Options to stop political dynasties
“The state shall guarantee equal
access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as
may be defined by law,” so the Constitution (Art. II, Sec. 26) solemnly
declares. Despite repeated clamor, this provision of our Charter, like its many
other “principles and state policies,” remains unimplemented to this day. How
then can this provision be enforced and political dynasties ended, or at least
regulated? There are four possible options: legislative, judicial (and
quasi-judicial), sovereign and political.
Legislative action. The “no-brainer”
option is for Congress to enact a law defining what a political dynasty is,
what offices (elective and nonelective) are covered, who may enforce the
prohibition, and other details. While some senators and congressmen have
perfunctorily filed bills covering these topics, not one has been seriously
deliberated upon. To my knowledge, no such bills have been reported for second
reading in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
Realistically, such measures cannot
be expected to be approved at this time. After all, many legislators have
relatives—parents, children, siblings, and even grandparents—who serve
simultaneously in Congress and in other offices.
Tired of waiting for congressional
action during the last 25 years, some citizens have filed judicial petitions to
compel the Commission on Elections to enforce the constitutional prohibition by
denying due course to certificates of candidacies of close relatives.
Judicial and quasi-judicial actions.
However, I think these petitions are legally untenable because the Comelec
cannot legislate. Note that the Constitution prohibits political dynasties, “as
may be defined by law.” True, the Comelec has the power to issue rules and
regulations. However, such rules merely implement statutes. Without a law
defining political dynasties, implementing rules have no leg to stand on.
How about a judicial petition for
mandamus to compel legislative action? I am afraid such recourse would also be
iffy because courts can command the execution only of a purely ministerial act,
which jurisprudence defines as “a simple, definite duty… a precise act
accurately marked out… If the law imposes a duty but gives the officer [upon
whom it is imposed] the right to decide how or when it shall be performed, the
duty is discretionary and not ministerial.”
Under this test, I doubt that courts
will direct Congress to pass an enabling law since the duty is not clearly
defined and precisely marked out.
Obviously, the constitutional ban on
dynasties is not “self-executing,” unlike, for instance, the term limits on congressmen
(three consecutive terms) and senators (two consecutive terms). Here, the
courts and the Comelec can disqualify candidates using the bare, but clear,
certain and specific constitutional limits without need of an enabling law.
Otherwise stated, unlike the dynasty ban, term limits are self-executory.
Sovereign action. Probably
frustrated by legislative inaction, Comelec Chair Sixto Brillantes Jr. promised
to start a people’s initiative for an antidynasty law. Now, this is very novel.
No law in our country has been approved via a people’s initiative.
However, there had been two
unsuccessful attempts to change our Constitution via this process. In Lambino
vs Comelec (Oct. 25, 2006), the Supreme Court struck down a people’s initiative
to convert our presidential system to parliamentary on the ground, among
others, that an initiative can be used only for simple and easy-to-comprehend
matters, not for changing “basic principles, or several provisions” which “a
deliberative body with recorded proceedings is best suited to undertake.”
Although this ruling involved
Charter change, I believe that, by analogy, the same reason stopping a Charter
revision can be used to restrain a people’s initiative for an antidynasty law.
Being controversial, such a proposed law will need a deliberative body in which
the proposal can, to borrow the language of the Lambino decision, be “drafted,
defined, articulated, discussed and agreed upon in a mature and democratic
debate.”
Political action. The fourth option,
political action, may be the most doable under the present circumstances.
Simply stated, let the people decide by voting down candidates who belong to
the same family. Those who believe in this proposition can form political
movements like the “Kamag-anak sa Politika Aayawan Lahat,” or “Kapal.”
Others may use television, radio,
newspapers, Internet and social media like Facebook and Twitter. US President
Barack Obama effectively used the social media in his reelection bid. His young
campaign organizers penetrated the voting population so systematically and so
effectively, converting what was predicted to be a close poll into a one-sided
Electoral College triumph.
If indeed our people want to stop
members of political dynasties from occupying government positions simultaneously,
they can demonstrate their will in the 2013 elections by voting down the
“magkakamag-anak.” Should such a message be evident in the elections, I am sure
relatives in other branches of government will also be foiled.
Let the 2013 elections then be a
sort of referendum on the issue. Let the people speak loudly through their
ballots. Let the antidynasty advocates take this challenge. And if they win,
the new Congress will surely heed the people’s mandate by promptly enacting a
law defining and banning political dynasties.
* * *
Comments to
chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail. com
No comments:
Post a Comment