The Republic of Makati: Role of Political Dynasty and Its Impact on Local Elections

Makati City is often referred to as the financial capital of the Philippines, a hub of economic activity, corporate headquarters, and luxury residences. However, beyond its skyscrapers and business districts, the city is also a battleground for one of the country’s most enduring political dynasties: the Binay family. Since Jejomar Binay’s appointment as Officer-in-Charge Mayor in 1986, the Binays have held control over Makati for nearly four decades, shaping its governance and development while also drawing criticism for nepotism and entrenched political power. Despite legal and political challenges, including corruption allegations and internal family conflicts, the Binay dynasty remains a dominant force, with its influence made further evident in the 2025 national and local elections. Plato, in The Republic, warns against the dangers of oligarchic rule, where power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, often prioritizing self-interest over the common good. The persistence of political dynasties like the Binays raises concerns about whether electoral politics in Makati fosters genuine democracy or merely reinforces elite rule. This article will explore the role of the Binay political dynasty in shifting Makati’s political landscape leading up to the 2025 local elections and the broader implications of dynastic politics on the processes of democratic governance.

Art by Jana San Juan

The Binay political dynasty in Makati did not emerge by chance; rather, it was built and maintained through a complex system of patron-client relationships that reinforced the family's grip on power for nearly four decades. Carl Lande’s patron-client framework provides a useful lens for analyzing how the Binay family cultivated and sustained their dominance despite controversies, including corruption allegations and internal power struggles. Under this framework, political power is secured through personal relationships of mutual benefit, where a "patron" provides material goods, protection, or privileges to "clients" in exchange for loyalty and political support. Jejomar Binay’s rise to power began in 1986 when he was appointed Officer-in-Charge (OIC) Mayor of Makati by President Corazon Aquino. From the outset, Binay implemented welfare programs that directly benefited the city’s residents, particularly the urban poor, reinforcing his image as a leader who provided for his constituents. Programs such as free healthcare at the Ospital ng Makati, educational scholarships, and financial assistance for senior citizens became hallmarks of his administration. These policies, while beneficial to many, also served as mechanisms of political control. In a patron-client system, these forms of assistance, such as Project FREE (educational support) and the Yellow Card (healthcare card), created a sense of dependency among Makati’s residents, making them more likely to support the Binay family in elections. Even as corruption allegations emerged, most notably the 2014 Senate investigation into alleged overpriced infrastructure projects such as the Makati Parking Building and the Makati Science High School Building, Binay’s support base largely remained intact. The patron-client relationship insulated the dynasty from complete political collapse. 

Despite media coverage and legal proceedings, the Binays continued to win elections because they had cultivated deep loyalty among voters who directly benefited from their rule. This mirrors Lande’s argument that in a patron-client democracy, voters often prioritize immediate, tangible benefits over abstract concerns like institutional corruption or long-term governance reforms. Furthermore, the Binay family extended their patronage network beyond direct welfare programs by placing loyal allies in key government and business positions, ensuring political continuity. Through this system, they secured contracts, built alliances, and retained influence even when Jejomar Binay lost his 2016 presidential bid and faced corruption investigations. Despite Makati’s economic affluence, its political structure has functioned more like a traditional provincial stronghold, where elite families maintain power through patronage rather than ideological platforms. However, shifts in Makati’s jurisdiction and the emergence of political challengers now threaten this long-standing dynamic, raising questions about whether the Binay dynasty can survive in a changing political landscape.

The 2025 local elections in Makati represent a critical moment for the Binay dynasty, as both internal and external challenges threatened their long-standing dominance. One of the most significant disruptions is the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that transferred 10 barangays from Makati to Taguig, effectively redrawing the city’s political landscape. This decision weakened the Binays’ voter base and introduced a new dimension of political competition, as Taguig’s own ruling dynasty, the Cayetanos, gained influence in areas previously under Binay control. The contrast between the Binay and Cayetano dynasties highlights key differences in electoral dynamics between Makati and Taguig, shaping how local power is contested.  Makati, under the Binays, has operated under a traditional patron-client model, where electoral success is secured through extensive welfare programs, personal loyalty networks, and direct service delivery. The Binay dynasty’s control was deeply entrenched because they positioned themselves as benefactors, ensuring that voters remained reliant on their governance. This structure mirrors other political strongholds in the Philippines, such as the Garcias in Cebu or the Dutertes in Davao, where long-standing family rule is maintained through a combination of political machinery and social programs. In contrast, Taguig’s political landscape under the Cayetanos has been shaped by a more technocratic and media-driven approach to governance. While patronage remains an essential tool, the Cayetanos have built their dominance through strong branding, aggressive social media campaigns, and national-level political maneuvering. Unlike the Binays, who remained primarily local figures before Jejomar Binay’s vice-presidential win in 2010, the Cayetanos have leveraged national positions to maintain their local grip. Alan Peter Cayetano and Pia Cayetano both served in the Senate, while Lani Cayetano, a former mayor, strategically reclaimed her position in 2022. This integration of local and national power makes the Cayetanos less reliant on traditional patronage structures compared to the Binays. 

