I.

Introduction

Political dynasties have been a big part of Philippine politics for many years, with powerful families
passing government positions from one generation to the next. This practice dates back to the Spanish
and American colonial periods when leadership was often passed down within wealthy and influential
families. Even after gaining independence, this system continued, allowing a few elite families to
dominate politics. Today, many government positions, whether in local or national offices, are still held
by members of the same political clans. Even though the Philippine Constitution discourages political
dynasties, there are no strict laws to stop them, allowing the same families to stay in power. This has led
to unfair elections, corruption, and a lack of opportunities for new leaders.

This issue is important because it directly affects democracy, governance, and the future of the country.
When only a few families remain in power, it limits opportunities for new and competent leaders who
could bring fresh ideas and real solutions to national problems. This monopoly of leadership discourages
equal political participation, as ordinary citizens feel powerless against well-established political clans.
Moreover, political dynasties often lead to corruption, nepotism, and unfair policies that favor personal
interests over public welfare. Instead of prioritizing the needs of the people, some dynasty-led
governments focus on maintaining their control, resulting in poor public services, economic inequality,
and slow national progress.

Political dynasties strangle democracy, silence the voices of the people, and breed a culture of
entitlement instead of true leadership, therefore, political dynasties should be prevented. The
government should uphold fairness, break the cycle of inherited power, and enforce strict anti-dynasty
laws to restore the true essence of public service, one that is earned through merit, not birthright.

II. Body

A.) ARGUMENT

Political dynasties undermine democracy by promoting entitlement, power consolidation, lack

of accountability, corruption, and weakened governance.
Political dynasties in the Philippines foster a culture of entitlement, where power is inherited rather than
earned through competence and merit. This entitlement leads to unquestioned political succession,
allowing family members to assume leadership positions without proving their abilities. Instead of
encouraging competition and leadership based on qualifications, dynasties normalize inherited
authority, weakening the democratic process by limiting voter choice and stifling political diversity.

A striking example of this is the election of Ferdinand Marcos Jr., which marked an extraordinary
political rehabilitation for one of the country’s most controversial dynasties. The Duterte presidency
played a significant role in this shift, as it reinforced strongman leadership—an image Marcos Jr.
capitalized on by invoking his father’s legacy during the campaign. Their 2022 electoral victory solidified
a powerful dynastic alliance that is likely to dominate Philippine politics for years to come (Arugay,
2021).

This consolidation of power poses a serious threat to democracy by reducing political competition and
weakening accountability. When the same families continuously hold office, governance becomes more
about maintaining control than genuinely serving the people. Political dynasties thrive on name
recognition and historical influence rather than leadership capability, discouraging competent
individuals from running for office and depriving voters of real choices. The Marcos-Duterte alliance
exemplifies this problem, merging two of the country’s most dominant families and ensuring their
continued rule. Such political monopolies breed corruption, as leaders prioritize self-preservation and
protect their allies rather than implement meaningful reforms.

If political dynasties continue without opposition, they will weaken democracy and hinder the
Philippines' progress. When the same families stay in power, government institutions become weaker. If
this pattern continues, the country’s democracy will suffer, as power will remain in the hands of a few
instead of truly representing the people's choice.

1. Are all political dynasties bad? Can’t they also have good leaders?

Response: Not all dynastic politicians are bad, but the problem is power is passed down by birth, not
earned by skill. This system blocks new, capable leaders from getting a chance to serve. Even if some are
competent, the lack of fair competition weakens democracy.

2. If dynasties weaken democracy, why do people still vote for them?

Response: Many voters choose them because of familiar names, promises, and influence. These families
also control resources and spread narratives that favor them, making it hard for new leaders to
compete. Some people also believe false or glorified stories about past leaders, influencing their votes

3. How does the Marcos-Duterte alliance show the danger of dynasties?

Response: Their alliance proves how families in power protect each other instead of focusing on the
people's needs. When the same families rule, they control the system, weaken the opposition, and make
sure they stay in power. This leads to less accountability and more corruption
4. Is banning political dynasties realistic?

Response: Completely banning them may be hard, but we can limit their power by passing stronger
laws. The Constitution already says dynasties should be stopped, but it’s not enforced. If we set rules,
like not allowing relatives to run at the same time, it would create fairer elections.

