Proem

A paradox is defined as a statement that is seemingly contradictory but yet taken as true.

For this coming May political exercise there are or will be many candidates who will come from the same family. We know that that 1987 Constitution has a provision regarding the prohibition of political dynasties. Why has this situation come about?
Constitutional Provision

In our present Constitution, in its Declaration of Principles found in Article II, Section 26, it says "The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law."

The Paradox

The constitutional provision says, "…shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service…." This would mean that anybody who is a qualified voter can run for any elective position. This is in accordance to the accepted democratic principle that everyone has the right to vote and be voted upon.

In the same constitutional provision it continues, "..prohibit political dynasties …." We also know that members of dynasties are people. They are part of the same people who are guaranteed equal opportunities for public service.

The paradox is this; if you emphasize "guarantee equal access" then "prohibit political dynasties" is a contradiction. If you emphasize "prohibit political dynasties," the "guarantee equal access" is a contradiction.

You can understand why Congress, after the lapse of 20 years could not define "political dynasties" that would not contradict accepted democratic principles.

The Dilemma

In countries ruled by monarchies the principle of dynasties are accepted as desirable. The framers of the 1987 Constitution were of the opinion that dynasties applied to a democratic country are not good. The problem was they could not define what political dynasty is. They left it for Congress to do the definition. However, Congress also could not make the definition.

In former times, our solution was anchored on delicadeza or a sense of propriety of an individual. It is similar to the Bisayan's concept of ulaw which is roughly equivalent to shame.

In former times, ulaw would prevent the situation in which the husband is the Mayor, the wife is the Vice Mayor, and the son or daughter is a councilor. The concept of delicadeza or ulaw is based on morals and not on laws.

Morals are the rules by which a society exhorts while laws are the rules by which it seeks to compel its members. Political dynasties are morally wrong according to the opinion of the framers of the Constitution. However, since no law is enacted prohibiting it, then it can still be practiced.

The problem is - the youth today no longer know the concept of delicadeza or ulaw.

The values education they learn from school are all westernized concepts. No textbook in values education deals with delicadeza or ulaw. The westernized concept of values are based on "fairness." It is different from the eastern concept of "shame" or loss of face. The Japanese will already commit suicide because of "loss of face." In our culture the "bagâ og nawong = thick face" is a contemptible person.

In the mindset of a politician, political survival is the "thing." So if it is legal, even if unethical or immoral, the politician must do it or else they will perish. So nowadays we see candidates of supposedly "political dynasties" but could not be defined properly because the constitutional provision itself is a paradox.