It’s final: SC denies antidynasty petitions



The Supreme Court has dismissed with finality two remaining petitions seeking it to compel Congress to enact an antidynasty law.

SC spokesperson Theodore Te said Wednesday that the high court “denied with finality” the motion for reconsideration filed by independent senatorial candidate Richard Penson and Sen. Teofisto Guingona Jr. in relation to their petitions seeking for Congress to be compelled to enact an antidynasty law.

The high court reached the decision in an en banc meeting last Tuesday.

This brought to three the number of petitions on the antidynasty law issue that the high tribunal had dismissed. Last January, the high court dismissed the motion for reconsideration sought by businessman Louis Biraogo on the dismissal of his petition in December last year.

Biraogo had asked the high court to compel the Commission on Elections to bar members of political dynasties from running in the May polls.

The high court had earlier dismissed the petition of Penson and Guingona, saying that the question of the enactment of an antidynasty law should be addressed by Congress.

Get Inquirer updates while on the go, add us on these apps:

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • GProf007

    Sad that even if it’s in the Constitution (anti dynasty)… the final arbiter of the Constitution can’t or rather decided not to enforce it.

    I agree with some of the points used by the petitioners that there are instances that when the Executive and the Legislative branches of government go beyond their mandate… the SC steps in and declare such acts as “unconstitutional”… seems that the SC only saw that they can step-in if these co-equal branch do an “overstep” but they (SC) can’t do anything if the co-equal branch (Executive and Legislative) simply is apathetic or simply inaction to provisions of the constitution – which theoretically can also be called “unconstitutional” (since they’re not doing what they were mandated to do).

    The people empowered the 3 branches for check and balance… where is the check and where in the world is the balance of things if any of the 3 branches can’t do anything to ensure that all 3 “run” or “function” for the nation and people that empowered them in the first place… and implement the provisions of the Constitution?

    • Hurtlocker1


    • Bryan Kevin Tung

      Congress must enact an anti-dynasty law. D president will either sign or veto it. D supreme court will interpret d constitutionality of said law if the same is questioned. That is d check and balance in lawmaking!

      • crisostomo_ibarra_the3rd

        Your interpretation is more correct than the original post. Idadagdag ko lang na these people na talak ng talak about anti dynasty also has an option to have the implementing law via people’s initiative. The thing is, they need to work their dumb a$$ to make it work. 

    • Bryan Kevin Tung

      Lawmaking is a political question. Courts cannot issue mandamus to compel congress to enact a law. D crafting of laws is beyond d province of d courts.

      • GProf007

        What I was getting at was that the court can (historically) step in if the 2 branches of government went beyond their Constitutional mandate (over action)… my posting is to question what of the 3 branches can compel any of the 3 do go to action and do their mandated duties… which to my personal view (not doing anything while in office… in this case our lawmakers, will not create a law because of personal reasons) is unconstitutional.

        So if the citizenry ask the SC on the interpretation of the Constitution and if the SC interprets it in a certain way… unfortunately there are no guidelines (laws) that will help enforce the said constitutional provision… where will the citizen (people) go? Isn’t it within the bounds of the SC to hand out a decision that states (the obvious) that anti-dynasty is explicitly written on the constitution and as a co-equal branch… remind the legislative of its mandate?

        It is illogical to think that the SC can only act upon “action” and not “inaction”… because no where in the Constitution states that they are limited to simply react. An example of this is in the Executive branch… if any of them do not do their jobs  – administrative cases can be filed against them (countless of examples on this)… in the case of higher-ups (voted)… of course we could expect impeachment. Now how about Congress? I believe the Constitution do not bar the SC from such equal inaction with the main reason as it being a co-equal branch. Again, this is in respect to where will the people go? If those in power do not do their jobs as “required” by the Constitution.

        In addition, I disagree with the SC Chief’s words (regarding the power of the SC)… “does not include the determination of the wisdom, fairness, soundness, or expediency of a statute”… when in fact every decision the court makes are (based on facts) deals with wisdom, fairness, soundness and even expediency… tons of cases wherein all these were incorporated… a simply example is a case that deals with contracts and involuntary servitude… doesn’t that covers fairness? How about administrative cases… doesn’t some of it deals with the “wisdom” and lack of “expediency” of those people being brought to the court? Besides… if its within the power of the SC to interpret… doesn’t that mean that they can simply give an interpretation of a Constitutional provision stopping short of creating a law (it is not their task) but clearly indicating that it is within the branch of the Legislative? Isn’t giving an interpretation on a Constitutional question requires a definite answer from them?

      • crisostomo_ibarra_the3rd

        You are trying to make things too complicated. All you have to do is what the comelec has been trying to tell people like you na talak ng talak. Go and do it yourselves if congress does not have a heart to do its job. Use the people’s initiative route as defined in our laws. The problem is people like you would have to work. Matatapos na ang katatalak ninyo.  Kung gusto may paraan. Kung ayaw may dahilan. Why dont you ignite the fire together with the reklamadors in your midst to do what you think is a worthy cause. 

  • Hornbook

    Now that the SC has spoken.

