Last of a seriesTHIS is the fourth installment of our discussion regarding the petition for disqualification filed by the Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Mamamayan (ANIM) before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) against perceived dynastic politicians.The ANIM petition is anchored on Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Constitution, arguing that the provision is self-executing. In our previous discussions, we established that the said Section 26 is indeed self-executing, with Congress' role limited to defining the extent of the constitutional prohibition.Let me now anticipate the primary defense likely to be mounted by the respondents.Respondents' defenseIn all probability, the respondents will argue that the issues raised in the ANIM petition have already been addressed and decided by the Supreme Court in previously filed related cases.They will likely cite two notable jurisprudential precedents: Louis Biraogo v. Commission on Elections, GR 203603 (2012) and the consolidated cases of Teofisto Guingona v. House of Congress and Senate with Ricardo Penson v. Senate and House of Representatives, GR 203759 and 205133 (2013).In the Biraogo case, the Supreme Court ruled that Section 26 of Article II 'is not self-executing but is simply a statement of a general principle which further requires a law passed by Congress to define and give effect thereto.' Biraogo had sought a mandamus to compel the Comelec to enforce the constitutional ban on political dynasties in the 2013 national and local polls.Similarly, in the Guingona case, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that mandamus cannot be issued against the legislative body 'to compel the performance of duties purely legislative in character.' Guingona and Penson were seeking a mandamus to compel the House and Senate to enact an anti-dynasty law.Critically, in both instances, the petitioners sought mandamus against independent bodies — the Comelec in Biraogo and Congress in Guingona and Penson. Predictably, the Supreme Court declined to issue such writs, respecting the constitutional boundaries of each institution's powers.Comelec's dutyThe Comelec possesses the inherent authority to interpret Section 26 on its own initiative. It has the power to disqualify the named respondents from running in the 2025 national and local elections, effectively determining whether political dynasties will continue in our political system.Should the Comelec decide in favor of ANIM's petition, the aggrieved respondents would inevitably seek recourse through the Supreme Court. Unlike previous challenges, this scenario presents a genuine judicial controversy that would compel the high court to meaningfully examine the substance of the case.The dynamics would fundamentally shift. For once, the perceived dynastic politicians would be required to defend their political continuity directly before the Supreme Court.By taking this decisive action, the Comelec would be rendering a critical service to Philippine democracy — potentially initiating the long-overdue dismantling of entrenched political dynasties that have systematically undermined fair representation and democratic principles.End political dynasties nowWhy are political dynasties detrimental to the Philippines?Empirical studies have consistently shown that political dynasties are a corrosive force in governance, undermining democratic principles, economic development and social progress. In the Philippines, these dynastic structures are intrinsically linked to persistent poverty, as powerful families monopolize geopolitical spaces, strategically resisting reforms that might threaten their business interests.One fundamental problem with political dynasties lies in their tendency to centralize power within their own families. This power concentration dramatically narrows democratic representation, effectively creating a closed political ecosystem that prevents emerging leadership and new political thought. This breeds authoritarian tendencies, where ruling families dictate national and local decision-making processes without any external accountability.Patronage politics is another critical issue attributed to dynastic political systems. These dynastic politicians prioritize distributing selective benefits to loyal supporters over implementing comprehensive, sustainable development strategies. This approach transforms constituents from empowered citizens into dependent supplicants, perpetuating a cycle of political dependency.The conflict of interest inherent in dynastic politics is obvious. These politicians frequently intertwine public office with private business interests, creating an environment where personal enrichment overshadows public welfare. They preserve power by enacting policies favorable to their own families rather than the general welfare of the citizens.Intellectual and policy stagnation perhaps are the most abhorrent effect of perpetuating political dynasties. When the same families remain in power, they may resist innovation and cling to outdated policies that serve their interests rather than adapting to changing societal needs. This stagnation stifles economic growth and social progress.Clearly, political dynasties are bad for the Philippines. This must end now — with the help of the Comelec.Email: allinsight.manilatimes@gmail.comFB page: www.facebook.com/All.Insight.Manila.TimesViber account: (0915)4201085
