CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Conceptual Literature:
Definition of Political Dynasty
A political family or political dynasty is a family in which several members
are involved in politics, particularly electoral politics. Members may be related by
blood or marriage; often several generations or multiple siblings may be involved.
A royal family or dynasty in a monarchy is generally considered to not be a
"political family," although the later descendants of a royal family have played
political roles in arepublic (such as the Arslan Family of Lebanon would be).
A family dictatorship is a form of dictatorship that operates much like an absolute
monarchy, yet occurs in a nominally republican state (Curl, 2005).
Under Section 3, Paragraph (a) of House Bill No. 3587, political dynasty
refers to the concentration, consolidation and perpetuation of public office and
politcal power by a person related to another. A political dynasty exists when two
or more individuals who are whithin the second degree of consanguinity or
affinity hold or run for national or local office in successive, simultaneous or
overlapping terms (House Bill No. 3587).
Political Dynasty in the Philippines
Political dynasties have long been present in the Philippine political structure.
They are typically found in elite families that have established themselves in a

18

province before moving on to the national government. Political dynasties,

therefore, usually have a strong support base. Members of such dynasties are
also not limited to the politics, as they can also be active in socio-economic
spheres.
Political dynasties started emerging after the Philippine Revolution when the First
Republic of the Philippines was established. Over the years, newer dynasties
emerged as some of the initial ones became inactive. Majority of the positions in
the Philippine government are currently held by members of political dynasties.
Notable Philippine political dynasties include the Ampatuan, Aquino and Marcos
families.
There has been a lot of debate regarding the effects of these dynasties on the
socio-political and economical aspects of society. Although political dynasties are
typically associated with higher levels of poverty and corruption, there are no
laws that restrict the presence of political dynasties in the Philippines (Mendoza,
2013).
Disadvantages of Political Dynasty
The political dynasty undoubtedly plays an influential role in Philippine
society. Families of political dynasties are sitting side by side to deliberate on
important legislations that will affect the future of more than 80 million Filipinos
both young and old for generations to come (PHILIPPINEPOLITICS.NET., 2000).

19

It has been often contended that political dynasties go against the values
upheld by democracy since it does not provide an equal opportunity for people to
hold offices of power and service. With the set-up of the political dynasty, it
seems as if positions of power are exclusively dominated by a particular clan or
family. Arguably, the political dynasty is said to monopolize the system of
governance since it limits the chances of other common Filipinos to serve the
people. It creates a brain drain in the sense that the new and capable leader who
could possibly perform better than those currently in office, would not be given an
opportunity when running against someone with a name. Former Mayor, and now
DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo of Naga City, who has firmly stood against
political dynasties, he believes, "The right to serve does not belong to one family
alone. Ordinary people who deserve to be empowered should be given the
opportunity to serve the community," (Medel, 2007).
It is undeniable that there are candidates who are voted into office simply
because of their name and fame. Sons, siblings and even wives of politicians people who have no knowledge whatsoever of how to lead and serve, are voted
into office simply because of their connection to previous leaders. Electoral votes
are not so much based on the capability of one to serve, but rather on the name
carried by one who is running. It is quite obvious that the family name of an
elected official or a potential candidate plays a big role in the success of one who
falls under the category of being part of a political family. It can be identified that
power can be seen not only in exercises of excess but also in tangible things
such as a candidate's family name. This symbolic power could be seen as a

