Pamilya ay Pamilyar - A Novice’s Guide on Political Dynasties

Whether it be taking the red Katipunan jeep to go home, to Pop Up, or towards the LRT-2 Katipunan station, I always come across eye-catching electoral posters, especially the neon orange ones usually associated with the Villars. At face value, Camille Villar’s politely smiling face establishes a picture of trustworthiness–that is, if I didn’t know better. 

The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) processed 6,131,834 new voter applications as of September 11, 2024, just days leading up to the voter registration deadline in preparation for the 2025 Midterm Elections. Being a first time voter in this time and age is a challenge in and of itself. As one of the millions newly registered, I was tasked to fulfill my responsibility to society: to participate in political actions because the name I shade in the ballot may be the one who can change this country for better or for worse. Months leading up to the 2025 Midterm Elections, my social media feeds were filled with lots of election-related content that had each candidate running for office preaching their proposals, platforms (if they had any), and their respective credentials. As is the due diligence of any voter, I also participated in researching and verifying the said credentials of the candidates that hoped to garner a number of votes. 

The background research was enlightening to say the least. While I was researching for UP Political Society’s (UP POLSCi) SINOtoriables, I got to scrutinize senatorial candidates—both known and unknown. I found that many of the prominent senatorial candidates came from reputable schools and had substantial government positions. On one hand, Arlene Brosas, Pia Cayetano, and Rodante Marcoleta, for example, have received education from the University of the Philippines. Camille Villar, Benjamin Abalos, and Bam Aquino, on the other hand, studied under the Ateneo de Manila University, among others. That’s reassuring of course; however, some candidates did not have a clear statement of their platforms. Candidates like Bong Go, Manny Pacquiao, and Willie Revillame use phrases like “anti-corruption,” “poverty alleviation,” “social welfare,” “trabaho at kabuhayan,” “food security,” and “pro-poor programs” to describe their policy focus. While the themes of their policy focus are given, these noun phrases for platforms leave much, like specific details on how they plan to achieve their goals, to be desired.

This is worrisome. Concrete and explicit platforms are significant for a voter in order for them to truly know a candidate and their advocacy, as well as the steps the candidates will take once given the chance to lead. Additionally, senatorial candidates like Ka Daning and Mimi Doringo, while they had a clear and specific advocacy, did not have any information about their educational background disclosed to the public. That, too, is important to remember as knowing the schools that these candidates went to can help us know them better, and which doctrines and values they were raised to uphold. This, of course, is but one of many aspects that mold a person inside and out. 

Another issue I’d like to raise is the prominence of candidates running with all-too familiar surnames. For instance, candidates bearing the surname of Villars, Cayetanos, and Sottos, among others, were present in the Magic 12 senatorial results. The same old process partnered with the same old names undoubtedly yields the same old circumstances and results. As a country plagued with political dynasties within the Philippine government, this dynasty-saturated system should make you and I wonder: Why is it that many of the elected officials have familiar surnames? Is this or is it not a political dynasty? When is it a political dynasty? And if so, is a political dynasty always bad or are there times that it’s beneficial? 

Layout by Jana San Juan

Defining Political Dynasty

What exactly is it and when is it truly a political dynasty? The term “political dynasty” often carries a negative connotation as it suggests potential problems with fairness, democratic representation, and accountability. A political family is considered as a political dynasty if it retains political power by maintaining control in at least one elective position over successive electoral cycles. An elected politician is labeled as “dynastic” if he/she is related by blood (i.e., consanguinity) or by marriage (i.e., affinity) to other politicians currently or previously holding elective public office. This is the basic understanding of the term “political dynasty.” In the current times, however, the umbrella term of ‘family’ in a political dynasty is not as simple to define as one may think.

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio defines political dynasty as a “phenomenon that concentrates political power and public resources within the control of a few families whose members alternately hold elective offices, deftly skirting term limits.” The same paper further elaborates that what constitutes as a ‘family’ may go beyond blood and oftentimes extends to what the authors define as ‘primary groups,’ which are “small, informal and non-specialized groups that openly and intimately interact with each other.” To be more specific, they are the kinship group, the peer group, the groups of friends and playmates, and the informal group of co-workers. Therefore, a political family becomes a political dynasty if you see that a particular surname remains in power through various generations of members in that particular family, from the grandparents, spouses, parents, siblings, to children, or through individuals that have a deep and personal connection with the said political families. 

