SC urged: Prod Congress to pass antidynasty law

ELUSIVE DREAM Lawmakers have been trying to introduce an antipolitical dynasty bill as early as the 8th Congress in 1987. But should these efforts finally succeed, voters must also learn to be more discerning about the people they put in power. —INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

A group of lawyers from the University of the Philippines (UP) asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to compel both the Senate and House of Representatives to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties.

“It has been 37 years since the enactment of the 1987 Constitution, and yet Congress sat on their constitutional mandate under Section 26, Article II, that they should enact a law on political dynasties and define what political dynasties are,” Rico Domingo, a UP College of Law graduate, told reporters.

The specific provision indicates that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

READ: Ex gov’t officials push anti-political dynasty law before 2025 polls

“The political dynasties have been around, and they are monopolizing the political environment. Therefore, among those [officials] who have been elected, many of them came from political dynasties,” Domingo said.

“Those who are qualified to run for public offices are set aside, and the political dynasties are prevailing because they are rich, they have the political influence,” he added.

Joining Domingo in the filing of a special civil action for mandamus before the high tribunal were fellow UP law alumni Wilfredo Trinidad, Jorge Cabildo and Ceasar Oracion.

Under Rule 65, Section 3, of the Rules of Court, any person may resort to this remedy “when any tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person unlawfully neglects the performance of an act which the law specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station.”

Monumental omission

In a separate statement, the lawyers said their petition was aimed at bringing to the attention of the high court what it called a “monumental omission, a deplorable and egregious neglect of Congress to perform an express duty.”

“While there had been well-meaning efforts by some conscientious legislators, records of Congress do not show that any bill defining and prohibiting political dynasties had been passed into law,” they said. According to Domingo, their petition highlights the “paramount and transcendental importance” of the issues they raised.

“By the inaction, refusal, or sheer neglect of Congress to pass the law that it is mandated by the 1987 Constitution to enact, the Filipino people are denied and deprived of the benefits envisioned by the Constitution with the implementation and enforcement of the state policy enunciated in Section 26, Article II,” he said.

As early as the 8th Congress in 1987, there have been unsuccessful attempts to introduce an antipolitical dynasty law to carry out electoral and political reforms. Studies attribute this to the fact that many members of Congress come from political clans themselves.

Filed bills pending

In the current 19th Congress, Kabataan party list Rep. Raoul Manuel has filed House Bill No. 1157 seeking to prohibit the establishment of political dynasties.

Based on the House official website, the bill has been pending with the committee on suffrage and electoral reforms since Aug. 1, 2022.

In the Senate, Sen. Grace Poe has filed Senate Bill No. 548, which aims to define and prohibit political dynasties.

A 2019 study by the Ateneo de Manila University’s School of Government pointed to high levels of poverty and inequalities in areas where political dynasties thrive, especially in the provinces.

Citing data during the 2019 elections, 80 percent of governors, 67 percent of House representatives, and 53 percent of mayors came from “fat” political dynasties—or those in which several members of a family hold government positions simultaneously. INQ