Equal conditions

Reactions to my “Ultimate recourse” column last Friday, November 2, 2012 clearly indicate that readers are really against political dynasties and will not vote for them in the coming elections. But they are also realistic enough to realize that it would be quite difficult to get rid of them through the ballots because of the dynasties’ stranglehold to the positions at stake and their influence on the great majority of poor and uninformed voters who can be easily swayed by political “dole outs” every election time.

Apparently, political dynasties are the focus of attention especially in the coming election because this is the first time that so many of them are running for local and national government posts up for grabs. A lot of people are wondering and even disgusted at how these families continue to disregard with impunity the constitutional provision prohibiting political dynasties (Article II, Section 26). And their disgust is heightened even more when the party list system of representation in the Lower House giving the poor and marginalized sector of our society equal access to public service has also been exploited by these dynasties to hold on to power thus defeating its very purpose.

Obviously these families see nothing wrong with political dynasties. They think that family affiliation should not deprive them of the right to seek public office if they are qualified and competent to render public service. They contend that it is unfair to disqualify them to run for public office just because of their pedigree especially when they are not corrupt and have good track record of service; and with more reason is this unfair to the voters who want to vote for them precisely because of their outstanding service record. One of them even compared this practice to relatives choosing the same career path like sons or daughters following the footsteps of their parents or brother and sisters as lawyers, doctors, etc.

Their reasons sound convincing except that they completely overlook or intentionally or unknowingly disregard the spirit and intent of the law banning political dynasties. The records of the Constitutional Commission that framed the charter shows that Professor Jose Nolledo, the author of this provision felt the peoples’ pulse at that time about the lack of opportunity for public service to other well meaning and competent but poor citizens. In fact, he told the Commission that: “when we talk of equal political opportunities, we have also to talk more or less of equal conditions under which candidates run for public office”. And so in proposing this prohibition on political dynasties, he said:

I am the author of this provision because I take into consideration the political realities in the Philippines, where we have small political kingdoms in different parts of the country. I am talking of family dynasties…, in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

In our provisions on the Articles on the Executive and the Legislative, we are allowing reelection. In the Philippines, I think it is known to everyone that a person runs for governor; he becomes a governor for one term; he is allowed two reelections under our concept. Then he runs for reelection; he wins. The third time, he runs for reelection and he wins and he is now prohibited from running again until a lapse of another election period. What does he do? Because he is old already and decrepit, he asks his son to run for governor.

In the meantime, he holds public office while the campaign is going on. He has control; he has already institutionalized himself. His son will inherit the position of governor, in effect, and then this will go to the grandson, et cetera. The others who do not have political advantage in the sense that they have no control of government facilities will be denied the right to run for public office. Younger ones, perhaps more intelligent ones, the poorer ones, can no longer climb the political ladder because of political dynasty.(Fr. Bernas,S. J., Intent of the 1987 Constitutional Writers, pp 142-143).

Article II Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution Article explicitly provides that the “State shall . . . prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law”. Undoubtedly, “State” here specifically refers to Congress. This is confirmed by another Article (XIII Section 1) mandating Congress to give highest priority to the enactment of measures… that reduce political inequalities”  No less than Nolledo himself declared that: “As to the prohibition of political dynasties, we leave it to Congress to determine the circumstances under which political dynasty is prohibited. This Commission will determine hard and fast rules by which political dynasties may be condemned. But I think that it is a very progressive provision, and in consulting the people, the people will like the provision. The Commission will hear the plea of the people”.

The Commission indeed heard the plea of the people and passed the charter which was overwhelming approved in a referendum 25 years ago. Since then, the people have been waiting for the implementation of this ban on political dynasties. But up to now the State (Congress) has failed to carry out its mandate resulting in more and more family dynasties all over the country.

Congressional inaction on this matter triggered extraordinary and special moves by the people themselves. As previously pointed out, the Ang Kapatiran Party, through its President JC de los Reyes and its Secretary General Norman V. Cabrera, already took steps for the people to directly propose and enact the law on Political Dynasty by drafting a petition and the bill itself pursuant to the system of initiative and referendum authorized by Article VII Section 32 of the charter, and its implementing law R.A. 6735. Nothing has happened here so far because the Comelec tasked by RA 6735 to determine and prescribe the form of the petition to be signed by the requisite number of the electorate, has not done so up to now.

Then there is also the class suit via a Petition for Mandamus under Rule 65, Section 3 of the Rules of Court filed against Congress for its failure to perform the task of enacting a law on Political Dynasties mandated by the Constitution. The Petition asks the Supreme Court (SC) to exercise its judicial power “to determine whether or not there has been grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of any Branch or Instrumentality of Government”. It is a Petition of “common or general interest to the Filipino people” who are so numerous. Hence it was filed by concerned citizens in their behalf, headed by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, Jr. assisted by lead counsel, Leonard de Vera, pursuant to Section 12, Rule 3 on Civil Procedure. They asked the SC to compel Congress to pass a law on political dynasty. Indeed, passing such law is ministerial on the part of Congress because it is a “constitutional command”. So the SC can really issue the writ of mandamus requiring Congress to pass such law. This is not an encroachment of legislative function because it is still Congress which determines the contents of the law.

So the peoples’ expectations on this political dynasty problem rest on the Comelec and the SC.

Our new email address: [email protected]