House Majority Leader and Ilocos Norte 1st District Representative Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos has filed House Bill 3661, which seeks to prohibit relatives of public officials — up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity — from entering into any government contracts.
The bill aims to close gaps in the law that allow conflicts of interest and the possibility of undue advantage in the awarding of contracts.
The proposal defines “public officials” broadly, covering agency heads, members of governing boards, and employees with supervisory or policy-making authority, whether in civilian, military, or uniformed service.
“Government contracts” are also widely defined, including deals on supplies, materials, infrastructure projects, joint ventures, and public-private partnerships. Exceptions are granted only for contracts that are highly technical, proprietary, or confidential.
In his Facebook post, Marcos described the measure as “simple but crucial,” emphasizing its role in strengthening accountability and protecting taxpayers’ money.
“Government funds are meant to serve the Filipino people, not to enrich relatives or perpetuate undue advantage,” he said.
He added that closing this loophole is a step toward a government that is “fair, transparent, and truly for the people,” stressing that public service requires safeguarding every peso.
However, the proposal may not significantly affect larger networks of influence. Political dynasties and entrenched families in Congress often channel contracts through dummy corporations, close associates, or friends outside the family circle, which would remain untouched by the measure.
By concentrating solely on relatives, the bill also leaves out other common conduits of influence such as cronies, fraternity brothers, campaign financiers, and business partners.
Critics meanwhile point out that as a member of one of the country’s most prominent political dynasties, the younger Marcos benefits from the same system of entrenched family networks that the bill seeks to regulate.
While the proposal presents itself as a step toward cleaner governance, it does not meaningfully challenge the broader structures of influence from which its author and his allies continue to draw political strength.