Here are some laws and policies that could help limit the power of political dynasties:
1. Anti-Political Dynasty Law

What it does: Prohibits family members from holding office at the same time or running for the same positions successively
(e.g., a father as governor cannot be replaced by his son).

Why it’s needed: Ensures power is not passed down like an inheritance and allows fresh leaders to emerge.

2. Term Limits with No Immediate Relatives as Successors

What it does: Strengthens existing term limits by banning family members from immediately succeeding each other in office
(e.g., a mayor’s spouse or sibling cannot take over right after their term).

Why it’s needed: Prevents families from controlling one position for decades through rotation.

3. Campaign Finance Reform

What it does: Sets a limit on campaign spending and prohibits the use of government resources for campaigns. It also requires
transparency in campaign donations.

Why it’s needed: Dynastic politicians use huge funds, often from public money, to overpower new candidates. Limiting
spending creates fairer elections.

4. Political Party Reform Law

What it does: Strengthens political parties by focusing on platforms and policies instead of personalities and family names.

Why it’s needed: Prevents political parties from becoming personal vehicles for dynastic families and encourages issue-based
elections.

5. Stricter Nepotism Rules

What it does: Expands nepotism laws to prevent family members of politicians from being appointed to key government
positions (e.g., a mayor cannot appoint their relatives to government offices).

Why it’s needed: Stops politicians from building a family-run government that serves their interests instead of the people’s needs.

5. Doesn’t banning political dynasties go against democracy and the people’s right to choose their
leaders?

- True democracy means real choices. If the same families always run, elections become unfair because
power stays within a small group. A law to limit dynasties won’t remove choices—it will create new ones
by allowing more people to run

6. Isn’t it possible that some political families genuinely serve the people well? Why punish all
dynasties for the actions of a few?

🔹 Some dynastic politicians are good, but the system itself is unfair. A good leader can win fairly without
relying on family power. If we don’t regulate dynasties, competent but less powerful people will never
get a chance to lead. Some dynasties may have good leaders, but the system itself is built on privilege,
not fairness. A true democracy should allow all qualified individuals to compete on equal ground, not
give one family an automatic advantage. Even if some dynasties serve well, their unchecked power
discourages new, capable leaders from emerging. Without limits, leadership becomes inherited, not
earned, trapping the country in a cycle where the same families rule, regardless of performance. Public
service should be a duty, not a family business

7. If a dynastic politician is capable and well-liked, why shouldn’t they be allowed to run? Should we
prioritize merit or bloodline?

🔹 Merit should always come first. If a person is truly qualified, they should win because of their skills,
not their last name. But in dynasties, family name matters more than ability, which blocks better leaders
from rising.

8. Without political dynasties, how do you ensure that new politicians won’t be just as corrupt or
incompetent?

🔹 No system is perfect, but competition makes leaders more accountable. When families hold power too
long, they get comfortable and abuse it. If we give others a chance, we create healthier, more
responsible leadership. Corruption and incompetence exist in any system, but political dynasties make
them worse by allowing power to be inherited instead of earned. When leadership is open to everyone,
competition forces politicians to prove their abilities and be accountable to the people. If a leader fails,
voters can replace them in the next election. Political dynasties remove this accountability, making
corruption and incompetence harder to challenge

9. Instead of banning dynasties, wouldn’t it be better to educate voters so they make better choices?

🔹 Voter education is important, but it’s not enough. If elections are controlled by money, power, and
influence, even educated voters have limited choices. Breaking dynastic control creates real democracy.

Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is a provision that aims to ensure fair political
opportunities by preventing political dynasties. It states that the government must:

Guarantee equal access to public service – Meaning, all qualified citizens should have a fair chance to
run for office, not just those from powerful political families.

Prohibit political dynasties "as may be defined by law" – This means the Constitution acknowledges that
political dynasties are a problem, but it requires Congress to pass a separate law to officially define and
ban them.

