Solon backs anti-dynasty goals, flags constitutional hurdles

A key leader in the House of Representatives has thrown his support behind the goals of the proposed Anti-Political Dynasty Act but issued a firm constitutional warning: without amending the Constitution first, the measure cannot be legally enforced.

Congressman Alfredo A. Garbin Jr., Vice Chair of the House Committee on Constitutional Amendments, said on Friday that while the bill seeks to expand political participation and dismantle entrenched power structures, its current form collides head-on with explicit constitutional provisions on the qualifications for national elective office.

Garbin described the proposed law as “noble and constitutionally inspired,” pointing to Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which directs the State to guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. Yet, he stressed that the same Constitution strictly limits how such a prohibition may be implemented.

“As both a legislator and a lawyer, I am duty-bound to raise the constitutional issue that cannot be ignored,” Garbin said.

He explained that the qualifications for national elective positions are expressly and exhaustively enumerated in the Constitution—for the President and Vice President under Article VII, Section 2; for Senators under Article VI, Section 3; and for Members of the House of Representatives under Article VI, Section 6. These include citizenship, age, literacy, voter registration, and residency requirements.

“These qualifications are clear, categorical, and exclusive,” Garbin said. “Congress has no authority to add to or subtract from them through ordinary legislation.”

Garbin cited the Supreme Court ruling in Albano v. Commission on Elections (G.R. No. 257610, January 24, 2023), where the High Court reaffirmed that imposing additional qualifications or disqualifications for elective office through statute effectively amounts to an unconstitutional amendment of the Constitution. Such action, the Court ruled, violates constitutional supremacy and undermines the sovereign will of the people.

According to Garbin, House Bill No. 6771, while well-meaning, introduces new disqualifications based on family relationships and degrees of consanguinity or affinity—criteria not found in the Constitution. By barring individuals from seeking national office solely due to kinship ties, the bill supplants constitutionally fixed qualifications, creating a legal conflict that cannot be cured by legislative drafting alone.

Despite his caution, Garbin emphasized that he is not opposing reform. He reiterated his long-standing advocacy for constitutional amendments, particularly on provisions involving national territory and economic restrictions, to better address modern governance challenges, national security concerns, and global competitiveness.

“This situation actually strengthens the case for a comprehensive and principled review of the Constitution,” Garbin said. “Reforms must be legally sound, democratically legitimate, and faithful to constitutional supremacy.”

He warned that without constitutional amendment, even popular reform measures risk being struck down by the courts—reducing them to political spectacle rather than instruments of lasting change.

“If we are truly serious about reforming our political system,” Garbin said, “we must be equally serious about doing it the right way—so reform moves beyond symbolism and results in genuine, enforceable, and enduring democratic change.”