Position Paper on the “Anti-Political Dynasty Act” or HB 8389
Council for People’s Development and Governance (CPDG), August 4, 2026
In the Philippines, a persistent pattern of families monopolizing power across generations highlights the critical need for legislation that explicitly prohibits–rather than merely regulates–the centralization of authority within political clans. Beyond politics, this issue poses a direct threat to human rights-based development and economic democracy, as all are heavily intertwined. With the same clans maintaining power through holding positions across generations, they have a larger advantage in economic opportunities and in controlling government resources for their own benefit. This directly weakens equal access to different resources, resulting in marginalized sectors being systematically excluded from participation and benefit. With this, political dynasties take place when spouses and relatives, regardless of the level of degree in consanguinity and affinity, are running simultaneously and successively in public offices. This familial relationship in government tips the handling of power and concentrates the distribution of influence among the same families.
The Council for People’s Development and Governance (CPDG) analyzes House Bill No. 8389, the consolidated (substitute) bill as a merger of various versions championed by House Speaker Faustino “Bojie” G. Dy III and House Majority Leader Ferdinand (Sandro) Alexander Marcos alongside 173 co-authors. This bill has currently passed its third and final reading at the lower house and claims to tackle the institutional and defining gap of anti-political dynasties in the country. While the House Bill No. 8389 (An Act Prohibiting Political Dynasties in National and Local Elective Offices) purports to dismantle political dynasties, an analysis of the coverage of the bill reveals that it fails to deliver on its promised objectives. With multiple dynastic families holding office, the need to address and resolve long-term family dominance, consecutive familial handovers, and cyclical term rotations must be confronted rather than solely addressing simultaneous office holding.
Advocates for the House Bill No. 8389 defend the bill’s legitimacy, claiming that the goal is not to pass a flawless bill that fully administers definitive restrictions, but rather, as stated by House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms Chairperson, Zia Alonto Adiong, to pass a bill that “seeks to advance the constitutional directive to prohibit political dynasties”. However, CPDG opposes this statement as the bill is fundamentally problematic and in itself institutionalizes political dynasties in the country’s governance. In this light, studies like Mendoza et al. (2022) have emphasized the persistence of political dynasties in the Philippines is heavily linked to consistent electoral dominance over the years, networking amongst elites with similar business interests, control of resource in the local government level, and especially the heavily entrenched and weak accountability mechanisms of the system itself.
Scope of Relatives and Spouse Covered
A critical contradiction exists between how the bill defines a political dynasty and how it executes its restrictions. Under Chapter I, Section 3(a), HB 8389 broadly defines political dynasties as:
“…the concentration, consolidation, and dominance of elective political power by spouses or persons related to one another.”
This broad, open-ended definition suggests a comprehensive prohibition. However, the actual enforceable restrictions outlined in Chapter I, Section 5(a-d) drastically narrow this scope, limiting prohibitions to:
“Spouses or relatives within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity simultaneously holding any national elective position; simultaneously holding membership in the House of Representatives within the same legislative district; simultaneously holding any elective office within the same provincial government; simultaneously holding any elective office within the same city or municipal government.”
By restricting operation coverage strictly to the second civil degree, the bill creates a highly permissive legal framework that facilitates dynastic survival. It explicitly excludes third-degree relatives (such as uncles, aunts, nephews, and nieces) and fourth-degree relatives (such as first cousins). Consequently, these narrow boundaries focus on vertical lines of family relations while completely ignoring the horizontal power shifts to other members of the same clan.
Because the bill does not cover the third and fourth civil degrees, its ability to genuinely prohibit the persistence of political clans is fundamentally compromised. Under the current provisions, families can easily retain their monopoly on power by transferring positions to extended family members while remaining fully compliant with the bill’s provisions. Despite its title, HB No. 8389 merely regulates rather than prohibits dynasties, employing loose boundaries and cluster-based exceptions. This view is shared by various individuals and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) opposing the bill, who argue that the law is inherently biased toward protecting the interests of incumbent elite ruling families and their networks.
Structural Flaws, Appointed Position Loopholes, and Systemic Preservation
A foundational weakness of HB 8389 is its exclusive focus on “elective” positions–those specific seats filled through public voting. By explicitly specifying “elective office” throughout Chapter I, the bill treats political dynasties as a purely procedural electoral anomaly rather than a structural manifestation of bureaucratic capitalism.
This narrow focus leaves a glaring loophole: it completely exempts appointed positions. Under this framework, powerful clans can easily bypass simultaneous or successive restrictions by placing immediate or extended family members into influential appointed offices, such as cabinet secretaries, local government directorships, and regulatory bodies. Because these individuals are appointed rather than voted into office, they escape the bill’s provisions entirely. True dynastic prohibition must recognize that political clans leverage both elective and appointed offices to consolidate family dominance, maintain oligarchic business interests, and control public resources. Merely regulating elective seats allows families to retain substantial state power through executive appointments.
The bill passed its third and final reading in the House of Representatives with a lopsided vote of 267-20 and seven abstentions. This overwhelming support from lawmakers is unsurprising given that approximately 80% of district seats in the House of Representatives are occupied by individuals affiliated with political dynasties. Furthermore, research by Mendoza et al. (2022) highlights that weak institutional checks and balances in non-Luzon regions (Visayas and Mindanao), paired with unsustainable political structures, allow political dynasties to implement predatory policies that actively worsen regional poverty.
