A stern warning on dodging the political dynasty issue

Political dynasties have moved beyond being mere reform slogans. The Supreme Court has now addressed them in constitutional terms.

- By RICO V. DOMINGO

In G.R. No. 279008, Merson C. Calubag v Commission on Elections, the Court described the current extent of political dynasties as an “affront to the Constitution.” Congress should heed these words as a serious warning rather than simply as a commentary.

Today marks two years since our UP College of Law Class of ’76 petition for mandamus reached the Supreme Court. Our petition, filed as G.R. No. 272370, asks the Court to compel Congress to fulfill its constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law. This duty is outlined in Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which guarantees equal access to public service and prohibits political dynasties as defined by law.

The Calubag case began when Merson Calubag ran for a Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) seat in Barangay Magtangale, San Francisco, Surigao del Norte. The Court upheld the Commission on Elections’ decision to cancel his certificate of candidacy after it was revealed that his mother was an incumbent barangay kagawad at the time he filed. Under Republic Act 10742, candidates for the SK may not have close relatives — up to the second civil degree — who are currently holding local government positions. This legislation was Congress’ response to the constitutional call regarding political dynasties at the barangay and SK levels.