Filipino right to destroy political dynasties

SECTION 26 of Article II of the Constitution states: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The prevailing view is that this particular provision is merely a declaration of opposition to dynastic politics and not actually an executable prohibition against politicians of this pedigree.

Correspondingly, many in the polity have accepted that for this constitutional proscription against political dynasties to have any practical meaning at all, an implementing piece of legislation is needed.

However, it seems that such a law cannot be enacted because the majority of lawmakers are members of traditional political families (at least 70% of Congress members belong to political dynasties). Indeed, it is hard to imagine these legislators passing a law that will cost them their grip on political power. Nevertheless, there are Anti-Political Dynasty bills pending in the House of Representatives and in the Senate.

I am not that optimistic on the fate of these bills though. In a media release several months ago, Senator Koko Pimentel, the current chairman of the Senate Committee on Electoral Reforms and People’s Participation which is overseeing the passage of such a bill in the Senate, is quoted to have said that even though anti-political dynasty bills have been filed in Congress, “all it got was lip service from members of Congress, many of whom did not want to touch the measure with a ten-foot pole for obvious self-preservation of family clan members who have occupied various elective posts in government.”

Curiously, the Supreme Court itself has articulated the futility inherent in Section 26 in the case of Pamatong vs. Comelec [G.R. No. 161872, April 13, 2004] wherein it inexplicably ruled that, “Section 26, Article II of the Constitution neither bestows such a right nor elevates the privilege to the level of an enforceable right. There is nothing in the plain language of the provision which suggests such a thrust or justifies an interpretation of the sort.”

Both the intransigence of Congress and the narrow-mindedness of the Supreme Court seem to ignore clear provisions of international human rights law such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
“(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country. (3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.”

Article 25 of The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that:
“Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: 1. To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; 2. to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; 3. To have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.”

Therefore it may be wise to revisit the position of the Supreme Court regarding Section 26 because from the perspective of international human rights law, there is arguably an enforceable right in this provision. Moreover, these two mandates mentioned above should be enough reason for lawmakers to enact the Anti-Political Dynasty law called for by Section 26 without any further delay.

More importantly however, these international human rights provisions also send out a strong call to arms, so to speak, to all Filipinos to wage war against these political dynasties. Accordingly, media outlets are duty-bound to let loose all of its assets to lead the way in the persecution of all those who have plundered against the Filipino people. I put it on the media industry to cement in the historical records that these people are the vilest villains of Filipino society. If families and other relations are to be embarrassed because of these actions, then so be it. Let them disassociate themselves from these public enemies in unequivocal terms.

Additionally, I also believe that these two international human rights law provisions are the philosophical motivation civil society needs to sustain the brutal fight against dynastic rule. To preserve the Filipino’s right to political participation, movements such as “Andayamo” (Anti-Dynasty Movement) and MAD (Movement Against Dynasty) must be unrelenting in their efforts to unravel the incompetencies and expose the shenanigans of officials with ties to political dynasties. The primary goal is to bring down the undeserving and push forward the true leaders of our community.

Ultimately however, the fate of Section 26 is in our hands. The argument that there has to be an Anti-Political Dynasty Law to “enforce” the prohibition in this Constitutional principle only benefits politicians who are standing members of political dynasties. If we fervently believe in the spirit behind this provision—i.e. the assurance of equal access to opportunities for public service for all Filipinos—then we can give life to this proscription by not voting for candidates who belong or who are allied to political dynasties. We can even go a step further by passionately convincing others to do the same.

(Michael Henry Ll. Yusingco, LL.M is a practicing lawyer. He is the author of Rethinking the Bangsamoro Perspective. He conducts research on current issues in state-building, decentralization, and constitutionalism.)