SC Cites Fourth-Degree Scope in Anti-Dynasty Ruling

Photo via Inquirer.net

The Supreme Court said that there is a basis for extending an anti-political dynasty prohibition to relatives up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity and affinity, as the Congress moves toward fulfilling a constitutional mandate left unimplemented for nearly four decades.

The statement was included in the Court’s decision on Aug. 26 regarding consolidated petitions challenging Congress’ failure to enact a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. The decision, penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando was released by the Supreme Court on Sept. 16.

The Court unanimously ruled that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution requires the Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law. It said the constitutional provision is a mandatory command rather than merely a policy aspiration, while leaving the Congress the authority to determine how political dynasties will be defined and prohibited.

In discussing possible elements of future legislation, the Court said there is a basis to cover relatives up to the fourth civil degree. The discussion, however, does not itself establish a fourth-degree prohibition. 

The Supreme Court clarified that the final definition, scope and other provisions of the law remain for the Congress to determine.

The fourth-degree reference is significant because the Constitution already uses the fourth civil degree as a limit in certain restrictions involving presidential appointments. 

Under Article VII, Section 13, the President may not appoint the President’s spouse or relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity to specified government positions.

The ruling also addressed the Congress’ prolonged failure to pass an enabling law since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. The Supreme Court found that the 39-year delay exceeded a reasonable period for carrying out the constitutional requirement and constituted grave abuse of discretion.

The Court directed Congress to enact an appropriate anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity. It noted that Congress may decide the specific definition and coverage of the prohibition, but cannot choose whether to fulfill the constitutional duty itself.

The Congress had already been considering anti-dynasty legislation before the ruling. A House measure approved by its committee proposed a narrower second-degree restriction, covering relatives within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity. 

The House has described the measure as an effort to implement Article II, Section 26 while considering constitutional and practical concerns.

The Supreme Court’s ruling therefore leaves the final contours of an anti-political dynasty law to Congress, while establishing that legislation implementing the constitutional prohibition can no longer be indefinitely deferred. 

The Court’s decision places the legislative branch at the center of determining which family relationships, offices and circumstances will ultimately fall within the statutory prohibition.