Political science takes this even further by introducing several types of political dynasties based on how power is distributed and transferred among family members. Because, of course, nothing is as complicated as anything that involves a Filipino family. Kidding aside, the two main types of a political dynasty which are the so-called fat and thin political dynasties. A “fat political dynasty” refers to those officials who have relatives that simultaneously hold office, while “thin political dynasties” pertain to political families that maintain power sequentially, with one elected officer at a time. It is important to note that both fat and thin dynasties are, despite the similarities, different from traditional, vertical (a.k.a successive), and horizontal dynasties discussed in comparative politics. 

An example of fat political dynasties includes the Singson dynasty, where Chavit Singson had sons, a daughter, brothers, a sister, and nieces holding government positions simultaneously across Ilocos Sur, namely Vigan City and Candon City. If the amount of family members sends a shiver down your spine, your reaction isn’t unwarranted. Julio Teehankee, a political science professor who has authored several studies on political clans in the Philippines, shares a sentiment regarding this issue. “Exceeding four or five family members in politics is already “obese,” which is not good for the health of Philippine democracy,” says his comment regarding the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism’s (PCIJ) research on fat political dynasties. For thin political dynasties, the families Aquino, Osmeña, and Laurel are some of the notable examples as members of these clans held significant offices. While their tenures did not overlap each other’s, their influence was still maintained in a considerably subtler manner. Thin political dynasties, despite their seemingly lesser impact, aren’t always considered the lesser evil of the two; oftentimes, they are just as detrimental as fat political dynasties.

The Candidates

We continue to talk of political families and its different types, but what about the surnames themselves? Do they have any significance besides identifying which officials are members of which political families? Yes, they do. Let us think of political dynastic surnames as “brandings” for the type of governance they promise. An article published under Maritime Fairtrade notes Former COMELEC commissioner Luie Guia stating that the Philippines’ political structure requires an overhaul. This sentiment is supported by their statement: 

“There are more voters who are indifferent with dynasties when voting. In fact, family surnames have become effective political brands and are associated with performance and service. The void that results from a dysfunctional party system is effectively filled by competing clans brandishing their surnames as brands of governance.” 

Identity in the electoral race is arguably the most important aspect candidates can focus on during their campaigning period. Have you ever wondered why campaigning jingles are made with popular, often catchy rhythms that repeat a candidate’s name? Despite how annoying it may seem, this tactic makes it possible for voters to easily recall a name of a candidate whenever they hear a tune that is similar to the ones used during the campaigning season. Similar tactics include creative slogans and nicknames like Senator Ronald “Bato” Dela Rosa’s “Itaga mo sa Bato,” Attorney Rodante Marcoleta’s “Kay Marcoleta, May Pag-Asa Ka,” former Vice President and now Naga Mayor Leni Robredo’s “Sa Gobyernong Tapat, Angat Buhay Lahat,” to name a few. Embedded within these taglines are a candidate’s motto along with their names, which makes it easier to connect a name and a face to a promise. And to those who buy into a certain promise remember the name of a certain candidate whose name they’ll shade once the election season arrives.

History, Legitimacy, and Political Dynasties

Traditional Authority

For a phenomena that has embedded itself deep into Philippine politics, it comes with no surprise that political dynasties, much like our country, have had a history that shaped what it is today. The Philippines for a time had a history of being divided into separate barangays with each one led by a datu. Datus, in particular, held political, economic, social, and diplomatic influence over the barangay, often ruling as hereditary leaders. While their authority is derived from the community’s recognition and respect, a datu's exceptional leadership in warfare and economic success could help make their rule more legitimate as what authority they were bequeathed with was justified by their skills. In political science, this fits one of Max Weber’s three legitimate authorities, which is the traditional authority. Traditional authority is regarded as legitimate as it has ‘always existed,’ stemming its acceptance from the previous generations that had practiced and respected this system. Usually, it operates according to a body of concrete rules—fixed and unquestioned customs that do not need to be justified because they reflect the way things have always been. 

