Supreme Court Orders Congress to Enact Anti-Political Dynasty Law

The Supreme Court has ordered Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, ruling that its 39-year failure to do so constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and a continuing violation of its constitutional duty. The tribunal unanimously held that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae L. Ting told a news briefing on Wednesday. “The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity,” she said, quoting the decision. The tribunal held that the constitutional provision imposes a mandatory duty on Congress to prohibit political dynasties, while giving lawmakers the discretion over how the prohibition will be defined and its scope. The Constitution requires the state to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties “as may be defined by law.” The phrase does not give Congress the option of deciding whether to enact the prohibition. Rather, Congress has the authority to determine what constitutes a political dynasty and the family relationships, public positions and other matters covered by the prohibition, the court said. “Congress has discretion over how political dynasties should be defined and prohibited, but not over whether to enact the law,” Ms. Ting said. The court said the framers of the Constitution deliberately left the definition of political dynasties to Congress after the Constitutional Commission failed to agree on the specific family relationships and public positions that should be covered. That discretion does not allow Congress to indefinitely postpone its constitutional duty. The Constitution does not prescribe a specific deadline for Congress to enact the law, the court said. But the absence of a deadline does not permit lawmakers to indefinitely defer a mandatory constitutional obligation. The court found that 39 years was beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. “This provision is not a mere aspirational statement; it is a constitutional edict,” the court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and promulgated on Aug. 26. “While the Constitution explicitly and directly entrusted to Congress the responsibility of giving life to this mandate, it has failed to comply with this fundamental task for 39 long years, since the adoption by the Filipino people of the 1987 Constitution, through the enactment of the necessary enabling legislation,” it added. The court took judicial notice of numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country. Political dynasties, the court noted, have remained widespread and have extended into the party-list system, Ms. Ting said. “Congress’ continued inaction, therefore, constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty,” she said. The court also ruled that existing laws containing restrictions on political dynasties do not fully satisfy the constitutional command, citing the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code and Bangsamoro Local Governance Code. The constitutional prohibition, the court said, applies broadly to opportunities for public service and is not limited to particular sectors. Meanwhile, the high court separately denied a petition challenging the Commission on Elections (Comelec) that sought to have certain candidates declared covered by the constitutional prohibition. Comelec cannot be compelled to issue rules disqualifying candidates or canceling their certificates of candidacy on the ground that they belong to political dynasties because there is no law defining the prohibition, the court held. Lanao del Sur Rep. Ziaur-Rahman A. Adiong welcomed the ruling and said Congress should complete the legislation. The House of Representatives approved its anti-political dynasty bill on third and final reading in June. The measure seeks to define political dynasties and prohibit certain relatives from simultaneously running or holding elective positions within the same jurisdiction. Mr. Adiong said his committee was ready for the bicameral conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate versions. “We will work to reconcile the disagreeing provisions of the House and Senate versions so that the country finally has a clear definition, specific prohibitions, and an enforceable law,” he said. The Palace earlier identified the Anti-Political Dynasty law as a priority measure, with the House version approved on third reading and the Senate version in the second-reading process as of July. The petitioners in one of the consolidated cases, led by lawyers from the University of the Philippines College of Law Class of 1976, welcomed the ruling and urged Congress to act on the constitutional mandate. “The next task is to turn the ruling into effective legislation,” they said in a statement, calling on the Senate and House to pass a prohibition that “addresses the concentration of political power within families and fulfills the Constitution’s guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service.”