SC: Ban on dynasties must be up to 4th degree

MANILA, Philippines — The scope of the bills seeking a ban on dynasties in public office must be extended to up to the fourth civil degree of familial and spousal relations, according to the Supreme Court.

The high court also placed the blame squarely on Congress for the concentration of political power to only a few families, thereby “distorting democracy, weakening accountability and fostering conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage.”

“There is basis to extend the prohibition on political dynasties to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity,” said Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the ponente in the Supreme Court’s Aug. 26, 2026, decision released last week.

Article continues after this advertisement

Under the 1987 Charter, he noted, the President is not allowed to appoint his or her spouse and relatives to up to fourth degree as secretaries and heads of government agencies, including the three independent constitutional bodies—the Commission on Elections (Comelec), Commission on Audit and Civil Service Commission.

FEATURED STORIES

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

NEWSINFO

READ: SC to Congress: ‘Injustice’ to delay anti-dynasty law

But “it appears that limiting the extent of relatives covered to a level below the fourth civil degree may be counterintuitive,” Hernando also acknowledged, as he emphasized that Filipino culture has been identified with extended families.

He also cited several laws that incapacitate the public or nullify acts or proceedings among parties because of their relations up to the fourth civil degree—the Family Code, Civil Code, Revised Penal Code and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

Pending legislation

On June 3 this year, the House of Representatives had passed on third and final reading House Bill (HB) No. 8389, which seeks to bar spouses and relatives of only up to the second degree of consanguinity and affinity from holding elective posts at the same time. This version was transmitted to the Senate five days later.

Article continues after this advertisement

The Senate’s counterpart bill remains pending on second reading. The Senate version also defines “relatives” in public office within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether legitimate or illegitimate, full or half-blood.

READ: Marcos backs SC directive for passage of anti-dynasty bill

Article continues after this advertisement

University of Philippines political science professor Jean Franco called the Senate measure “more progressive” because it not only bars the simultaneous holding of positions but also immediate succession after a relative steps down from a certain post.

HB 8389, on the other hand, essentially “legitimizes” dynasties since it does not prevent family members from simultaneously occupying different positions in a province, she said.

Key provisions of the approved House bill allow spouses and relatives to run as representatives at the same time as long as they are in different districts and belong to different party lists, and also to seek various posts in the barangay, municipal and provincial levels as long as there is no sitting family member.

“The House version does not, in a way, do away with so much power that dynastic families [wield] in certain areas of the country. Because how can you instill accountability if, for example, the mayor is your cousin, and you are a governor, and the congressman is your sibling… So it’s still all in the family,” she told the Inquirer in a phone interview.

‘Regulation is not prohibition’

This was also the stand of Dapat Isa Lang, a movement pushing for an antidynasty law through a people’s initiative.

The group said that limiting the restriction to just the second degree “reflects the cycling of positions between parents, children and their siblings, with loopholes for local jurisdictions.”

“[T]he essence of this [Supreme Court] ruling also needs to look at the substantive points of the law that should be enacted by Congress,” the group’s spokesperson Carlo Africa said in a statement.

He noted that the versions of the antidynasty bill in both chambers do not aim to genuinely solve the problem because they “do not go far enough to break the concentration of political power within dynasties or address the cycle of political control and corruption” that the framers of the Constitution sought to prevent.

The Makabayan bloc in the House warned that the chamber’s version is not compliant with the Charter because it does not impose a blanket ban, but merely aims to regulate.

“A measure that merely limits the number of family members who may simultaneously hold office does not dismantle dynastic rule—it institutionalizes it under a veneer of reform. Regulation is not prohibition, and no amount of legislative wordplay can make it so,” it said in a statement.

‘Obese’ dynasties

In its ruling, the high court noted that the Constitution “was ratified precisely to prevent such scenarios” as the proliferation of dynasties.

“The court therefore cannot remain passive without betraying its own constitutional role. Meaningful change begins with fidelity to the Constitution, and the time for its full enforcement is long overdue,” the ruling said.

The high court cited, among other sources, an analysis by the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), which identified “obese” dynasties with more than four family members occupying national and local posts at the same time.

In the last elections alone, the midterm polls in 2025, at least 18 “obese” dynasties secured victory in various positions, strengthening their hold and influence in their respective bailiwicks, the PCIJ research showed.

Franco pointed out that the Senate itself has become a bastion of political families, with four pairs of siblings in that chamber.

Looking ahead to 2028

But the high court did not impose a deadline for Congress because it had to rule within the bounds of the Constitution.

Lawyer Jorge Cabildo, one of the petitioners who asked the Supreme Court to press Congress to pass a measure defining political dynasties, told the Inquirer that they do not intend to dictate the substance, scope and extent of the proposed measures.

“All that we ask is for Congress to perform its constitutionally mandated duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties,” he said.

Franco said lawmakers still have leeway to study the proposed bills especially with the presidential election two years ahead.

But she also expressed concern that an enabling law might not make it in time for the 2028 polls because of distractions in Congress and the Comelec’s limited resources.

“On one hand, it’s really urgent that we address the political dynasty issue. On the other hand, if the [Supreme Court] decision or if the law becomes effective before the 2028 election, once again, it changes the entire board game,” Franco said.

Your subscription could not be saved. Please try again.

Your subscription has been successful.

“Politicians will already be calculating their electoral plans probably within the year…So the law must be passed soon, and if it is passed this year, then the Comelec will really have to plan very well how it is going to be implemented,” she noted. /cb