20

perpetuation of the power system that runs through a political dynasty since it
plays a big role in a dynasty's continued existence and evolution
(http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/influence-and-power-of-politicaldynasties-politics-essay.php).
To tackle exactly this issue Pablo Querubn in his research Family and
Politics: Dynastic Persistence in the Philippines compares non-dynastic political
candidates who just win office, to those who just lose (either dynastic or nondynastic). The idea with this just win office strategy (or as it is called, the
regression discontinuity strategy) is that this approximates a situation where the
candidate who won did so almost randomly relative to the candidate who just
lost (think of a coin toss determining whether a candidate with exactly 50% of the
vote gets one more vote or whether his rival does). This in particular should
ensure that whether one of these just winning candidates didnt do so because of
their special talents or wealth relative to candidates who just lost it
(http://whynationsfail.com/blog/2013/1/9/political-dynasties-in-thephilippines.html).
Similar to what Foucault had studied about power relations, this paper,
uses the same theory but relates it to the phenomenon of political dynasties in
the Philippines. Throughout Philippine history, the political dynasty has taken on
a negative connotation. Often linked to problems like graft, corruption, and abuse
of power, it has taken on a detrimental role to society. Perhaps the most
infamous of all would be the political dynasty of the Marcos family. Alleged to
have embezzled between US$5 billion and US$10 billion from the Philippines,

21

Transparency International has ranked Ferdinand Marcos at second on a list of

the world's most corrupt political leaders of the past two decades; surpassed only
by former Indonesian President Suharto (Ferdinand Marcos: Killer File, 2000).
In light of Michel Foucault's study of power, he shows how the display of
excessive power can serve as a negative connotation towards disciplining
society. In relation to the existence of political dynasties, their display of
excessive power by means of running private armies or reliance on coercion in
order to establish and maintain their power, could very well serve as a detriment
to public order as well as to their own existence. This is where Vladimir Lenin's
theory on organization can come into play because power alone in a democratic
society, especially excessive power, can clash with the values of democracy
while power coupled with proper organization could compromise with the said
values. Organization, furthermore, would tweak how power is distributed,
dispersed and used on the sovereign's subjects. In the case of political dynasties
where power is seen to be a tool used for political domination, power alongside
organization can produce an effective dynasty, which operates on behalf of and
for the public rather than for itself and its interests (Foucault, 1977).
Advantages of Political dynasty
While a famous name may get peoples attention, open eyes, doors and
wallets, it isnt a guarantee of success. Ultimately, every election is about trust.
And you have to earn it. Voters want you to stand on your own two feet and make

22

your case to earn their trust and their vote. The 2016 election is no different in
this respect.
But it is in others. Voters may have the chance to choose between two
dynasties. If Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton run for president, and win the
nomination of their respective parties, voters will have a choice of individuals who
know well what it is like to be president without ever holding the job.
That alone could be an advantage in this election. With the trust of
institutions at an all-time low in public opinion, voting for someone who knows the
job well may be an advantage in 2016. Voters wont focus on the dynastic aspect
of their candidacies, but rather on the direction they want for the country and
whom they trust to get the job done. Just like any other election.
Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton know their name is no guarantee of success.
They have both lost elections before. If the 2016 election is Bush versus Clinton
one of them will know what it is like to lose again -- and that makes a dynasty no
different than any other candidate.
Legality of Political Dynasty in the Philippines
In terms of the legality of political dynasties, Art. II, Sec. 26 of the
Constitution says, "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."
However, there is no clear definition of political dynasties and therefore the
provision is none self-executing. It is the most ignored policy by Congress due to

23

certain reasons. The framers left it to the congress to define political dynasties which it has not done (Cruz, 2007).
This loophole in the law has allowed the political dynasty to continue up to
the present day even if it is technically not allowed. The only law being actively
enforced to prevent the abuse of power is the term limits on elective positions.
However, providing a term limit for elective officials is easily countered by having
families pass on their power. To retain political hold on his constituents, a forcibly
retired official arranges to have his wife, a mistress, one of his children, his own
siblings, or a parent to occupy his position for one term. After which, he will be
qualified again to run for office (Cruz, 2007).
In an effort to ban political dynasties, there was an anti-dynasty bill that
was filled by Majority Floor Leader Arthur Defensor of Iloilo. Section Five of
House Bill 783, which reads, "Any person who has a political dynasty relationship
with an incumbent elective official is disqualified from running for any elective
public office within the same city and/or province where the elective public official
is running." This bill will only be proactive. It will not affect those who are already
currently holding positions. The bill also limits the definition of a political dynasty
relationship as existing only among relatives up to the second degree of affinity
or consanguinity. Thus, only the spouse, children, siblings or parents of the
incumbent are deemed disqualified and similar in-law relationship. The bill
disallows a relative of an incumbent from running for a position like governor, vice
governor, mayor, vice mayor, as these positions are vested executive power.
Another distinct feature of this bill is that it allows relatives of the incumbent to

