38 YEARS LATER, CONGRESS IS FINALLY MOVING ON THE ANTI-DYNASTY BILL — BUT DOES IT ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?

For 38 years, Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution has sat unimplemented. The provision is plain: the State shall prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. That phrase handed Congress the job. Every single Congress since 1987 quietly set it aside.

On March 17, 2026, House Bill No. 8389 was formally sponsored on the House floor — only the second time an anti-dynasty bill has reached the House plenary since the Constitution took effect. The first was in May 2014. That bill went nowhere.

WHAT THE BILL ACTUALLY SAYS

HB No. 8389 consolidates 25 separate proposals into one substitute bill. The core restriction: relatives within the second degree of consanguinity and affinity cannot simultaneously hold elective positions within the same political unit.

Second degree covers parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren, spouses, and in-laws.

The operative phrase is "within the same political unit." A mayor and his brother cannot both hold office in the same city. Two senators from the same immediate family cannot serve simultaneously. A father-governor and son on the provincial board within the same province — prohibited.

But a senator and his spouse as mayor of any city in the country? Allowed. A governor's son as congressman in any district outside that province? Allowed. Five siblings each running for a congressional seat in five different districts? All allowed.

There is also no succession provision — a term-limited official's relative can immediately run for the same seat.

HOW IT GOT HERE

The original bill, HB No. 6771, was filed in December 2025 by House Speaker Faustino "Bojie" Dy III and House Majority Leader Sandro Marcos. That version covered relatives up to the fourth degree — a significantly wider net.

The House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms, chaired by Lanao del Sur Rep. Zia Adiong, approved a substitute bill on March 3 by a 22-to-4 vote — but trimmed the restriction from the fourth degree down to the second.

The committee process drew immediate criticism. ACT Teachers Rep. Antonio Tinio called it railroading. Caloocan Rep. Edgar Erice withdrew his own bill, calling the substitute a "budol" (scam). Akbayan Rep. Chel Diokno put it bluntly during plenary: "House Bill 8389 will not put an end to dynasties; it will only allow them to maintain, and not just maintain, but to expand their hold on power."

THE NUMBERS

During his March 17 sponsorship speech, Adiong cited data from the House's own Socioeconomic Research Bureau, drawn from Comelec records. Of 17,983 local elective positions in the Philippines, 9,852 — or 54.8% — are currently held by dynastic families. There are 4,239 such families. Roughly 80% of provincial governors belong to political dynasties as of 2025, up from 57% in 2004. Dynastic representation in the House stands at 67%, up from 48% two decades ago.

Adiong argues the bill would open over 5,600 of those seats. Four sets of siblings are currently in the Senate; if the bill passes, no two could hold national office simultaneously.

A Pulse Asia survey conducted February 27 to March 2, 2026, found 64% of Filipino adults support an anti-dynasty law, with only 17% opposed. Among supporters, 76% want the ban to cover both national and local levels.

THE SENATE VERSION AND THE TIMING PROBLEM

The Senate's parallel measure, SB No. 1901, was formally sponsored by Senate Deputy Majority Leader Risa Hontiveros and signed by 12 senators. It also restricts to the second degree, but includes one key provision the House bill omits: a succession ban. Under SB 1901, a relative cannot take the same seat a term-limited family member just vacated.

Both bills are now stalled. The House entered a two-month recess without taking a second-reading vote on HB 8389 — pushed back by the volume of interpellators. The House passed 17 of its 52 LEDAC priority measures before the break. The anti-dynasty bill was not among them. Sessions resume in May 2026.

DOES THIS BILL ACTUALLY FIX ANYTHING?

The constitutional mandate has not changed in 38 years. Article II, Section 26 does not say "reduce" dynasties or "limit some relatives in some jurisdictions." It says prohibit.

Supporters argue pragmatism is the point — that no version with broader restrictions would survive a plenary vote, and a workable second-degree limit beats a fourth-degree ideal that stalls. Adiong said the bill "could not afford to be excessively extreme."

Critics counter that the territorial carve-out guts the reform. Under the bill as written, a political family can hold one national seat, one provincial seat, one city or municipal seat, and as many congressional seats as it can field candidates for — simultaneously — as long as no two are in the same political unit.

The bill is a LEDAC priority backed by President Marcos. Its authors are the Speaker and Majority Leader. And yet the version that emerged from committee is narrower than the one those same authors originally filed — narrower in degree, and narrower in territorial scope than the 2014 version it supposedly built upon.

What the Constitution required in 1987 was a prohibition. What has emerged from the House in 2026 is a regulation. Whether those two words mean the same thing is the question Congress now has until May to answer.