The proposed anti-dynasty bill (HB 6771 and SB 35) has once again ignited public debate on political reform. Its objective, which is to prevent a single family or clan from monopolizing public office, is both understandable and well-intentioned. Political dynasties, after all, are often linked to patronage, weak accountability, and limited political competition. Yet while the problem is real, the solution being proposed may be addressing the symptom rather than the disease.
I submit that term limits themselves may be one of the main reasons why political dynasties persist, particularly at the local level.
Under the current system, an elected official who reaches the final term allowed by law is automatically disqualified from running again, regardless of performance. What often follows is a familiar pattern: the outgoing official endorses his spouse, son, daughter, or close relative to run as successor. The surname stays on the ballot, the political machinery remains intact, and voters are presented with a “new” candidate who is, in reality, part of the same power structure. The officeholder changes, but governance does not.
In this sense, term limits unintentionally encourage the rotation of power within families. Faced with political extinction, incumbents naturally seek continuity through kinship. Ironically, a policy meant to prevent concentration of power ends up institutionalizing it—by pushing politicians to rely on family succession rather than genuine political competition.
If the real aim is to weaken political dynasties, perhaps we should ask a more fundamental question: Why should the law prevent voters from reelecting an official they believe is still effective? In a democracy, sovereignty resides in the people. If an incumbent has delivered results, governed responsibly, and retained public trust, why should citizens be denied the right to keep that person in office? Conversely, if an official has become ineffective, abusive, or disconnected, voters already possess the most powerful corrective mechanism: the ballot.
Lifting term limits—except for the presidency—could remove the artificial pressure that fuels dynastic succession. Without the looming deadline of disqualification, incumbents would have less incentive to field relatives merely to preserve political influence. Elections would become more straightforward contests of competence and credibility, rather than carefully orchestrated family handovers.
Concerns about entrenchment are valid, but they also reflect a lack of confidence in the electorate. Experience shows that voters are capable of rejecting leaders who overstay their welcome, fail to deliver, or betray public trust. Regular, competitive elections remain the strongest safeguard against abuse of power.
Instead of banning families from politics—a move that raises serious constitutional and practical concerns—we might do better by strengthening democratic institutions: enforcing campaign finance rules, ensuring equal access to media, professionalizing political parties, and expanding voter education. These reforms strike at the conditions that allow dynasties to flourish, without curtailing the people’s freedom of choice.
Political dynasties are not created by bloodlines alone. They are sustained by systems that limit genuine competition. If we truly wish to reform our politics, we must be willing to reexamine sacred cows—including term limits—and trust democracy to work as intended.
(Raul G. Moldez, PhD is the Assistant Secretary of Cagayan de Oro City. He is also a member of the Cagayan de Oro Press Club.)
0 Comments