Anti-dynasty provision ‘already covers’ spouses, parents, offspring, siblings
Aren’t these obvious instances of political dynasty?
(1) Spouses, parent and offspring, and siblings running in tandem for mayor and vice-mayor, governor and vice, or president and VP;
(2) Spouse, parent, offspring or sibling running to succeed a termed-out district representative, mayor or governor;
(3) Candidates for the Senate where a spouse, parent, offspring or sibling is an incumbent;
(4) Spouses, parent and offspring or siblings running as nominees of the same party-list.
A group of bishops and retired generals are asking the Supreme Court to clarify these once and for all.
The petitioners for certiorari want the SC to make Comelec disqualify candidates covered by the four instances.
They believe that the four instances are “inherently, intrinsically, automatically covered” by the 1987 Constitution, Article II, Declaration of Principles, Section 26:
“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
Four arguments bolster their plea:
(1) Families monopolize politics in the four instances.
The Constitution’s framers aimed to thwart political monopoly. In sponsoring the anti-dynasty provision, commissioner Jose Nolledo prefaced: “With this, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many parts of our country…” (P. 935, Records of Constitutional Commission No. 85).
Political power concentrates in one family when spouses, parent and offspring or siblings become mayor and vice-mayor, or governor and vice. The family monopolizes politics. Plainly and clearly it’s a dynasty. Same when a spouse, parent, offspring or sibling succeeds a termed-out electee.
Political power and influence concentrates on families when immediate members sit simultaneously in the Senate or any local council. There are only 24 senators. In a bill or resolution, the vote of two or three senators from one family would carry more weight than any single senator. Same with immediate family members in one party-list.
(2) Framers aimed to stop pass on of positions to family members.
Deliberations clearly show it.
Nolledo: “As now appearing in many parts of the country, we seem to approve of the practice that public office is inherited…. And in this case, we circumvent the rule against further re-election . . . ” (P. 936).
Commissioner Blas Ople: “We want to prevent future situations where, as a result of continuous service and re-election, officials from president down to municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in their positions and . . . transfer these to family members in a subsequent election . . .” (P. 239).
Commissioner David Suarez: “What we are saying is, we are prohibiting incumbents and relatives from aspiring for that same position so that everybody will have equal access to or opportunity for this position . . .” (P. 955).
(3) Framers added the phrase “as may be defined by law” to “widen the scope” of the prohibition.
Nolledo concluded: “That seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term…” (P. 936).
Nolledo’s intent was clear when he said “although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term.” When he introduced the provision, the term political dynasties inherently, intrinsically and automatically covered and prohibited immediate family members of incumbents.
“As may be defined by law” does not nullify or frustrate outright implementation of the prohibition against incumbents’ relatives.
(4) The anti-dynasty provision is self-executing.
In Manila Prince Hotel vs GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, 3 Feb. 1997), the SC en banc reiterated a long-standing ruling. That is, all provisions of the Constitution are self-executing, even in case of doubt.
Ten years later the SC en banc reiterated this in Tondo Medical Center Employees Association vs CA (G.R. No. 167324, 17 July 2007).
That’s jurisprudence.
Petitioners are Catholic Bishops Gerry Alminaza and Colin Bagaforo; retired AFP general Reynaldo Reyes, colonel Guillermo Cunanan and captain Roberto Yap; PNP generals Wilfredo Franco and Noel delos Reyes; and Atty. Alex Lacson.
They are founders of Alyansa ng Nagkaka-Isang Mamamayan. ANIM consists of former AFP, Army, Navy, Air Force, PNP chiefs; hundreds of other retired uniformed officers and thousands of clerics, professionals, businessmen, women, youth and NGO leaders.
On Dec. 3 they wrote Comelec to “promulgate rules to disqualify the four types of candidates described above.”
“Comelec refused, in grave abuse of its discretion, amounting to lack or in excess of jurisdiction,” they lamented.
“In the past 37 years, Comelec failed to promulgate such rules and allowed these plain and clear types of political dynasties to proliferate.”
The SC has yet to act on two other anti-dynasty petitions:
• For certiorari, November 2022, so the justices can find the intent of the 1986 Constitutional Commission based on its deliberations – by Kapatiran Party, Edilberto Cuenca and Norman Cabrera;
• For mandamus, March 2024, to compel Congress to define dynasties as its constitutional duty – by UP Law Profs. Rico Domingo, Wilfredo Trinidad, Jorge Cabildo and Ceasar Oracion.
* * *
Catch Sapol radio show, Saturdays, 8 to 10 a.m., dwIZ (882-AM).
Follow me on Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Jarius-Bondoc
- Latest
