Putting an end to political dynasties

We’ve seen it, we are seeing it, and we will continue to see it — the parade of lawmakers passing on to their kin the mantle of power and governance. Senators, congressmen and mayors turning over their reign to their wives, sons, daughters, sons-in-law, daughters-inlaw, nieces, nephews, sisters- in- law, brothers-in-law, grandsons and distant relatives. We’ve seen clans enjoying the monopoly of rulership with impunity, as if it is their birthright, as if only their bloodlines are worthy and capable of ruling over their kingdoms.

Some people would call the practice sheer greed. Some ask why government executives are not allowed to practice nepotism. But why are legislators — national and local — allowed to practice it?

Here comes now a group of men trying to wrest the insidious hold on power from these power blocs. These brave, and frustrated, petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to issue a Writ of Mandamus to compel Congress to enact a law prohibiting and defining political dynasty as provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution. For non-lawyers, a Writ of Mandamus is “an order issued from a court of superior jurisdiction that commands an inferior tribunal, corporation, municipal corporation, or individual to perform, or refrain, from performing a particular act, the performance or omission of which is required by law as an obligation.”

For the past 25 years, the petitioners say in their 26-page petition, Congress has “wantonly neglected to pass this law. Meanwhile the ordinary citizens are deprived then and up until now of the assurance given to them by the Constitution of ‘guarantee of equal access to opportunities for public service.”

The petitioners are former Vice-President and Senator Teofisto T. Guingona, Jr., Leonard de Vera ( lead counsel), Dante Jimenez of Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Eduardo V. Bringas, Vicente Velasquez, and Raymundo P. Jarque.

Their petition, filed Oct. 25, 2012, defines the rule of political dynasties with comments from constitutionalists and legal experts. One of the quoted is Jose N. Nolledo, former member of the Constitutional Commission, who authored Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution on political dynasties. He told his colleagues at the ConCom that in the Philippines, a governor is allowed by law to run for the office three times, after which he is prohibited from running again until a lapse of another election period.

“What does he do? Because he is old already and decrepit, he asks his son to run for governor. In the meantime, he holds public office while the campaign is going on. He has control; he has already institutionalized himself. His son will inherit the position of governor, in effect, and then this will go to the grandson, et cetera. The others who do not have political advantage in the sense that they have no control of government facilities will be denied the right to run for public office. Younger ones, perhaps more intelligent ones, the poorer ones, can no longer climb the political ladder because of political dynasty.

“It seems to me that public office becomes inherited. Our government becomes monarchical in character and no longer constitutional.”

The petition for mandamus requests the High Tribunal to compel Congress (the Senate and the House) to pass a law prohibiting and defining “political dynasties. Without a mandate from the Court, petitioners aver, the citizens will be left “empty-handed with our Constitutional right to equal access to opportunities for public service. The guarantee of the State to citizens for the equal access to opportunities for public service has been and is continuously being violated.”

Some lawmakers have introduced, but failed, to have an anti-political dynasty law enacted. These include former Senators Teofisto Guingona Jr. and Alfredo Lim and Representative Satur Ocampo. Senator Miriam DefensorSantiago filed Senate Bill 2649 on political dynasties on Jan. 24, 2011 last year. Her bill only covers politics in the local, and not national, level, say the current six petitioners, and so political dynasties will remain untouched on the national level. Her bill is still on the committee level.

An anti-political dynasty bill may be passed in the Senate as the bill filed in 1987 by Senator Guingona, but it did not

pass the House. There is no assurance therefore that a bill passed in one house will pass in the other. So a mandate from the Supreme Court to define and prohibit political dynasties will compel both Houses to pass and enact an anti-dynasty law.

The absence of a Supreme Court mandate produced a glaring number of relatives of officials in Congress. Former Representative and now Philippine STAR columnist Satur Ocampo wrote about an Asian Institute of Management Policy Center study stressing that political dynasties “have held sway in our national life for much too long — over 100 years!”

The AIMPC study, wrote Satur, said that the dynasties’ “persistent dominance in Philippine politics . . . explains why attempts towards democratic electoral reforms and social legislation to uplift the lives of the poor have been difficult to pass in Congress.”

For example, the AIMP study said, at last 115, or 68 percent, of the members of the 15th Congress (the House of Representatives) elected in 2010 have relatives who have been members of the 12th, 13th, 14th and 15th congresses, or local officials who were elected in 2001, 2004, 2007 and 2010. A bigger number — 144 — are related to other members of Congress or local officials elected in 2001, 2004 and 2007.”

The study also noted that legislators belonging to political dynasties appear to be richer than those not belonging to dynasties; members of the dynasties also dominate members in the major political parties, and 77 percent of the legislators aged 26-40 belong to political dynasties; 64 percent of those aged 41-55 are also from political dynasties.

To be sure, the Constitutional Commission took cognizance of the negative effect of political dynasties, which was so evident in ConCom president Cecilia Munoz Palma’s confirmation of the “legacy” left by Commissioner Jose Nolledo with regard to the “elimination of dynasties.”

The Constitution states that political dynasties should be eliminated. It leaves to Congress, however, the power to define what constitutes such dynasties. So questions that legislators have to struggle with is up to what degree of relationships should be allowed to run at the same time. Should a legislator finish his term(s) first before he anoints his son or wife or another relative to run for office? For sure, there are brothers and sisters and cousins in the 15th Congress, and some of them are unquestionably intelligent serious lawmakers, but can’t they wait for their kin to serve out his term before running, whether for the same post or a local post?

For former Sen. Ramon Magsaysay Jr., who is running for Senator in 2013, the issue of political dynasties is more moral than legal. He told Philippine STAR editors and reporters that incumbent political family leaders “should act as the ‘moral compass’ for their relatives and even children to avoid dynasties.”

Joaquin Bernas, SJ, wrote in his book The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, A Commentary: “The establishment of political dynasties is an effective way of monopolizing and perpetuating power. Hence, the state is commanded to prohibit political dynasties. But the argument that the electorate should be left free to decide whom to choose is not without validity. Partly for that reason, the meaning of political dynasties has been left Congress to define.”

Should the Supreme Court rule that Congress should decide what in heaven’s name political dynasties mean, will the ruling apply to candidates in the 2013 elections? Comelec Chairman Sixto Brilliantes declared that since there’s no law prohibiting relatives to run, the electoral body will not decide on the issue.

Let’s wait and see how the Supreme Court will rule on the request for a Writ of Mandamus.

*** Email: dominitorrevillas@gmail.com