A stern warning on dodging the political dynasty issue

Political dynasties have moved beyond being mere reform slogans. The Supreme Court has now addressed them in constitutional terms.

In G.R. No. 279008, Merson C. Calubag v Commission on Elections, the Court described the current extent of political dynasties as an “affront to the Constitution.” Congress should heed these words as a serious warning rather than simply as a commentary.

Today marks two years since our UP College of Law Class of ’76 petition for mandamus reached the Supreme Court. Our petition, filed as G.R. No. 272370, asks the Court to compel Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law. This duty is outlined in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees equal access to public service and prohibits political dynasties as defined by law.

The Calubag case began when Merson Calubag ran for a Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) seat in Barangay Magtangale, San Francisco, Surigao del Norte. The Court upheld the Commission on Elections’ decision to cancel his certificate of candidacy after it was revealed that his mother was an incumbent barangay kagawad at the time he filed. Under Republic Act 10742, candidates for the SK may not have close relatives – up to the second civil degree – who are currently holding local government positions. This legislation was Congress’ response to the constitutional call regarding political dynasties at the barangay and SK levels.

The importance of this limitation cannot be overstated. The Court noted that no law has effectively defined a political dynasty for higher local or national positions – either before or after RA 10742. They referenced data from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ), revealing that by 2024, 216 of 253 legislative districts were held by individuals related to past or current elected officials. Additionally, 113 of 149 cities were led by mayors from dynastic families. The Court concluded that 80 percent of House district seats and 75 percent of cities were under dynastic rule, undermining the Constitution’s intent.

By the 2025 elections, evidence supported this trend. PCIJ reported that over 80 percent of 254 district seats were still held by members of political dynasties. Among the 212 winning district lawmakers, 174 had relatives either elected in that election cycle or serving terms until 2028. There were also at least 18 “obese” political dynasties – families with at least five active members winning between five and 19 political seats each in 2025.

This raises a significant legal concern. If Congress passes a weak anti-dynasty law with a definition so narrow that it allows dynastic control to persist, such a law should face constitutional scrutiny. A superficial law would fail to address Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution, which aims to eliminate political dynasties.

Our petition acknowledges that Congress has the responsibility to define political dynasty, but this discretion shouldn’t serve as an excuse to evade accountability. If Congress adopts a definition that maintains the status quo, addressing only 20 percent of the problem, it may be seen as a grave abuse of discretion.

Article VIII, Section 1 mandates that courts have the power to assess whether any government branch exhibits grave abuse of discretion exceeding its jurisdiction. While the Supreme Court does not make laws – this is the responsibility of Congress – it does have the authority to establish constitutional parameters to prevent Congress from reducing constitutional prohibitions to ineffective measures.

The Calubag decision already points in this direction. The Court instructed that copies of its ruling be shared with the House of Representatives and the Senate, and this instruction carries significant weight. The decision highlights that the existing dynasty structure violates constitutional design, impairs democratic access and undermines public accountability.

A genuine anti-dynasty law must effectively address the depth of the problem. It should address issues such as simultaneous office holding by relatives, succession within the same office, switching positions among family members, the expansion of dynasties across districts and the control of party-list seats. A mere second-degree limit at the SK level is insufficient for the entrenched national and local power that has grown over generations.

While Congress has the primary responsibility to act, the Supreme Court has the evidence, the pending petition and its own recent findings. The Constitution does not sanction political dynasties, and neither should we.

*      *      *

Rico Domingo is founding chairman of the Movement Against Disinformation and past president of the Philippine Bar Association.