{"id":51944,"date":"2015-06-16T15:00:37","date_gmt":"2015-06-16T07:00:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/?p=51944"},"modified":"2015-06-16T15:00:37","modified_gmt":"2015-06-16T07:00:37","slug":"house-to-ban-succession-and-substitution-under-anti-dynasty-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/2015\/06\/16\/house-to-ban-succession-and-substitution-under-anti-dynasty-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"House to ban \u2018succession\u2019 and \u2018substitution\u2019 under anti-dynasty bill"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"House<\/a>
House of Representatives (Photo courtesy of Metro\/EPA)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

MANILA \u2013 The House of Representatives is considering banning a relative of an incumbent government official with an elective post from succeeding his or her elective position.<\/p>\n

This practice of succession, also called \u2018election by inheritance,\u2019 is prohibited under the proposed anti-dynasty bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe bill, whether it is the original version or our committee\u2019s version, does not allow succession\u2026 Prohibiting that is what we are pushing for,\u201d House committee on suffrage and electoral reform chairman Capiz Representative Fredenil Castro said in an interview.<\/p>\n

The number of kin prohibited from the same elective post, however, is still unclear as the two versions of the bill recommended different measures.<\/p>\n

Under the original and \u2018stricter\u2019 version, the public office is limited to only one family member. While under the new committee\u2019s version, the elective post is limited to two family members.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhether the anti-political dynasty prohibition limits incumbency and participation in an election to just one member or two members of a political family, succession should not be allowed,\u201d Castro said.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the proposed anti-dynasty bill extends to prohibiting substitution of a relative to a former government official who is seeking re-election with the same position.<\/p>\n

Castro hopes that the bill be passed as a law soon because he believes it will \u2018level the playing field and give others a chance to hold public office.\u2019<\/p>\n

\u201cThe practice of political families of having four, five or more members in public office is abominable and scandalous, and should stop,\u201d he said, citing the Binay\u2019s as example.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey are not my favorite example, but journalists always ask me about them whenever we discuss the bill,\u201d he added.<\/p>\n

Should the bill be passed, the Binay political clan is well over the limit as there are four from their family who are holding elective posts.<\/p>\n

Aside from Vice President Binay, his children Senator Nancy Binay, Makati Representative Abigail Binay Campos, and Makati Major Junjun Binay are all in government offices.<\/p>\n

Even numerous House representatives are also over the limit as many of them are sons, daughters or spouses of the congressmen who preceded them.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, Castro deems that now is the time to pass the proposed anti-dynasty bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe Constitution has a provision banning political dynasties. Congress has failed to implement this provision since 1987, when the people ratified the Constitution, or for nearly three decades now,\u201d he said, mentioning that the current election law does not ban succession or substitution.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

MANILA \u2013 The House of Representatives is considering banning a relative of an incumbent government official with an elective post …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1145,16,95,483],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-headline","category-news","category-news-ph","category-politics","mauthors-cyra-moraleda","mauthors-philippine-canadian-inquirer"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51944","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=51944"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51944\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/canadianinquirer.net\/v1\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}