MANILA — The Supreme Court said Congress may consider extending the constitutional prohibition on political dynasties to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity, while emphasizing that lawmakers retain authority to determine the final scope and definition of the ban.

The Court made the observation in its unanimous decision ordering Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.

The 86-page decision, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, said the Constitution requires Congress to prohibit political dynasties but leaves to the legislative branch the task of defining what constitutes a political dynasty and determining how the prohibition will operate.

“First, there is basis to extend the prohibition on political dynasties to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity,” the decision said.

The SC stressed, however, that its discussion was intended only to provide matters for congressional consideration and would not dictate the contents of the legislation.

“The following discussion does not in any way impose upon Congress the substance on what to legislate but merely highlights key aspects for Congress’s deliberation,” the Court said.

It added that it “will not instruct on how the legislation will be crafted and how the scope and extent of the prohibition will be defined.”

The Court cited several existing laws that recognize familial relationships extending to the fourth civil degree, including provisions of the Family Code, Civil Code, Revised Penal Code and Republic Act No. 6713, or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees.

It also pointed to Article VII, Section 13 of the Constitution, which bars the President’s spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree from being appointed to certain government positions, including membership in constitutional commissions, the Office of the Ombudsman, and positions as secretaries, undersecretaries, chairpersons or heads of bureaus and offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations.

The SC said the definition of relatives could also encompass half-blood, adoptive, step and common-law relationships, as well as legitimate and illegitimate filiations.

Scope of possible ban

The Court said Congress may consider prohibiting covered relatives from seeking elective office simultaneously or successively, including situations involving different positions.

It also said the prohibition could cover relatives holding local and national elective posts at the same time and potentially extend to covered persons residing within the same administrative region.

The Court further noted that a ban could address instances where relatives succeed one another in office.

The court said relatives who succeed one another “are placed in a more advantageous situation, as compared to related candidates who are not associated with any incumbent official.”

It also raised the possibility of covering barangay positions, noting:

“It has been asserted that to exclude the barangay from the prohibition is to miss the opportunity to weed out the problem at its base and to deprive oligarchic politicians of their “stepping stone” or “breeding ground,” the court said.

The SC said the concentration of political power among a small number of families can affect democratic governance and public accountability.

“The concentration of political power within a narrow few has distorted democracy, weakened accountability, and fostered conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage,” the SC said.

“When a clear constitutional mandate is left unimplemented for generations, the resulting harm begins to reflect in diminished public trust and stagnant governance,” it added.

Congress ordered to act

The Court unanimously ruled that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution imposes a mandatory duty on Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.

The provision states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

According to the SC, the use of the word “shall” demonstrates that the provision is a constitutional command rather than merely an aspiration.

The phrase “as may be defined by law,” meanwhile, gives Congress discretion to establish the definition, scope and other provisions of the prohibition, but does not give lawmakers the option of declining to enact the required law.

The Court said the Constitutional Commission records showed that the framers deliberately left the specific definition of political dynasties to Congress after failing to reach agreement on which family relationships and public positions should be covered.

The SC found that Congress’ failure to enact the law for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

It took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty measures introduced since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution but left unacted upon, as well as studies concerning the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions.

The Court said the absence of a constitutional deadline does not permit Congress to indefinitely defer the mandate, finding that 39 years was already beyond a reasonable period for carrying it out.

It also ruled that existing restrictions under measures such as the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code and the Bangsamoro Local Governance Code do not fully comply with the constitutional command because the prohibition envisioned by the Constitution is broader.

By majority vote, the Court granted the petitions for mandamus, holding that Congress’ continued failure to enact the required law amounted to a refusal to perform a mandatory constitutional duty.

The Court nevertheless maintained that it could not dictate the substance of the legislation.

“The following discussion does not in any way impose upon Congress the substance on what to legislate but merely highlights key aspects for Congress’s deliberation,” the decision said.

The SC directed Congress to enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.

It declared:

“Respondent Congress of the Philippines is DECLARED to have the MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.

THE CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES MUST HENCEFORTH AND WITH UTMOST URGENCY ENACT THE APPROPRIATE ANTI-POLITICAL DYNASTY LAW AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.”

