The Supreme Court has unanimously declared that Congress committed grave abuse of discretion by failing for 39 years to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties as mandated by Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution.
This as the high court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
“The Supreme Court held that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed Congress to
comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition,” SC spokesperson Atty. Camille Sue Mae Ting said while reading the High Court’s statement.
In a unanimous decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, granted the consolidated petitions challenging Congress’ prolonged inaction on the constitutional requirement.
Ting said the SC directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty and enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.
The SC held that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution is not merely an aspiration but a constitutional command.
It states that 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” makes Congress’ duty mandatory.
The phrase “as may be defined by law” gives Congress the authority to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition, but does not give it the option to refuse to enact the law.
It noted that the framers of the Constitution deliberately left the definition and scope of political dynasties to Congress after failing to agree on the specific family relationships and public positions that should be covered.
The SC said Congress therefore has discretion over “how” political dynasties will be defined and prohibited, but not “whether” to enact the required law.
Despite the absence of a specific constitutional deadline, the SC ruled that Congress cannot postpone its mandatory duty indefinitely.
It found that 39 years was already beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command.
The court thus declared Congress’ continued inaction a continuing violation of its constitutional duty and granted mandamus, holding that Congress’ failure to act amounted to a refusal to perform a mandatory constitutional duty.
The SC stressed that its ruling does not dictate to Congress what specific provisions the anti-political dynasty law should contain.
Congress remains free to determine the definition, scope and other provisions of the law.
The Court also abandoned its previous pronouncements in Viracobo v. COMELEC and Dingona Jr. v. House of Representatives that Article II, Section 26 was not self-executing, saying those rulings no longer reflected the intent of the framers and the realities surrounding political dynasties.
However, the SC rejected a separate petition seeking to have certain candidates declared covered by the constitutional prohibition and to compel the Commission on Elections to issue implementing rules.
The SC said COMELEC cannot disqualify candidates or cancel their certificates of candidacy on the ground that they belong to political dynasties because Congress has yet to enact a law defining and prohibiting them.#