🔹 However, no such law has been passed, so the prohibition is not enforced. This allows political
dynasties to continue dominating elections, as there are no legal restrictions preventing family members
from holding multiple government positions.
Political dynasties weaken meritocracy

Political dynasties weaken meritocracy, allowing leadership positions to be inherited rather than earned
through skills and qualifications. According to Nontombi Xaba (November 23, 2023), when power is
passed down within families, it creates a political oligarchy where a small group controls governance.
This concentration of power widens socio-economic inequalities, as those in power prioritize their own
interests over public welfare. It also limits competition, discouraging capable individuals from entering
politics and reducing the quality of leadership. Without fair opportunities for new leaders to emerge,
democracy suffers, and citizens are left with leaders chosen by birthright rather than by competence. If
political dynasties continue unchecked, they will not only harm economic progress but also weaken the
foundations of a truly representative government.

Question: Isn’t it the voters’ responsibility to remove bad leaders, even if they come from dynasties?
Why not just let democracy run its course?

🔹 Answer: Voter choice is important, but dynasties manipulate elections through name recognition,
wealth, and influence. This creates an uneven playing field where new candidates struggle to compete.
A true democracy ensures equal opportunities, not just the illusion of choice

Question: What if banning dynasties removes leaders who are actually doing good for the country?

🔹 Answer: A ban on dynasties does not prevent good leaders from running—it simply ensures they
compete fairly like everyone else. If they are truly capable, they can win on their own merits without
relying on family influence.

How can you claim that political dynasties weaken democracy when some dynastic politicians have
successfully led the country and implemented beneficial policies?

🔹 A few good leaders don’t justify an unfair system. If dynastic politicians are truly competent, they
should win based on merit, not family ties. Some dynastic politicians may have done well, but that
doesn’t justify an unfair system. Political dynasties concentrate power within a few families, making it
nearly impossible for competent outsiders to compete. Leadership should be earned through merit, not
birthright. A true democracy ensures equal opportunities for all, not just for those with famous
surnames. Even capable dynastic politicians should be able to win without relying on family influence.
Keeping dynasties in power weakens democracy by prioritizing inheritance over public service.

Political dynasties make the government less competitive and less responsive to people's needs
Another reason is because political dynasties make the government less competitive and less responsive
to people's needs, which can harm democracy. As George points out, when the same families stay in
power for generations, elections become unfair, and new, capable leaders have fewer chances to step
up. Siddharth (July 20, 2020) also explains that second-generation politicians often perform poorly
because they rely on their family's name rather than their own hard work. This leads to weaker
leadership, fewer public services, and slower economic growth. Instead of focusing on the people's
needs, dynastic politicians may prioritize keeping power within their family. In the long run, this
damages democracy and holds back the country's progress.

Aren’t there also incompetent leaders who don’t come from political dynasties? Why focus only on
dynastic politicians when bad leadership exists across the board?

🔹 Incompetence exists everywhere, but dynasties make it harder for better leaders to emerge. If a
system gives unfair advantages to a few families, how can we expect real competition and improvement
in leadership?

Is it really political dynasties that weaken democracy, or is it the voters’ lack of education and
awareness in choosing better leaders?

🔹 Voter education is important, but it’s not the root cause of the problem—political dynasties
manipulate the system to limit choices. When powerful families control local politics, resources, and
media influence, they shape public perception in their favor, making it harder for voters to recognize or
support alternative leaders. Even well-informed voters struggle to elect new, competent leaders when
dynasties dominate elections through name recall, patronage politics, and financial power. A truly
democratic system should allow fair competition, but dynasties create an uneven playing field where
voters are often left choosing between members of the same ruling families. If there are no real choices,
how can we blame voters for electing dynastic politicians

Aren’t political dynasties just a reflection of strong leadership within families? If they’re effective, why
change the system?

🔹 Leadership should be based on competence, not inheritance. Just because one family member is a
good leader doesn’t mean their relatives will be. In fact, second-generation politicians often perform
poorly because they rely on their family’s reputation rather than proving their own skills. A democracy
should promote new and diverse leaders, not limit leadership to a few families.