House bill covers second degree

The ruling comes after the House of Representatives approved House Bill 8389, an anti-political dynasty measure covering relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity.

The bill was approved on third reading in June by a vote of 267-20-7, two weeks after securing second-reading approval.

The measure has drawn criticism from those who said it could allow political dynasties to continue rather than prohibit them.

House Deputy Speaker Ferdinand Hernandez of South Cotabato’s 2nd District defended the legislation, saying, “There are fair criticisms. But an imperfect reform is still reform. This is better than a permanent paralysis.”

COMELEC petition denied

The SC separately denied a petition against the Commission on Elections seeking to have certain candidates declared covered by the constitutional prohibition and to compel the poll body to issue implementing rules.

The Court said COMELEC cannot disqualify candidates or cancel certificates of candidacy based solely on political-dynasty membership because Congress has yet to enact a law defining the prohibition and its legal consequences.

Justices offer differing views

Separate opinions reflected differing views on the extent of the Court’s authority to compel Congress to act.

Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, in a concurring opinion, cited the Duterte and Romualdez families as examples of “fat” political dynasties, referring to family members who simultaneously hold public office.

Leonen also said an effective anti-dynasty law should address simultaneous occupation of public office and immediate familial succession, among other configurations, to allow “new blood and a new brand of leadership may genuinely enter the government.”

Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting said Congress’ delay should be considered presumptively unreasonable and emphasized that introducing legislation is not equivalent to enacting a law.

“[T]he constitutional mandate of the Legislature is to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, not merely to introduce bills on the subject matter. Bills are not the same as laws; they do not produce any legal effect until they are passed into law,” he said.

Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda concurred in the result but raised concerns over the institutional limits of the Judiciary.

“I sincerely believe that the constitutional command against political dynasties deserves enforcement. My concern lies with the institutional means by which the Judiciary addresses that duty,” he said.

“Constitutional enforcement does not mean that every branch of government must perform its constitutional responsibilities in whatever manner another branch considers appropriate,” he added.

Zalameda said Congress’ duty to legislate does not authorize the Court to determine the form, definition, coverage, sanctions or enforcement mechanisms of the eventual law.

Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao agreed that Congress could be compelled to fulfill its constitutional duty but said the Court should not prescribe the substance of the legislation.

“Because leaving the enforcement of this Decision solely to the hope that Congress will eventually act, or waiting for a future petition to challenge a continued inaction, would be to perpetuate the same ‘legislative paralysis’ that brought this controversy before the Court,” he said.

Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, meanwhile, disagreed with the grant of mandamus.

“While the Court may declare that Congress has unreasonably failed to discharge its constitutional obligation, it cannot compel Congress to discharge such function without arrogating unto itself legislative power,” she said.

“To issue a writ of mandamus in this case would be, in effect, to dictate not merely that a law be passed, but to intrude upon the substance, timing, and policy choices inherent in that law. This, the Court cannot do lest it ventures into lawmaking,” she added.

Singh also opposed the Court’s proposed considerations on family relationships, simultaneous and successive candidacies and geographic coverage, saying these could effectively become benchmarks for determining whether Congress had complied with the ruling.

She likewise maintained that the Court’s earlier pronouncements in Biraogo v. COMELEC and Guingona, Jr. v. House of Congress concerning the need for legislative definition and the use of mandamus should not have been abandoned.

Associate Justice Raul Villanueva said Congress should continue to be urged to fulfill its constitutional obligation.

“Although not time-bound, the framers of the Constitution surely did not envision that the legislative department would take too long a time to give the Filipino people an anti-political dynasty law that promotes equal access to public service to everyone willing and qualified to serve in a political office, and not dominated by politically entrenched families,” he said.

Villanueva also noted that not every political dynasty has necessarily produced negative results, saying some have contributed to the growth of localities and provided political leadership.

“Still, this is simply not enough reason not to prohibit political dynasties. In the end, it is because of the opportunity to allow public service freely accessible outside of political dynasties that the Constitution fundamentally prohibits it,” he said.

The SC’s ruling means Congress retains authority over the eventual definition and scope of an anti-political dynasty law, while being directed to fulfill the constitutional mandate to enact one.