THE Supreme Court has ordered Congress to pass a law prohibiting political dynasties “at the earliest possible opportunity,” saying that its failure to do so for 39 years is a continuing violation of the Constitution and a grave abuse of discretion.
In a unanimous ruling, the Court en banc declared that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to pass legislation prohibiting political dynasties.
The Court said Congress’ failure to act for nearly four decades constitutes grave abuse of discretion and a continuing violation of its constitutional duty.
The ruling was issued in four consolidated cases challenging Congress’ failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, granted three petitions seeking certiorari and mandamus against Congress.
“The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity,” the Court said.
Article II, Section 26 provides: “The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The tribunal emphasized that the provision is not merely an aspiration or policy statement. The use of “shall,” it said, imposes a mandatory duty on the state to guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties.
The phrase “as may be defined by law” also does not give Congress the option to decide whether to prohibit dynasties.
Instead, the Court said, it gives lawmakers the discretion to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition.
In other words, Congress may decide how political dynasties will be defined and prohibited — but not whether to enact the required law.
The Court pointed to records of the Constitutional Commission showing that the framers deliberately left the definition of political dynasties to Congress after failing to agree on which family relationships and public positions should fall under the prohibition.
But that legislative discretion, the Supreme Court said, cannot justify indefinite inaction.
While the Constitution does not prescribe a specific deadline for Congress to enact the law, the Court ruled that 39 years is far beyond a reasonable period to comply with the constitutional command.
The Supreme Court also took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, as well as studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country.
It noted that political dynasties have remained widespread and have expanded even into the party-list system, despite successive changes in the composition of Congress.
The Court said Congress’ continued failure to enact a comprehensive law indicated a prolonged failure to discharge its constitutional obligation.
Existing restrictions on political dynasties — including provisions under the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code and the Bangsamoro Local Governance Code — also do not satisfy the constitutional mandate, the Supreme Court said.
Those measures apply only to specific sectors, while the constitutional prohibition is broader and covers opportunities for public service.
By majority vote, the Supreme Court also ruled that mandamus may be used to compel Congress to perform the mandatory constitutional duty.
The Court acknowledged that it generally cannot compel a co-equal branch to perform discretionary legislative acts.
But it found this case exceptional because Congress’ prolonged inaction amounted to grave abuse of discretion and manifest injustice.
The Court emphasized, however, that it is not dictating the contents of the law.
Congress retains authority to determine the definition, scope, coverage, sanctions and enforcement mechanisms of the anti-dynasty prohibition.
The Court also abandoned its previous pronouncements in Biraogo v. Comelec and Guingona Jr. v. House of Congress, which had characterized the constitutional provision as non-self-executing.
The Supreme Court said those earlier pronouncements were contained in unsigned resolutions and no longer reflected the intent of the Constitution’s framers or present realities.
The Court, however, rejected the petition seeking to compel the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to declare certain candidates covered by the constitutional prohibition and to issue implementing rules.
Without legislation defining political dynasties and prescribing their legal consequences, the Supreme Court said, Comelec cannot create its own substantive grounds for disqualification or cancel certificates of candidacy simply because candidates belong to political families.
The constitutional mandate therefore remains for Congress to implement through legislation.
While the justices agreed on the constitutional duty to enact an anti-dynasty law, separate opinions differed on the extent to which the Court may compel Congress to act.
Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen said an effective law should address both simultaneous occupation of public office by family members and immediate familial succession, as well as broader forms of political dynasties.
Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting agreed that Congress’ duty is mandatory and enforceable through mandamus.
Associate Justices Rodil Zalameda and Japar Dimaampao likewise agreed that Congress has a constitutional duty to act, but stressed that the judiciary cannot dictate the law’s substance.
Justice Maria Filomena Singh concurred that Congress had breached its constitutional duty and committed grave abuse of discretion, but dissented from the grant of mandamus. She argued that the Court may declare the constitutional breach but cannot compel the legislative response or prescribe what an “appropriate” law should contain.
Justice Raul Villanueva said Congress must fulfill its “long-overdue” constitutional duty, arguing that decades of inaction have allowed political dynasties to persist and contributed to the concentration of political power within families.
The ruling does not immediately disqualify candidates from elections based on family connections. Instead, it places the responsibility squarely on Congress to determine, through legislation, what constitutes a prohibited political dynasty and what legal consequences should follow.
The Court’s ruling was issued on Aug. 26 in the consolidated cases Kapatiran Party et al. v. Congress of the Philippines, Trinidad et al. v. Congress, Bishop Alminaza et al. v. Comelec and 1Sambayan Coalition et al. v. Senate.