Political dynasties dynasties increase the risk of corruption and misuse of power

Moreover political dynasties increase the risk of corruption and misuse of power. Studies show that in
the Philippines, areas with many political dynasties tend to have higher poverty rates. According to the
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), this happens because these families often focus on
keeping their power rather than improving people’s lives.
A survey by WR Numero in September 2024 also found that 50% of Filipinos believe politicians from
dynastic families are more likely to be corrupt. In Metro Manila, two-thirds of people shared this belief.
This suggests that many citizens see political dynasties as a problem that leads to dishonesty in
government.

A real example of this issue is the Rajapaksa family in Sri Lanka. They ruled for many years but were
accused of corruption and mismanaging the economy, which led to a major financial crisis.
Investigations even found that they hid wealth in secret offshore accounts.

These cases show that when power stays within one family for too long, there is less accountability. This
makes it easier for politicians to abuse their position, putting personal gain above the needs of the
people. In the end, political dynasties weaken democracy and slow down a country's progress.

Aren’t corruption and poverty separate issues? Can we really blame political dynasties for economic
struggles?

🔹yes! While corruption exists in different political systems, studies show that areas with strong political
dynasties tend to have higher poverty rates. This is because dynastic politicians focus more on securing
their power rather than implementing long-term solutions for development. A government ruled by a
few families often prioritizes self-interest over national progress.

If voters believe dynasties lead to corruption, why don’t they vote them out?

🔹 Voter choice is often restricted by political dynasties' control over resources, media influence, and
name recognition. In many cases, new candidates struggle to compete against well-established families
who dominate elections. Without reforms, voters won’t have fair alternatives to choose from.

. Isn’t political stability more important than breaking dynasties?

🔹 Stability shouldn’t come at the cost of corruption and poor governance. Countries like Sri Lanka under
the Rajapaksa family seemed "stable" at first, but their corruption and mismanagement led to economic
collapse. True stability comes from a government that serves the people, not one that prioritizes
keeping power within a few families

Would breaking up political dynasties guarantee better leadership, or could it just replace one corrupt
leader with another?

🔹 Ending dynasties won’t automatically solve corruption, but it will allow new, competent leaders a fair
chance to enter politics. Right now, dynasties block fresh talent and competition, which limits the
country's political progress.

If political dynasties are harmful, why hasn’t the Philippines passed a strong anti-dynasty law?
🔹 Because many lawmakers themselves come from political dynasties. They have the power to block or
weaken any laws that would threaten their own political dominance. This is exactly why change is
difficult—dynasties are protecting themselves, not the people.

For example, the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill has been proposed multiple times in Congress, but it never
gets enough support to become law. In 2019, a version of the bill was approved at the committee level
but never progressed further because most legislators had family members in politics.

This shows how self-interest prevents reform—political dynasties protect their own power instead of
allowing fair competition.

Political dynasties in the Philippines encourage vote-buying and election fraud

Political dynasties in the Philippines often encourage vote-buying and election fraud to stay in power. A
clear example is the 1969 presidential election, where Ferdinand Marcos used massive amounts of
money to secure votes. Reports say he outspent his opponent, Sergio Osmeña Jr., by 100 to 1, spending
around ₱24 million in Cebu alone. This election was described as one of the most corrupt and violent in
Philippine history, with Marcos using "guns, goons, and gold" to win. (wikipedia.org)

Even today, vote-buying remains a big problem. Many politicians, especially from powerful families, give
cash, food, or favors to win votes, which prevents fair elections. Instead of choosing the best leaders,
voters feel pressured to support those who offer the most money. This cycle allows dynastic politicians
to keep their positions, making it hard for honest and capable leaders to win.

Vote-buying and election fraud caused by political dynasties have serious negative effects on the
country. When politicians win through money and manipulation instead of merit, they feel less
accountable to the people. This leads to poor leadership, corruption, and neglect of public services
because officials focus more on keeping their power than solving real problems.

Additionally, vote-buying traps communities in poverty because instead of creating long-term programs
for jobs, education, and healthcare, politicians just hand out short-term favors during elections to gain
support. This creates a culture of dependency, where people expect temporary aid instead of
demanding real change.

If vote-buying is a widespread issue, isn’t it the fault of the voters rather than political dynasties?
🔹 Voters may accept money, but the system forces them into this cycle. Many people are poor and feel
they have no choice, while dynastic politicians use their wealth and power to exploit this desperation. If
elections were fair, people wouldn’t have to rely on short-term favors.

