The Supreme Court has ordered Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, ruling that the legislature’s 39-year failure to fulfill the constitutional mandate amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

In a unanimous decision dated 26 August 2026, the Court held that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution imposes a mandatory duty on Congress to pass legislation defining and prohibiting political dynasties.

The ruling resolved consolidated petitions seeking to compel Congress to act on the constitutional provision, including G.R. Nos. 263934, 272370 and 279201. The petitions were filed by the Kapatiran Party, Wilfredo M. Trinidad and the 1Sambayan Coalition, among others.

Associate Justice Paul L. Hernando penned the decision.

“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 Court said.

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

Article II, Section 26 states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Supreme Court spokesperson Camille Ting said the Court considered the word “shall” significant, interpreting the provision as a constitutional command rather than merely an aspiration.

She said the phrase “as may be defined by law” gives Congress discretion to determine the definition and scope of political dynasties, but not whether to enact legislation prohibiting them.

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 family relationships and public offices that should fall under the prohibition.

The SC took judicial notice of numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the Constitution was ratified in 1987.

While the Constitution does not provide a specific deadline for Congress to pass the law, the Court held that this does not allow lawmakers to postpone compliance indefinitely.

“Thirty-nine years is beyond a reasonable period within which to carry out the constitutional command,” the Court said.

It held that Congress’ continued failure to enact the law constituted a continuing violation of its constitutional duty and amounted to grave abuse of discretion.

The Court also found that existing restrictions on political dynasties, including provisions under the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act and laws applicable to the Bangsamoro region, do not fully satisfy the constitutional mandate.

By majority vote, the Court granted the petitions for mandamus, finding that Congress’ failure to enact the law amounted to a refusal to perform a mandatory constitutional duty.

The Court acknowledged that the judiciary generally cannot compel a co-equal branch to perform a discretionary legislative act. The majority, however, held that mandamus could be issued in this case because the duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law is mandatory, while Congress retains discretion over its specific provisions.

The ruling also abandoned previous pronouncements in Verado v. Comelec and Gonzales Jr. v. House of Congress insofar as they were inconsistent with the Court’s interpretation of Article II, Section 26.

The SC stressed that it was not prescribing the definition, scope or restrictions that Congress must include in the eventual law.

Meanwhile, the Court denied G.R. No. 277747, which sought to have certain candidates declared covered by the constitutional prohibition and to compel the Commission on Elections to issue implementing rules.

It held that Comelec could not disqualify candidates or cancel their certificates of candidacy based on the constitutional prohibition because Congress has yet to enact a law defining political dynasties.

The ruling comes as Congress considers anti-political dynasty legislation. The House of Representatives passed its version on third reading in June, while the Senate has been considering its own measure.