House Anti-Dynasty Bill Faces Criticism for Reinforcing Political Families

A proposed anti-political dynasty bill in the House of Representatives is drawing criticism from lawmakers and analysts who warn that the measure may entrench political families instead of dismantling dynastic power.

Critics argue that the versions filed by House leaders—including Speaker Martin Romualdez and former Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez—do not directly prohibit political dynasties. Instead, they define allowable family participation in government, potentially legitimizing dynastic arrangements within set limits.

Veteran lawmaker Percival Cendaña warned that the proposal runs counter to the spirit of the Constitution, which calls for equal access to public service and the prevention of political monopolies. He stressed that regulating dynasties is not the same as dismantling them.

Under the proposed framework, family members would still be allowed to hold office across different levels or rotate positions—practices long associated with entrenched political influence. Critics caution that such provisions risk reinforcing patronage politics rather than addressing systemic inequality.

Advocacy groups and reform-oriented legislators continue to push for a clearer, stricter law that genuinely curbs dynastic control and promotes broader political participation. As deliberations continue, public attention remains focused on whether Congress will pursue meaningful reform or settle for compromise.