Aren’t there laws against vote-buying and election fraud? Why not just enforce them better instead of
blaming dynasties?
🔹 Laws exist, but enforcement is weak because many dynastic politicians control local authorities. Since
they hold power for generations, they can manipulate the system to protect themselves from legal
consequences.

Isn’t vote-buying just a way for politicians to help poor communities?

🔹 No, it’s a temporary bribe, not real help. True leadership means providing jobs, education, and
healthcare—not just handing out money before elections. Vote-buying keeps people dependent instead
of empowering them.

If vote-buying and election fraud are so bad, why haven’t Filipinos completely rejected dynastic
politicians?

🔹 Many Filipinos are aware of the problem, but dynasties have deeply rooted power, making it hard to
remove them. Some voters feel trapped in a cycle where rejecting a dynasty could mean losing access to
basic needs like food or local services.

Isn't it unfair to blame political dynasties alone for vote-buying when independent candidates also
engage in it?

While some independent candidates may participate in vote-buying, the scale and impact of dynastic
politicians’ actions are far greater. Political dynasties have long-standing control over government
resources, local businesses, and political networks, allowing them to sustain systematic vote-buying over
multiple elections. Unlike independent candidates, they can use public funds, government programs,
and even intimidation tactics to secure votes.

If voters willingly accept money, doesn’t that mean vote-buying is a mutual agreement rather than an
abuse of power?

🔹 No, it’s a form of exploitation. Many voters accept money out of necessity, not choice. Political
dynasties keep communities poor so people remain dependent, ensuring they can buy votes instead of
earning them through good governance.

Isn't it the responsibility of voters to reject corrupt politicians? Why blame political dynasties when
people can just vote them out?

🔹 In theory, yes—but in reality, dynastic politicians manipulate elections, control media narratives, and
suppress opposition. Voters often don’t have a fair playing field to make informed choices

Would banning political dynasties really stop vote-buying and election fraud?

🔹 It won’t eliminate it completely, but it would reduce the monopoly of power. When elections are
competitive and open to new leaders, there’s less reliance on money and bribery to secure votes

Can’t vote-buying be a sign of generosity rather than corruption?

🔹 No. True generosity is creating jobs, improving education, and providing healthcare—things that last.
Vote-buying is about control, not kindness. It keeps people dependent rather than empowering them.

Political dynasties in the Philippines harmed the country's reputation worldwide

Political dynasties in the Philippines have harmed the country's reputation worldwide, mainly because of
corruption and human rights violations linked to powerful political families. One of the most well-known
examples is the Marcos family, which ruled from 1965 to 1986. During this period, they were accused of
stealing between $5 billion to $10 billion from public funds, making the Philippines infamous for
corruption. In fact, the Marcoses hold a Guinness World Record for the largest-ever government theft, a
title that reflects how deeply political dynasties can exploit public resources. But corruption was not the
only problem. Under Ferdinand Marcos' rule, there were widespread human rights abuses, including
3,257 extrajudicial killings, 35,000 cases of torture, 737 forced disappearances, and 70,000 unjust
imprisonments. These events damaged the country's global reputation and led to international criticism,
making it harder for the Philippines to gain the trust of other nations and foreign investors.

Even today, political dynasties continue to weaken the Philippines' international image. Corruption
remains a major issue, and this is reflected in global rankings. In 2023, the Philippines ranked 115th out
of 180 countries in the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), scoring only 34 out of 100. This low ranking
sends a negative message to foreign investors, international organizations, and business partners,
making them hesitant to invest in the country. Investors often look for stable and transparent
governments before they decide to bring in businesses, trade deals, or development projects. When a
country is seen as being controlled by a few powerful families who prioritize their own interests over the
people’s welfare, it loses valuable economic opportunities. Instead of moving forward as a nation, the
Philippines struggles with the same issues year after year because political dynasties keep power within
the same circles, making it difficult to push for genuine reforms.

