SC: Anti‑political dynasty ban up to 4th degree has basis

The Supreme Court said there is a basis to extend the prohibition on political dynasties to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity.

In its decision compelling Congress to enact an appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, it said, “certain circumstances can be considered if the evils of concentrating power and political opportunity were to be truly addressed.”

Still, the SC said the High Tribunal “will not instruct on how the legislation will be crafted and how the scope and extent of the prohibition will be defined.”

“The following discussion does not in any way impose upon Congress the substance on what to legislate but merely highlights key aspects for Congress's deliberation,” read the 86-page unanimous decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando.

“First, there is basis to extend the prohibition on political dynasties to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and/or affinity,” the decision said.

The House of Representatives in June passed an anti-political dynasty bill banning relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity from running for or occupying a post in the same constituency or jurisdiction on final reading.

Lawmakers voted 267-20-7 to approve House Bill 8389 on third reading, two weeks after the measure hurdled second reading approval.

It has been criticized as a measure expected to perpetuate political dynasties rather than ban them.

In defense of the bill, House Deputy Speaker Ferdinand Hernandez of South Cotabato’s 2nd District said, “There are fair criticisms. But an imperfect reform is still reform. This is better than a permanent paralysis.”

On the basis for prohibition up to the fourth degree, the SC said that several laws that impose limitations recognize that familial ties and their influence extend up to at least the fourth civil degree.

These include:

• Article 38(1) of the Family Code on marriages deemed void for reasons of public policy;
• Article 1027 of the Civil Code on persons incapable of succession;
• Section 3(k) of Republic Act No. 6713 or the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees on the requirement to disclose family relatives in government service in the Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth; and
• Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, on the defense of a relative as a justifying circumstance.

“Significantly, Article VII, Section 13(2) of the Constitution prohibits the president's spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree to be appointed as members of the Constitutional Commissions, the Office of the Ombudsman, or as secretaries, undersecretaries, chairpersons or heads of bureaus or offices, including government-owned or controlled corporations,” the SC said.

The decision also said that:

• covered persons can be prohibited from running for an elective office both simultaneously and successively for the same or any other covered position
• relatives can be prohibited from occupying both local and/or national elective positions
• the prohibition can optimally extend to all covered persons residing within the same administrative region

“The concentration of political power within a narrow few has distorted democracy, weakened accountability, and fostered conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage,” the SC said.

“When a clear constitutional mandate is left unimplemented for generations, the resulting harm begins to reflect in diminished public trust and stagnant governance,” it added.

Last week, the SC directed Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, saying its failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

It found that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.

However, the SC said it is leaving it up to Congress to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition.

Justices’ opinions

In his concurring opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen cited the Duterte and Romualdez families as examples of “fat” political dynasties in the country, which refer to those family members who hold public office simultaenously.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting said that the delay on Congress’ part must be deemed presumptively unreasonable.

He also stressed that bills are not laws.

“[T]he constitutional mandate of the Legislature is to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, not merely to introduce bills on the subject matter. Bills are not the same as laws; they do not produce any legal effect until they are passed into law,” he said.

For his part, Associate Justice Rodil Zalameda said that recognizing a constitutional duty is different from determining the remedy for its nonperformance.

“I sincerely believe that the constitutional command against political dynasties deserves enforcement. My concern lies with the institutional means by which the Judiciary addresses that duty,” he said.

“Constitutional enforcement does not mean that every branch of government must perform its constitutional responsibilities in whatever manner another branch considers appropriate,” he added.

Zalameda said that the Constitution binds all branches of government.

Associate Justice Japar Dimaampao, meanwhile, said that if the SC has the constitutional authority to command Congress to act in this case, it inherently possesses the corollary authority to ensure that its command is not left arbitrarily flouted.

He said that pragmatic, yet still effective, mechanisms to promote compliance are worth exploring.

“Because leaving the enforcement of this Decision solely to the hope that Congress will eventually act, or waiting for a future petition to challenge a continued inaction, would be to perpetuate the same ‘legislative paralysis’ that brought this controversy before the Court,” he said.

For her part, Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh said she did not agree with the grant of mandamus.

Singh said that the Court may pronounce the constitutional breach, but it cannot mandate the legislative response.

“While the Court may declare that Congress has unreasonably failed to discharge its constitutional obligation, it cannot compel Congress to discharge such function without arrogating unto itself legislative power,” she said.

“To issue a writ of mandamus in this case would be, in effect, to dictate not merely that a law be passed, but to intrude upon the substance, timing, and policy choices inherent in that law. This, the Court cannot do lest it ventures into lawmaking,” she added.

Meanwhile, Associate Justice Raul Villanueva said that until Congress complies with its ministerial duty, it should be “unrelentingly urged to finish the job.”

“Although not time-bound, the framers of the Constitution surely did not envision that the legislative department would take too long a time to give the Filipino people an anti-political dynasty law that promotes equal access to public service to everyone willing and qualified to serve in a political office, and not dominated by politically entrenched families,” he said.

Meanwhile, Villanueva said that not all political dynasties are bad.

He said that there are political dynasties that have contributed to the growth and progress of many localities and provided political leadership on a local and national level.

“Still, this is simply not enough reason not to prohibit political dynasties. In the end, it is because of the opportunity to allow public service freely accessible outside of political dynasties that the Constitution fundamentally prohibits it,” he said. –NB, GMA News