Challenging the dynasts

Unless you're part of a dynasty or a beneficiary of dynasts' patronage, you must be about to throw up from the greed for political power of certain clans.

- ANA MARIE PAMINTUAN

Congress is supposed to pass a law defining and prohibiting dynasties. But lawmakers won't self-destruct by curbing their dynasty-building.

A landmark petition has been filed, asking the Supreme Court to compel Congress to carry out its constitutional mandate of passing an enabling law defining and banning dynasties.

The ban is meant to complement term limits, which were enshrined in the Constitution to prevent anyone with the tendencies of the conjugal Marcos dictatorship to stay in power forever.

Without the anti-dynasty law, however, families soon found a way to skirt term limits — by fielding as replacements their spouses, children, siblings and the siblings' spouses and children.

In time the relatives were not content with just serving alternately. They soon began seeking different elective seats in their turfs simultaneously — from Congress to the provincial capitol to the city/municipal hall and down to the barangays.

The greed has expanded to the Senate, where we have close relatives sitting simultaneously — and wanting to add more, more, more. If they can have two, why not three, six? What about 12? There ought to be a law, but since there's none, what can stop them? Avarice is not a criminal offense.

Unless the challenger of a clan is someone with widespread name recall, the dynasty is preserved. But even national name recall is no guarantee of toppling dynasts. Manny Pacquiao lost in a local race, and so have several movie stars.