Defensor: Anti-political dynasty bill must not disenfranchise voters
House of Representatives.
MANILA, Philippines —Iloilo 3rd District Rep. Lorenz Defensor said there needs to be a balance in crafting a bill seeking to ban political dynasties in the country.
While he agrees with calls to craft a bill defining and banning political dynasties, he said voters who prefer certain candidates should not be disenfranchised. And that the rights of people who want to enter public service are not infringed.
Defensor, during a virtual briefing on Wednesday, said this after being asked about a petition filed before the Supreme Court (SC) asking the judiciary not to tolerate Congress’ inaction on the 1987 Constitution’s prohibition of political dynasties.
Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution states that the government should “prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law”, which means that an enabling law crafted by Congress is needed to enforce this.
Define dynasty
“We should define what a dynasty should be under a law that will be passed by Congress. And I’m very open to discussing that, especially if the Supreme Court itself will issue a mandamus. There have been many pending bills about the anti-dynasty law in Congress and it’s about time we deliberate on that seriously so we can define what a dynasty is,” he said.
“Because unless and until (there is) a clear definition of what a dynasty is, it will be very hard for us to exercise our democratic process […] we don’t just say that because you are the brother of a senator, you’re the niece of a governor, or you siblings are in politics, it’s automatically a dynasty. We should have a reasonable definition so as not also to infringe the rights of individuals to enter public service,” he added.
READ: Bam Aquino to refile anti-political dynasty bill if elected
According to Defensor, fat dynasties — or family members taking turns to occupy a certain elective position — will always be bad for the government. However, the lawmaker also noted that such a process occurs because of term limits set by the Constitution.
`Fat dynasty’
“Fat dynasties are always bad. So what is a fat dynasty? Fat dynasty, person A, his wife, children, cousin, siblings, are in politics, and it’s partly because also of the term limits where where someone has ended his term, he will select someone from his family and after that, that member of the family will stay on, and after his or her term expires they will select another one,” he said.
“If you compare our political system with mature democracies where it is one member of the family like (former United States senator and president) Joe Biden for example, since he has no term limits, he was able to serve continuously, sitting in his district, holding on to his Senate seat and that politician becomes a statesman with a mature political sense […] So we have to strike the perfect balance between term limits and political dynasties,” he added.
Defensor noted that changing term limits would have to be a constitutional amendment, which he admitted will be hard since not even proposed economic changes to the 1987 Constitution were approved.
Term limit
“Everyone hates it when I propose amendments to the constitution every term. When we discuss constitutional convention or constituent assembly, I am always the enemy. It will be even harder to amend the term limits because we cannot even pass simple changes to economic provisions, what more for political provision. So that’s even harder,” he said.
“But it’s a start if we have a political dynasty bill for discussion next Congress. It’s a good start,” he added.
Thin dynasties, meanwhile, can be acceptable according to the lawmaker.
“To some extent, yes. It’s no longer a dynasty if there’s only one person in power, like in the case of (former Senate president) Jovito Salonga, it’s only Jovito Salongga among his relatives who became a member of Congress, he was the only senator, only him became a Senate President,” he said.
“You become a statesman. When you have maturity and your term continues […] As long as they are voted by the people, you always have to bring it back to the constituency. It’s hard to stop the people from picking their preferred candidates,” he added.
Banning political dynasties has been a repeated call from many cause-oriented groups, noting that having many members of a family on different elective posts hinders growth and weakens checks and balances.
Comelec ban
However, the absence of a law disallowing dynasties have prevented poll-related agencies, like the Commission on Elections, from enforcing a ban.
READ: Comelec junks poll protest vs Erwin Tulfo
Last Monday, 1-Sambayan coalition submitted a 48-page petition to the SC, seeking the High Tribunal’s help on prompting Congress to come up with an anti-political dynasty bill.
According to the petitioners, they want SC to hold Congress in contempt should they fail to comply within one year if the petition is granted.
“Congress’ failure to enact an enabling law, since the Constitution’s ratification in 1987 up to date, has not only rendered Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution inutile but also allowed political dynasties to concentrate power within a few families, undermined the democratic process, and ultimately exacerbated poverty and inequality among our people,” it added.
READ: Another petition to enact Anti-Political Dynasty law filed
Defensor however doubts that the SC would issue a writ of mandamus as the Constitution did not issue a deadline on when the bill should be formed.
“I don’t think the Supreme Court will act or issue a mandamus against Congress to compel it because this is purely a political question whether the members of Congress are willing to pass a bill. And it’s not for the Supreme Court to compel. While the Constitution says that there is a prohibition against the dynasty under a bill passed by Congress, it does not state a timeline,” he noted.
