Akbayan Partylist Rep. Chel Diokno said that considerations for an anti-dynasty law should also weigh the existence of families assuming multiple positions in public office through the Partylist system in Congress.

Diokno stated that the anti-dynasty measure that was passed at the House of Representatives did not include a provision that would restrict partylists from fielding candidates from the same family, something that was present in their version of the legislation.

“Our proposal for the Anti-Dynasty law and our separate proposal for a Partylist reform, we included a dynasty provision that families would not be able to assume public office through partylists and other national posts,” he said during a radio interview.

The solon expressed that the partylist system had become an avenue not only for dynasties but even contractors to make their way into government, rather than abiding to the primary reason it was implemented–to give various sectors a voice.

“The reason why we have a partylist was not because of contractors, what our Constitution did was to acknowledge partylists so that every sector, even marginalized sectors…are given the opportunity to participate in the process of passing helpful laws,” he explained.

Aside from the issue concerning the candidates themselves, Diokno noted that a different concern was regarding the existence of partylists that do not directly represent a particular sector.

He said that the law should be amended to implement stricter guidelines both on what can be considered a partylist as well as who can be considered as the true representative of the elected body.

The lawmaker’s take on the matter was echoed by a law professor and the convenor of 1Sambayan Atty. Howard Calleja who stated that partylists also raise the issue of term sharing practices.

“Political parties must be studied, there needs to be an amendment in the law, it needs to be studied…because for me dynasties are connected with the partylist system, connected with term sharing,” the lawyer said.

Stricter Anti-Dynasty bill

Aside from the issue on partylists, both Diokno and Calleja would also agree on the fact that the Senate’s version of an Anti-Dynasty bill was better suited to actually restrict the issue at a greater extent.

Though offering a similar provision barring relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity from pursuing public office, the upper house’s variation of the bill offers a broader limit for dynasties as it only allows a family to field one candidate for local and national posts.

Whereas the House version that was passed on third and final reading on 3 June still allows for political families to pursue multiple positions in the local sphere for as long as it was in different jurisdictions.

“I would prefer the Senate version over the House version because it aligns more with the mandate of the Constitution,” Diokno said.

While Calleja stated, “Although it would not take a lot, it would take out maybe 20-30 percent of the dynasties.”

As it currently stands, the Senate has yet to pass its own Anti-Political Dynasty measure, with the matter still pending in the upper chamber.