FROM THE FRINGES: Prohibiting Political Dynasties

FROM THE FRINGES: Prohibiting Political Dynasties

By Jerome Aning | October 9, 2026

The “gods of Padre Faura”, as legal pundits say, have finally spoken on the utter failure by both houses of Congress to pass a law prohibiting political dynasties, as enshrined in our 39-year old Constitution.  In a nutshell, the Aug. 26 decision of the Supreme Court declared that Congress has the mandatory constitutional duty to pass such a law expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution,, to wit: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

The high court, in the decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, granted the separate petitions for certiorari and/or mandamus sought filed by the Kapatiran Party, civil society groups, and several University of the Philippines College of Law alumni. The court abandoned the doctrine it laid down more than a decade ago when it dismissed separate petitions that sought to compel Congress to enact a law on political dynasties.  The court had ruled then that the petitions touched upon a function of a co-equal branch of government, the legislature, over which the court has no jurisdiction.

In its latest ruling, Supreme Court court said the use of the world “shall” in Section 26 meant the provision is a “constitutional edict” and not merely an “aspirational statement”.  Congress, therefore, committed grave abuse of discretion “through its consistent inaction and evident lack of interest to prohibit political dynasties by enacting a law as mandated by the Constitution.”  The justices added that lawmakers “must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earlier opportunity.”

It is laudable that the Hernando ponencia went beyond merely declaring Congress committed grave abuse of discretion for its failure to enact an anti-dynasty law. While recognizing that Congress retains the exclusive authority to craft legislating defining what constitutes a prohibited political dynasty and determining the scope and extent of the prohibition, the justices said that based on their “review of related literature,” lawmakers may consider “certain circumstances’ and “perspectives” in crafting an anti-dynasty law “if the evils of concentrating power and political opportunity were to be truly addressed.”

Firstly, as to the extent of covered relationships, the prohibition can extend to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity, including half-blood, adoptive, step, and common-law relationships, as well as both legitimate and illegitimate filiations. Secondly, as to timing, covered persons can be prohibited from running for an elective office both simultaneously and successively for the same or any other covered position.  Thirdly, as to the scope of covered positions, relatives can be prohibited from occupying both local and/or national elective positions.  And finally, as to geographical location, the prohibition can optimally extend to all covered persons residing within the same administrative region. Whether Congress, where there are already pending bills on political dynasties, will heed the court’s recommendations remains to be seen.

In our political science classes in college, we were made aware of the “evils” of political dynasties, that dynasts are greedy and that their desire to monopolize political power breeds incompetence and corruption in government, leading to poverty, inequality and injustice in the community. As a newspaper reporter, I became familiar firsthand with political dynasties while covering Metro Manila local government units.  I encountered many politicians’ children, grandchildren, siblings and niblings of or around my age who already eyeing or being eyed for local positions.  Most of these scions seemed sincere in saying that just they wanted to emulate their parents and family members who have dedicated themselves to serving the people through the years or decades, and that it’s really up to the voters whether to elect them or not. Many of these wannabes naturally expected endorsement and support during the campaign from their family members or relatives who are already in power. A few even prepared for their future candidacies by taking up political science, law, management or public administration courses, by getting elected to positions in the barangay or other civic organizations, or by serving as aides to other politicians who doubled as their mentors. 

During the 2010 elections, I was assigned to cover the Kapatiran Party and the Social Justice Society (SJS), whose platforms included the elimination of political dynasties.  In between elections, Kapatiran, SJS and other civil society groups such as the Movement Against Dynasties spearheaded people’s initiatives against political dynasties.  The latest and ongoing endeavor against political dynasties is one by the Dapat Isa Lang Movement, led by a coalition of civic, religious, and advocacy groups pushing for the passage of a genuine anti-political dynasty law, also through a people’s initiative. The movement wants to limit political families to only one national and one local elective position and to prohibit relatives up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity from holding office simultaneously. The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines lent its support to the initiative petition through a pastoral statement issued last Sept. 25.  The bishops said that “when [political] power is too much concentrated among a few, the institutions that should guarantee accountability become easily influenced by favoritism, partiality and selfish interest.”

