Retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Adolfo Azcuna said on Wednesday, Feb. 4, that any law regulating political dynasties must respect the people’s freedom to choose their leaders, stressing that "democratic choice" remains the general rule under the 1987 Constitution.

During the hearing of the Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation, Azcuna said concerns raised during the 1986 Constitutional Commission (ConCom) debates centered on whether limiting family members from running for office could undermine the people’s right to elect candidates they prefer.

He recalled a statement by fellow commissioner Yusuf Abubakar, who argued that elected officials are representatives of the people and that continued electoral support should not be restricted by law.

“If the people want to keep electing me for a lifetime, why do you have to interfere?” Azcuna quoted Abubakar as saying.

Azcuna said Congress is constitutionally required to define political dynasties, stressing that the provision in the 1987 Constitution is mandatory despite language that appears discretionary.

Azcuna recalled that during the Constitutional Commission (ConCom) deliberations, the original wording was simply “shall prohibit political dynasties,” but an amendment was later introduced adding the phrase “as may be defined by law,” which he said was proposed by another commissioner.

“That is what is causing the problem because it would seem that the use of ‘may’ is discretionary, but I believe this is a guarantee and mandatory because it says ‘shall,’” Azcuna said.

“It is very clear to me that Congress is mandated to define political dynasties to give this guarantee of equal access,” he added.

He emphasized that while the Constitution mandates prohibition, it deliberately leaves the specifics to Congress.

“We have no business defining it ourselves,” Azcuna said.

“We leave it to the patriotism of Congress to craft a practical, reasonable, and fair framework for effectively carrying out this mandate,” he added.

Degrees of relationship, scope, and enforceability

Azcuna said defining the degree of relationship is a practical concern, citing discussions with his graduate students at San Beda University.

“They came out asking the same question: what is the practical, reasonable, and fair arrangement?” he said.

According to Azcuna, research by his students suggested limiting coverage to up to the second degree of consanguinity, noting that broader coverage would be difficult for the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to verify given the volume of candidates.

On coverage, Azcuna said the studies suggested excluding national positions, except party-list groups, because dynastic power is “diluted” in national constituencies.

He stressed that enforceability should be a central consideration, noting that flexibility is one advantage of leaving the matter to legislation.

“If the arrangement initially adopted does not work out, then we can change it,” Azcuna said.

Meanwhile, former ConCom member Christian Monsod said the framers deliberately left the definition of dynasties to future Congresses.

“At one point, I even moved that the provision be removed,” Monsod said, noting that he lost the vote 18–17 before eventually changing his mind.

Monsod cited three reasons: the exclusionary effect on dynastic candidates is less than that faced by poor candidates; the provision closes loopholes in term limits; and social justice goals require affirmative action.

“The call for a new social order cannot be fulfilled without affirmative action mandated by the Constitution,” he said.

Asked by Senator Risa Hontiveros about the minimum level at which an anti-dynasty law remains meaningful, Azcuna said coverage should include the barangay level.

“That is a democratic level of governance,” he said, adding that municipal, congressional, and provincial levels should also be included.

National positions, however, he said remain debatable.

“The premise of excluding them is that the power of political dynasties is diffused at the national level,” Azcuna said, noting that senators who are relatives may be elected due to popular choice rather than dynastic abuse.

“That is the rule: freedom to choose,” Azcuna said, describing the anti-dynasty provision as an exception that must be strictly construed.

“In case of doubt, we may have to decide in favor of democratic choice,” he added.

Asked whether political dynasties play a role in corruption issues such as flood control, Ateneo de Manila University political science professor Dr. Melanie Abao said dynasties undermine institutional checks and balances.

“We call it coordinated office holding,” Abao said, explaining that when related officials hold positions such as mayor and congressman, approvals and budgetary influence become concentrated.

“This removal of checks and balances leads to substandard projects,” she said.

Abao said dynastic control is most harmful when it overlaps jurisdictions, such as when national and local officials cater to the same voters.

“These overlapping constituencies mess up the relationship with voters,” she said, arguing that bans should cover both simultaneous holding of office and succession.

“If you want to dismantle dynasties, we have to close all the roots available to families,” Abao said.

Political scientist Julio Teehankee warned that vague definitions could be exploited, including running relatives as decoy candidates to weaken opponents.

“In so-called fat dynasties, now obese dynasties, there is an oversupply—five, a dozen, even two dozen family members,” Teehankee said, adding that this crowds out non-dynastic candidates.

He likened political dynasties to monopolies, saying the provision functions like anti-trust regulation to correct “political market failure.”

Senator Bam Aquino pointed out that political dynasty restrictions already exist under Republic Act No. 10742, or the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015.

Aquino said the law bars candidates related within the second degree of consanguinity to officials at all levels of government.

Comelec chairman George Garcia confirmed that the provision has been implemented successfully.

“It was very clear who was disqualified and who was not,” Garcia said.

He said a similar rule also exists in the Bangsamoro government, where party nominees must not be related within the second degree.

“These are examples that clarity in definition makes implementation possible,” Garcia said.