Why the SC is telling Congress to do its job on political dynasties

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

This is what Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution says about political dynasties in the Philippines. It’s been 39 years since the highest law of the land was ratified, and yet Congress has yet to pass a law banning dynasties.

It makes sense though — several studies have found that a number of lawmakers are from political families.

In 2024, or before the 2025 midterm elections, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism found that eight out of 10 district representatives are from political dynasties. It also found that 36 out of 54 party-list groups in the 19th Congress have at least one nominee who belongs to a dynasty.

But in a landmark ruling, just weeks before the 35th anniversary of the Local Government Code of the Philippines, Supreme Court (SC) justices unanimously granted the petitions that seek to compel Congress to pass an anti-political dynasty law.

“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 SC’s 86-page decision made public on Wednesday, September 16.

“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 the decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the SC acknowledged that the failure of Congress — both the House of Representatives and the Senate — to enact a law under the anti-political dynasty clause enabled political dynasties to persist.

It added that the concentration of political power within a few number of people has “distorted democracy, weakened accountability, and fostered conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage.”

“The Constitution was ratified precisely to prevent such scenarios. Its framers recognized that political dynasties undermine equal access to public office and erode the foundations of true democracy,” said the SC.

SC to Congress: Do your job

There were four petitions filed with the SC that challenged political dynasties. Among these were those filed by retired SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio Morales, and constitutional framer Christian Monsod through the 1Sambayan coalition.

Three of the petitions were granted by the High Court. However, petition GR No. 277747, which argued that the Commission on Elections (Comelec) should have rules for disqualifying candidates who come from dynasties, was denied for lack of merit.

Meanwhile, in the ruling, the SC found that there was grave abuse of discretion — or unreasonable use of power — when Congress failed to comply with Article II, Section 26. The SC explained that this provision is “a constitutional edict” that the legislature must obey.

“Petitioners find this lapse of Congress plainly unacceptable. Thus, they have sought recourse from the Court, asking it to wield its constitutionally enshrined judicial power to oblige Congress to carry out said constitutional fiat,” said the SC.

The executive, legislative, and judicial branches are co-equal. They have their respective duties and one branch should not meddle in the affairs of the other. This is correct but not applicable at all times and all contexts.

In its decision, the SC understood the passage of a law to be purely within the powers of Congress and beyond the judiciary. But it also said this principle does not apply to petitions.

The SC explained that the issue does not directly concern the process of passing a law, but rather the Constitution’s instruction to prohibit dynasties. In issuing the decision then, the SC is merely doing its job of interpreting the Constitution while respecting the exclusive authority of Congress to legislate.

In the past, the SC had directed Congress to perform its legislative duty: In the Codilla v. De Venecia case of 2002, and in the Velasco v. Belmonte case of 2016.

In these cases, the petitioners initially had problems with their election as lawmakers, but ultimately won their election cases. After their victory, they sought the SC’s help to compel the House to honor them as members. 

In Codilla v. De Venecia, the SC ordered then-House speaker Jose de Venecia and then-House secretary general Roberto Nazareno to administer the oath of petitioner Eufrocino Codilla Sr. as duly-elected representative of Leyte’s 4th District. 

The High Court did the same in Velasco v. Belmonte, where the SC instructed then-House speaker Feliciano Belmonte and then-House secretary general Marilyn Yap to administer the oath of former speaker Lord Allan Velasco as Marinduque representative.

The SC said that Congress is not beyond judicial review especially when constitutional violations occur. Article VIII, Section 1 of the Constitution grants this power.

Spelling out limits of this power, however, the SC said: “Aside from the violation of the Constitution, the main determining factor before the Court can compel a co-equal branch is that the act should not be discretionary in nature. Otherwise, the Court will be overstepping on the powers of a co-equal branch of government.”

“Thus, the exercise of discretion through inaction, when action is required, is grave abuse of discretion — Congress’s exercise of discretion through its inaction and delay, when it is required by the Constitution to prohibit, is grave abuse of discretion,” the High Court explained.

Anti-political dynasty clause is self-executing

The petitioners invoked a mandamus which is filed to compel the government to enforce a duty or an obligation. In this case, they wanted Congress to do its job and pass a law prohibiting dynasties.

