Family business no more

The Constitution’s provisions are hotly debated nowadays. In the ongoing impeachment trial, senator-judges and lawyers are parsing its every word. Amid this debate, the Supreme Court has given teeth to a constitutional provision that has been ignored for far too long.

In the consolidated case of Kapatiran Party (Alliance for the Common Good) v. Congress of the Philippines (G.R. 263934, 272370, 277747 & 279201, 26 August 2026), the Supreme Court En Banc, through Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties. It held that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

Kapatiran Party and its co-petitioners sought certiorari to declare as grave abuse of discretion the failure of Congress to pass an anti-dynasty law. Trinidad et al. and the 1Sambayan Coalition sought mandamus to compel Congress to rectify this failure. Bishop Alminaza et al., on the other hand, asked the Court to direct the Commission on Elections (Comelec) to promulgate rules disqualifying dynastic candidates.

In response, Congress cited previously filed anti-dynasty bills as proof of compliance with the Constitution. The Office of the Solicitor General argued that Article II, Section 26 is not self-executing and that lawmaking is discretionary.

The Court disagreed.

It held that Article II, Section 26 is not a mere aspiration but a constitutional command. The word “shall” imposes a mandatory duty both to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties. The phrase “as may be defined by law” merely authorizes Congress to define the term “political dynasties” and determine the scope of the prohibition.

Constitutional Commission records show that the framers left the definition to Congress only because they could not agree on one. Thus, Congress has discretion over how, but not whether, to legislate on the matter.

Neither may Congress defer the task indefinitely. The Court took judicial notice that none of the 101 or more anti-dynasty bills filed since 1987 ever became law, evincing persistent inaction across changing Congresses. Although the Constitution sets no deadline, 39 years is beyond a reasonable period, making such inaction a grave abuse of discretion.

Neither can Congress rely on the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act and the Bangsamoro election and governance codes as proof of compliance. The constitutional prohibition against political dynasties must cover public service broadly, not merely narrow sectors.

Having found grave abuse, the Court also granted mandamus. Although a co-equal branch cannot ordinarily be compelled to perform a discretionary act, the Court considered this a highly exceptional case of manifest injustice. Thus, it abandoned its previous rulings in Biraogo v. Comelec and Guingona Jr. v. House of Congress, which declared Article II, Section 26 not self-executing.

The Court, however, denied the petition against Comelec. Absent a law defining political dynasties, the poll body cannot be compelled to issue rules disqualifying dynastic candidates or canceling their certificates of candidacy.

The Kapatiran case reminds us that the Constitution is no museum piece to be admired from afar. As in the impeachment trial, its words are constantly tested against the pressing questions of our time.

Therein lies its enduring beauty. The Constitution anchors the present in the sovereign will of the people, yet remains responsive to the nation’s changing needs. Its commands cannot simply be left on paper, waiting indefinitely for those entrusted to carry them out.

After all, a Constitution is truly a living charter only when its words are given life.

For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.