The Anti-Dynasty bill is making its slow way through Congress. Despite the fact this was an imperative mandated by the 1987 Constitution, after nearly three decades and various Presidents and lawmakers, the law banning political dynasties has still to make its debut in the Philippine political scene.
Natch, the political families who have so much to lose are still "lost" in the thick of deliberations, caucuses and committees. After all, this sensitive topic has to be studied carefully, when the livelihoods of so many prominent families are at stake.
The latest proposal we see hazards the limit of two relatives getting voted into elective office at any one time. I don't really mind this limit - it's actually a surprisingly low number, given that there are families with as much as (or more than) ten members of the clan clinging on to various positions. Two actually sounds attractive.
For those who aren't satisfied with this for being too generous to politicians, just let the bill pass, please, and then propose refinements later. At least, we will have a established a definable yardstick within which to measure the hyper vague term "political dynasty." Whether that yardstick will pass the test of time is something we can determine later. But meanwhile, let what good the bill can do already start exerting its beneficial influence in our cesspool of a political system.
While this bill is being chipped away though, there's still so much harm that can be inflicted on it by insincere lawmakers pursuing their own agendas. The noise we hear is, the limit of two is now being proposed to be loosened up. And why not? If I were in their shoes, what's to stop me proposing say, the limit of two relatives to national positions and another two to local positions? After all, more than half of the 290 members of the House of Representatives have relatives in other positions.
I wonder how the bill will treat in-laws? Husband and wife can run, plus another blood relative on each side? Or will husband and wife alone fill up the two open slots? What if two politicians marry while in office? Will their blood relatives from both sides lose their positions automatically? Or maybe the husband and wife should both get dislodged upon saying "I do", so they can enjoy their honeymoon better.
One way to effectively discourage dynasties is just to eliminate the money making potential attendant to holding elective posts. No more spending of discretionary funds. No more pork allocation. Once you get that out of the picture, watch how many of the existing politicians will still be willing to serve the country.
In this endeavor, I salute the House Leader, Speaker Feliciano Belmonte, Jr. This man has been (thus far) tireless in nursing the bill through. If he succeeds, maybe we should compose an epic chant about his heroism. It is surely a daunting task to face his brethren and use his persuasive powers to convince them to vote against their self interests.
Speaker Belmonte has vowed that this bill will pass. This bold pronouncement, he made in various news reports over the past few months. But that defiant stance seems to be giving way to reality, as this week, he summed up his chances this way: if the bill limits the cap to one family member, then the bill would never pass. (After all, 180 out of 290 Congressmen have relations in office). If the limit is kept at two, then Belmonte still doubts the chances of the bill.
What does that leave us with? Three maximum? Time to keep a close watch on the proceedings. With the stakes this high, the chances for chicanery magicking this bill into oblivion dramatically increases.
One hopes that Speaker Belmonte will not have to eat his words.