Congress’ massive failure in the last 38 years to craft a constitutionally mandated enabling law on political dynasties basically turned the country’s political system into a “dynastic democracy.”

Which is why in the face of entrenched dynasties treating politics as a family business we’re in a crisis. Not only because “political dynasties on steroids” weakened the quality of our democracy but also because, more crucially, dynasties are evidently linked to deeper poverty and underdevelopment.

So, when this administration surprisingly put the issue on the front burner, many expressed hope of a radically reshaped political landscape, where the rooted power structures will get their comeuppance. 

Immediately, however, contentious, passionate, and oftentimes obtuse debates on major aspects of the issue exploded, particularly after the filing of some 11 widely-divergent anti-dynasty bills in Congress.

Understanding the issue in simple terms, therefore, is the call of the hour, particularly in light of the fact that we ordinary citizens hold the key to breaking the chains the political dynasties had ingeniously wound around us.

To start doing that, distilling the debates into its understandable essence should get us on our way.  

It is best that we begin with the exact constitutional provision on the prohibition of political dynasties. 

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

While the one-sentence provision starkly prohibits political dynasties, two troubling phrases, however, have led to unpleasant arguments. The two are “equal access to opportunities for public service” and “as may be defined by law.” 

Both phrases are troubling largely because both are necessary in answering the initial difficult fundamental question about dynasties: How to define political dynasties? 

Of the two phrases, however, the “public service” part hasn’t garnered attention nor intense debates in stark contrast to the swirlingly hot debates around “as may be defined by law.”

Yet the “public service” phrase needs to be threshed out too since many didn’t notice that “public service” didn’t mean elective “public office.” 

The framers of the Constitution in their debates, in fact, said they amended “office” to “service” to refer to both elective and appointive government positions. 

Political dynasties, in short, do not necessarily apply to elective positions alone. 

As presently borne out by what happened after the Constitution came into force, the framers presciently predicted that wily dynasties would capture not only “elective” positions but “appointive” positions in government as well.  

Any proposal, therefore, on an anti-dynasty law needs to address this largely neglected issue besides the hotly debated issue of how lawmakers can best go about fulfilling their duties to prohibit dynasties.  

With regard to the second issue, current debates inside and outside Congress on crafting an anti-dynasty law are premised on three identifiable main talking points, which an Asian Institute of Management (AIM) research paper summarized nearly a decade ago.

These three main points and its variations are: the elected positions that would be circumscribed by current anti-dynasty proposals; the extent of consanguinity and affinity that the prohibition would cover; and the question of whether the prohibition would focus on succession, simultaneous terms, or both.

Having these three talking points firmly in mind while navigating the proposals and debates on political dynasties should help, particularly since proponents will surely employ perplexing political and legal gobbledygook to advance their political intentions.