24

run for posts such as board member or councilor where power is shared owing to
the collegial nature of the office. The idea of the bill is to bar relatives from
holding positions where power is concentrated in an individual, but not from
positions where decision-making is made through deliberation and consensus
(Bordadora, 2007).
Although this new bill seems like a good and effective idea for countering
the negative effects of the existence political dynasties, it has yet to have been
decided by legislators whether this will be fully implemented or not. It is up to the
Congress to decide whether this bill will be passed and it seems highly unlikely
that they will do so. This is partly due to the fact that political dynasties have
become so much a part of the current system of governance that it is almost
impossible to change. "I don't think it has much of a chance under the present
Congress," stated Defensor regarding his opinion on possibility of the bill being
passed (Bordadora, 2007).
No matter how much effort is put against the political dynasty, it is here to
stay. It is simply futile to hope for any change regarding the current laws on
political dynasties. Instead of looking at something that is simply out of reach,
people should realize that there lies a much simpler solution. It would be
impossible to ban all political dynasties in general; however, it is possible to put
an end to the bad political dynasties. People should realize that they are the ones
who elect their leaders into office. No matter how strong a political dynasty may
be, sovereignty is held by the people. At the end of the day, it will be the people
to decide whether or not a dynasty will be succeeded. "Absolute power is when

25

you have a dictatorship. We still have to go through an election. The electorate

will be the ones to dictate who are the ones who will lead. The people have the
power, not the officials" (Medel, 2007).
According to Tuazon, nearly 50 percent of the countrys current political
dynasties owe their ascendancy to post-Marcos (1986) political deals when most
elective positions were filled up by appointees of then President Corazon C.
Aquino, including the Ampatuans of the infamous Maguindanao massacre. In
the entry of political appointees, it is understood that more families were allowed
to establish their respective dynasties in the political arena. The prevalence of
political families in various public posts has become commonplace in the
Philippine government today (http://www.up.edu.ph/it-runs-in-the-family-themaking-of-political-dynasties-in-the-philippines/).
A CenPEG study in 2011 showed that the May 2010 electionsduring
which the automated election system was used nationwide for the first time
increased even more the number of political dynasties both at the national and
local levels. Political dynasties have been thriving with memberships increasing
through horizontal and vertical expansion. For instance, in the 15th Congress,
vertical and horizontal expansion included local and national positions, covering
legislative districts, provinces, and regions, and even penetrating the party-list
system (http://www.up.edu.ph/it-runs-in-the-family-the-making-of-politicaldynasties-in-the-philippines/).

26

The rampant political dynasty building today was described by Tuazon as

tactics of self-preservation and expansion, which are means for a continuing rule
of political dynasties. The 2013 election clearly demonstrates how such tactics
operate. For instance, the 2013 senatorial slates are basically coalitions of
political dynasties through party-switching for networking and political
preservation. Image and visual packaging have become key factors in the
expansion, preservation, and continuing rule of political dynasties. Partnerships
with lawyers, the media, showbiz personalities and corporations have favored
wider expansion and greater popularity for these political dynasties, ensuring
their rule over Philippine politics (http://www.up.edu.ph/it-runs-in-the-family-themaking-of-political-dynasties-in-the-philippines/).
The continuing phenomenon of political dynasties today reflects the
encompassing influence of traditional politics. Recent studies reveal that since
1903 to present, dynastic candidates have had about thirty percent greater
chance of winning over non-traditional rivals, according to Tuazon. It has
become customary for citizens to base their decisions on personality-based
campaigns backed by familial or dynastic support. While an ideology is in place,
for Tuazon, such dynasties perpetuate and enjoy various advantages in
traditional kinship networks, political machineries, wealth, property, access to
government sources, weak political party system, weak electoral system, culture
of powerlessness among the people, and warlordism (http://www.up.edu.ph/itruns-in-the-family-the-making-of-political-dynasties-in-the-philippines/).

