A mandatory duty

With dynasty-building reaching shameless proportions, the Supreme Court has finally been asked to step in and mandate Congress to carry out a task set out in the Constitution: to define and prohibit political dynasties.

How this petition will fare will have far-reaching implications – mostly positive for the nation, if we consider the pernicious consequences of having a single clan occupying all the key government positions in a particular area, with the positions passed on to the next generations like a birthright.

Dynasts used to be chided for being greedy for power. These days they even flaunt it, displaying photos of all the family members occupying government posts on giant billboards that pollute public space. Hail, hail, the gang’s all here; the more members in public office, the prouder they are.

From the local level and on up, dynasty-building has short-circuited the system of checks and balances in our weak republic.

A city or municipal council, for example, is supposed to provide the checks and balances to the mayor. The council is chaired by the vice mayor. If the mayor and vice mayor are close relatives, they will cover each other’s backs instead of watching out for any anomalous utilization of public funds or abuse of power.

It gets worse when relatives occupy all key positions from governor and congressman all the way down to the barangay captain. The checks and balances will be non-existent in that situation, which is becoming increasingly common across the country.

*      *      *

A clan that monopolizes local government posts also controls pillars of the criminal justice system, with clan members endorsing appointments, promotions and assignments to local posts in the police, prosecution service and the judiciary. In our society where there is a twisted sense of gratitude, repaying such political favors has undermined the rule of law.

This kind of control breeds impunity. Journalists, critics and political rivals are murdered, and the clan often gets away with it. Land classifications and environmental rules are set aside to make way for the clan’s businesses, all of which are spared from red tape.

Political patronage has weakened governance and made it tough to develop a merit-based society. Advancement in life is based not on competence but on one’s surname or connections. Even incompetent, lazy and venal members of a clan are assured of a job in government in their turf.

Occasionally, political rivalries expose clan members’ questionable activities and emasculate them. We are seeing this in Davao where the Dutertes’ feud with Speaker Martin Romualdez has led to the loss of P650 million in confidential funds for Vice President and Education Secretary Sara Duterte, plus another P500 million in local funding for Davao City where her brothers sit as mayor and congressman.

The Dutertes’ staunch supporter Apollo Quiboloy, once an untouchable evangelist, faces arrest on orders of Congress and possible extradition to the United States where he is wanted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on multiple serious offenses. His Sonshine Media Network International could lose its franchise – if senators go along with the House, although this might not happen.

The Ampatuans of Maguindanao were just the worst examples of the impunity bred by dynasty building.

Dynasts like to say that they can always be voted out of office if they perform badly. But the majority of voters are from low-income households who are vulnerable to patronage politics, and can be easily harassed and threatened with armed violence in case a challenger to the clan’s stranglehold on power emerges. Serious challengers can also end up dead, along with witnesses to the killing, and the ruling clan will get away with murder.

*      *      *

The petition to compel Congress to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties was filed with the Supreme Court last Tuesday by lawyers Rico Domingo, Caesar Oracion, Jorge Cabildo and Wilfredo Trinidad. Domingo is a former president of the Philippine Bar Association.

They noted that after 37 years, lawmakers have yet to carry out their duty as defined in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution, which provides that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

In legislation, the lawyers argue that the word “shall” – as opposed to “may” – means the task is mandatory and not subject to the discretion of Congress.

They cited a testimony of one of the framers of the 1987 Constitution, the late Fr. Joaquin Bernas: “The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of monopolizing and perpetuating power.”

Another option is to make the anti-dynasty provision in the Constitution self-executory. But this will require amending the Charter beyond the economic provisions. Those who distrust politicians fear political Charter change will open a Pandora’s box.

Rico Domingo, in a statement, declared: “By the inaction, refusal, or sheer neglect to pass the law that it is mandated by the 1987 Constitution to enact, the Filipino people are denied and deprived of the benefits envisioned” in the constitutional provision against dynasties.

Will the high tribunal agree?

Someone has to put the brakes on dynasty building. If it’s mission impossible for a Congress controlled by dynasties, perhaps the Supreme Court can do it.