Philippines Grapples with Political Dynasties Ahead of Midterm Elections

As the Philippines gears up for its midterm elections, the specter of political dynasties looms large over the democratic process. On May 9, 2025, supporters gathered in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, to rally behind senatorial candidates aligned with President Ferdinand Marcos Jr’s party, a vivid reminder of the enduring power of family names in Philippine politics. Despite a constitutional mandate to prohibit such dynasties, the absence of enabling legislation has allowed influential families to maintain their grip on power, prompting renewed calls for reform from civil society and legal advocates.

The Constitutional Stalemate

The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly calls for the prohibition of political dynasties, stating that “the state shall … prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law” under Article 22, Section 26. However, nearly four decades since the Constitution’s adoption, Congress has failed to pass a law defining the scope of this provision. Over 30 anti-dynasty bills have been introduced, yet none have succeeded, leaving the constitutional mandate unenforceable. Critics argue this inaction reflects the self-interest of lawmakers, many of whom belong to the very dynasties the provision seeks to curb.

This legislative inertia has fueled public frustration and led to legal challenges. On March 31, 2025, the 1Sambayan coalition, a group advocating for democratic reforms, filed a petition with the Supreme Court to compel Congress to enact an anti-dynasty law. The petitioners assert that political dynasties have “effectively repealed” the constitutional provision through “shameful official inaction” and have even requested that Congress be held in contempt if it fails to comply within a year of a favorable ruling. This petition joins two others filed in 2022 and 2024 by the Kapatiran Party and Philippine Bar Association officers, respectively, both of which remain unresolved.

Judicial Roadblocks and Legal Precedents

Despite the persistence of anti-dynasty advocates, the Supreme Court has historically been reluctant to intervene. In prior rulings, such as Biraugo v. Comelec, the Court held that the Commission on Elections could not ban dynasty members from running without an enabling law. Similarly, in Guingona v. House and Senate, the Court declined to force Congress to legislate, citing the separation of powers doctrine that prevents judicial overreach into legislative functions. These decisions underscore the legal Catch-22: the Constitution demands action, but the judiciary cannot mandate it, leaving the issue in a perpetual deadlock.

Legal experts suggest that even a favorable Supreme Court ruling might not yield the desired outcome. If compelled to act, Congress could draft a watered-down law riddled with loopholes, preserving the status quo under a veneer of compliance. Moreover, dynasties could adapt by fielding non-family proxies or “dummy” candidates, a tactic already observed in local elections. As one political analyst noted, “Dynasties are not just about names; they’re about networks of power and patronage that can easily morph to evade restrictions.”

Why Dynasties Persist

Beyond legal hurdles, the deeper question remains: why do political dynasties thrive in the Philippines? Analysts point to systemic issues embedded in the country’s political culture. Public office is often viewed as a lucrative business venture, with elected officials reaping financial rewards through kickbacks, commissions, and monopolistic business dealings. This perception transforms politics into a high-stakes gamble, where families invest heavily to secure and retain power, ensuring a return on investment through successive terms or handpicked successors.

Equally troubling is the practice of incumbents presenting public projects and services as personal favors. From infrastructure developments to welfare programs like the Tulong Panghanapbuhay Sa Ating Disadvantaged/Displaced Workers (Tupad) and Ayuda para sa Kapos ang Kita Program (Akap), elected officials often attach their names to state-funded initiatives, fostering a culture of dependency and gratitude among voters. This patronage system virtually guarantees reelection or the succession of a chosen family member, perpetuating the dynasty’s influence.

Historical attempts to curb these practices have shown mixed results. During the administration of former President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino, efforts to minimize kickbacks from public works projects by capping contractors’ profit margins yielded temporary success. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling declaring the congressional pork barrel system unconstitutional disrupted a major source of discretionary funds for politicians, though similar mechanisms have since reemerged under different names. Advocates argue that such measures must be revived, expanded, and enforced through criminal prosecution of officials who misuse public resources for personal gain.

A Broader Systemic Challenge

While an anti-dynasty law remains a symbolic goal for reformers, many question whether it would address the root causes of dynastic dominance. Even a robust law could be circumvented by entrenched families adept at navigating legal constraints. The real battle, critics argue, lies in dismantling the economic and cultural incentives that sustain dynasties. This includes reforming campaign finance laws to limit the influence of wealth in elections, enhancing transparency in public spending, and educating voters to reject patronage politics.

Public sentiment, as reflected in recent discussions on social media platforms like X, reveals a mix of frustration and resignation. Many Filipinos express anger at the stranglehold of dynasties, with some users pointing to specific families that have dominated their regions for generations. Yet others doubt the feasibility of change, noting that dynastic candidates often win due to name recognition and the lack of viable alternatives. “We keep voting for the same surnames because we know them, even if we don’t trust them” wrote one user, capturing a pervasive dilemma in Philippine electoral politics.

The Road Ahead Amid Midterm Elections

As the midterm elections approach, the issue of political dynasties is unlikely to fade from public discourse. The rally in Mandaluyong on May 9, 2025, underscored the enduring appeal of President Marcos Jr’s political machine, itself tied to one of the country’s most prominent dynasties. While his administration has not publicly addressed the anti-dynasty petitions, the outcome of the elections could shape the debate. A strong showing by dynasty-backed candidates may further entrench their power, while unexpected losses could embolden reformers to push for systemic change.

Advocates like 1Sambayan remain undeterred, viewing their Supreme Court petition as a moral stand even if the odds are slim. Alternative solutions, such as grassroots voter education campaigns and stricter anti-corruption measures, are also gaining traction as complementary strategies to legal action. Yet, without addressing the underlying conditions that nurture dynasties—economic inequality, weak institutional checks, and a culture of patronage—any reform risks being superficial.

The Philippines stands at a crossroads as it navigates its democratic future. Will the midterm elections reinforce the status quo, or will they spark a reckoning with the dynastic forces that have long shaped the nation’s politics? For now, the answer remains uncertain, but the persistence of activists and ordinary citizens alike offers a glimmer of hope that change, however incremental, is possible.