Breaking free from political dynasties is essential if the Philippines wants to improve its reputation and
gain respect on the global stage. A government that promotes fair elections, equal opportunities for
leadership, and real transparency will attract more trust, investments, and international support. The
country’s future should not be controlled by a few families but by competent, honest leaders who truly
represent the people’s needs. If the Philippines wants to compete globally, strengthen democracy, and
provide better opportunities for its citizens, ending the cycle of political dynasties is a necessary step
forward.

Does the presence of political dynasties discourage foreign investments and economic growth in the
Philippines?

🔹 Yes, because investors prefer stable and transparent governments. The dominance of political families
creates uncertainty, fosters corruption, and reduces trust in the country’s economic policies, making it
less attractive for foreign businesses

Are political dynasties responsible for the country’s low ranking in global corruption indexes, or is
corruption a separate issue?

🔹 Political dynasties play a major role because they control government institutions, weakening checks
and balances. Without real competition, corruption thrives, and public officials prioritize personal gain
over public service.
Would the Philippines be taken more seriously on the global stage if it had a government led by
diverse and independent leaders rather than political families?

🔹 Yes, because a government that promotes meritocracy and transparency earns more respect. When
leadership is based on qualifications rather than family ties, it signals progress and modern governance
to the world.

If some political families have improved the economy, does that justify keeping political dynasties in
power despite their history of corruption?

🔹 No, because temporary economic growth does not erase the long-term damage caused by corruption
and lack of accountability. A country should not rely on the same families for progress but instead allow
fresh, competent leaders to take charge.

Is it fair to blame political dynasties alone for the Philippines’ negative global reputation, or are there
other factors at play?

🔹 While other factors contribute, political dynasties are a major cause. Their history of corruption,
election fraud, and human rights abuses have shaped the country’s negative image worldwide

How do political dynasties affect international negotiations and foreign policies? Do they weaken or
strengthen the Philippines’ diplomatic stance?

🔹 They weaken it because foreign nations see dynastic politics as a sign of instability and corruption. This
reduces the country’s bargaining power in global negotiations and limits opportunities for international
collaboration

B.) COUNTER ARGUMENT

Political dynasties ensure experienced leadership

Political dynasties ensure experienced leadership because members of political families are exposed to
governance from an early age. They claim that growing up in a political environment gives these
individuals first-hand knowledge of public service, policymaking, and crisis management, making them
better prepared to lead. Many believe that political families pass down leadership skills, governance
expertise, and networks of influence, which can help their successors effectively manage government
affairs.

In the Philippines, several long-standing political families, such as the Marcoses, Dutertes, and
Macapagal-Arroyos, have consistently held high-ranking positions in government, demonstrating their
ability to maintain power over time. According to a study by Querubin (2016), politicians from dynastic
backgrounds tend to remain in office longer, allowing them to implement long-term projects and sustain
development programs. Additionally, some provinces under dynastic rule, such as Ilocos Norte and
Cebu, have experienced economic growth and infrastructure development, which proponents argue is
proof that dynastic leaders are capable of providing stability and progress.
However, while political dynasties may provide continuity, experience alone does not necessarily result
in effective or ethical leadership. Many second-generation politicians inherit their positions rather than
earning them through merit, which can lead to complacency and a lack of accountability. A 2018 study
by the Ateneo School of Government found that provinces with a high concentration of political
dynasties tend to have weaker governance and higher poverty rates. This contradicts the idea that
dynastic leadership automatically leads to good governance.

For instance, despite decades of rule by powerful families, some dynastic strongholds remain among the
poorest provinces in the country. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) in 2021,
Maguindanao had a poverty incidence of 53.7%, and Lanao del Sur had 66.3%, even though these areas
have been governed by the same political families for generations. If political dynasties truly provided
better leadership, these provinces should have seen more significant improvements in economic
conditions and public welfare.

Furthermore, political dynasties can limit leadership innovation and competition. When power is passed
down within the same family, it discourages fresh ideas and prevents more qualified individuals from
emerging as leaders. A 2013 study by the Asian Institute of Management (AIM) revealed that 70% of
Congress is composed of political dynasties, yet many of the country’s systemic problems, such as
corruption, poverty, and poor public services—remain unresolved. This suggests that maintaining power
within families does not necessarily translate to effective governance or national progress.

