Raising the bar without breaking the Charter

There is a rising tide of public clamor to end well-entrenched political dynasties that have been spawned by the absence of a specific anti-dynasty law that would put an end to the dominance of a few ruling political families.

- SONNY COLOMA

Public frustration with the quality of governance has also reignited calls to raise the qualifications for public office. Proposals range from requiring college degrees for legislators and psychological screening for candidates, to imposing stricter bans on political dynasties. These ideas resonate with a citizenry weary of incompetence, corruption, and personality-driven politics.

Yet many reform efforts falter, not because they lack popular appeal, but because they collide with the design of the 1987 Constitution itself.

The Constitution does not impose demanding entry requirements for elective office. For most national posts including President, Vice President, Senator and Representative the qualifications are limited to age, citizenship, residency, literacy, and voter registration.

This is not an accident or an omission. It is a deliberate decision by the framers of the post-EDSA Constitution. Having emerged from a period when power was tightly controlled, the framers sought to prevent legal gatekeeping by political or social elites. They opted instead for openness, trusting that the ultimate judgment on competence and integrity would rest with the electorate.

For the first few post-EDSA years, the election of new faces sparked hope, but this eventually morphed into disenchantment with the ever-growing number of "trapos" getting elected to key public positions.

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld the mandate of the Constitution. Jurisprudence is clear that when the Constitution specifies qualifications for an elective office, these are exclusive. Congress may not add to them through legislation.