Citing a constitutional requirement that members of Congress had conveniently ignored, the Supreme Court (SC) directed the legislature to enact an enabling law prohibiting political dynasties, ruling that a 39-year wait constituted a grave abuse of discretion.

In a unanimous ruling dated 26 August, the SC declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution imposes a mandatory duty on Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties.

Earlier in 2026, in a related SC pronouncement authored by Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the Court had noted that 80 percent of House district seats and 75 percent of the country’s cities were “ruled” by political dynasties.

The dominance of dynasties was prominent in the May 2025 midterm polls.

Civil society groups have kept sustained institutional pressure on the SC to act on the omission.

The SC resolved consolidated petitions seeking to compel Congress to act on the constitutional provision. Associate Justice Paul L. Hernando wrote the decision.

Mandatory duty of Congress

“The respondent Congress of the Philippines is declared to have the mandatory constitutional duty to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution,” the High Court said.

“The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth, and with utmost urgency, enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity,” it added.

The Constitution states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

In a media briefing, Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting said the Court considered the use of the word “shall” significant, holding that the provision was a constitutional command rather than merely an aspiration.

She said the phrase “as may be defined by law” gives Congress the authority to determine what constitutes a political dynasty and the scope of the prohibition, but does not give it the option of deciding whether to enact such a law.

The Court found that the framers of the 1987 Constitution deliberately left the definition of political dynasties to Congress after the Constitutional Commission failed to agree on the specific family relationships and public offices that should be covered.

Link to laggard progress

The SC took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty measures filed in Congress but left unacted upon since the Constitution’s ratification in 1987.

It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship to socioeconomic conditions in the country.

Despite changes in Congress’s composition over the years, the Court noted that the legislature had not enacted a comprehensive law prohibiting political dynasties.

The Court held that although the Constitution does not prescribe a specific deadline for Congress to act, this did not authorize the legislature to postpone compliance with its constitutional duty indefinitely.