By Chantal Jade V. Tolores
In the upcoming 20th Congress, the Philippine Senate will witness an unprecedented concentration of familial power: four pairs of siblings will occupy a third of its 24 seats.
This consolidation of political dynasties starkly contradicts the ideals enshrined in the 1987 Constitution, which mandates the state to “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” Yet, decades later, the absence of enabling legislation has allowed dynastic politics to flourish unchecked.
The Cayetanos, Villars, Estradas, and Tulfos are not merely prominent names— they symbolize a systemic entrenchment of power that undermines the very essence of representative democracy.
This phenomenon isn’t new, but its intensification is alarming.
A survey from February 2025 revealed that 57% of Filipinos disapprove of multiple candidates from the same political family running in the same Senate election, highlighting a growing public dissatisfaction with dynastic politics.
The implications are profound. When legislative power is concentrated within a few families, it raises concerns about conflicts of interest, policy biases, and the marginalization of diverse voices. Moreover, it perpetuates a cycle where political influence is inherited rather than earned, discouraging capable individuals outside these dynasties from participating in governance.
Defenders of political dynasties often argue that electoral success legitimizes their positions. However, this perspective overlooks the advantages these families possess—name recognition, established political machinery, and access to resources. Such advantages create an uneven playing field, where merit and fresh perspectives are overshadowed by entrenched power structures.
The persistence of dynastic politics also correlates with broader issues of governance. Studies have linked high concentrations of political families to underdevelopment and corruption, as power monopolies can stifle accountability and innovation.
Efforts to address this issue have been largely symbolic—while bills have been proposed to limit political dynasties, they often lack the necessary support to become law. This inertia is unsurprising, given that those who would be most affected by such legislation are the very individuals responsible for enacting it.
The judiciary, too, has its hands tied. As Senate President Francis Escudero noted, the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law, highlighting a constitutional gap that perpetuates this democratic deficit.
In light of these challenges, the responsibility falls on the electorate to demand change. Voters must critically assess candidates beyond their surnames, considering their qualifications, platforms, and commitment to public service. The upcoming composition of the Senate, without concerted efforts to dismantle the structures that enable political dynasties, the promise of equal representation and participatory governance will remain elusive.