    It’s instructive to revisit what CJ Sereno wrote in one of her ponencias, (Giron versus COMELEC, G.R. No. 188179, Jan.22, 2013) applicable to this issue.

    “… we reiterate that the power of this Court is limited to the interpretation of the law. Judicial power does not include the determination of the wisdom, fairness, soundness, or expediency 
    of a statute. Otherwise, the Court may be accused of engaging in judicial legislation. As it is Congress that is empowered by the Constitution to determine state policies and to enact laws, we feel that petitioner’s reasoning would be best addressed by the legislature.”

    • kurakut


  • tony

    With this SC decision it is time for Pinoys to stop daydreaming about preventing and eradicating political dynasties in the nation. If anything, this decision re-affirms that IT IS OKAY for politicians to treat any and all public office as if it were their own personal property. So to all not-so-lucky Pinoys out there – STOP COMPLAINING! PERIOD!

    • Hornbook

      The Filipino people has the power not to vote for candidates who belong to political dynasties.

      Will Juan finally exercise this power this May election?

  • Bryan Kevin Tung

    Isnt d mother of guingona d mayor of gingoog city n misamis oriental? Talk about looking at d mirror!

  • Spike

    Its time to stop paying taxes then.  Why would you pay taxes when its going to the pockets of Tonggressmen and Senatongs

    • BawalAngReklamador

      Pag NEGOSYANTE ka kabayan, MAY opsyon kang HINDI magbayad ng tax..

      Pero pag hamak na TRABAHANTE ka LANG.. WALA kang magagawa pag dating sa kaltasan..

    • crisostomo_ibarra_the3rd

      Are you kidding me? Since when did you start paying your taxes? Pati ba naman kami niloloko mo?

  • wazgoingon

    People will now have to take matters into their own hands.  Simply rejecting these personalities at the polls will do the trick. Don’t think.  Just do it.

    • GProf007

      Yup apparently the institutions empowered by the people failed… so if we want a change then let our voice be heard through voting or not voting these traditional politicians.

  • Stun Black

    Nilagay sa Constitution ang anti-dynasty para maiwasan ang mga political assassinations at kudeta.

  • go88

    The SC pretended to examine the two stayed true to itself …. what else did you expect from this masquerade? Now the SC judges are laughing all the way to the bank.

    • Hornbook

      Can you please substantiate your claim?

      It’s okay to criticize the High Court provided you present factual argument rather than generalities.

      15 heads are better than one.

  • lemon88

    maraming tatamaan if an antidynasty law is enacted including the incumbent president. maraming gaaman sa kapangyarihan kasama na duon ang sc


    GUINGONA….anti dynasty petitioner?  O, di ba na sa dynasty society din siya?  Malamang nakahinga siya ng malalim nang bumaba ang desisyon. :)

  • guest

    This shows the SC decided not to interpret the constitution because I think it is afraid of the legislature and the executive. The decision means they can only interpret the laws made by congress. Maybe in the future if strong willed justices ( maybe not from UP or Ateneo) are put in place, this will change.

  • alfred sanchez

    dami nyo problema anti dynasty e d wag nyo iboto sila binay et al, nasa inyo naman ang power palibhasa talo kayo ng mga masa at gutom na tao na hindi naman nagbabasa ng inquirer

  • herecomesrusty

    We can’t rely on voters to weed out the dynasty in the government. Heck, we can’t even vote out klepto-politicians from our gov.

    They always win because they’ve gotten the method of winning votes down to science; the poorer the voter, the simpler his needs: de lata and permission to squat. Give them another 500php and they’ll think you’re a saint. Eh kung medyo maginhawa ang community, dadagdagan ng basketball court, waiting shed at tent sa patay. Who cares about community and nation building, eh mamaya pa sa t.v. balita iyan. Lol.

    Those who critisize Marslow’s theory need only come here during campaign period.

  • ingbilat

    legislative, executive and judiciary are co-equal branches of government. the legislative and executive are presumed to be corrupt! since the judiciary is a co-equal branch, therefore,  is it also equally corrupt as well?! just asking…

  • InSearchOfTruth

    so, who will guard the guards?

    • kolambogan

      Ask Father Joaquin Bernas,

  • manual47

    No balls chief justices of S.C.  Maybe they’re part of the political system that only benefits their own and the rest of the political dynasties and nothing for common people whose only wish is to have political system that benefits all…..

  • kilabot

    majority of electorates want political dynasty, so it stays; 
    even the sc cannot dictate what the majority wants; 
    democracy may be stupid sometimes, but that’s democracy; 
    3 cheers to democracy!

  • Trollollolloll

    Philippine Constitution:

    Article 2, Section 26. The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

    Problem is, they do not want to allow this to be defined by law. So how can this constitutional provision be enforced? It can’t!

    Tarantado talaga ‘tong mga to…

  • jack johnson

    What people should understand is that the separation of powers does not permit the SC to compel Congress to pass laws. It cannot be done. People should lodge it in Congress directly and if no legislator is willing , people should vote it by themselves via referendum.

