The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law, ruling that nearly four decades of legislative inaction violated a mandatory constitutional duty and amounted to grave abuse of discretion.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court En Banc unanimously held that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact legislation prohibiting political dynasties, while leaving lawmakers to define political dynasties and determine the scope of the prohibition.
“The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity,” the Court said.
Constitutional duty
The ruling stemmed from consolidated petitions challenging Congress’ prolonged failure to implement Article II, Section 26, which directs the State to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and “prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
The SC held that the provision is a constitutional command rather than merely an aspiration, saying the phrase “as may be defined by law” gives Congress discretion to determine the definition and scope of political dynasties, but not whether to prohibit them.
The Court said this interpretation was consistent with the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission, which left the definition of political dynasties to Congress.
Although the Constitution sets no deadline for Congress to enact the law, the SC found that 39 years was beyond a reasonable period to carry out the mandate.
“Congress has absolutely no discretion on whether to prohibit political dynasties or not. The Constitution commands so,” the Court said, finding that the prolonged inaction constituted grave abuse of discretion.
The SC said existing restrictions, including those under the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act and Bangsamoro election and local governance laws, do not fully satisfy the broader constitutional mandate.
In assessing their prevalence, the Court cited data showing that after the 2025 elections, 19 of 24 senators came from political clans, while 212 of 254 district representatives and 71 of 82 winning governors belonged to political dynasties.
The Court also cited studies examining links between political dynasties and socioeconomic conditions, noting that their effects on socioeconomic outcomes may vary depending on regional context.
By a majority vote, the Court granted mandamus, finding the case highly exceptional because of Congress’ prolonged failure to perform a constitutional duty.
The SC stressed that the judiciary may compel Congress to act but cannot dictate how it should legislate, leaving the definition, scope and other provisions of the anti-political dynasty law to lawmakers.
While the Court unanimously recognized Congress’ constitutional duty, the grant of mandamus was by majority vote, with Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh maintaining that the Court could declare the constitutional breach but not compel Congress to enact the law.
Possible scope of anti-dynasty law
The Court discussed possible features Congress may consider in crafting the law, while stressing that these were nonbinding considerations and not requirements imposed on lawmakers.
Among these, the SC said there was basis to consider extending the prohibition to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.
The Court also discussed covering both the simultaneous holding of elective posts by relatives and their immediate succession to office, as well as applying the prohibition to national and local elective positions.
On geographic coverage, the SC said the prohibition could extend to covered relatives within the same administrative region.
The Court also raised party-list representation as an area Congress may consider, citing situations involving relatives among nominees of party-list groups, competing party-list organizations, and district and party-list representatives.
Limits of the ruling
The SC also abandoned its previous pronouncements in Biraogo v. Commission on Elections and Guingona Jr. v. House of Congress that Article II, Section 26 is not self-executing, while maintaining that Congress has authority to define and determine the scope of the prohibition.
The Court, however, denied the petition seeking to compel the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to disqualify candidates belonging to political dynasties and issue implementing rules.
It ruled that without a law defining political dynasties, COMELEC cannot disqualify candidates or cancel their certificates of candidacy on that ground because doing so would amount to legislation.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
