate without effectively changing their lot in life.

We need to break the hold that these families have on the reins of power in this country. And the only way that we'll
be able to effect such change and put an end to the related graft, corruption and cronyism in the country is to
prevent them from holding positions anew. And once we clear the board, then maybe we stand a chance of electing
some decent officials who can do something for the country instead of for themselves.

But that may be a very long, long, LONG time coming - if at all
In developed political democracies, the political parties are the organization of note. They represent ideologies and
aggregate interests; they serve as focal points for competition for power and influence, incubators of future
government leaders, and generators and advocates of policies and social action programs. The politics of
longstanding democracies can be identified through the contesting political parties: witness the Democrats and
Republicans in the United States, or the Conservative and Labour Parties in Great Britain; Germanys Christian
Democratic and Social Unions (two parties), Free Democrats, and the Green Party.
In that vein, party politics in the present Philippines is greatly wanting. We do have political organizationsthe
Liberal Party, Nacionalista, Lakas, and so forthbut bar a few examples such as Akbayan and Bayan Muna who are
at least guided by ideologies, or in special cases, political dynamics in Philippine parties dont operate in a mature,
developed fashion, leading to rational, constructive governance. Personality and patronage often trumps principles,
subverting governance, leading to corruption, inefficiency, and/or indifference and unresponsiveness. It also often
leads to the entrenchment of elite politics, where whom you know counts over skill and talent, or dedication and
perseverance, locking out the majority from political participation. The result, in the context of weak political parties,
is dynastic politics, often dominated by families whose members succeed each other in power.
I should be fair: dynastic membership does not automatically mean corruption or malice. There are good people in
Philippine politics who are members of political families. (Disclosure: I intend to vote for some of them.) Nonetheless,
the tendency of dynastic politics does not trend towards democratization or accountability, an infirmity the Philippines
can ill affordreflected in Article II, Sec. 26 of the Philippine Constitution, but not in legislation called for by the
Constitution.
The exogamistic (out-of-family) characteristics of modern political parties allow for greater political and policy
dynamism, and better chances for personal and organizational accountability and advancement, because the
personalities involved dont have to contend with familial ties in membership and decision-making. All that political
parties in the country require is a fighting chance at such dynamism and accountability, against long-standing and
entrenched dynastic patterns of Philippine political power. It requires, particularly, the enforcement of political party
membership: members cannot just flip their loyalties just on capricious desire for electoral victory, which happens all
too often in Philippine election season.
So it became critical for the Ateneo Fact Check 2013 Elections to call into question dynasties and support for political
party development. Who among the candidates belong to familial political dynasties? Who among them would invest
political capital in proposed Political Party Development legislation and/or the banning of political dynasties? The
logical expectation is that a political dynasty member would both oppose anti-dynasty legislation, and not be
interested in party development. Conversely, non-dynasty members would support anti-dynasty bills and party
development. The answers sometimes surprise us.
Among the top 20 senatorial candidates, 13 can be considered as dynasty members, by virtue of family members in
power presently or preceding: Sonny Angara, Bam Aquino, Nancy Binay, Alan Cayetano, Ting-Ting Cojuangco, JV
Ejercito, Jack Enrile, Chiz Escudero, Dick Gordon, Ernesto Maceda, Jun Magsaysay, Cynthia Villar and Migs Zubiri.
Five of them are seen to support anti-dynasty legislation: Aquino, Enrile, Magsaysay, Zubiri, and Maceda; none of
them have advanced proposed legislation. Seven will likely support party development initiatives: Cayetano,
Escudero, Magsaysay, Gordon, Aquino, Angara and Enrile. Angara in fact is the author of the House version of the
Party Development Bill.
Among the non-dynastic candidates (Gringo Honasan, Risa Hontiveros, Loren Legarda, Jamby Madrigal, Koko
Pimentelwhose father, former Senator Nene Pimentel, had retired before the sons ascension, Grace Poe, Antonio
Trillanes), only three have stood strong in favor of anti-dynasty legislation: Pimentel, Hontiveros, and Madrigal. The
rest have not spoken in favor or against such a policy. Thankfully, all seven support enacting party development
policies, though only Legarda and Hontiveros Akbayan party have pushed forward draft legislation.
Those who have spoken out against anti-dynasty legislationor, for that matter, those who havent said anything at
allspeak to the potential impracticalities of such a policy. Apart from the quality, not dynasty argument advanced
above, theres the potential conflict with the guarantee of equal opportunity for all who seek candidacy for political
office, whether he be considered a dynastic member. They would also leave it to voters to determine who they want
in office.
The debate over anti-dynasty and party development legislation will continue through this coming election, and past
it. And the critics of anti-dynasty legislation have one point right: it will be up to the voters to determine who among
the candidates enter the Senatewho among them would fight for or against dynastic politics, for or against party
development. Perhaps the twelve winners of the 2013 senatorial race may foretell the chances of anti-dynasty
legislation in the next three years.
Yet we may let historyneither the candidates nor the votershave the last word. Before Marcos, and after Marcos,
we have let political power concentrate rather than diffuse (Marcos simply changed the hands in which power
concentrated). To those in whom power concentrated went the advantages of power, name recognition and recall,
resources, and momentum. The question to really ask is: will we vote for a future where power is not based on
whom you know, but what you stand for?

