{"id":170080,"date":"2018-07-10T02:44:06","date_gmt":"2018-07-10T06:44:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=170080"},"modified":"2018-07-10T02:44:06","modified_gmt":"2018-07-10T06:44:06","slug":"bicam-panel-omits-anti-dynasty-provision-in-bbl-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2018\/07\/10\/bicam-panel-omits-anti-dynasty-provision-in-bbl-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"Bicam panel omits anti-dynasty provision in BBL proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"FILE:<\/a>
FILE: According to Drilon, the said provision will \u201cnot really curb dynastic behaviors.\u201d (Photo<\/a>: Senate of the Philippines\/Facebook<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The bicameral conference committee set to consolidate and settle the differences of the upper chamber and lower chamber bill versions of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL) omitted the anti-political dynasty provision.<\/p>\n

This was\u00a0confirmed by Senate Minority Leader Franklin Drilon and Senator Francis Joseph \u201cChiz\u201d Escudero on Monday, July 9.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe adoption of the supposed anti-dynasty provision in the Senate version was strongly opposed by some members of the panel. As a form of protest I did not argue and push for its adoption anymore because the provision, as crafted, is useless,\u201d Drilon, who initially proposed the inclusion of the now-deleted provision in the Senate version, said in a text message to reporters.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is a much weaker provision than that provided in the SK (Sangguniang Kabataan<\/em>) law,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

According to Drilon, the said provision will \u201cnot really curb dynastic behaviors.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is a hypocritical provision, toothless to address the ill effects of dynasties. We might as well do away with it. What we need is a strong regulation of dynasties applicable to all public officers,\u201d he further explained, adding that he already signed a committee report regulating it.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, Escudero said that the provision was omitted because it was selective.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt applies only to party-list representatives and not to the other members of parliament or other officials of the Bangsamoro. It is, therefore, selective, discriminatory, and ineffective per the Bicam,\u201d he said in a separate text message to the media.<\/p>\n

The deleted provision of Senate Bill 1717 Section 15, Article VII states that \u201cno party representative should be related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to a district representative or another party representative in the same parliament.\u201d<\/p>\n

Earlier in February this year, Drilon pushed for the anti-dynasty provision saying that it is an \u201cissue that must be confronted.\u201d<\/p>\n

“In the Committee Report, I will push for the inclusion of a prohibition on political dynasties. I am open to discuss the extent of the prohibition, but the anti-dynasty principle must be embodied in the BBL,” he said in a statement then.<\/p>\n

Drilon is the author of Senate Bill 230 or the \u201cAnti-Political Dynasty Act.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The bicameral conference committee set to consolidate and settle the differences of the upper chamber and lower chamber bill versions …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":144461,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95],"tags":[52987,4706,10122,3250],"class_list":["post-170080","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","tag-anti-political-dynasty","tag-bangsamoro-basic-law","tag-francis-escudero","tag-franklin-drilon","mauthors-bea-kirstein-t-manalaysay","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170080","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=170080"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/170080\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/144461"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=170080"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=170080"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=170080"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}