(UPDATE) PRESIDENT Ferdinand Marcos Jr. ordered the review of the provisions of the proposed anti-dynasty bill to ensure that it balances legal precision with practical enforcement.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro said Marcos issued the directive during Tuesday’s meeting in Malacañang where they discussed key components that could be proposed for the anti-dynasty bill.
“The meeting tackled possible provisions that could be included or proposed for the Anti-Dynasty Bill because this is one of the president’s priority bills,” Castro said during a press briefing.
Castro said the discussions touched on several technical aspects, including the levels of ban, degrees of familial relationships to be covered, types of relationships such as consanguinity and affinity, and whether the prohibition should apply simultaneously or successively.
The Palace official said that the provisions were under study and might be recommended once a concrete framework was finalized.
“This was discussed to ensure the provisions that may be included in the law are strengthened,” she said.
Castro said the administration was also looking at how to balance enforceability with political realities, including local government dynamics.
At a Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council meeting in December, Marcos asked lawmakers to fast-track the anti-dynasty bill along with related measures such as the Independent People’s Commission Act, Party-list System Reform Act, and the Citizens’ Access and Disclosure of Expenditures for National Accountability Act.
Several anti-dynasty measures have been filed in the 20th Congress. In the House of Representatives, Speaker Faustino Dy III and Majority Leader Sandro Marcos filed House Bill 6671, which seeks to prohibit relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity from holding elective office simultaneously within the same jurisdictionOther versions have been introduced by groups of lawmakers seeking to define and limit political dynasty relationships and expand democratic participation.
In the Senate, a renewed anti-political dynasty bill has also been filed, reiterating proposals to enact the constitutional mandate to prohibit political dynasties but defining its scope and penalties.
The 1987 Constitution mandates that the State “shall guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,” but an enabling act has never been passed despite repeated attempts by lawmakers over decades.