SC directs Congress to pass anti-dynasty law as measures remain pending

ASM, Philippine Canadian Inquirer
September 17, 2026

Photo courtesy: Supreme Court PH

The push for an anti-political dynasty law has gained a new constitutional directive after the Supreme Court ordered Congress to finally enact the measure, nearly four decades after the mandate was written into the 1987 Constitution.

The ruling comes while proposed anti-dynasty legislation is already moving through Congress. The House of Representatives approved House Bill No. 8389, or the proposed Anti-Political Dynasty Act, on third and final reading on June 3, 2026, with 267 lawmakers voting in favor, 20 against and seven abstaining. The measure was transmitted to and received by the Senate on June 8.

In the Senate, Senate Bill No. 1901, another proposed Anti-Political Dynasty Act, remains pending on second reading. The measure seeks to prohibit political dynasties in national and local elective offices as well as the party-list system.

Against that legislative backdrop, the Supreme Court declared that Congress has a mandatory constitutional duty to enact a law implementing Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution, which provides for the prohibition of political dynasties “as may be defined by law.”

The Court unanimously held during its August 26 session that the constitutional provision requires Congress to enact an anti-political dynasty law and that the failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion.

The Court, by majority vote, also granted mandamus, directing Congress to perform what it considered a mandatory constitutional duty.

Congress was directed to enact the law “at the earliest opportunity” and determine through legislation both the definition of a political dynasty and the scope of the prohibition.

The Supreme Court stressed that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give lawmakers the option of whether to prohibit political dynasties. Instead, it leaves Congress responsible for establishing what relationships and circumstances will fall under the prohibition.

The Court also noted that numerous anti-political dynasty bills have been filed since the 1987 Constitution took effect but that no comprehensive law has been enacted.

Although the Constitution does not impose a specific deadline, the Court held that the absence of one does not allow Congress to indefinitely postpone carrying out the constitutional mandate.

For the current proposals to become law, however, the legislative process must still be completed. The House has already approved its version, while the Senate’s anti-political dynasty measure remains pending on second reading as Congress determines the final definition and scope of the proposed prohibition.