Tag Archives: political dynasties

On the Anti Political Dynasties Bill

Q: What is the Constitutional Basis for a law prohibiting Political Dynasties?

A: Article XI section 1, 1987 Constitution

“Public  office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all times be accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, act with patriotism and justice and lead modest lives.”

Nature of public office has to be understood as a privilege and not a property right.  No one has a vested right to any public office, much less a vested right to an expectancy of holding a public office.

As early as 1920, the Supreme Court already decided on this matter in the case of Cornejo vs. Gabriel:

It is, however, well settled x x x that a public office is not property within the sense of the constitutional guaranties of due process of law, but is a public trust or agency. x x x The basic idea of the government x x x is that of a popular representative government, the officers being mere agents and not rulers of the people, one where no one man or set of men has a proprietary or contractual right to an office, but where every officer accepts office pursuant to the provisions of the law and holds the office as a trust for the people he represents.”

But, see also the 2002 case of Montesclaros et.al. vs. COMELEC which ruled on the issue of SK positions, on whether it’s a proprietary right of the SK aspirants. (it reiterated the Cornejo ruling.)

But the way the Constitution phrases the Anti-Dynasty Prohibition necessitates an implementing law.

However, the provision in the Constitution is also explicit.  “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Take note however that what is guaranteed is only “equal access to opportunities” not equal access to positions in public office. This is further qualified by the phrase, “as may be defined by law” – always connotes the need for an implementing legislation to define what political dynasties are.

Q: Where is this Anti Political Dynasty Bill now?

A:  From SB 2649 in the 15th Congress,  its now refiled by Sen. Miriam Santiago on July 1, 2013 as SB 55 in the 16th congress. This bill has been pending in the committee since July 24, 2013. The Lower house also has its version HB 837 sponsored by Rep. Erlinda Santiago filed July 2, 2013.

Q: Is there a need to enact such a law?

A:  Sen. Miriam Santiago in her Explanatory Note to SB 55, calls the Philippines as the “political dynasty capital of the world.” As to whether this claim is backed by facts is really a matter of conclusion. For example, during the 2013 elections, for example: of the top 20 senatorial candidates, 13 allegedly belong to a political family.

Quoting the fact check conducted by the ADMU through its Political Democracy and Reforms program of the Ateneo School of Government, the 13 senatorial candidates belonging to political families are: Sonny Angara, Bam Aquino, Nancy Binay, Allan Peter CAyetano, Ting-Ting Cojuangco, JV Ejercito, Jack Enrile Jr., Chiz Escudero, Dick Gordon, Ernesto Maceda, Jun Magsaysay Jr., Cynthia Villar and Migz Zubiri. Koko Pimentel also should be included in this list (making it 14) but the report of ADMU argues that because Koko ran for Senate when  his dad Nene Pimentel Jr. was no longer in position, he does not qualify.

But the question we have to ask is: is belonging to a family with prominent politicians or having a known political name, an automatic assumption or conclusion that this family is a political dynasty?

Q: So how do we define “political dynasty”?

A:   Elements: political dynasty shall exist when (VARIANT1)

a) A person who is a spouse of an incumbent elective official or a relative within the 2nd civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of an incumbent elective official (Refers to the profile of a candidate)

b) Holds or runs for an elective office simultaneously with the incumbent elective officia (Term of office aspired for)

c) Within the same province  OR

d) Occupies the SAME  office IMMEDIATELY after the term of office of the incumbent elective official

BUT,       A political dynasty SHALL ALSO exist when (VARIANT 2)

  1. 2 or more person are spouses / Or relative within the 2nd civil degree of consanguinity or affinity
  2. Running for office SIMULTANEOUSLY within the SAME province
  3. REGARDLESS if either is related to an incumbent elective official.

Q:   Who are covered by the prohibition?

  • Spouses – may cover common law spouses not just legal spouses (fiancee’s covered?)
  • Relatives within the 2nd degree of consanguinity or affinity: brothers or sisters (full or half blood); parents or children (whether legitimate or illegitimate, adopted, including their spouse)

But what is Not covered:  Punong Barangays or members of the sangguniang barangay. (sec 4)

Q:  With this proposed law, what is the effect?

A:  These persons covered by the definition are PROHIBITED to hold or run for the aspired public office as defined and limited by the law.  Moreover,  their Certificates Of Candidacy (COC)  as filed shall be denied due course, upon the filing of a verified petition of an interested or by the COMELEC motu propio.

WALA NA BANG IBA? TALAGA???

 

Section 26 of Article II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declares: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

In the past few days, national and even local papers have been flooded with the same names, same faces filing their Certificates of Candidacy. The two “major” political parties in the national scene still show the same faces we saw in previous elections.

Words like “coalition”, strategic alliances, “winnable” candidates come to the surface of discussions yet the most important item for dialogue (or debate, if you prefer), is relegated to the background – what do they really stand for? (apart from carrying on the family name?)

Not to belittle their accomplishments in public service – as there are in fact SOME who, familiar though their family names may be, have done significant work while in public office — but there is a growing call for an authentic realization of “new blood” entering the scene of Philippine politics. if the Anti-EPAL campaign and its supporters is an indicator, the numbers are growing.

How I long for that day when having a very familiar surname already pose as a challenge to the aspiring politicians and not feel that public office is a vested right that ought to be passed onto them!

How i long for that day when both houses of Congress is filled with new faces, new names, new ideas with a sense of purpose other than inserting provisions in proposed laws, or recycling old speeches but taking the credit for it. Surely, with the many number of graduates produced in our universities and colleges each year, we would certainly not be running short on supply of “new blood.” And if these universities and colleges are not enough, we can certainly look at our  local community leaders who have quietly served their communities and who show true potential for public service.

And by “new blood”, I certainly do not mean looking into the world of showbiz again (ghaaad!) – if only to look for that face that looks good on campaign posters with the pleasing personality to boot.

That our government has never passed into law what constitutes as “political dynasties” and prohibiting the same is really a joke, as it does not take a genius to figure this one out. We have only to see these names popping up on signboards, tarpaulins, stickers, to know what this is about.

Unlike the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012 which contains many questionable and mayhaps even vague provisions, a law which would penalize political dynasties would not need 14 or so pages, as it would simply define what “political dynasties” mean and providing sanctions for those who violate the law.

So how come no bill ever passes either house of Congress?

If we look at the names of the roster of the present members of the House and the Senate, anyone would logically draw the conclusion: res ipsa loquitor. (Translated: the thing speaks for itself.)