    • MannyKingfisher

      If there’s no law to clarify the provision of the constitution the SC have the power to give interpretation and clarification of the subject provision of the constitution and such interpretation/clarification becomes, by itself, the law of the land.

  • Political Jaywalker

    The petition is bound to fail right from the the very start because the constitution is very clear on this, that it is the responsibility of the legislators to enact the legal definition of Political dynasty or what is called enabling law. The SC’s role is to ensure that the our legislators enact laws that is not in violation of the constitution and their failure to legislate does not give our SC the authority to create laws or in this instance define political dynasty.

    I wonder if instead of asking the SC to force the issue the petitioners should have just sued all the members of the political dynasty who were elected to public office from 1987 to date for willful and conspiracy to defraud the people of equal access to political position in their willful and criminal failure to pass an enabling law? All the legislators and the presidents past and present as the principal accused and those members of the political dynasties elected in different positions past and present as accomplices. If probably will not succeed but they will definitely get exposed on why they failed intentionally all these years to define legally Political dynasty.

  • KurakotNaPinoy

    Mag migrate na lang sa ibang bansa kung yung mga bobotanteng nakararami lang ang nagpapatuloy ng political dynasty sa pamamagitan ng pagboto sa kanila.

    Malabong maipasa ang isang batas laban sa political dynasty dahil ang ating mga tongressman at senatong ay may mga sariling political dynasty, mailban lang sa mga iilang matuwid o hindi pa nakakabuo ng sariling political dynasty.

  • basilionisisa

    Talagang hindi naman pwedeng isabatas yang ‘anti-dynasty’… kahit SAAN (bansa), kahit kailan… UNDERMINING kasi ng basic Rights at Freedom ng tao (esp Suffrage). Hindi talaga fair.

    Solution lang dyan ay HUWAG nating iboto ang mga galing sa political dynasties na kilala nating CORRUPT at pansariling kapakanan lang ang habol (protection and maintenance ng kanilang family business) at wala namang NAGAGAWA para sa bansa. Piliin na lang nating mabuti ang iboboto natin, kasi kung minsan may mga galing naman sa ‘mabubuting’ dynasty din.

    • crisostomo_ibarra_the3rd

      Another solution is magtrabaho ka. Simulan nyo ang people’s initiative.

  • Bentong

    there must be something to push through with this bill. If only politicians are willing to let go of their selfish motives and help support this bill, Philippines would be better off. 

  • Beguine

    For the time being just keep the Antidynasty Politics vote
    high on the agenda for the May election.

    If less Dynasty politicians win that’s a good sign already.

    Then, keep the spirit of Antidynastiy Politics alive and kicking
    in every election.

    That would be even better than having a law passed against it.
    It will just die a natural death if the people want it to.

  • MannyKingfisher

    Scrap this constitution that institutionalized this provision against anti-dynastism in the Philippine political exercises.

    What`s the use of this provisions if still Philippine elections are loaded right and left with candidates who belong to the same family clan?  father, son, daughter, wife, and other close relatives? It seems that the birthright of political positions in the Philippines only belonged to these corrupt families who enriched in their political powers shamelessly amassed illegal wealth with their unsatiable desire for money and power.

    Wake up people of the PH. Time now to boot out those scumbags who raided the coffers of the Ph Treasury shamelessly.

  • julymorning




    • duralex..sedlex

      your last sentence is the best hahaha galing mo tol!!! 

    • Legally Black

       Correct!Namimili lang ang Supreme Court ng dedesisyunang kaso. Ang ibang kaso doon inaamag na, pero pag pulitiko ang involved ang bilis!Alam na.

  • duralex..sedlex

    mga tol basta ako hindi na ako naniniwala sa eleksyon dito sa pilipinas. ilang eleksyon na akong hindi bumoboto. hanggat hindi nawawala ang mga political dynasty wala magandang mangyayari sa ating bansa. para sa political dynasties “family business” nila ang gobyerno. yang supreme court dapat palitan na rin ng  ibang court mas mabuti pa siguro ang basketball court or tennis court or victoria court para me pakinabang.  

  • koolkid_inthehouse


  • PinoyDude

    It’s up to us— Filipino voters this May if we want to continue with the current status quo. 

    Boycott the relatives of the plunderer, martial law murderer and the black dwarf.

  • wotsayu

    Why do we need an anti dynasty law? We have the power to end the dynasty by not voting for them. But time and time again, we continue to put them in office to plunder and steal from us! Wake up people! Let’s end this family dynasty by the power of the pen and not by the sword!

  • Yahilaw

    Reality check. SC acting like most courts do – hand washing like Pilate. Of course it’s the safest thing to do. Case gets done, no blame game to worry about, and everybody gets paid for a job done.

  • Yahilaw

    The only practical solution is to reject them on the election day; and not elect them then petition to reject them the following day. The latter is simply stupidity.

  • crisostomo_ibarra_the3rd

    Tuloy ang ligaya. Umpisahan sa mga anak ng mga tradpols. Vote Jackie Enrile, Nancy Binay and JV Estrada Ejercito. At ng tuluyan ng bumagsak ang Pilipinas!

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94


editors' picks



latest videos