Anti-dynasty provision 'already covers' spouses, parents, offspring, siblings

Aren’t these obvious instances of political dynasty?

- JARIUS BONDOC

(1) Spouses, parent and offspring, and siblings running in tandem for mayor and vice-mayor, governor and vice, or president and VP;

(2) Spouse, parent, offspring or sibling running to succeed a termed-out district representative, mayor or governor;

(3) Candidates for the Senate where a spouse, parent, offspring or sibling is an incumbent;

(4) Spouses, parent and offspring or siblings running as nominees of the same party-list.

A group of bishops and retired generals are asking the Supreme Court to clarify these once and for all.

The petitioners for certiorari want the SC to make Comelec disqualify candidates covered by the four instances.

They believe that the four instances are “inherently, intrinsically, automatically covered” by the 1987 Constitution, Article II, Declaration of Principles, Section 26:

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Four arguments bolster their plea:

(1) Families monopolize politics in the four instances.

The Constitution’s framers aimed to thwart political monopoly. In sponsoring the anti-dynasty provision, commissioner Jose Nolledo prefaced: “With this, we do away with political monopoly as now appearing in many parts of our country…” (P. 935, Records of Constitutional Commission No. 85).