Political dynasties still dominate Congress

By Satur C. Ocampo
At Ground Level | The Philippine Star

That political dynasties continue to dominate Congress isn’t hard news anymore. A news report on an Asian Institute of Management Policy Center study showing this has been relegated to the inside, rather than the front, page of a major daily.

Nonetheless, it’s worth looking deeper into that study, which tends to indicate that legislators belonging to political dynasties represent areas with lower per-capita incomes and higher poverty levels although this needs further validation.

More significantly, the AIMPC study reveals that an increasing number of political dynasties are gaining seats in Congress. This fact points up the glaring failure to realize the 1987 Constitution’s declared state policy “to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

It’s also useful to correlate the AIMPC study with those made earlier, as these confirm that political dynasties have held sway in our national life for much too long — over 100 years!

Their persistent dominance in Philippine politics also explains why attempts towards democratic electoral reforms and social legislation to uplift the lives of the poor have been difficult to pass in Congress.

First, consider these findings of the AIMPC study:

1. At least 115, or 68 percent, of the members of the 15th Congress (the House of Representatives) elected in 2010 have relatives who have been members of the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th congresses, or local officials who were elected in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010.

A bigger number — 144 — are related to other members of Congress or local officials elected in 2001, 2004 and 2007.

2. Based on their statements of assets, liabilities and net worth, legislators belonging to political dynasties appear to be richer (average net worth: P52 million) than those not belonging to dynasties (average net worth: P42 million).

3. Members of political dynasties also dominate membership in the major political parties: 76 percent of the Lakas-Kampi; 57 percent of the Liberal Party; 74 percent of the Nationalist People’s Coalition; and 81 percent of the Nacionalista Party.

4. Seventy-seven percent (77 percent) of the legislators aged 26-40 belong to political dynasties; 64 percent of those aged 41-55 are also from political dynasties.

Is there a direct link between political dynasties and the incidence of mass poverty? Roland Mendoza, AIMPC executive director, emphasizes that notwithstanding the initial finding that wealthier legislators tend to represent poorer constituencies, further study and analysis are needed to conclusively determine this.

However, the earliest study, done in 1965 by Dr. Dante C. Simbulan, established that the elite in Philippine politics and government have historically exploited the poverty and ignorance of the masses to win political power, and wield that power for their personal benefit.

This political elite came from the propertied and educated class, who had been given local administrative roles since the latter part of the Spanish colonial rule. Constituting the principalia that became surrogate-accomplices of the Spaniards, they performed similar services under the American colonial administration, and have taken the dominant role in Philippine politics since the Commonwealth years and throughout the post-World War II Republic.

Dr. Simbulan chronicles their evolution; he documents their economic interests, lifestyles, and behaviors in government over a period of 18 years, spanning the presidencies of Manuel Roxas, Elpidio Quirino, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos Garcia, and Diosdado Macapagal in “The Modern Principalia, The Historical Evolution of the Philippine Ruling Elite.”

In an update of his book in 2005, Simbulan ruefully concludes that his findings 40 years ago “still ring true today.” He observes: “In every province in the whole country, the ruling elite families — the so-called political dynasties — are still very much in evidence and they continue to lord it over not only the political life but also the economic and social life of the common people.”

Another study in 2004 by four journalists of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism — Sheila Coronel, Yvonne Chua, Luz Rimban and Booma Cruz — depicts how “political families have dominated Congress for 100 years.”

Titled “The Rulemakers, How the Wealthy and Well-born Dominate Congress,” the study however points out that while the legislature has always been the bastion of the wealthy, there have been changes. It explains:

“The sources of (the legislators’) wealth are more diverse, so that Congress can no longer be described as a ‘landlord-dominated’ legislature. The caciques of old have been replaced by real-estate developers, bankers, stockbrokers, and assorted professionals and businesspeople… Still, the reality is that a congress of multimillionaires makes laws for a poor country.”

The study also takes note of another change: the entry of the party-list representatives from the “marginalized and under-represented” sectors (who are constitutionally allotted 20 percent of the total number of seats in the House). It devotes a section, titled “In search of alternatives,” mainly to the entry of leftist political parties and the “laying of the groundwork for political and electoral reforms.”

But after 10 years of the party-list system, no reform legislation that can at least reduce the dominance of the political dynasties has gained headway, for obvious reasons.

Worse, political dynasties began appropriating for themselves some party-list seats in 2007, then more in 2010 — courtesy of the Commission on Elections.

* * *

E-mail to: satur.ocampo@gmail.com

Share This Post