EDITORIAL: End Dynasties

For 39 years, the Constitution has carried a clear command: the State shall prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.

For nearly four decades, however, Congress has failed to enact the law that would give meaning to that constitutional provision.

The Supreme Court has now made the issue impossible to ignore.

In its Aug. 26, 2026 decision, the Supreme Court declared that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties and ruled that its prolonged failure to do so constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed Congress to act with “utmost urgency” and at the earliest opportunity.

This is not a matter of the Supreme Court telling Congress exactly what law to write. The Court itself recognized that defining a political dynasty and determining the precise scope of the prohibition remain legislative functions.

But there is an important distinction: Congress has discretion over how to prohibit political dynasties; it does not have discretion over whether to prohibit them.

That distinction should now guide the legislative debate.

The House has already approved House Bill No. 8389, the proposed Anti-Political Dynasty Act, on third and final reading. The measure was approved on June 3 by a vote of 267-20, with seven abstentions, and transmitted to the Senate on June 8.

The difficulty is whether the measure goes far enough to fulfill the constitutional objective.

The Supreme Court's decision has put forward a significant consideration: there is basis for covering relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and affinity. The Court pointed to existing provisions in the Family Code, Civil Code, Revised Penal Code and Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees that already recognize relationships within the fourth civil degree in various legal contexts.

That does not mean Congress is required to copy the Court's suggested framework word for word. It does mean lawmakers should seriously examine whether a narrower prohibition can effectively address the concentration of political power that the Constitution intended to prevent.

This is where the debate over the House bill becomes important.

A law that prevents only certain relatives from simultaneously occupying particular offices may restrict some forms of political concentration while leaving other arrangements untouched. The House itself has defended its measure as targeting monopolies of political power within a locality while preserving the right of individuals to seek public office.

That argument deserves consideration.

So does the contrary concern: if members of the same extended family can continue to occupy strategically important positions across different levels or jurisdictions, a formal prohibition may exist while political power remains substantially concentrated within the same family network.

The Supreme Court's discussion is therefore timely because it shifts the question from whether something should be done to whether what is being proposed is sufficient.

The Constitution did not say that political dynasties should merely be regulated. It said they should be prohibited, subject to a definition and scope established by law.

That wording matters.

At the same time, Congress must be careful not to enact a law that is so broad, vague or poorly designed that it creates new constitutional problems. The law must respect equal protection, the right of citizens to seek public office, voter choice, due process and the separation of powers.

An effective anti-dynasty law must therefore achieve two things at once: prevent excessive concentration of political power while preserving legitimate democratic participation.

That is the difficult legislative work now before Congress.

The timing makes the task even more urgent.

The country is moving toward the 2028 elections. Electoral calculations are already part of the political landscape, and any new rules governing who may run, who may succeed whom and what family relationships are covered will have significant consequences for candidates, political organizations and voters.

The Supreme Court deliberately did not impose a specific deadline. But the absence of a judicial deadline should not be mistaken for permission to delay indefinitely. The Court has already found that 39 years is more than a reasonable period for Congress to perform its constitutional duty.

Congress should therefore treat the decision not as an intrusion into its legislative authority but as a constitutional reminder of that authority's corresponding responsibility.

The country does not need another cycle of promises, hearings and proposed measures that disappear when political circumstances change.

It needs a law.

More importantly, it needs a law that actually addresses the problem the Constitution sought to prevent.

The test should not be whether Congress can produce an anti-dynasty bill.

The test should be whether the final law meaningfully opens political opportunities to Filipinos beyond established family networks while protecting every citizen's right to participate in government.

After 39 years, the constitutional promise deserves more than another legislative compromise that leaves its central purpose unresolved.

The time for an anti-dynasty law is now.