DOES COMELEC HAVE THE POWER TO RULE ON THE ISSUE OF POLITICAL DYNATIES?

 By Ba Ipe

LAST Saturday (Jan. 11), I had the privilege and pleasure to ask George Erwin Garcia, Comelec chairman, about his views on the issue of political dynasty, which is still unresolved until now. In his appearance before the Kapihan sa QC at Mangan Tila Restaurant in Kyusi, I asked Garcia specifically about the powers of the Comelec to issue a ruling about the proliferation of political dynasties.

In my honest view, I told Garcia that I feel that the Constitution is not the only legislative body that could flesh to the constitutional ban on political dynasties. As a quasi-judicial body that exercises adjudicatory and administration powers to run the elections, Comelec can issue what constitutes a political dynasty. The definition of a political dynasty is not limited to Congress.

Garcia has agreed with my views, but said Comelec could not move because it could be accused of usurpation of authority. He said unless the Supreme Court defines Comelec's powers, it can make any ruling on the issue of political dynasties. "Kapag sinabi ng Supreme Court na may power ang Comelec, maglalabas kami ng ruling," aniya. Garcia made it clear that he does not favor the proliferation of political dynasties because it is undemocratic.

Garcia also made reference to a case, which the ANIM group has lodged on the Comelec. Please read ANIM's press release and its stand on the issue of political dynasties.

ANIM NEWS Update

================

ANIM filed yesterday, 14 January 2024, a Petition for Certiorari at the Supreme Court against 4 types of plain and clear political dynasties.

The main issue of the Petition is - - -

Are the following four (4) types of candidates inherently, intrinsically, and/or automatically covered by the general prohibition on political dynasties under Section 26, Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, in relation to Article VI (Section 7), and Article X (Section ?

1. Husband and wife, parent and child, and siblings who run in tandem as Mayor and Vice-Mayor, Governor and Vice-Governor, or President and Vice-President;

2. The spouse, children, parents, or siblings of the incumbent District Representatives, Governors, or Mayors who are running as candidates for the same positions to succeed and replace their incumbent or term-graduating relatives;

3. Those candidates who run for the Philippine Senate or other local legislative councils, even when their spouse, parent, child, sibling is already an incumbent member therein; and

4. The spouse, children, parents, siblings, or members of the same immediate family who run as nominees of the same Partylist group/s.

ARGUMENT #1

============

THERE IS POLITICAL MONOPOLY BY FAMILIES IN ANY OF THE 4 TYPES OF CANDIDATES DESCRIBED ABOVE.

Political monopoly by families is what the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution wanted to prevent in introducing the anti-dynasty provision.

This was clear from the opening statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo, the principal sponsor of the anti-political dynasty provision in the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

Commissioner Nolledo said - "And with this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many parts of our country. . .” (Page 935, Records of Constitutional Commission No. 85)

When husband and wife, or parent and child, or siblings become Governor and Vice-Governor of the same province, or Mayor and Vice-Mayor of the same city or municipality, there is concentration and/or consolidation of political power and influence in their family. There is political monopoly by one family.

The family becomes a political dynasty, plainly and clearly.

There is also political monopoly when the spouse, children, parents, siblings of incumbent or term-graduating District Representatives, Governors, or Mayors run for the same positions to replace and succeed their incumbent or term-graduating relatives.

There is concentration and/or consolidation of political power and influence in their families.

When two or more members of the same immediate family sit simultaneously in the Philippine Senate and/or any local legislative council, there is concentration and/or consolidation of political power and influence in that family, considering that the total number of the Senators is only twenty-four (24).

In voting for any measure, bill, or resolution in the Senate, the votes of two or three Senators who are immediate family relatives would definitely carry much more weight compared to the vote of any single Senator.

The same arguments apply to members of the same immediate family who are simultaneous nominees of the same Partylist group.

Thus, the 4 types of candidates described above are clearly and plainly political dynasties. They fall squarely within the meaning of political dynasties as understood by the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

ARGUMENT #2

============

THE FRAMERS OF THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION CLEARLY WANTED TO PREVENT INCUMBENT ELECTIVE OFFICIALS FROM PASSING ON THEIR POSITIONS TO THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY RELATIVES (SPOUSE, CHILDREN, PARENTS, AND SIBLINGS)

In fact, this is precisely the situation that they wanted to prevent from happening.

The records of the deliberations of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution clearly show this.