27

Similarly, 425 dynastic mayoral candidates ran and won against their
dynastic rivals. Put differently, the most winnable candidates are oftentimes
those who come from political families. This is not surprising because of the
advantages that they could afford themselvesadvantages that increase
disproportionately as a political clan successfully fields more relatives into office
(http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/influence-and-power-of-politicaldynasties-politics-essay.php).
In our analysis, in fact, the fattest dynasties systematically decimate not
only non-dynastic politicians but also thinner dynasties (or those that have 2 or
less family members in office). In many provinces, this may have created the
perverted incentives for a race to be fat among the dynasties.As an aside, more
reasonable members of political clans have since noted to this author that the
present law of the jungle cannot continue. And some have noted that rules of
the game need to be introduced in order to bring back credibility and
accountability in public office (http://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/influenceand-power-of-political-dynasties-politics-essay.php).
In May of last year, however, after languishing for decades at the
committee level, the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill was sponsored before the plenary
of the House of Representatives.House Bill 3587 or the Act Prohibiting the
Establishment of Political Dynasties seeks to prohibit relatives up to the second
degree of consanguinity to hold or run for both national and local office in
successive, simultaneous, or overlapping terms. The proposed law also

28

prohibits relatives from running at the same time even if they are not related to an
incumbent official, House Bill 3587 has been amended since to allow at least two
family members to be in an elective post. Two members from one family may
both be elected to posts at the national and local levels at the same time. One
family member could also hold a national post while the other will serve in the
local government. For local posts, the amended bill provides that two family
members may assume office in one province, city, or municipality.The Senate
version of the bill is much stricter. Only one family member will be allowed to hold
public office from the barangay to the national level. While critics of the bill argue
that the electorate should be the best judge of who they want in public office
regardless of family relations, advocates, on the other hand, contend that the
monopoly of political power denies persons who are equally qualified to aspire on
even terms with those from dominant political families. Jan Frederick P. Cruz and
Ronald U. Mendoza, of the AIM Rizalino S. Navarro Policy Center for
Competitiveness, in their working paper entitled Does Dynastic Prohibition
Improve Democracy? succinctly discussed the arguments and counterarguments against prohibiting dynastic politics. First, it has been repeatedly
asserted by critics that prohibiting political dynasties disqualifies people who are
otherwise competent and deserving to run for public office. The crux of an antidynasty law, however, is not competence but conflict of interest.Second, they say
that an anti-dynasty law infringes on the right to vote and be voted upon.
However, rights are not absolute and are subject to reasonable regulation. An
anti-dynasty law operates within the parameters of the police power of the

29

State. Third, there are groups who contend that any regulation on electoral
candidacy that disadvantages one sector by virtue of their familial affiliation
violates a persons right to equal access to public service. However, a potential
prohibition of dynasties would not preclude equal opportunities for public office as
long as restrictions would be reasonable and objective.Lastly, critics argue that
solving political dynasties entails addressing the conditions that enable them to
exist, rather than using an outright prohibition. If oligarchic politicians are
outcomes of the prevailing socioeconomic structures, then its existence is simply
a symptom of a much larger malaise. The solution put forth is to attack the root
causes of the persistence of dynasties rather than simply concentrate on banning
political elites (http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?
section=Opinion&title=28-years-and-still-hoping-for-the-anti-political-dynastylaw&id=113725).