Speaking of datus, the Ampatuan family of Maguindanao is a good example of a political family exercising this type of authority. According to Arnold Esguerra, a history professor at the University of the Philippines in Manila, their lineage could be traced back to a Muslim preacher, Shariff Aguak, who was one of the first people to introduce the Islamic faith to the area. During the early 20th century, the Ampatuans were influential traders but their social status was considered to be just under a datu. Fast forward to the 2025 Midterm Elections, the mayor, vice mayor, and four of Datu Hoffer Ampatuan, Maguindanao del Sur’s councilors bear the surname Ampatuan.  Substantiated by tradition, datus of each barangay enjoyed a legitimate authority bestowed unto them by their respective rules and customs, which allowed their rule to be smooth-sailing and effective. In the same way, the Ampatuans managed to retain their influence and control over Maguindanao del Sur even after and despite the Ampatuan Massacre.

Regionalism

As an archipelago made up of 7,641 islands, it made sense that many barangays in the Philippines functioned as individual sociopolitical entities coexisting with one another through trade, diplomacy, or warfare. Due to its geographic hindrances, these islands had limited communication and had developed their own unique culture and societal norms. The Spaniards’ arrival in the 16th century further cemented these divisions, as the colonizers used a divide-and-conquer strategy to subjugate the native populations.

After the colonization of the Spaniards, the ancient Filipino elites became gobernadorcillos and cabeza de barangays who were tasked with tax collection in exchange for the retention of authority and privileges. As a result of the divide-and-conquer tactic, there is an increased affinity and a feeling of shared identity towards an individual’s region/province rather than to his country as a whole. The term “regionalism” encapsulates this meaning fully, defined as “a feeling of loyalty to a particular part of a country and a wish for it to be more politically independent.” Mentioning the concept of regionalism is crucial in discussing political dynasties because turfs, also known as balwartes, is a defining characteristic of political dynasties. The Villars have Las Piñas, the Yulos have Negros Occidental, and of course, the Marcoses have Ilocos Norte. An example of this is Diego Silang who, together with his wife Gabriela Silang, waged the first major revolution against the Spaniards during the time of the British forces’ military incursion in the Philippines which began in September 1762. The Silangs exhibited a sense of regionalism as they aimed for the liberation and a formation of an Ilocano nation over the liberation of the whole country from the Spanish conquerors. 

Charismatic Authority

The second type of Weber’s legitimate authority, charismatic authority, is exhibited well by the Duterte family. Charismatic authority is described as a form of authority based on the power of an individual’s personality, depending not on their status, social position, or office, and their capacity as a leader to make a direct and personal appeal to followers as a kind of hero or saint. Former President Rodrigo “Digong” Duterte’s “protector of the people” image partnered with his anti-elite messaging, unfiltered speeches and populist appeal, developed a near cult-like following of supporters due to his perceived authenticity and ability to “get things done” as shown by his performance during his time as mayor of Davao City. As a result, the Dutertes rose politically in part due to the charismatic halo effect of Rodrigo Duterte. Despite the political turbulence the Dutertes are experiencing due to Rodrigo Duterte’s trial in the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the crime against humanity of murder, as well as his daughter’s, Vice President Sara  Duterte-Carpio, ongoing process leading up to an impeachment trial by the Philippine Senate, loyalists of the Duterte clan are unshakeable in their belief and support.

Legal-rational Authority

The third of Weber’s legitimate authorities, legal-rational authority, links authority to a clearly and legally defined set of rules. The legal-rational authority is separated from the first two due to the fact that the authority is attached to an office rather than a person. The power of a president, prime minister, or government official is determined in the final analysis by formal, constitutional rules, which constrain or limit what an office holder is able to do. An example of this is former President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino III of the Aquino-Cojuangco Family. During his presidency, Noynoy Aquino promoted through his “Daang Matuwid” campaign good governance, the rule of law, and bureaucratic reform. He is known for his technocratic appointments and anti-corruption platforms, championing transparency, accountability, and equitability. Coming from a family that symbolized democracy during Marcos Sr.’s dictatorship, Noynoy Aquino left a legacy that had democracy and respect for human rights at its core. His administration fostered an environment conducive to free speech, press freedom and open dialogue which in turn produced a check on government power and inspired a generation of Filipinos to actively participate in molding the nation’s future that allows for vibrant discussions and open debates regarding current issues.

