Ultimate recourse
To guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, our Constitution prohibits political dynasties (Article II Section 26) and introduces the party-list system of representation in the House of Representatives (Article VI Section 5 [1] and [2]) as one of the means to open the door to such opportunity. Ironically however, as it has now turned out, the party-list system has even been utilized to perpetuate political dynasty. The roster of members of the Lower House clearly proves this fact. It contains the names of Congresspersons belonging to the same old rich political families supposedly representing the poor and marginalized sectors.
Our present state of politics only goes to show that no law can change our age old political practices more particularly the succession to political power by members of the same family. The most fundamental law of the land already prohibits political dynasties. But it has been openly ignored. This reality confirms without doubt the validity of the long held view that change in this country can be achieved only if there is a change within ourselves; if there is an internal revolution or expurgation of our damaged political culture graphically exemplified by the well-entrenched family dynasty.
Hence, this issue of political dynasty is really more of a moral than a legal issue as Senator Ramon B. Magsaysay Jr. recently pointed out. It can only be solved or answered by reforming “the moral values of the family,” the clannish culture prevalent in most Filipino families. Indeed even without any law prohibiting political dynasty, the practice can be eliminated by our political leaders and heads of political families themselves if they set the example.
And such example has already been previously set by Senator Magsaysay Jr.’ s late father, President Ramon Magsaysay Sr. (RM), whose first move upon assumption into office in 1955 was to issue an Executive Order prohibiting the appointment of relatives to any government post. Apparently the prohibition had also been considered by his relatives as a restraint on them to run for any elective office during his term. Thus no relative of RM occupied any government position during his short tenure that was aborted by a plane crash in 1957. Even RM Jr., who had no political inclination at all, became a Senator only in 2001, obviously because people already missed RM and his kind of good governance.
But as things now stand, this moral regeneration that will eliminate political dynasties in our government may not happen at all. Most if not all of our present political leaders believe that the issue here is legal, not moral; that until a law has been enacted defining what “political dynasty” means, the prohibition imposed by the Constitution is not enforceable. And considering that Congress is controlled by political dynasties, such a law will never be enacted. Indeed, it is rare, if not completely far-fetched for political dynasties in Congress to allow the passage of a law adversely affecting them. So, as some pundits say, without such law, the Constitutional ban is actually useless; it is good only on paper. But is this really correct?
As exactly worded, Article II Section 26 of the Constitution provides in part that “the State shall... prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” In the rule on interpretation of laws, the word “shall” connotes something mandatory. Hence the State “must” ban political dynasties. But in carrying out this mandate, is it really necessary for the State through Congress, to enact a law?
As previously pointed out the word “law” here may refer to an existing law generally defining “dynasty” that may already be applied to carry out the mandate, or to a special law still to be enacted by Congress specifically defining the term. Noted constitution a lists opine that a special law is still necessary. But considering Congress’ continuous inaction on the subject, are there really no other alternatives? Are we really at the mercy of Congress?
Of course, in this kind of situation under a democratic system, there are still alternatives. The first one is to go to the Supreme Court (SC) by invoking its power of judicial review in cases involving the application and interpretation of the Constitution. The SC can already enforce the constitutional ban on political dynasty if there is already existing law that can be used in defining “dynasty.” In this case such term can be interpreted to include the “family relations” enumerated in Article 150 of the Family Code (FC) between (1) husband and wife, (2) parents and children, and (3) among brothers and sisters whether of the full or half blood. There is really no compelling reason for a pro-active SC not to use this FC definition if only to give effect to this Constitutional mandate.
But even if the SC fails to act here, the ultimate alternative belongs to the Filipino people. They have the power of initiative or the power to directly propose and enact legislations through a referendum called for the purpose (Article VI Section 32). There is already a law (RA 6735) passed way back in 1987 implementing this constitutional provision so it can be exercised now. The only problem as usual is that the people’s petition must be in the form to be determined and submitted to another government agency, the Comelec. And up to now, the body has not yet come out with such form. So this power is also useless.
The other ultimate people’s alternative is therefore through the ballots in the coming elections. They can carry out the moral regeneration by not voting for any of the candidates belonging to family dynasties. This action looks impossible now, but it can happen. It all depends on us the electorate.
***
Email: attyjosesison@gmail.com