In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has unanimously granted petitions ordering Congress to pass an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, according to Rappler. Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Sue Mae Ting announced during a Wednesday press conference that the high court ruled Congress’s prolonged failure to enact the measure for 39 years constitutes a grave abuse of discretion and a continuing violation of its constitutional duty, as reported by gmanetwork.com.
Supreme Court Directs Congress to Enact Anti-Dynasty Law
The ruling stems from consolidated petitions for certiorari and mandamus. In 2024, a petition was filed by lawyers led by former Philippine Bar Association president Rico Domingo. The following year, former Supreme Court justices Antonio Carpio and Conchita Carpio-Morales, alongside 1987 Constitution framer Christian Monsod, filed a similar petition asking the High Court to compel Congress to pass the legislation.
Constitutional Mandate and Legislative Discretion
The Supreme Court based its decision on Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which states that the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando cited the provision in the ruling, emphasizing that the language is a mandatory constitutional demand rather than a mere aspiration.
Inaction and Prevalence of Dynasties
The Supreme Court noted that political dynasties have remained widespread across the country, extending even into the party-list system. Although numerous measures have been introduced over the decades—with 24 anti-political dynasty bills filed in Congress as of February 2026—no comprehensive law has ever been successfully passed.
The decision stated that despite shifts in the composition of Congress over the years, the ongoing failure to act implies a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or the service of self-interest. While the Constitution does not prescribe a specific deadline for enacting the statute, the court held that nearly four decades is well beyond a reasonable period to fulfill the command.
House Action and Commission on Elections Limits
Separate from the Supreme Court proceedings, the House of Representatives passed an anti-political dynasty bill on third and final reading in June. That measure proposed banning relatives up to the second degree of consanguinity or affinity from running for or occupying a post within the same constituency or jurisdiction. However, business and civic groups subsequently called on the Senate to reject the measure and urged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. to veto it, arguing that it would institutionalize dynasties rather than dismantle them.
Meanwhile, Ting clarified that the Supreme Court ruled the Commission on Elections cannot be compelled to issue implementing rules to disqualify candidates belonging to political dynasties or cancel their certificates of candidacy because no enabling law currently defines the prohibition.