The opening statement of Constitutional Commissioner Jose Nolledo is clear on this, to wit:

“MR. NOLLEDO . . . As now appearing in many parts of the country, Mr Presiding Officer, we seem to approve of the practice that public office is inherited. . . . . And in this case, we circumvent the rule against further re-election . . .” (Pages 936, Records of the Constitutional Commission)

Constitutional Commissioner Blas Ople, on his part, said:

“MR. OPLE . . . I think we want to prevent future situations where, as a result of continuous service and frequent re-elections, officials from the President down to the municipal mayor tend to develop a proprietary interest in their positions and . . . transfer these posts to members of their families in a subsequent election . . .” (Page 239, Records of the Constitutional Commission)

Constitutional Commissioner David Suarez was also clear on this matter, to wit:

“MR. SUAREZ . . . In other words, what we are saying is we are prohibiting the incumbents and their relatives from aspiring for that same position so that everybody will have equal access to or opportunity for this position . . .” (Page 955, Records of the Constitutional Commission)

Thus, the framers of the Philippine Constitution clearly wanted to prohibit the members of the immediate family of the incumbent but graduating District Representative, Governor, or Mayor from running for the same positions to replace and succeed their incumbent relatives.

ARGUMENT #3

============

THE PHRASE "AS MAY BE DEFINED BY LAW" WAS ADDED IN ARTICLE II, SECTION 26 TO MERELY "WIDEN THE SCOPE" OF THE PROHIBITION.

In his closing statement, Commissioner Jose Nolledo said - - "That seems to me to be the meaning of political dynasty, although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term…” (Pages 936, Records of Constitutional Commission No. 85)

The phrase “although Congress may still widen the meaning of the term" clearly shows Commissioner Nolledo's intent. When he introduced and sponsored the provision, the term “political dynasties” as used in the present provision in Article II, Section 26 already inherently, intrinsically, and/or automatically covers and prohibits the members of immediate family of incumbent elective officials.

The clause “as may be defined by law” was added merely to “widen the meaning of the term”.

It was not intended to nullify or frustrate the immediate implementation of the constitutional prohibition against the immediate family relatives of incumbent elective officials.

Thus, in the considered view of the petitioners, the general prohibition against political dynasties, as it is presently phrased under Article II, Section 26 of the Philippine Constitution, already inherently, intrinsically, and/or automatically covers the members of the immediate family (spouse, children, parents, siblings) of the incumbent but term-graduating District Representatives, Governors, or Mayors, as such was the clear intent of the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution

ARGUMENT #4

============

THE GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST POLITICAL DYNASTIES IN THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS PRESUMED TO BE SELF-EXECUTING AGAINST THE SPOUSE, CHILDREN, PARENTS, SIBLINGS OF ANY INCUMBENT ELECTED OFFICIAL.

In Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997), the Supreme Court en banc has reiterated the long-standing rule that the presumption is that all provisions of the Constitution are self-executing, and in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing.

Ten (10) years later, in 2007, the Supreme Court en banc reiterated the same ruling in the case of Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. CA (GR No 167324; July 17, 2007).

This is the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.

Thus, the general prohibition against political dynasties under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is presumed to be self-executing against the spouse, children, parents, siblings, or members of the immediate family of incumbent elected officials, as clearly intended by the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the presumption that it is self-executing against the immediate family relatives.

ARGUMENT #4

============

THE GENERAL PROHIBITION AGAINST POLITICAL DYNASTIES IN THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION IS PRESUMED TO BE SELF-EXECUTING AGAINST THE SPOUSE, CHILDREN, PARENTS, SIBLINGS OF ANY INCUMBENT ELECTED OFFICIAL.

In Manila Prince Hotel vs. GSIS (G.R. No. 122156, February 3, 1997), the Supreme Court en banc has reiterated the long-standing rule that the presumption is that all provisions of the Constitution are self-executing, and in case of doubt, the Constitution should be considered self-executing rather than non-self-executing.

Ten (10) years later, in 2007, the Supreme Court en banc reiterated the same ruling in the case of Tondo Medical Center Employees Association v. CA (GR No 167324; July 17, 2007).

This is the prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.

Thus, the general prohibition against political dynasties under Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is presumed to be self-executing against the spouse, children, parents, siblings, or members of the immediate family of incumbent elected officials, as clearly intended by the framers of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

In case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the presumption that it is self-executing against the immediate family relatives.

All reactions:

13Clift Daluz, Aida Entila and 11 others