House of Representatives. RYAN LEAGOGO/INQUIRER.net FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines—After hurdling committee-level scrutiny, the anti-dynasty bill has stalled in the House of Representatives, where many lawmakers belong to politically dominant families.
The bill has been listed in the order of business, or the plenary’s agenda, since Congress resumed sessions on Jan. 20. But no discussions on the measure have been conducted because it has not yet been sponsored on the floor.
One of the bill’s authors, party-list Representative Antonio Tinio (Act Teachers), inquired about the bill’s status on Tuesday night, and was told by House leaders that it would be discussed “at the appropriate time.”
Capiz Rep. Fredenil Castro, the chair of the suffrage committee, is supposed to introduce the bill to the plenary.
Sherwin Tugna, representative of the Cibac party-list group and the deputy majority leader, believes the measure has not been taken up for sponsorship because of its sensitive nature, considering it could affect many lawmakers who belong to political dynasties themselves.
Tugna said there are concerns that these lawmakers may just leave the session hall if the bill is taken up, which would delay deliberations on other official business.
“The way I understand it, although the anti-political dynasty bill is in the order of business, it has not been tackled because of the fear that those who might be affected by the bill might leave the session hall when the debate is opened,” he said in a text message.
If lawmakers leave the floor in large enough numbers, this could result in a lack of quorum and force the suspension of the session, resulting in other equally important bills not being taken up as well, he said.
But Tugna said the anti-dynasty bill may be tackled in the next two weeks before Congress adjourns for its summer break on March 14.
Another of the bill’s authors, Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice, said it would be better to tackle the bill early so that discussions on the measure would not become a contentious election issue for members of political dynasties.
“If this is discussed near the elections, there could be more backlash against them (the dynasts),” Erice said in a phone interview.
“If we discuss it now, it would not be such a hot issue for them after two years in case they vote against it,” he said.
But he also said that he was using the lull before discussions commence on the anti-dynasty bill to convince other House members to support it.
Erice reckons that some 200 House members would be affected should the measure pass because they have relatives in public office. Because of this, there is a very small chance of the bill gaining support, he said.
Erice said he was studying the possibility of watering down the bill to make it more palatable to gain approval in the plenary. Once it becomes law, it could be amended later to include more stringent standards against political dynasties, he said.
The anti-dynasty bill prohibits incumbent officials’ spouses and relatives up the second degree of consanguinity or affinity from holding or running for any local or national elective office in the same election.
Members of the same family who do not have any relative in public office but are related up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity are also barred from holding or running for any elective position in the same election.
Should none of the members of the same family running in the same election decide to withdraw from the race, the Commission on Elections will hold a raffle to determine which of them would be allowed to run.
The bill also seeks to ensure that elective posts would not be passed on to a member of the same family. It states that no person within the prohibited civil degree of relationship to the incumbent will be allowed to immediately succeed to the position of the latter.
But Erice said he was looking at the possibility of amending the bill to allow two members of one family to hold public office at the same time, in order to gather more support for the measure.
This could give the measure a fighting chance, he said.
“I’m studying this because I’m thinking that it’s more important that the bill is able to move since there’s a constitutional provision that we have to enact an antipolitical dynasty bill. The definition is important,” he said.