MANILA, Philippines - Political dynasties continue to reign in the Philippine political landscape, especially
in isolated and far-off provinces, despite anti-dynasty initiatives of civil society, a study by the Asian
Institute of Management (AIM) Policy Center has found.
Ronaldo Mendoza, executive director of the AIM Policy Center and leader of a research team that looked
into reigning political clans with a tight control of elective positions in local governments nationwide, said
political dynasties continue to monopolize political power in many local governments like provinces,
municipalities and cities nationwide, and categorized current reigning political clans as fat or thin
dynasties.
Despite the Maguindanao massacre that was condemned here and abroad, the Ampatuan family
continues to reign in Maguindanao, topping the list of the fat dynasties in the country.
Mendoza said fat dynasties are political families that have several members holding elective positions in
a certain local government for three years.
A thin dynasty is a political clan that only has two members like a father and son swapping certain
positions, as when a mayor-father, at the end of his maximum three terms, lets his son, who may also
have reached his three-year term either as vice mayor, councilor, provincial governor or vice governor,
running for each others position, he added.
A fat dynasty monopolizing power is an undesirable situation, he pointed out, as checks and balances
among elected officials in a certain local government are difficult if they are all from one family.
In Maguindanao, the fat Ampatuan dynasty held eight out of the 37 mayoralty posts in the provinces 37
municipalities, Mendoza said.
Other provinces with a big number of fat dynasties include Apayao province, Dinagat Islands, Siquijor and
Sulu.
Mendoza said in their study, which looked into dynasties that took and kept power in the 2007 and 2010
elections, there were more fat dynasties in the political landscape in the 2010 elections.
Mendoza presented the 2012 study results yesterday in a forum attended by academe and civil society
that tackled the issue of political dynasties at the Discovery Suites in Ortigas Center, Pasig.
Dubbed Building an Inclusive Democracy, the forum featured the AIM Policy Center study led by
Mendoza, as well as academics from the University of the Philippines - National College of Public
Administration, De La Salle University, and Ateneo de Manila University who are among the most
dedicated scholars on dynasties, politics, and elections in the country.
Mendoza, however, said the Philippines was not alone in having the problem of political dynasty.
Were not the only ones with this particular phenomenon, he said. Lets not beat ourselves up because
of it.
Mendoza said other Asia countries have recently seen dynasties, but thin ones, holding power, as he
cited the case of Thailand where a sister of deposed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, Yingluck, was
voted into the post; North Korea where a son of Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, succeeded the strongman;
Rahul Gandhi of the Gandhi political dynasty eyed to be a prime minister; South Korea where the first
female elected president Park Geun-hye is a daughter of former president Park Chung-hee