President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his State of the Nation Address at the Opening of the 19th Congress on July 24, 2023. The President is accompanied by Senate President Juan Miguel Zubiri and House of Representatives Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez. Jonathan Cellona, ABS-CBN News
MANILA — The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of petitions to compel Congress to pass a law on political dynasties, saying the legislature’s failure to act for 39 years is beyond a reasonable period.
In a unanimous ruling penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, the Supreme Court declared that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.
The Court said 39 years since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution is an unreasonably long period of inaction, and that Congress’ continued failure to fulfill the mandate constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
The Court directed Congress to enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law “at the earliest opportunity” and “with utmost urgency.”
SC spokesperson Atty Camille Ting said, however, that the Supreme Court did not impose a penalty on lawmakers for the 39 years of inaction.
“They just said it was a grave abuse of discretion and the Supreme Court urged Congress to pass a law at the earliest opportunity,” said Ting.
Senate, House asked to comment on anti-political dynasty petitions
Ting said that while the 1987 Constitution did not impose a deadline for passage of a bill against political dynasties, the court is urging it to "enact a law at the earliest opportunity with urgency."
The 1987 Constitution, under Article II, Section 26, states that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Ting said the SC observed that “political dynasties have remained widespread and have extended even into the party-list system" with Congress' failure to pass a law, "implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest."
The Supreme Court said the provision is not merely aspirational but a mandatory constitutional command.
The phrase "as may be defined by law" gives Congress the authority to determine the definition and scope of the prohibition—but not whether it should enact the law.
The Supreme Court left it to Congress to determine which family relationships and government positions will fall under the eventual ban.
The Court noted that the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately left the definition of political dynasties to Congress after failing to agree on the specific relationships and positions that should be covered.
House approves anti-political dynasty bill deemed 'watered-down' by some lawmakers
Asked what could happen if Congress still fails to act despite the Supreme Court ruling, Ting said any further action would depend on a case that may be brought before the Court.
“Well, we trust that the Congress will comply with the directive of the Supreme Court, but in case that does not happen, we will have to wait for the court’s action in a case that may be filed before it,” she said.
RELATED VIDEO: