We all get déjà vu after hearing the same surnames in local, provincial, legislative, and national offices. Political dynasties, as we call them, have been a defining feature of our governance for quite some time now—where the same surnames get elected for different posts. Although the Constitution discourages these dynasties, no law has effectively regulated them—none until now. House Bill 8389 or the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill, passed its third and final reading. But beneath this long-awaited reform lies a question of whether the bill truly dismantles these dynasties, or is just writing the unspoken rules of dynastic control onto parchment.
It is funny how one of the bill’s authors, Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos is part of the bill’s own irony. For reference, the bill states that family members of up to the second degree may not run in the same office simultaneously. It basically stops siblings from running for mayor at the same time. But it does not stop simultaneous power across different offices. It will not stop Sandro from running for office in Congress while his father, Ferdinand Marcos Jr., is sitting in the National Office. See the irony?
The bill’s title honestly does not fit. “Anti-” what exactly? If the goal is to dismantle political dynasties, then the measure falls short of its own promise. It does not prevent political dynasties from maintaining influence across multiple offices, nor does it stop them from strategically distributing power among relatives. Instead of eliminating dynasties, it merely sets boundaries on how they may operate. A political dynasty does not suddenly cease to exist because its members occupy different positions on an organizational chart. As long as political power remains concentrated within the same families, the dynasty persists—only in a different form.
If you’re wondering, these dynasties exist beyond the lack of regulation. They exist because most of them use their established wealth as leverage to build strong political ties. Their surnames carry influence, resources, and established alliances that often bridge politics and business. As a result, families get to maintain their dominance regardless of the office they seek.
Ultimately, HB 8389 dug a hole deeper for the issue it was meant to solve. It was not our long-awaited answer, but a reshape of how dynasties have power rather than a systemic reform. It draws lines on how power is shared between surnames without truly challenging why that power remains concentrated in the first place.
If dynasties could simply adapt to new rules without losing power, then the real question is not how they are regulated—but why they remain so resilient in the first place.
Written by Krister Tanwangco
Krister Tanwangco is a dedicated campus journalist and contributor. Their insightful writing sparks meaningful conversations and keeps the community informed.
