Congress must break the dynasty grip before 2028
Thirty-nine years of delay are enough. The Supreme Court has declared that Congress must enact a law prohibiting political dynasties. With the pivotal 2028 presidential elections ahead, lawmakers still have time to deliver meaningful reform. They must use it wisely.
On March 19, 2024, Wilfredo M. Trinidad, Jorge L. Cabildo, Ceasar G. Oracion, and I, all members of the University of the Philippines College of Law Class of 1976, filed our petition for mandamus. We sought to compel Congress to perform its constitutional duty.
Our petition preceded 1Sambayan’s March 31, 2025 filing by more than a year. The Court subsequently consolidated that petition with ours and the earlier Kapatiran petition. Our case was among the three consolidated petitions granted.
Announcing the ruling on Sept. 16, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting said: “The Supreme Court unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.”
The Court also held that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact the law constituted grave abuse of discretion.
Our original petition drew a distinction that remains crucial. Congress has discretion over how to define political dynasties: the relationships covered, the territorial reach, and the periods to which the prohibition applies. It cannot use that discretion to refuse the task altogether. The constitutional phrase “as may be defined by law” assigns Congress work to do.
Our supplemental petition confronted the other excuse: separation of powers. We argued that the Constitution can be violated through omission as well as commission. Refusing to perform an express constitutional duty cannot become immune from review simply because the refusal comes from Congress.
We asked the Court to enforce the obligation while leaving the drafting of legislation to lawmakers. Article VIII, Section 1 gives the judiciary the duty to determine whether any government branch or instrumentality has committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction. Separation of powers operates within the Constitution. It cannot place Congress above it.
The political obstacle is equally plain. Congress must regulate advantages enjoyed by many of its own members. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism counted 212 of the 254 winning district representatives in the 2025 elections as members of political dynasties. That concentration of power exposes the weakness of relying on voluntary restraint.
Article II, Section 26 links the prohibition of dynasties with equal access to opportunities for public service. That connection matters. When relatives occupy several centers of power, newcomers must compete against accumulated influence, resources, and entrenched networks. The promise of equal access loses force when public office passes repeatedly within the same families.
The Court had already sounded a warning in Calubag v. Commission on Elections on April 8, 2026. It described the extent of dynastic control as “an affront to the Constitution.” It also identified the limited reach of Republic Act No. 10742: its antidynasty restriction applies to candidates for the Sangguniang Kabataan, leaving candidates for higher local and national offices outside its coverage.
Let us underline this point: a law with a definition so narrow that it preserves dynastic control would invite constitutional scrutiny. An impressive title cannot cure exceptions that protect the very arrangements the Constitution seeks to prohibit.
The definition must make the prohibition enforceable. A meaningful law should address simultaneous officeholding by relatives, succession within the same office, exchanges of positions among family members, expansion across districts, and control of party list seats. Lawmakers should defend their choices by explaining how these advance equal access to public service.
Congress has enough time before the 2028 presidential elections to deliberate seriously, enact a workable law, and allow orderly implementation—provided it acts now. It should settle the coverage, close avenues for evasion, and give the Commission on Elections, prospective candidates, and voters clear rules well before candidacies are filed. Waiting until the election approaches would manufacture the very time pressure lawmakers could later invoke to justify another postponement.
The next presidential election should put the law to work. Congress must use the time remaining to widen political opportunity and enact restrictions its own members and their families will have to obey.
—————-
Rico V. Domingo is a past president of the Philippine Bar Association (PBA) and chair of the Movement Against Disinformation (MAD).