In its defense, Congress said mandamus as a remedy is inappropriate because Article II, Section 26 is not self-executing and only serves as an aid for the legislative branch in passing laws. But the SC said Congress must do what it is supposed to do under the contested provision.

The High Court argued that if Congress’ logic is followed, then Article II, Section 26 will never be implemented until the legislature decides to do so. The SC said this was not the intention of those who drafted the 1987 Constitution and cannot be accepted as is.

“As pointed out by Senior Associate Justice Leonen, the danger of labeling and leaving a constitutional provision as ‘not self-executing’ is that it licenses a total disregard for the policy, framework, or direction that governance should take. Thus, the fundamental law’s edict and the aspirations of its framers will be put to naught,” said the ruling.

For a time, Article II, Section 26 was believed to be not self-executing, meaning, an implementing law was needed to ban dynasties. This was based on the SC’s past decisions.

In Biraogo v. Comelec, the SC dismissed a petition because it said that the prohibition against political dynasties is not self-executing and that there needs to be a law that would define political dynasties and prescribe limitations. Similarly, in Guingona Jr. v. House of Congress and Senate, the SC also dismissed a petition and said that the question on how to enact laws was purely a legislative function and that the judiciary had no control over such matters.

In these twin cases, the petition that sought to compel both the Comelec to enforce the anti-political dynasty provision, and Congress to pass a law, were dismissed.

But in the present case, the SC abandoned these cases, including their stance that the provision on political dynasties is not self-executing. Besides, the SC said Biraogo and Guingona were unsigned resolutions, which means that they “are only essentially meaningful to the parties and have no significant doctrinal value” on other cases.

“To stress, it is the solemn duty of the Judiciary, the third, weakest but coequal branch of government, to interpret the meaning of the Constitution,” said the High Court. “Because the Constitution explicitly mandates the prohibition of political dynasties, judicial inaction in the face of legislative paralysis would amount to constitutional abdication.”

SC’s ‘guidelines’ for Congress

It’s been established that the SC may compel Congress to pass a law, but cannot instruct it how an anti-dynasty law should be drafted. This is within the exclusive powers of Congress.

The “definition of what constitutes a prohibited political dynasty is ultimately left to Congressional design,” the SC said.

Former senior associate justice Carpio said the SC ruling is vital and provides advocates a fighting chance.

“This is a huge endorsement from a unanimous Supreme Court. This is also unprecedented because in its decision the SC said it can only compel Congress to pass a law, and not what the law should be. Nevertheless, the SC did not hesitate to give guidelines to Congress. We could not ask for more from the SC,” Carpio told Rappler.

Based on its own review of literature, the SC crafted anti-political dynasty “guidelines” for Congress. This recommendation, however, is not binding and “does not, in any way impose upon Congress the substance on what to legislate,” said the SC.

The High Court listed the following for the legislature to consider in crafting an anti-political dynasty law:

• Extent of covered relationships: The ban can extend up to fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity. This includes half-blood, adoptive, step, and common-law relationships, as well as legitimate and illegitimate filiations.
• Timing: Relatives may not hold or occupy office at the same time and may not succeed each other at the end of each term in the same elective position whether by election, substitution, or appointment.
• Scope: Relatives can be prohibited from occupying both national and/or local elective posts.
• Geographical location: The ban may extend to all covered persons residing within the same administrative region.

Since 1987, there have been 101 anti-political dynasty bills filed in Congress, but only two made it to plenary: Senate Bill No. 82 (the very first anti-political dynasty bill) and the 20th Congress’ House Bill No. 8389.

But critics and experts have raised concerns over House Bill No. 8389, introduced by no less than presidential son and Ilocos Norte Representative Sandro Marcos and House Speaker Bojie Dy. Some of its provisions actually contradict the SC’s proposed considerations.

For example, the proposed law does not prohibit cross-level or cross-jurisdiction dynasties; does not ban a person from immediately succeeding an outgoing relative; and is silent on the party-list abuse of dynasties.

The House already approved the bill on June 3, and transmitted it to the Senate on June 8. The Senate can choose to make its version more specific or more antagonistic toward dynasties. With less than two years left in his term, will President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., who himself belongs to a political dynasty, support such a bill? – Rappler.com