The shift of Makati’s key barangays to Taguig disrupts this balance of power. The Binays have lost thousands of potential voters, while the Cayetanos now have an opportunity to consolidate influence in what was once Binay's stronghold territory. Additionally, the Binay family’s internal rift, highlighted by the 2019 electoral battle between Abigail and Junjun Binay, has weakened their once-unified machinery. If the family remains divided in 2025, this could create an opening for new challengers to emerge. Ultimately, Makati’s shifting electoral dynamics suggest that the Binay dynasty is at its most vulnerable point in decades. Despite high-profile endorsements and high ranking in surveys, Abby Binay’s loss in the 2025 senatorial race proves this increased vulnerability. This vulnerability does not exist in a vacuum, but it reflects broader shifts in the local political landscape. While patron-client relationships remain powerful, rival dynasties' changing political geography and growing influence signal a potential transformation in the city’s governance.

The results of the 2025 midterm elections confirmed that the Binay dynasty is navigating its most precarious political moment in decades. Although Nancy Binay secured the mayoralty with 114,898 votes against her brother-in-law Luis Campos (who campaigned as AbbyLuis Campos, emphasising his ties to the Binay family), who garnered 85,664 votes, the reduced margin compared to previous election cycles signals a waning grip of the Binay name on the Makati electorate. Furthermore, the United Nationalist Alliance (UNA), the Binays’ traditional political party, won only 7 of 16 seats in the Makati City Council, and Kid Peña's (running under Nationalist People’s Coalition) landslide vice-mayoral win against UNA’s Del Rosario reflects the family’s diminished dominance in local governance. While the mayoral race still proves that patronage politics remains deeply embedded in Makati, the loss of Abby Binay in the senatorial race (where she finished 15th) suggests that the political geography nationally is being redrawn, both literally and figuratively. With internal divisions, territorial losses, and growing competition, the Binay dynasty no longer holds unchallenged authority locally and electoral dominance nationally, opening the door for a possible transformation in Makati’s governance and a broader rethinking of dynastic politics in the Philippines.

Political dynasties have been a defining feature of Philippine politics for centuries, tracing back to the Spanish colonial period when local elites, or the “principalia”, consolidated power through economic privilege and government appointments. This pattern persisted through American rule, when political power remained in the hands of landed families, and it continues today, with entrenched dynasties dominating both local and national elections. The Binay dynasty in Makati is one of the most enduring examples of this political phenomenon, demonstrating both the stability and the democratic limitations that dynastic rule imposes on governance. Historically, political dynasties have been justified as providers of continuity and experience in governance. Supporters argue that families like the Binays have institutional knowledge and a proven track record, making them effective leaders. Similar arguments have been made for the Marcoses in Ilocos, the Osmeñas in Cebu, and the Cojuangcos in Tarlac. However, critics point out that dynastic rule often results in nepotism, weakened political competition, and a lack of accountability, as power is inherited rather than earned through merit. This has been evident in cases where dynastic rule has led to corruption, such as the plunder charges against former President Joseph Estrada, a member of the Ejercito-Estrada dynasty, or the multi-billion peso corruption cases tied to the Binays. 

The persistence of political dynasties also highlights a central paradox in democratic governance: how can genuine electoral competition exist when power is monopolized by a select few? This is particularly relevant to the issue of anti-dynasty legislation, which has long been proposed but never effectively implemented. The 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly mandates that Congress enact a law prohibiting political dynasties (Article II, Section 26), yet no such law has been passed. The reason is clear—the very lawmakers responsible for enacting anti-dynasty laws are members of political dynasties. This creates a cycle where dynastic politicians pass laws that protect their interests, preventing new political challengers from rising. Electoral reforms, such as campaign finance transparency and political party strengthening, are often blocked or watered down because they threaten the dominance of established families. The question arises: Is meaningful reform even possible within a system dominated by dynasties? Historically, significant political change in the Philippines has only occurred through intense public pressure or external crises, such as the People Power Revolution of 1986. If anti-dynasty reforms are ever realized, they will likely require a combination of public mobilization, judicial intervention, and international democratic pressure, rather than voluntary action by those in power.

In summary, the political landscape of Makati has long been shaped by the Binay dynasty, whose hold on power was secured through a patron-client system that rewarded loyalty with social programs and direct assistance. However, the shifting political dynamics, including the Supreme Court’s jurisdictional ruling and emerging challengers, pose the most significant test to their dominance in decades. The contrast between Makati’s traditional patronage-driven politics and Taguig’s media-savvy, technocratic governance highlights broader patterns in Philippine political dynasties. While some argue that dynasties provide stability and continuity, history shows that they often limit genuine democratic participation, entrench corruption, and restrict political competition. 

Overall, the persistence of dynastic rule in Makati reflects a broader national dilemma: how can true electoral competition exist when the political system is monopolized by a handful of families? The failure to pass anti-dynasty legislation underscores the reality that those in power are unlikely to dismantle the very structures that sustain them.

Now, what did the voters do? The 2025 midterm elections proved to be a political reckoning, not just for Makati, but for the entire nation. Across the country, celebrity candidates and entrenched traditional politicians (trapos) suffered surprising defeats, signaling a growing disillusionment with personality-driven politics. Even in Makati, Nancy Binay’s victory, while still notable, came with a reduced margin and was accompanied by the Binay-led UNA securing only 7 out of 16 city council seats–clear signs of a shifting tide. Voters are beginning to reject the notion that fame or a famous surname guarantees good governance. In The Republic, Plato warns that when citizens refuse to engage in politics, they risk being ruled by their inferiors. Today, the Filipino electorate seems to be heeding that call: challenging dynasties, defying surveys, and redefining what leadership looks like. Ultimately, the fate of Makati’s so-called "Republic", as well as the country's democratic future, rested not in the hands of dynasties or entertainers, but in the ballots of bold, informed voters. And if 2025 taught us anything, it’s this: Filipinos are no longer afraid to break the script.