Lawyers ask SC to compel Congress to pass anti-dynasty law. Why this matters.
The 1987 Constitution prohibits political dynasties, but Congress has yet to pass a law that will make this possible
MANILA, Philippines – At least four lawyers asked the Supreme Court (SC) to compel the legislature to act on the country’s long-standing problem with political dynasties.
In a petition for mandamus filed with the High Court on Tuesday, March 19, former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo, along with lawyers Ceasar Oracion, Jorge Cabildo, and Wilfredo Trinidad, asked the SC to order the Senate and the House of Representatives to pass a law that will define and prohibit political dynasties.
Section 3, rule 65 of the Rules of Court states that any person may file such a 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” the petitioners said.
According to them, it has been 37 years since the 1987 Constitution was established and yet Congress has yet to pass a law against political dynasties.
Article II, section 26 of the Constitution states that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
“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,” Domingo said in a statement.
The petition
The terms used in the provision on political dynasties indicate that the legislature is mandated to pass a corresponding law, the petitioners said. The phrases “as may be defined by law” and “prohibit political dynasties” support this argument, they added.
They also said that in legislation, the word “shall” means “mandatory,” as opposed to “may,” which is permissive.
“By the terms of the Constitution, there cannot be any reason why the prohibition of political dynasties cannot be enforced. It has provided for the means to do it – the law prohibiting and defining political dynasties need to be enacted,” the petition read. “There is also no way Congress is excused from doing the clear duty.”
Congress’ duty to pass an anti-dynasty law is ministerial, mandatory, and non-discretionary, according to the petitioners.
“A purely ministerial act or duty is one in which an officer or tribunal performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of legal authority, without regard to the exercise of his own judgment, upon the propriety of the act done,” the petition explained.
The petitioners added that the task of complying with the constitutional provision is two-fold: to both define and prohibit political dynasties. This can be accomplished, the lawyers said, by passing a law that will include the two principles in one legislation, since they are interrelated and intertwined.
In the petition, the lawyers also mentioned the need to pass such a law by highlighting the problem with political dynasties that have dominated the country’s political landscape.
To further their point, the petitioners cited the testimony of the late Father Joaquin Bernas, SJ, who was among the framers of the 1987 Constitution: “The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of monopolizing and perpetuating power. Hence, is commanded to prohibit political state dynasties.”
Why this matters
The constitutional provision banning political dynasties is not self-executory – meaning, it needs legislation passed by the two chambers, to be enacted.
Amid the push to change the Constitution under former Rodrigo Duterte’s administration in 2018, retired Supreme Court associate justice Vicente Mendoza said that if a new Constitution will be drafted, the provision on political dynasties should be self-executory: “The proposed amendments I have are the following: I agree to make the ban on political dynasties meaningful by directly prohibiting it in the Constitution instead of leaving it to law to prohibit it.”
The absence of legislation caused political dynasties to further proliferate in the Philippines. Through these dynasties, electoral positions remain entrenched only within a few families. Dynasties are not in line with the principle of inclusivity in the electoral process and participation of ordinary citizens in governance. – Rappler.com