True leadership should be based on merit, competence, and the ability to serve the public effectively,
not simply on family background. While political dynasties may claim to offer experience, the reality is
that many of them prioritize family interests over genuine public service, leading to governance that
benefits the few rather than the many. Instead of relying on inherited power, the Philippines would
benefit from a more competitive and merit-based political system, where leaders are chosen based on
their abilities rather than their last name.

Families remain in power because they have the support and trust of the people

Supporters of political dynasties argue that these families remain in power because they have the
support and trust of the people. They claim that if voters continue to elect members of the same
families, it must mean that the public believes in their leadership and governance. In a democratic
system, leaders are chosen through elections, and since dynastic politicians consistently win, it suggests
that they are the preferred choice of the majority.

For example, in the 2019 elections, over 70% of Congress was composed of political dynasties, according
to a study by the Asian Institute of Management (AIM). Similarly, the Marcoses and Dutertes won by
overwhelming margins in the 2022 national elections, further proving that the public still supports
dynastic leaders. Proponents argue that this widespread voter preference is evidence that these families
continue to serve the interests of the people and are capable of delivering results.

However, just because people vote for political dynasties does not mean they are the best leaders or
that their victories reflect a fully democratic process. Many dynastic politicians win not because of
genuine public trust, but because of name recognition, wealth, and control over resources. The same
AIM study (2019) found that dynastic candidates have a 22% higher chance of winning elections
compared to non-dynastic candidates, largely because they inherit political machinery, financial backing,
and established networks that give them an unfair advantage.

Additionally, political dynasties often engage in vote-buying and patronage politics, which manipulate
election outcomes. According to the Commission on Elections (COMELEC), vote-buying cases in the
Philippines have increased, with reports of cash, groceries, and other incentives being given to voters in
exchange for support. These unethical practices create an uneven playing field where competent but
less wealthy candidates struggle to compete.

Moreover, in many rural areas, voter coercion and intimidation are common, especially in provinces
controlled by powerful families. A 2016 report from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism
(PCIJ) revealed that some political clans use their influence over local law enforcement and private
armed groups to pressure communities into voting for them. This undermines the idea that dynastic
victories are purely the result of democratic choice.

If elections were truly fair and competitive, many more capable and independent leaders would have
the opportunity to emerge. Unfortunately, the dominance of political dynasties limits political
competition, preventing new and deserving leaders from rising to power. True democracy is not just
about who gets the most votes, but about ensuring that voters have a genuine choice, free from
manipulation, coercion, and financial influence.

Political dynasties provide stability

Political dynasties provide stability and ensure the continuity of governance, leading to better economic
growth and policy implementation. Supporters claim that long-established political families have the
experience and influence needed to attract investments and manage development projects effectively.
In fact, a study by Querubin (2016) found that dynastic politicians tend to stay in office longer, which
allows them to implement long-term projects that benefit their constituents. Additionally, some
provinces under dynastic rule, such as Ilocos Norte and Cebu, have seen continuous economic progress,
suggesting that experienced political families can drive local development.
However, while some dynasties may bring short-term stability, research shows that their prolonged rule
often leads to higher poverty rates and weaker governance in the long run. According to a 2018 study by
the Ateneo School of Government, provinces with a high concentration of political dynasties tend to
have higher poverty rates and lower human development scores. For example, Maguindanao, where
dynastic families have dominated for decades, had a poverty incidence of 53.7% in 2021, one of the
highest in the country (PSA, 2021). Furthermore, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)
found that in provinces where over 50% of elected officials come from dynasties, economic growth is
slower compared to areas with more political competition. This suggests that political dynasties may
prioritize their own interests over inclusive development, reinforcing inequality rather than addressing
it. True stability should come from good governance, transparency, and accountability—not from
keeping power within a single family.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, this article strengthens the claim that Filipino citizens truly believed that political
dynasties within our government should be abolished. Summarizing the contents of these articles, each
of them holds a strong view on the negativity that'll affect us in the long run of being under the rule of
these families, who turned the government into their own business and livelihood. Opportunities for a
better living state, is robbed by the greed of power and domination over our country and residences.
Highlighting this pieces of information, may bring the light to the voices of the people on what they
really desire for the future and current state of our land.