It's final: SC won't compel Congress to enact anti-political dynasty law

The Supreme Court has ruled with finality against compelling Congress to pass a law that would have set in motion a Constitutional provision banning political dynasties. Supreme Court public information chief Theodore Te told reporters that the magistrates have rejected the two motions — one filed by a group led by former Vice President Teofisto Guingona Jr and another by senatorial candidate Ricardo Penson — asking it to reverse its earlier dismissal of their petition against political clans. "The Supreme Court en banc denied with finality the motion for reconsideration filed by Ricardo Penson and Sen. Guingona in relation to their petition to compel Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law," Te said. Guingona petition In its main petition, Guingona's group asked the high court to order Congress to create an enabling law for Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states that "[t]he State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law." In a 26-page petition for mandamus, Guingona's group said the court has the authority to compel Congress by way of mandamus, especially since passing an enabling law against political dynasties is considered "ministerial because it is a constitutional command." The other petitioners were Dante Jimenez of the Volunteers Against Crime and Corruption, Leonard De Vera, Eduardo Bringas, Vicente Velasquez, and Raymundo Jarque. The petitioners cited a 1987 bill against political dynasty introduced by Guingona, who was then a senator. The bill passed the Senate with 16 votes in favor, three opposition, and one abstention. The bill, however, never went past the House of Representatives. The petitioners said they were "appalled by Congress' inaction... Every bill in Congress against political dynasties was stifled by congressional inaction." Penson petition Meanwhile, Penson said in his own petition that the "political and economic life" of the country's 90 million Filipinos "continue to be controlled and/or dictated upon by four political clan alliances."   He also cited a study by the Asian Institute of Management and Konrad Adenauer Stiftung Foundation on political dynasties showing that 70 percent of jurisdiction-based members of Congress belong to political dynasties. Penson said the Supreme Court had previously ruled that "failure to perform a duty for a long period of time is both a violation of the right to procedural and substantive due process."   Penson noted several bills on political dynasties have been filed but none has been enacted so far. "The introduction has thus become illusory and merely promotive of false hopes," he said. He added that the non-passage of an enabling law against political dynasties has resulted in "an abrogation of their sacred duty, which unless remedied, the constitutional provision will continue to remain pure rhetoric and the noble objectives behind its institution merely illusory." A bill against political dynasty, filed by Sen. Miriam Defensor-Santiago, is pending before the Senate. A counterpart bill was filed by Rep. Teddy Casiño at the House of Representatives. Denied MR The high court had dismissed a similar petition filed by Louis "Barok" Biraogo in October last year. Biraogo's motion for reconsideration was junked last January for lack of merit. In the motion for reconsideration it filed last February 22, Guingona's camp said it became "more confused" when the Supreme Court junked its original petition against political dynasties. In its ruling on February 5, however, the Supreme Court en banc said it could not compel Congress to pass such a law against political dynasties because it would violate the principle of separation of powers among the three branches of government. Guingona's group responded: "With all due respect to the Honorable Court, but the petitioners are really confused with the import of its En Banc resolution. Much as they want to understand and thereafter be satisfied with the resolution, they cannot with all candor, do it because it created more issues and questions to their minds instead of cerebrally being satisfied with the merit of the resolution." They said they were asking the high court not to "usurp" the powers of Congress, but to simply determine whether Congress violated the Constitution with its "inaction" in creating an enabling law against political dynasties. "There should be a commensurate move to give effect to its pronouncement and this move is to require Congress to follow the Constitution! This is not an encroachment or usurpation per se but rather the enforcement of the will of the People as mandated by the Constitution! THIS IS TRUE DEMOCRACY! (sic)," Guingona's camp said. The group also argued that the doctrines cited by the high court to justify the dismissal of their petition, namely Alejandrino vs Quezon 46 Phil 83 (1924) and Tanada vs Cuenco (1957), were decided long before the 1987 Philippine Constitution was ratified. — KBK, GMA News