Is a Political Dynasty always a Bad Thing?

For someone who studies political science, the word “politics” stands for many things. It can be portrayed as a process of conflict resolution, the art of government, power and the distribution of resources, or compromise and consensus. For the common folk, however, the meaning of “politics” stray far from these complex concepts. Politics affects every aspect of our day-to-day lives whether we may be aware of it or not. In its core, to study politics is to study government and to study the exercise of authority. The intricacies and conflicts arise whenever the exercise of the said authority is used for the betterment of society or for one’s personal benefit. In an interview with Maritime Fairtrade, women’s rights champion Liza Masa said: 

“These political dynasties are running their offices like their own personal kingdoms. It’s as if they believe public office is an inherited right, passed down from one generation to the next, with no regard for the true spirit of democracy and public service.”

Political dynasties thrive by maintaining their power through control over land and resources, with which they have access through their government positions. In the same article published under Maritime Fairtrade, the president of Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), Rafael Mariano, brought to attention many dynasties that have contributed to the exacerbation and cycle of poverty and inequality in rural areas as a result of landlessness. The Villars acquired over 9,000 hectares of residential and commercial land and benefitted from government policies that prioritized urban development over agricultural livelihoods. As a result of the Villars’ conversion of ancestral lands into hectares of oil palm plantations and other eco-tourism projects, thousands of local farmers and indigenous Filipinos have been displaced. Along with the Cojuangco-Aquinos and the Marcoses, these families use their political power to maintain their control over large estates and agricultural lands, preventing the redistribution of land to tenant-farmers. 

Besides exploiting natural resources and expediting environmental degradation for their benefit, it is also crucial to remind ourselves that the existence of political dynasties violate the Constitution, which is considered to be the supreme law of the land. Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” By enacting a firm grip on certain government positions across generations, not only do they encourage the decline of meritocracy and perpetuate corruption, the existence of these political dynasties actively inhibits more qualified, competent, and service-driven candidates to enter public office—most especially those who may have stronger track records in advocating for the rights of the poor and the marginalized. When we take into consideration the relationship of political dynasties and regionalism, particularly for national government positions, preference towards their respective balwartes may result in shunning other citizens who are in dire need of representation. New candidates, if not limited by said dynasties, could be the voice of the many voiceless members of our society. 

Let us look at the other side of the coin. When they perform well and have good intentions, consolidation of power within a family can have its advantages. For example, political dynasties can provide stability to their constituents. Families who are well-versed in politics often possess invaluable institutional memory and experience. They possess wisdom earned through constant exposure that allows for effective leadership and long-term policymaking. Think of it from the perspective of an experienced craftsman. A seasoned seamstress, for example, knows when to cut a fabric and how much margin to leave before cutting, which stitches to use, what kind of fabrics embody the vision they have in mind, how to make the pattern of their planned clothing, among many skills involved with the craft. Along with their experience, high public trust is also another factor that political dynasties can have. Given that a political family is truly devoted to public service, if a political family has served the public for many generations and has continually acted in the best interests of their constituents, it’s a win-win for both the political family and the constituents. The political family maintains their legacy boasting a track record of good governance, while their constituents have dependable political leaders who relate to their hardships on a deeper level and has proven throughout generations that the family’s leadership only has their best interest at heart. As a result of knowing their constituents well, another argument in favor of political dynasties is their potential to serve as advocates for marginalized communities. Longstanding leaders often have established relationships with their constituents, fostering trust and facilitating dialogue. This accessibility enables marginalized groups to voice their concerns and have their issues addressed more effectively, promoting inclusivity and social justice.

These arguments, while they seem promising and to some extent have sound logic, may fail depending on the given circumstances. For political dynasties to truly benefit the society they serve, they must first always be held accountable by strong institutions (i.e., courts, media, and elections), be competent—well-informed and reform-minded, and practice transparency by making clear efforts to avoid corruption and nepotism to gain public trust. Out of the three, none of them have been clearly and definitively achieved. While there are efforts to pass an Anti-Political Dynasty Bill, it has not yet been passed as a law during the time of this article’s writing. To answer the question: “is a political dynasty always a bad thing?”, in the context of the Philippines, which has weak checks and balances, sub-par transparency, and often ill-informed and loyalist government officials, especially with a bureaucratic culture that enforces ‘taking sides,’ political dynasties are almost always a bad thing. 

