Supreme Court OKs petitions pushing Congress to pass anti-dynasty law - Rappler

Already have Rappler+? Sign in to listen to groundbreaking journalism.

HIGHEST COURT. File photo of the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

This is AI-generated. Read the article for full context. Report any errors.

MANILA, Philippines – The Supreme Court (SC) justices, in a landmark decision, unanimously granted the petitions that seek to compel Congress to pass a law against political dynasties.

“The Court directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition,” SC spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said in a press conference on Wednesday, September 16.

Ting explained that Article II, Section 26, of the 1987 Constitution mandates the country’s legislative bodies to pass a law that will prohibit political dynasties.

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,” says the provision.

“Respondent Congress of the Philippines is declared to have the mandatory constitutional duty to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution,” said the portion of the ruling penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando. 

“The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity,” it added. 

In its ruling, the SC said the constitutional provision is not merely an aspiration, but rather a constitutional demand. 

It clarified that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give Congress the option to prohibit political dynasties or not. This phrase rather gives the legislative the mandate to define what constitutes political dynasty and define the scope of prohibition. 

“The SC found that this interpretation is consistent with the intent of the Constitution’s framers. Records of the Constitutional Commission showed that the framers agreed to leave the definition of political dynasties to Congress after they could not agree on the specific family relationships and public positions that should be covered,” said the High Court.

In its ruling, the SC also declared that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact an anti-dynasty law constituted grave abuse of discretion. The High Court noted that several anti-political dynasty bills have been filed, but left unacted since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. 

It also noted that political dynasties remained widespread, even extending to the party-list system. 

“Despite changes in the composition of Congress over the years, no comprehensive anti-political dynasty law has been enacted, implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest,” said the SC.  

“Although the Constitution does not set a deadline for Congress to enact the law, the SC held that this does not allow Congress to postpone its constitutional  duty indefinitely. The Court found that 39 years is beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. Congress’ continued inaction therefore  constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty,” it added.

Via a majority vote, the SC also abandoned its pronouncements in the past rulings that said that Article II, Section 26 is not self-executing. In 2013 or more than a decade ago, the High Court denied a petition against political dynasties, ruling that the prohibition on political dynasties requires an enabling law under the Constitution. 

“Beyond their non-doctrinal nature as unsigned resolutions, the Court held that their pronouncements no longer reflect the intent of the Constitution’s framers and the realities of how political dynasties derail national development,” the SC explained.

In 2024, lawyers led by former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo filed a petition with the High Court, asking it to compel Congress to pass the said law.

The following year, former Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, and Christian Monsod, one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, filed a similar petition before the High Court. – Rappler.com