SC asked: Tell Congress to ban political dynasties
- Another petition has been filed before the Supreme Court (SC) seeking to compel Congress to enact a law defining and banning the “chokehold” of political dynasties. But will lawmakers act against themselves?
- The 1Sambayan Coalition, along with Sanlakas, retired Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, retired military officials, priests, academics and lawyers, filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus before the high tribunal on Monday.
- In the latest petition, the petitioners urged the SC to issue a ruling compelling Congress to comply with Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution by enacting a law prohibiting political dynasties and providing a clear and accurate definition in line with its constitutional duty to ensure equal access to opportunities in public service.
- In their 48-page petition, the petitioners argued that Congress has effectively and unlawfully “rewritten” the Constitution by refusing to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties, despite the explicit obligation imposed by the Charter.
Another petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking to compel Congress to enact a law defining and banning political dynasties, calling it a “desperate attempt to give life to the 1987 Constitution” and a “relief from the choke hold political dynasties have placed on this nation.”
The 1Sambayan Coalition, represented by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, along with Sanlakas, retired Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales, retired military officials, priests, academics and lawyers, filed the petition for certiorari and mandamus before the high tribunal on Monday.
Last year, a special civil action for mandamus was filed by a group of lawyers from the University of the Philippines (UP) also asking the high court to compel both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties.
In the latest petition, the petitioners urged the Supreme Court to issue a ruling compelling Congress to comply with Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution by enacting a law prohibiting political dynasties and providing a clear and accurate definition in line with its constitutional duty to ensure equal access to opportunities in public service.
They also asked that Congress be required to pass the law within one year from receipt of the high tribunal’s decision granting their petition.
Additionally, the petitioners requested the Supreme Court to hold Congress in contempt if it fails to comply with the ruling within the prescribed timeframe.
Respondents
Named as respondents in the case were the Senate, represented by Senate President Francis Escudero, and the House of Representatives, represented by Speaker Martin Romualdez.
In their 48-page petition, the petitioners argued that Congress has effectively and unlawfully “rewritten” the constitution by refusing to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties, despite the explicit obligation imposed by the Charter.
They cited Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
“[E]ven though nearly four decades have passed, the Congress of the Philippines, in direct contravention of the Constitution’s mandate, has deliberately refused to enact an antipolitical dynasty law,” the petitioners said.
They further argued that the legislative branch’s failure to pass such a law has not only rendered the constitutional provision “inutile” but has also allowed political dynasties to “concentrate power within a few families, undermine the democratic process and ultimately exacerbate poverty and inequality among our people.”
The petitioners said that the Filipino people, through the 1987 Constitution, have recognized political dynasties as an “extremely virulent blight” to a democratic society, which is why they should be prohibited.
The petition delved into the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, which they said showed the framers included an antidynasty provision to “widen the opportunity of competent, young and promising but poor candidates to occupy important positions in government.”
Dynamic governance
“By prohibiting political dynasties, the political landscape would be opened to fresh, innovative ideas and platforms from individuals unbound by the negative norms and biases that longstanding political families may have normalized, ultimately leading to a more dynamic and progressive governance,” they said.
Commissioner Hilario Davide Jr., for instance, clarified that the prohibition aims to dismantle political monopolies and expand opportunities for more people, ensuring that public office is based on merit rather than family influence.
The petitioners pointed to the Tulfo family as a prime example of how the concentration of power within political dynasties “undermines the principles of representative democracy and equal opportunity.”
Ultimately, political dynasties not only “weaken the democratic process” but also worsen poverty for the already marginalized masses, they said.
