Antidynasty law: No Charter Change needed, An Implementing Law is Sufficient

THE assertion that the 1987 Constitution must first be amended before any antidynasty law can be enacted is a flawed and overly restrictive interpretation that undermines the clear mandate of the Charter itself. A more faithful reading of the Constitution reveals that Congress not only has the power but also the duty to pass an implementing law without prior amendment.

1. The Constitution’s explicit command is self-executing for Congress. Article II, Section 26 states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The phrase “as may be defined by law” designates Congress as the implementing arm. The Constitution sets the policy; Congress executes it.

2. There is a critical legal distinction between “qualifications” and “disqualifications.” An antidynasty law establishes a disqualification based on a compelling state interest—preventing the concentration of power and ensuring equal access to public service. The Supreme Court has upheld Congress’ plenary legislative power to create disqualifications for compelling reasons of public policy (e.g., laws against turncoats, or for having a financial interest in a government contract). Disqualifying candidates due to familial relations to an incumbent is a policy-based disqualification, not an alteration of the constitutional qualifications of age or citizenship.

3. The spirit of the Constitution demands harmony, not conflict. A holistic interpretation requires that all parts of the Constitution be harmonized. One provision (Article II, Section 26) cannot be nullified by another (Article VI on qualifications). The duty to prohibit dynasties must be read as a specific exception granted to Congress within the framework of its broad electoral powers. The constitutional intent is clear: to break monopolies of power. A legal interpretation that blocks this intent contradicts the Constitution’s own declaratory principles of a “democratic and republican state” and “social justice.”

4. Precedent exists for legislated disqualifications without constitutional amendment. Congress has successfully enacted major political reforms without prior Charter change (Cha-cha). The Party List System Act (Republic Act No. 7941) created a new mode of representation based on a constitutional mandate, and term limits for local officials were implemented via the Local Government Code. These reforms reshaped the political landscape and withstood judicial scrutiny.

5. Cha-cha is a dangerous diversion and a political pitfall. Invoking Cha-cha as a prerequisite is often a strategy to delay or kill reform. The process is politically divisive, fraught with risks of inserting self-serving provisions, and takes years if it succeeds at all. The real barrier is a lack of political will, not a legal impossibility. Passing a law allows for debate, refinement, and democratic accountability. If the enacted law is challenged, the Supreme Court can rule on its constitutionality. Preemptively surrendering the legislative power is an abdication of responsibility.

The 1987 Constitution is not an obstacle; it is the very source of authority to enact an Anti-Political Dynasty Act. Congress has the inherent power to define and prohibit dynasties as a necessary disqualification to uphold the state’s compelling interest in fair and open elections. Amending the Constitution is unnecessary and would be an inefficient and politically treacherous detour from a duty that legislators can and should fulfill today. What is needed is not a change to the law, but the courage to implement the clear will already embedded within it.

MANNY ILAO,
manny.ilao@yahoo.com