‘QUIT STALLING’: Supreme Court orders Congress to pass anti-dynasty law now

MANILA — The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, ruling that its nearly four-decade failure to do so constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

In an 86-page decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC en banc granted three of four consolidated petitions and declared that Congress must “henceforth and with utmost urgency” enact an appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.

The petitions sought to compel Congress to give effect to Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, otherwise known as the anti-political dynasty clause.

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

The court denied the fourth petition, docketed as G.R. No. 277747, which was filed against the Commission on Elections (COMELEC).

The ruling was reached during the en banc session on Aug. 26 and announced by the SC Public Information Office on Wednesday, Sept. 16. It marks a departure from the court’s 2013 dismissal of a similar petition, which had cited the separation of powers among the three branches of government.

The consolidated petitions were filed in 2024 by lawyers led by former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo, and in 2025 by former SC justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales together with 1987 Constitution framer Christian Monsod, and by members of the University of the Philippines College of Law Class of 1976.

The court said Congress has failed to enact the required enabling legislation since the Constitution was ratified in 1987.

“[Section 26, Article II] is not a mere aspirational statement; IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL EDICT. While the Constitution explicitly and directly entrusted to Congress the responsibility of giving life to this mandate, it has failed to comply with this fundamental task for 39 long years, since the adoption by the Filipino people of the 1987 Constitution, through the enactment of the necessary enabling legislation,” the decision read.

The decision traced the history of political dynasties in the Philippines and examined the Constitutional Commission’s deliberations on the anti-dynasty provision, including the framers’ decision to leave the definition and scope of political dynasties to Congress.

The court noted that at least 101 anti-political dynasty bills had been filed since the Constitution’s ratification, with around 30 pending in the current Congress.

It also considered existing laws that contain limited restrictions involving familial relationships in public service.

These include Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act), Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Republic Act No. 10742 (Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015), Executive Order No. 292 (Administrative Code of 1987), and Bangsamoro Autonomy Act No. 35 (Bangsamoro Electoral Code of 2023).

The court said that while these measures did not constitute full compliance with Article II, Section 26 because they were limited to particular offices, circumstances, or sectors, they proved that the broader prohibition contemplated by the constitutional provision was possible.

“The Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code of 2023, and the Bangsamoro Local Governance Code of 2023 prove that the enactment of a law on the matter of political dynasties is not impossible,” the decision read.

“While these measures surely do not discharge the congressional obligation under the Constitution, they demonstrate that anti-dynasty regulations can be articulated with sufficient precision and implemented with workable standards. They underscore that legislative inertia cannot be justified on conceptual vagueness or practical difficulty,” it added.

Citing these measures and the time elapsed since the 1987 Constitution was ratified and took effect, the high court said Congress had violated its duty.

The court held that Congress has no discretion on whether to prohibit political dynasties because the Constitution itself commands the prohibition, although Congress retains discretion over the definition and details of the legislation.

“The length of time that had passed from the ratification of the Constitution aggravates Congress’s inaction on the mandate. Aside from asking why it has not enacted a law, a second question is also posed: why is Congress taking so long?” the decision said.

“Congress’s inaction on failing to prohibit political dynasties through the enactment of a law until the present, is an abdication of a positive duty imposed by the Constitution and a virtual refusal to perform such duty. This inaction of Congress is a violation of the Constitution, tantamount to grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction,” it added.

The court treated the relief sought by the petitioners as a writ of mandamus, holding that Congress may be called upon to perform the constitutional duty of prohibiting political dynasties through legislation.

At the same time, the court said it would not prescribe the manner, content, or specific provisions of the legislation because those matters remain within Congress’ domain.

The court, however, rejected the petition seeking to compel COMELEC to issue rules disqualifying candidates belonging to political dynasties.

It said COMELEC’s rulemaking authority requires an existing law to enforce and administer. Because there is no law defining and prohibiting political dynasties, COMELEC cannot independently create such a prohibition through regulations.

The court nevertheless identified several matters that Congress could consider in crafting an enabling law, while emphasizing that these were not prescriptions.

Among these were extending the prohibition to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity; covering simultaneous and successive occupancy of elective positions; including both national and local elective offices; and potentially applying the prohibition to covered persons within the same administrative region.

The decision also discussed different forms of political dynasties, including simultaneous occupation of multiple posts by relatives and succession by family members, as well as possible coverage of national, local, and party-list positions.

The court said these discussions were intended only as considerations for Congress and did not dictate the substance of the legislation.

Justices’ opinions

Several members of the bench concurred with the Hernando decision and issued separate opinions.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen concurred with the decision, saying Article II, Section 26 is binding and that Congress’ decades-long failure to enact the required law constitutes a continuing constitutional breach.

“While it is clear that the Constitution did not prescribe a period within which to pass the mandatory prohibition for political dynasties, certainly decades-long failure to enact the required anti-political dynasty law applicable to Congress and local government units constitutes a continuing constitutional breach and can be characterized as grave abuse of discretion through inaction. The injury to our people is now palpable,” Leonen said in his concurring opinion.

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, in his own concurring opinion, emphasized that the word “shall” in Article II, Section 26 gives the constitutional command a mandatory character, citing the intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission.

“Clearly, the Constitution does not grant the Congress the discretion not to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties. Although the 1986 constitutional commissioners discussed that it is up to the Legislature to define a ‘political dynasty,’ they were clear that the Congress must see to it that after the permitted reelection has been exhausted, the close relatives should not inherit the position of the outgoing officer because of undue advantage,” Inting said.

Associate Justices Maria Filomena Singh and Rodil Zalameda both concurred in part and dissented in part in their respective separate opinions.

Both agreed that Congress has the duty to define the parameters of a political dynasty but argued, citing the separation of powers, that the court should not supply a remedy against Congress for its inaction.

“The distinction is fundamental. A constitutional duty may be mandatory in its origin and nature while remaining discretionary in the manner of its performance,” Singh said in her separate opinion.

“Expanded judicial power permits the Court to determine that Congress has transgressed the Constitution. It does not convert, however, the power to legislate into a ministerial act, thereby enlarging the office of mandamus, and transferring to the Judiciary any portion of the legislative power,” she added.

“The word ‘shall’ in Article II, Section 26 establishes the obligatory character of the constitutional policy, but it does not transform every act required to fulfill a constitutional command into a ministerial act,” Zalameda said in his opinion.

“Congress must exercise judgment to enact an anti-political dynasty statute. It must decide what the law will prohibit and how the prohibition will operate. The Court cannot transform Congress’s constitutional responsibility into a judicially prescribed legislative formula. Doing so would collapse the distinction between constitutional interpretation and legislative enactment,” he added.