For thirty-nine years, Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution has remained an unfulfilled constitutional command. In its August 26, 2026 Decision in the consolidated cases of Kapatiran Party (Alliance for the Common Good), et al. v. Congress of the Philippines, Wilfredo M. Trinidad, et al. v. Congress of the Philippines, Bishop Gerardo A. Alminaza, et al. v. Commission on Elections, and 1Sambayan Coalition, et al. v. Senate of the Philippines, the Supreme Court En Banc declared that Congress bears a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties. It further held that the failure of Congress to discharge that duty for thirty-nine years constitutes grave abuse of discretion and directed Congress to enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.
In ruling that Congress acted in grave abuse of discretion for failing to enact a law prohibiting political dynasty, the Supreme Court elucidated, to wit:
“First, grave abuse of discretion was committed through Congress’s utter disregard of a constitutional command mentioned in Article II, Section 26 – “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”
On the textual level, it is obvious that the provision uses the word “shall.” It is an auxiliary verb that conveys a directive and leaves no room for discretion on whether to perform the directed task or not. “Shall” is a word of command “which has always or which must be given a compulsory meaning.” It implies a duty that, if disobeyed or left ignored, will necessarily entail consequences.
In the context of Article II, Section 26, the word “shall” is used in the first part of the provision. It underscores the mandatory nature of the provision. It imposes upon the actor, which is the State, to perform the matters the auxiliary verb subsequently refers to, which are two in this provision. In other words, the constitutional provision imposes upon the State two things: (1) to guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and (2) to prohibit political dynasties, as may be defined by law. The placing of a comma after the first fragment “guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service,” entails that the directive from the use of “shall” also equally applies to the second fragment. The two subjects of the provision can therefore be read separately, each on its own, by reason of the equal application of the directive from “shall.” The first part will read “[t]he State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service.” And the second part will read “[t]he State shall prohibit political dynasties, as may be defined by law.” But, even if the provision can be split into two and both with equal directives, the two subject matters should also be construed, interpreted, and understood together. It is essential that the Constitution must be interpreted as a whole.
Thus, the Constitution imposes upon the State the duty to guarantee equal access to opportunities to public service, and to prohibit political dynasties.
The Court focuses on the second part of the provision, “prohibit political dynasties, as may be defined by law.” As it is already settled that the second part also equally carries with it a mandate, the Court analyzes the rest of the provision. It states “as may be defined by law,” which undoubtedly pertains to the prohibition of political dynasties. Thus, in addition to the mandate to the State of prohibiting political dynasties, the Constitution leaves upon Congress to define what is sought to be prohibited.
But considering the nature of the provision, the subject matter needs to be defined before it can be enforced. Authorities such as the COMELEC, for example, cannot enforce the prohibition without knowing what or how it will be enforced. Further, those governed should also be aware of what will be prohibited, in consideration of the principle of due process. This emphasizes the need for passing a law. For the State to be able to prohibit political dynasties, the concept must first be defined, only through a law, which is completely a function of the legislative.
Congress effectively neglected the implementation of the prohibition in failing to enact a law that defines political dynasties. In that regard, there is grave abuse of discretion.
As emphasized by my colleague Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, the constitutional prohibition is “not mere rhetorical flourish or aspirational declaration of state policy.” Otherwise, this reform intended by the framers when they introduced the provision to democratize political access will be rendered nugatory. In similar breadth, the esteemed Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (Justice Lazaro-Javier) echoed how the framers surely did not envision “a kind of passivity, bordering on apathy,” that hinders true equal access to political opportunities and fair electoral competition.
Thus, from both the letter of the fundamental law and the intent of its framers, there is no doubt that the constitutional provision is a command to Congress. The provision protects an aspect of the people’s right to effective public service and access to public office. But in order to be effective, it is bound to be implemented by a law. The Court concludes that without a law, Congress not only disobeys the Constitution, but also deprives the public of a cherished ideal guaranteed by the Constitution, no less. As it therefore stands at this very moment, Congress is currently in violation of Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.
Second, grave abuse is further shown by the number of filed and pending bills unacted upon by Congress since the Constitution was ratified. From the 8th Congress constituted after the ratification of the 1987 Constitution until the end of the 19th Congress in 2022, there were at least 71 bills filed prohibiting political dynasties. One bill, Senate Bill No. 82 filed by Senator Guingona during the 8th Congress even passed the Senate but was unsuccessful in the Lower House. 312 A few have notably passed committee level and even reached second reading. But nothing followed, resulting in their transmittal to the archives as unfinished business.
In total, there are at least 101 bills filed since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. Only two were successful in the plenary, Senate Bill No. 82 in the 8th Congress, which notably is the very first bill introduced on the matter, and House Bill No. 8389 in the 20th Congress.
Despite the constant changing of Congress’s composition after every election, the recurring practice of not passing an anti-dynasty law seems to remain. This implies that both Chambers lack interest, avoiding the mandate for whatever reason, maybe for inconveniences of going through the process or maybe to serve their self-interest. For the Court, the mere filing of a bill and tackling it before a Senate or House Committee, even passing it in plenary, is not a fulfillment of the command imposed by the constitutional provision.”[1]
[1] G.R. No. 263934/ G.R.No. 171370/ G.R. No. 272370/ G.R. No. 277747/ G.R. No, 279201