On August 26, 2026, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law, declaring a 39-year failure to do so as grave abuse of discretion.
The High Court stated that Article 2, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution is a constitutional edict rather than an aspirational statement, though Congress retains exclusive authority over the specific content of the legislation.
The Supreme Court rejected a petition to compel the Commission on Elections to enforce a ban without an enabling law, noting that the agency lacks a legal basis to disqualify candidates without a statutory definition.
NEARLY four decades after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, the Philippines still does not have a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties.
The Supreme Court (SC), sitting en banc, ruled on Aug. 26, 2026, that Congress — the Senate and the House of Representatives — has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact such a law. It unanimously declared that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.
Not a policy option
The SC said the charter’s provision is not a “mere aspirational statement; it is a constitutional edict.”
It is referring to Article 2, Section 26, which mandates that “the State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
In its 86-page decision, the SC focused on the word “shall,” saying it carries a mandatory meaning. The provision, it said, therefore requires the State to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties.
The phrase “as may be defined by law,” however, leaves Congress with the task of defining what constitutes a prohibited political dynasty.
According to the High Court, the constitutional prohibition cannot currently be enforced against candidates because no law defines what constitutes a political dynasty or specifies the scope of the prohibition. The Commission on Elections (Comelec) would have no legal basis for determining which relationships or political arrangements are prohibited.
The 1987 Constitution was preceded by the 1986 Freedom Constitution, a temporary charter issued by President Corazon Aquino after the Edsa People Power Revolution that replaced the 1973 Constitution of the dictator, President Ferdinand Marcos Sr. The current Constitution was ratified on Feb. 2, 1987 and proclaimed by Aquino on Feb. 11.
Why Congress’ inaction became a constitutional issue
Three petitions — filed by Kapatiran Party, a group led by Wilfredo Trinidad, and the 1Sambayan Coalition — challenged Congress’ failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law. A fourth, filed by Bishop Gerardo Alminaza and others, sought to compel the Comelec to enforce the constitutional ban even without an enabling law.
The SC said the inaction from Congress can amount to grave abuse of discretion when it violates a constitutional duty. In this case, it found that Congress had not simply failed to act on a matter within its ordinary legislative discretion, but it had also failed to perform a duty mandated by the Constitution.
It therefore allowed the petitions for certiorari and mandamus in three of the consolidated cases. Certiorari is a plea to nullify an act as a grave abuse of discretion, while mandamus compels a government body to perform a duty it is legally required to carry out.
Congress still controls the content of the law
The ruling does not give the SC the power to write the anti-dynasty law itself.
“To be clear, Congress is only called upon to act by prohibiting political dynasties through the enactment of a law. The Court will not tread into the arena of prescribing the manner, content, or specific provisions of the legislation to be passed, which are entirely and exclusively within the domain of Congress,” it said.
This distinction is important. The constitutional duty to legislate is mandatory, according to the ruling, but the substance of the legislation remains within Congress’ authority.
Mandamus’ role in the ruling
The ruling also addresses an important question about separation of powers: whether the SC can compel Congress to act.
The SC acknowledged the general rule that mandamus cannot be used to control the discretionary functions of a co-equal branch; however, it found this case exceptional because the Constitution itself imposes the duty to prohibit political dynasties.
“The Court thus treats the relief to be granted in this case as one of mandamus. The Court holds that Congress may be called upon through a writ of mandamus to prohibit political dynasties by enacting a law,” it said. “The writ of mandamus never issues in doubtful cases; it is simply a command to exercise a power already possessed and to perform a duty already imposed.”
Why the Constitution left the definition to Congress
The wording of Article 2, Section 26 resulted from debates during the 1986 Constitutional Commission.
The commissioners agreed that political dynasties should be prohibited, but they left the definition to Congress. This led to the phrase “as may be defined by law.”
The SC’s decision discusses the debates at length. Commissioner Jose Nolledo, one of the proponents of the provision, argued that the prohibition would widen political opportunities and prevent the concentration of political power.
The commission ultimately approved the provision and placed it in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
Congress has previously considered measures involving political dynasties, although no comprehensive law has been enacted to implement Article II, Section 26.
The SC also pointed to Republic Act 10742, or the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act of 2015, which contains a limited anti-dynasty restriction. It bars an SK official or appointee from being related within the second civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to certain incumbent elected officials in the locality where the person seeks office.
Comelec cannot create the prohibition
The SC rejected a separate petition seeking to compel the Comelec to issue rules disqualifying candidates belonging to political dynasties as there is no existing law defining the prohibited political relationships or arrangements.
It further said that Comelec cannot create such a prohibition through its own regulations because doing so would amount to legislation. Without an enabling law from Congress, Comelec has no legal basis to determine which candidates should be disqualified on the ground of belonging to a political dynasty. / KAL