“Were the framers of the 1987 Constitution too naive to think that Filipino politicians would willingly give up public office just because the Constitution said so?

Will the proposed shift to a federal system of government succeed without putting an end to political dynasties?

Former Chief Justice Reynato Puno and chairman of the Consultative Committee (ConCom) created by President Rodrigo Duterte to draw up a federal constitution does not believe so and, therefore, he would stoutly oppose a final draft of the fundamental law by Congress acting as a Constituent Assembly (con-ass) that does not contain a clear and unequivocal prohibition on political dynasties.

In Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, we have this key provision: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

This provision was no doubt prompted by the emergence of new political families and the consolidation of political power of the Marcos regime during the martial law era from 1972 onwards. It was designed to curtail the monopoly of power by a few families in the country but its fatal flaw was that it left the task of prohibiting political dynasties to Congress, many of whom are members of political families themselves. Were the framers of the 1987 Constitution too naive to think that Filipino politicians would willingly give up public office just because the Constitution said so?

At any rate, the spokesman of the ConCom tasked to review the 1987 Constitution has clarified that the draft federal charter does not promote political dynasties.

We’re told that the ConCom draft contains self-executory provisions banning political dynasties, defining the coverage up to second-degree of relations by blood or marriage, prohibiting succession at all levels from the President to barangay kagawad. It this is true, it deserves our full support.

The clarification from the ConCom follows close on the heels of the contention of former Chief Justice Hilario Davide Jr. that the ConCom draft allows the proliferation of political dynasties.

According to Davide, “the guards of the Lower House will prepare possible amendments precisely to pursue their desire that there’ll be a longer transitory period and that the President will be in power.”

“Over time the system was bastardized by those eager to enter public office through the backdoor.

Our apprehension that Congress sitting as a con-ass could in all likelihood delete a self-executing anti-political dynasty provision in the final draft is not unfounded as this would break up their political and economic dominance.

This possibility is not far-fetched at all because Congress had failed to pass an anti-political dynasty law since 1987 or more than three decades ago.

What’s wrong with political dynasties, as implied by the 1987 Constitution, is that they tend to exclude the participation of the people in policy-making.

This same Constitution tried to be as democratic as possible by providing equal access to opportunities for public service through the party-list system where underrepresented and marginalized sectors, such as workers, peasants, women, persons with disabilities, senior citizens, among others were allowed to run as party-list congressmen and given the same rights as those elected by legislative districts.

The party-list system was a step in the right direction. Some party-list congressmen were very active in Congress and served their constituents well, but maybe not the others. Over time the system was bastardized by those eager to enter public office through the backdoor, with the example of a scion of a prominent political family passing himself off as a representative of private security guards.

Abraham Lincoln was right: You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Political dynasties may work in countries where popular political figures have really made a difference in the lives of the people but not where the political environment breeds paternalism and patronage. As our own experience with political dynasties show, they do not necessarily have the common good or the public interest at heart first and foremost but their own political and economic dominance which is totally antithetical to the concept of participatory or grassroots democracy.