This concentration of power is further supported by judicial observations; as referenced in the Supreme Court decision Calubag v. COMELEC, up to 80% of House seats and roughly 75% of Philippine cities are controlled by political clans. Viewed in this context, the 267-20 vote reflects an act of political self-preservation. Lawmakers have designed a bill that gives the appearance of constitutional compliance while ensuring their families retain actual power. This reinforces CPDG’s position that HB 8389 is fundamentally defective; true reform cannot be achieved through superficial revisions, and the framework must be rewritten from a system of permissive regulation to one of absolute prohibition across all government branches.
In addition to the exclusion of appointed personnel, HB 8389 fails to legally intercept the mechanism of successive family placement. While Chapter I, Section 5 heavily regulates simultaneous office-holding within the same political units during a single election cycle, it remains silent on consecutive handovers over time. This procedural omission allows political clans to engage in “seat-swapping” or term rotation. When a dynastic official reaches their constitutional term limit, the bill does not prevent them from transferring the candidacy to a spouse or a second-degree relative in a subsequent cycle, effectively maintaining uninterrupted family control over the office. Because successive terms and cyclical rotations are left unaddressed in the text, the bill regulates the timing of family dominance rather than prohibiting its continuity.
Recommendations and Comprehensive Reform
Rather than correcting the unjust imbalances created by political clans, House Bill 8389 merely acknowledges their existence. CPDG firmly supports the constitutional intent to enact an anti-political dynasty law but demands comprehensive amendments to make it genuinely effective. We encourage the legislature to make revisions on the House Bill No. 8389:
- Expand the civil degree restrictions: Extend the operational prohibition to the fourth degree of consanguinity and affinity to match the broad definitions in Section 3(a) and completely curb the familial monopolization of power.
- Close the appointed position loophole with an absolute, cross-jurisdictional ban: Broaden the operational scope of covered positions to apply universally across all levels, branches, and agencies of government. The law must explicitly prohibit the appointment of any individual to a public office–whether national, local, cabinet, or regulatory–if they have a relative up to the fourth civil degree already holding any elective or appointive position anywhere in the country. This eliminates the “national-vs-local” loophole that allows clans to simultaneously hold elective power and national executive or constitutional appointments.
- Strengthen and detail the succession ban: Incorporate explicit mechanisms to prevent consecutive familial handovers (successive terms), ensuring that clans cannot circumvent simultaneous office-holding bans by rotating positions across election cycles.
- Enforce a strict prohibition over mere regulation: Amend the framework to disqualify dynastic individuals at the immediate point of filing. Lawmakers must forbid the filing of candidacy from the very onset for individuals possessing dynastic relationships with incumbent or elected public officials, closing loopholes that currently grant explicit exceptions regarding candidacy and campaigning.
CPDG argues that simply forming an anti-political dynasty bill is not enough to guarantee better governance for the Filipino people. Instead, it should only be part of a broader solution, and we encourage the legislature to enact the following concurrent measures:
- Strengthen voter education: By empowering and educating voters, Filipinos can elect better candidates across different and overlapping levels of government.
- Prevent the hijacking of the party-list system: The legislature must safeguard the integrity of the party-list system against systemic abuse and co-optation. The party-list system should strictly remain a mechanism for representing marginalized sectors; it must not be subverted by political interests, meaning any amendments that would ban dynastic relatives from running as party-list nominees must be upheld and fiercely protected.
- Mandate transparency on the transactions and backgrounds of public officials: The transactions, financial contracts, and official backgrounds of every incumbent official must be publicized to increase public awareness and eliminate opportunities for corruption and bureaucratic capitalism.
- Solidify institutional checks and balances to eliminate biases: Lawmakers must invest heavily in solidifying institutional checks and balances, recognizing that merely acknowledging a political dynasty relationship does not prevent other influential political or economic connection ties from functioning.
Political dynasties remain one of the primary root causes of bureaucratic capitalism and severe legislative gaps within national agencies, local government units, and the party-list system. After 39 years of waiting for a clear constitutional prohibition of political dynasties, the legislature must finally provide the Filipino people with a genuine anti-dynasty law, rather than a measure that merely legitimizes the status quo. The mandate of House Bill No. 8389 must be reflected not only in its title but also in its actual content. The bill should not merely settle for a plain regulation of dynastic politics, but must instead enforce a blatant and firm prohibition of its unjust existence in governance. For true reform to exist, the legislature must cease protecting the elite dominating families currently in power, and instead emphasize the strict enforcement of anti-political dynasty laws in order to ensure truth, equity, and transparency across the country’s governance.
Read also:
Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co voted “No” on HB No. 8389 – https://fb.watch/HP6dXJD7a_/
Rep. Leila De Lima’s refusal to support the HB No. 8389 – https://www.facebook.com/share/1LLrVLUCm6/?mibextid=wwXIfr
AKBAYAN Partylist Rep. Chel Diokno refused to support HB No. 8389 – https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02kqS3a7LGR8vvHj71RfFyRfYvsmHgAex9u64JoCCh3b5PgaCdiwDSjkU8r6D3VBsfl&id=100069091476925
Makati Business Club’s joint statement on HB 8389- https://mbc.com.ph/2026/06/16/joint-statement-on-house-bill-no-8389/
Kilusan Kontra Dinastiya Press Conference alongside allied organizations – https://www.facebook.com/share/v/14gp36HqWXy/?mibextid=wwXIfr