I recently re-read the records of the proceedings of the 1986 Constitutional Commission regarding the provision on political dynasties and came across little-known positions by some commissioners aired during the debates that this column will now bring to light, from the fringes. The reader is reminded that in the end, the commissioners, having varying opinions as to the scope and coverage of a political dynasty, left it to Congress to define the term.

The proponents of the prohibition initially referred to a political dynasty as the series, sequence or succession of holders of elective offices from the same family, such as in a monarchy where the king is succeeded by an heir who belongs to the same house or dynasty. In the Philippine setting, the proponents said a governor who has already served three terms and barred from seeking reelection should not be succeeded by his son because that would be already be a dynasty. Moreover, the exiting governor would already have “built-in” advantages such as money and private armies to ensure his son’s election victory and could continue wielding political power through his son. Nevertheless, the prohibition is not everlasting because that son can run for governor in the next election.  Later in the debate, the concept of political dynasty expanded into covering relatives of the incumbent official up to so-and-so degrees of consanguinity or affinity. It also conceded that the prohibition could be made to apply only to a particular political unit, and that for example, the son of an elected official in Metro Manila should not be prevented from seeking an elected position in Davao.

One proponent wanted to further expand the prohibition to appointive positions as well.  This is in reference to the first part of Section 26 which provides that the state shall also guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service.  The term “public service”, according to the proponent, refers to both elective and appointive positions, and that political dynasties can be prohibited, if Congress wants, not only in elective positions but also appointed positions. I recall the people’s initiative petition on political dynasties by the SJS in 2012 which similarly sought to prohibit members of a political dynasty from appointive positions with a salary grade of 25 and above in all branches of the government.

The first part of Section 26 originally used the word “broaden” which was changed to “ensure”, and later “guarantee, in referring to the state’s duty to provide equal access to opportunities for public service. The opponents argued that the two parts of the provision seemed contradictory because ensuring equal opportunity to public office should not mean excluding or disqualifying certain persons, in this case member of political dynasties, from being elected to office.  Moreover, they pointed out that the provision violated the universal right of suffrage—which includes the right to vote and to be voted upon—since all citizens, whether a member of political dynasty or not, possess the right to run for public office. They added that it would still be voters who shall decide who wins so shouldn’t voters’ decision to be governed or represented by a dynast be respected? The proponents countered that there is no infringement at all, and the proposal mere intends to “regulate” political dynasties. Although the final text of second part Section 26 used “prohibit,” the addition of the clause “as may be defined by law” meant that Congress, through legislation, could still regulate dynasties.

Finally, there was an interesting exchange as to whether political dynasties were the cause or the effect of the “lopsided” political and socioeconomic systems prevalent in the country during the strongman rule that the new government, following the Edsa “People Power” Revolution, sought to remedy. When the proponents said the political dynasties were the effect, the opponents countered that shouldn’t the state intervene instead to address the causes of why political dynasties arise, reasoning that if the government does a good job in upholding social justice and equality, and ensure free and fair elections, then anyone can run for office and it should not matter whether is one poor or not a member of a political dynasty.

At the time Section 26 was adopted, it was the commissioners expected that when Congress eventually adopts a law prohibiting political dynasties, more and more people, especially the young and the bright, will be encourage to run for or get appointed to public offices. Even as the country was transitioning to democracy, the social injustice and inequalities that gave rise to the political dynasties, realistically speaking, would take time to be eradicated. Unfortunately, the commissioners did not anticipate that Congress would still be unable to pass an anti-dynasty nearly four decades after the Constitution was ratified. And during that period, political dynasties increasingly dominated not only Congress, but other national and local positions, and even the party-list system that the commission intended to give representation to marginalized sectors. Following the Supreme Court decision and with the 2028 elections fast approaching, the various anti-dynasty bills pending in Congress and the Dapat Isa Lang people’s initiative have timely rekindled awareness and interest among politicians and the people alike about the need to to implement the constitutional prohibition once and for all.

_________________

Comments are welcome on my Facebook Page

<https://www.facebook.com/fromthefringesph/>