Conclusion

Once more, a political family becomes a political dynasty when power is consolidated and maintained by a household surname, either one at a time or simultaneously, observed for multiple generations, through individuals that have a deep and personal connection with said political families as well as actual members of the said clan. We have discussed the two types of political dynasty, which are the fat and thin dynasties, as well as discussed the importance of an identity to a candidate during campaigning and election season. Then, we analyzed how political dynasties may have been legitimized historically through the application of Weber’s three types of legitimate authority. Lastly, we’ve answered the question of whether a political dynasty is always a bad thing, with our answer being an “almost always a bad thing” in the Philippine context.

While researching for this article, I came across a thought-inducing take. When asked by then Senator Francis Pangilinan if political dynasties caused poverty or vice versa, Professor Amado Mendoza of UP Department of Political Science puts it this way. He had said that political dynasties thrive because the poor need a ‘padron’--a patron. 

“When the poor farmers need land to till, who do they run to? When they need funding, who doles out the money to them? In times of calamities, who do the poor look up to? Who are the reliable choices for godparents for weddings, baptisms — those dynastic, traditional politicians who will surely still be around term after term, listening to the needs of the less-privileged, mourning with them at wakes and funerals. That is the never-paid debt of gratitude (utang na loob),” 

He further expounds during a Senate hearing that discussed the proposed anti-political dynasty law called by then Senator Pangilinan. While this observation may seem wholesome, heartwarming even, it is undisputed that when election times come, these political dynasties ‘milk’ the poor’s sense of utang na loob which further exacerbates and keeps this vicious cycle of patronage politics going through multiple generations. 

This cultivated dependency of the poor—without your tried and tested patron, you will think that you will not have water, no small personal “funding,” no support—is what entrenches political dynasties. It is for this very reason that we strive to uproot dynasties, to finally put an end to a predatory system that is nothing but a pretentious face on a neon orange poster smiling at you as you ride a jeepney home. 

As I write this, I am reminded by the faces I meet during my day-to-day commute. We have the power to change our circumstances. The reality of our day-to-day hardships should not be forgotten. In all honesty, hindi maikakaila na para sa mga taong iniinda ang kalam ng tiyan bawat araw, may pagkakataon na halos wala na silang pakialam sa kung sinuman ang naka-upo sa puwesto. They simply cannot afford to worry about things beyond their personal survival. I understand that between three full meals a day and the continuity of the Philippines’ democracy, many will choose the former. Aanhin mo nga naman ang bukas kung baka ngayon pa lang, hindi ka sigurado kung may bukas ka pa bang haharapin.

Despite this truth, it is important to remember that political dynasties leave detrimental damages if left unchecked. Public service should never be a family business. To leave political power consolidated in the hands of the few families that proliferate through various positions in the government is to let the voice of the sovereign–we, the people–continue to go unheard and unsatisfied. Then, should we totally avoid dynasties regardless of whether they’re beneficial or harmful? But as demonstrated above, there are times when a dynasty can be good. Unfortunately, the answer is not a simple black-and-white answer as it is difficult to completely purge dynasties, especially when our history is littered with many of these. One way to help us decide whether such dynasties are “beneficial” or “harmful” is by putting in our own research. In my experience, those candidates stating their platforms, credentials, and track record clearly in their social media platforms aid greatly in helping the public decide on whether these officials are worthy of the authority, influence, and privileges that come with the position, as well as if they are using it for the benefit of many or for their own personal gain. It is important to remember that at the end of the day, we, as voters, also contribute to the longevity of these political dynasties. We must remind ourselves that whenever we exercise our right to suffrage, we also willingly give power to those whom we have voted for. By continuing to vote for the same old names under the same old system, our elections will, of course, yield the same old circumstances and results. 

Therefore, as the 2028 National Elections roll around, be wary of the names that appear on the ballots. Ask yourself the reason as to why you’re shading a candidate’s name. Make sure that each circle shaded stems from your own choice and not the influence of external pressures. Choose well, and choose wisely—Bumoto ng maayos at bumoto nang maayos—because we deserve the government that we elect.