Supreme Court Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda said the High Court can declare that Congress has a constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law, but it cannot dictate how lawmakers should perform that duty and prescribed formula or deadline.
In his separate opinion concurring in the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling on political dynasties, Zalameda stressed the need to balance constitutional accountability with the doctrine of separation of powers.
He said the Court “may not compel Congress to enact that legislation in a particular manner or supervise the exercise of its legislative judgment.”
“This is the required balance between constitutional supremacy and separation of powers; Court may declare what Congress is constitutionally bound to do without assuming the power to tell Congress how to do it,” he said.
Zalameda said Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution imposes a mandatory duty on Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.
However, he said the constitutional command and the actual legislative act are two separate matters that should not be conflated.
“Congress must exercise judgment to enact an anti-political dynasty statute. It must decide what the law will prohibit and how the prohibition will operate,” Zalameda said.
He said Congress should retain the authority to determine the definition, scope, coverage, sanctions and enforcement of the prohibition.
“The Court may declare the existence and nature of Congress’ constitutional duty while leaving to Congress the exercise of the legislative judgment that the Constitution itself contemplated,” he said.
Zalameda cited the doctrine of separation of powers, saying that legislative power belongs to Congress while judicial power belongs to the courts.
He also cited the SC’s ruling in Padilla v. Congress, saying the court may determine the constitutional boundaries of congressional action without intruding into the legislative sphere.
“Determining whether Article II, Section 26 imposes a constitutional duty upon Congress is a justiciable question. The Court has the duty to ascertain what the Constitution means,” he said.
But Zalameda stressed that Congress’ duty to legislate does not make the legislative act itself ministerial because lawmakers must exercise judgment in crafting the law.
He said the court should therefore avoid ordering Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law according to a judicially prescribed formula or deadline.
“The Court should be careful not to cross the middle ground by stating that ‘Congress must enact this law by this time and in this manner,’” Zalameda said.
He added: “It is not our responsibility to become Congress.”
The justice said the court can enforce constitutional accountability while respecting the authority assigned to Congress.
“There is therefore no inconsistency in saying that Congress has a constitutional duty to enact legislation prohibiting political dynasties, and that this Court may not compel Congress to enact that legislation in a particular manner or supervise the exercise of its legislative judgment,” he said.
Zalameda concurred in the result of the Court’s ruling recognizing Congress’ mandatory constitutional duty to enact legislation prohibiting political dynasties.
He also agreed with the dismissal of the petition seeking to compel the Commission on Elections to disqualify candidates based on political dynasty membership by noting that without legislation defining political dynasties and their legal consequences, COMELEC cannot create substantive qualifications or disqualifications on its own.