Walkout threat puts off vote on anti-dynasty bill

THE HOUSE of Representatives was unable to vote on an antipolitical dynasty bill after several members who opposed the measure threatened to walk out on Wednesday, its last session before its six-week break.

As a result, the proposal to limit members of political clans from running for office was not taken up during marathon sessions which lasted for 12 hours, Capiz Rep. Fredenil H. Castro (2nd district), who chairs the House committee on suffrage and political reforms, said.

The House leadership decided against putting the bill up for voting that night owing to “really strong lobbying from Congressmen coming from political dynasty clans — that’s the truth behind it,” Mr. Castro said in Filipino in a radio interview on Sunday.

“The anti- political dynasty bill was ready to be opened for second reading, but at the last minute, we didn’t have enough warm bodies for us to secure a winning vote... What I heard that time is even if we had a majority and a quorum, once it is called for second reading, many against the bill will go out of the plenary session because they don’t want to abolish dynasties in their areas,” Mr. Castro added.

Two hundred sixty-seven out of the total 289 House members showed up during Wednesday’s plenary sessions, making their attendance a record high.

The anti-political dynasty bill can only see passage by garnering a yes vote from at least half of the solons present.

Pending before the plenary is House Bill 3587 dubbed as the “Anti- Political Dynasties Act,” which has been the subject of debates from May to December 2014 but has not yet been put into a vote by the House leaders.

As proposed, only two persons related up to the second degree — either by blood or by marriage — can run for public office during the same election. Nor can a family member immediately succeed his or her relative in a certain position, except for the barangay ( village) level.

This is more relaxed compared to the original one- per- family limit as sought by bill authors and as initially approved by the committee.

However, in the past week, several proposals have sprung up indicating that the bill would be amended to allow two or possibly more family members to hold elective positions at a time, as discussed by Speaker Feliciano R. Belmonte, Jr. to reporters.

“The anti- political dynasty [ bill] is really something that at first glance, you would say has no chance at all because some say there are so many dynasties here,” Mr. Belmonte said last Tuesday. “We just want to be more clear as to what is covered and what is not covered.”

“You will remember that originally, one official per one family, but now we have more or less agreed on two. Still, there are all sorts of problems to be [ addressed],” Mr. Belmonte added, saying that the two- per- family limit could apply per city or jurisdiction, and other members of the family may be allowed to run for other posts outside this area.

Critics have since said that this was a watered- down version of the original bill being pushed in Congress.

But Mr. Belmonte said family relatives serving different constituents wouldn’t make up a dynasty, given the different jurisdictions. He clarified, however, that this has yet to be finalized.

Mr. Belmonte represents the fourth district of Quezon City. His daughter Josefina “Joy” Belmonte- Alimurung is currently the city’s vice- mayor, while his nephew Jose Christopher “Kit” Y. Belmonte serves as the representative of the city’s sixth district.

Many other House members come from political clans across towns and regions.

Mr. Castro opposed such revisions, even insisting on the original one-member limit: “What we are set to approve is the original version of the committee. Those [ alternatives] are just contingency plans.”

Congress is currently on a sixweek break and will reopen on July 27, when Mr. Belmonte said could be the next opportunity to pick up such talks on the antidynasty bill.

The 1987 Constitution requires the passage of a law to “prohibit political dynasties.” The Philippines, however, has yet to fulfill this mandate nearly three decades after. —