IN more than one previous column, I have tried to point out that, despite the overwhelming demand for it, Congress cannot enact an anti-dynasty law that prohibits the relatives of established politicians from seeking public office, for no other reason than that they are such relatives. The law would be both inhuman and unconstitutional, for it would constitute class legislation against a certain group of citizens who have not been accused or been convicted of any crime. It would specifically violate the Bill of Rights, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws.”
I hope I am wrong, but nobody else has raised the same point, and it has not been disputed by any of our learned jurists and academic experts. I have raised this point purely as a constitutional and human rights issue, not because I have anything to gain by raising it; it is essential to the question. I have never been part of a political dynasty, nor are my sympathies with it. I have served for 15 years as an elective politician: after serving for 10 years in the Cabinet, concurrently as press secretary, presidential spokesman and secretary/minister of public information, I served for six years as a member of the interim Batasang Pambansa, and nine years as a senator, mostly as Senate majority leader to six Senate presidents.
During this time, I did not have a single blood relative taking advantage of my position and running for public office themselves. In the 1978 interim Batasan election, which I won with an overwhelming majority in all six provinces of the Bicol Region, I was credited with bringing down the long-serving political dynasty in Catanduanes, my home province, and was asked by supporters to establish my own. To their utter disappointment, I rejected all such suggestions. As a matter of principle, I did not employ a single blood relative in my staff, nor involve any member of my family in running my office. I worked on multiple projects to satisfy the request of various other officials and local communities, but none of them ever carried my name to advertise my role in any project, contrary to the common practice which persists to this day.
Not all political dynasties are bad, and I have dealt with some good ones, especially in the Visayas and Mindanao. They were genuinely interested in serving the common good, and they made sure every cent of the appropriated amount went into the particular project. It was a joy to work with those local officials. But there are political dynasties whose mere existence makes people cry in horror and pain. Yet not even the sharp proliferation of these dynasties justifies the enactment of an anti-dynasty law that would violate the fundamental human and constitutional rights of citizens.
This allows us to seek a solution to the problem other than an anti-dynasty law that violates the fundamental rights of human beings. We should seek to eliminate political dynasties, especially the corrupt and corrosive kind, not by trying to enact a law that creates a class of citizens with lesser political rights than everybody else, but rather by reforming the political system so that we are able to level the playing field for all players. No one should be able to get elected to any public position on the basis of their kinship with an incumbent official; kinship with an incumbent should serve as a disqualification rather than as a qualification for anyone seeking a political position. This should not be enforceable by law, but as a moral principle. Position seekers should be the first ones to realize it is wrong for anyone to seek public office on the basis of their being a relative of an incumbent official.
When the 1986 constitutional commissioners wrote Sec. 26 Article II into the Constitution — this provides that “the State shall provide equal opportunities for access to public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law” — they were obviously thinking of helping marginalized citizens who had no access to the normal opportunities for public service. But because the Constitution failed to define what it decided to prohibit, the provision gave a gigantic boost instead to the political dynasties it wanted to abolish. There are now 250 or so political dynasties, according to some recorded count. It has also become demonstrably clear that no anti-dynasty law can be enacted without violating the fundamental objective of equally protecting the rights of all citizens.
There seems no way Sec. 26 Article II of the Constitution can be interpreted to allow an anti-dynasty law that respects the rights of all potential office seekers. But sound political practice should make sure that common sense and our understanding of what is right and what is wrong should allow us to see when even the Constitution is in error despite its palpably good intentions.
fstatad@gmail.com
