The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties, saying the legislature’s failure to do so for 39 years constitutes a continuing violation of the Constitution.
In a full court decision dated August 26, 2026 and made public on Wednesday, September 16, the SC said Congress committed grave abuse of discretion by repeatedly failing to act on the constitutional mandate. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando.
The Court directed lawmakers to fulfill the constitutional requirement “with utmost urgency,” emphasizing that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution requires the State to guarantee equal access to public service and prohibit political dynasties as defined by law.
The SC declared:
“Respondent Congress of the Philippines is declared to have the mandatory constitutional duty to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution. The Congress of the Philippines must henceforth and with utmost urgency enact the appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity.”
According to the Court, the use of the word “shall” in the constitutional provision establishes a mandatory obligation rather than a mere policy objective.
It also clarified that the phrase “as may be defined by law” gives Congress the authority to determine what constitutes a political dynasty and establish the extent of the prohibition. It does not, however, give lawmakers discretion on whether to enact the required legislation.
The SC said this interpretation is consistent with the deliberations of the 1986 Constitutional Commission. According to the Court, the framers decided to leave the specific definition of political dynasties to Congress after failing to reach agreement on which family relationships and government positions should fall under the prohibition.
The ruling therefore recognizes congressional discretion in defining the scope of the prohibition, but not in deciding whether the constitutional mandate should be implemented.
In finding grave abuse of discretion, the Court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty measures that had been introduced in Congress but remained unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution.
The SC also considered studies concerning the persistence of political dynasties and their connection with socioeconomic conditions in the Philippines. It noted that political dynasties have remained prevalent and have also reached the party-list system.
Despite successive changes in the membership of Congress, the Court noted that no comprehensive law implementing the constitutional prohibition has been enacted.
The SC stressed that although the Constitution does not prescribe a specific deadline for Congress to act, lawmakers cannot defer the constitutional obligation indefinitely. It said the 39-year delay has gone beyond what could be considered a reasonable period for fulfilling the constitutional command.
The Court also ruled that existing measures containing restrictions related to political dynasties—including the Sangguniang Kabataan Reform Act, the Bangsamoro Electoral Code and the Bangsamoro Local Governance Code—do not completely satisfy the constitutional requirement.
According to the SC, the constitutional prohibition is intended to cover opportunities for public service broadly rather than only particular sectors or government positions.
The Court acknowledged that the judiciary generally cannot compel a co-equal branch to perform a discretionary legislative act. However, it said the circumstances in this case were exceptional enough to justify mandamus because of what it described as grave abuse of discretion and manifest injustice.
The ruling also abandoned the SC’s earlier pronouncements in Biraogo v. COMELEC (G.R. No. 203603, January 8, 2013) and Guingona, Jr. v. House of Congress (G.R. Nos. 203759 and 205133, February 5, 2013), which had treated Article II, Section 26 as non-self-executing.
The Court said those earlier pronouncements were contained in unsigned resolutions and no longer reflected the intent of the Constitution’s framers or the realities surrounding the continued presence of political dynasties.
In its ruling, the SC further stated:
“For decades, Congress’s long failure to prohibit political dynasties through the enactment of a law as mandated by Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution has allowed the entrenchment of political dynasties to persist.
“The concentration of political power within a narrow few has distorted democracy, weakened accountability, and fostered conditions conducive to corruption and political patronage.
“When a clear constitutional mandate is left unimplemented for generations, the resulting harm begins to reflect in diminished public trust and stagnant governance.
“The Constitution was ratified precisely to prevent such scenarios. Its framers recognized that political dynasties undermine equal access to public office and erode the foundations of true democracy.
“Congress’s continued failure to define and prohibit political dynasties, despite the clarity and mandatory character of the constitutional provision, has rendered this safeguard effectively inoperative.
“The Court therefore cannot remain passive without betraying its own constitutional role. Meaningful change begins with fidelity to the Constitution, and the time for its full enforcement is long overdue.”
The case stemmed from a petition seeking to compel Congress to act on the constitutional provision on political dynasties. The SC’s ruling now directs Congress to enact the appropriate legislation at the earliest opportunity.