Anti-dynasty law dropped

By Christine F. Herrera | Sep. 08, 2015 at 12:01am

20

SPEAKER Feliciano Belmonte Jr. on Monday said the leadership of the House of Representatives
and the Senate agreed to drop the anti-dynasty bill for being a mere showpiece and a toothless
measure that strengthens instead of dismantles political dynasties.
Belmonte said dismantling dynasties is to allow only one member of the family to enter politics.
In the bill supposedly up for second reading in the House, lawmakers allowed two members of a
family to serve at the same time and are pushing for a third member to run simultaneously for
national and local posts in the same polls.
It is a toothless bill. So we agreed to drop it and not pass it in the last session of Congress. Let the
next administration take that up, Belmonte announced over radio dzBB.
President Benigno Aquino III had earlier called on Congress to pass an anti-dynasty bill, a
pronouncement that was most applauded by lawmakers, who were, ironically the ones vigorously
opposing the bill.
If Noynoy wants dynasties out, he should start by asking all his relatives in government to resign,
said Vencer Crisostomo, Anakbayan chairman.
Bayan Muna Rep. Neri Colmenares said he was wary of the Presidents pronouncement because he
also said in 2010 that it was time for a Freedom of Information law.
But up till now even the gravely watered down FOI has not passed Congress, he said.
As the primary author of the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill now in its consolidated form House Bill 3587,
Colmenares said he had hoped the Presidents statement in his SONA was for real had he certified
the bill as urgent.
Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro, chairman of the House committee on suffrage and electoral reforms,
accused his clanish colleagues of being greedy for power after he said they blocked the passage of
the anti-political dynasty bill during the last session day of Congress on June 10.
Castro, a member of the administration ally National Unity Party, said his colleagues, including the
administration lawmakers, wanted the already less stringent bill to be watered down some more
that would make a third member of their clan qualified to run in another province.
It is not political survival, but greed for power, Castro told the radio morning program over dzBB.
Castro blamed some House members on the failure of the plenary to vote on the measures second
reading before Congress adjourned sine die on June 10.
Belmonte stressed that the pending anti-dynasty bill was not a very powerful deterrent to dismantle
dynasties.

It will just be a show piece. I dont want it like that, the Speaker said.
Once you pass a show piece, the continuing rebuke is on us for not having done what the
Constitution really wants but that will be meaningless because it will be toothless, Belmonte
admitted.
Lets face it. The Constitution talks about anti-political dynasty without defining it. But for it to pass,
you have to define it but what they have come up with is not a deterrent, Belmonte lamented.
The measure only reached the plenary last May after 27 years of waiting because many lawmakers
have established their own political dynasties.
The measure defines political dynasty as the concentration, consolidation or perpetuation of public
office and political power by persons related to one another.
A political dynasty exists when two or more individuals who are related within the second degree of
consanguinity or affinity hold or run for national or local office in successive, simultaneous or
overlapping terms, the proposed law said.
It provides that no spouse, or person, elevated within the second civil degree of consanguinity or
affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half blood, to an incumbent elective official seeking
re-election shall be allowed to hold to run for any local or national elective office in the same
election.
The less stringent version of the measure would limit the number of family members who could be
elected to public office, but Castro said it did not defeat the purpose of the Anti-Political Dynasty bill.
The relaxed version required that only two members up to the second degree of consanguinity or
affinity per family would be allowed to run at the same time.

The Standard News