Supreme silence: Dynasties still unchecked

By Herman M. Lagon

When the Supreme Court clarified on Friday, July 12, 2024, that it had not issued a ruling to compel Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law, it was not just a correction of misinformation. It was a reminder of a long-standing political issue that continues to elude resolution. SC Spokesperson Camille Ting addressed the misunderstanding stemming from a Manila Times article, clarifying that the petitions and pleadings mentioned were still pending, and no decision had been made.

For over three decades, the call to define and prohibit political dynasties, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution, has echoed through the halls of power without action. Despite the clear constitutional directive, Congress, at its convenience, has consistently failed to legislate on this issue, which many see as a fundamental step toward equitable governance. This inaction, the Supreme Court almost implies, may well be a grave abuse of discretion and a violation of the Constitution.

The heart of the matter lies in balancing judicial and legislative roles. The Supreme Court has ruled that political dynasties are defined by legislation, not by the courts. Over the years, petitions have been dismissed as political questions beyond judicial review. This distinction underscores the complexity of the situation and the careful line the Court must walk.

However, the delay in passing an anti-dynasty law is increasingly seen as a continuing violation of the Constitution. This perspective is gaining traction as legal and public pressures mount. The argument is simple: without an enabling law, the constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasties is toothless. It is a directive without teeth, a promise unfulfilled. And therein lies the frustration of many advocates for reform.

Our political dynasties have always been a double-edged sword. They offer continuity and stability, which can help governance. However, they concentrate power in a few families, limiting democracy and perpetuating social and economic inequality. This dynamic stifles competition and hinders new ideas in politics.

Political dynasties are linked to social mobility and economic inequality. Dynastic politics often maintain social structures, making it hard for ordinary people to rise economically. A few families’ control of large political and economic resources hinders democratic meritocracy.

But not all dynastic families are bad. Some have led positive community change under competent and principled leadership. These exceptions show that dynasties inspired by public service can benefit. These are rare cases, though.

The challenge is to create an open, competitive, inclusive, and accountable political environment. This means regulating power concentration within a few families and promoting political equality. A vibrant and representative political system allows all citizens to serve based on their vision and abilities, not family name, social media following, or bank accounts.

To strike this balance, it takes more than legal reforms. We must change how we view political power culturally. The electorate must be wise, discerning, and willing to challenge the status quo. Only by working together can we change politics.

As we consider the Supreme Court’s clarification and political dynasty debates, democratic reforms must continue. Governance must be a public duty, not a private privilege. This requires holding our representatives accountable and demanding they fulfill their constitutional duties and responsibilities.

Without checks and balances, political dynasties pose serious risks to democracy. Future political processes must be fair and inclusive while maintaining stability and continuity. If we want a just society, we must reform, no matter how difficult.

The Supreme Court clarified the complex relationship between judicial restraint and legislative action. While the Court cannot compel Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law, it can undoubtedly emphasize the constitutional necessity of such legislation. It is now up to Congress, assuming that the institution is indeed comprised of honorable, selfless, and principled statesmen, to act and for the public to hold them accountable. Only then can we hope to see a political system that truly reflects the democratic ideals enshrined in our Constitution.

***

Doc H fondly describes himself as a ”student of and for life” who, like many others, aspires to a life-giving and why-driven world grounded in social justice and the pursuit of happiness. His views do not necessarily reflect those of the institutions he is employed or connected with.