(UPDATE) THE Supreme Court has ordered the Senate and the House of Representatives to submit their comments within 10 days regarding a series of petitions calling for the enactment of an anti-political dynasty law.
This ruling responds to three consolidated petitions urging Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to pass a law prohibiting political dynasties, as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
The petitions, filed by Kapatiran Party (Alliance for the Common Good), Wilfredo Trinidad and the 1Sambayan Coalition, have now been merged by the court, acknowledging the shared constitutional issue at the heart of their claims.
Central to the petitions is the assertion that Congress has failed to fulfill its constitutional duty as outlined in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which stipulates that the State “shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Despite this clear mandate, nearly four decades have passed without the passage of an enabling law that would define and enforce the prohibition on political dynasties.
Political dynasties continue to hold a tight grip on the political landscape, with powerful families retaining multiple elective positions across generations, often within the same regions.
Critics contend that this concentration of power fosters corruption, weakens the nation’s institutions and systematically denies capable but less-connected individuals the opportunity to serve. Such dynasties are seen as a major barrier to meaningful political reform and a more inclusive governance structure.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the petitioners, it would mark an unprecedented intervention by the judiciary, compelling Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to pass a law on political dynasties.
Numerous petitions have already been filed, urging the court to compel Congress to fulfill its duty.
Last week, a coalition of civic organizations led by 1Sambayan, filed yet another petition, reminding the court of its duty to mandate Congress to enact a long-overdue anti-political dynasty law, to comply with Article II Section 26, which has been violated for nearly four decades.
The petitioners included two former Supreme Court justices, retired generals, lawyers and economists, four bishops and one of the drafters of the 1987 Constitution.
The case they filed, they said, is “a desperate attempt to give life to the 1987 Constitution and to find relief from the chokehold political dynasties have placed on this nation.”
“We now have a government filled with elective officials whose primary qualifications are neither their character nor their competence, but rather their luck in the genetic lottery,” the petitioners said.
In a 48-page petition, the petitioners urged the court to hold Congress accountable for its failure to implement Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution.
The phrase “as may be defined by law” does not weaken the provision but rather underscores Congress’ obligation to legislate a framework for prohibiting political dynasties, the petitioners said.
“The Congress has not only violated the clear terms of the Constitution, but worse, it has effectively repealed and killed a constitutional provision merely through its inaction,” they added.
The petitioners argued that the court should require Congress to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. Within one year of the court’s decision, they said, Congress should be held in contempt if it fails to comply.
To date, more than 30 bills seeking to regulate political dynasties have been filed in Congress, but not one has been passed. This persistent failure, the petitioners said, perpetuates social and economic inequalities.
