The Supreme Court unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution
requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties. The SC held that Congress’ failure to
do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. issued by the Supreme Court on August 26,
2026, the High Court declared that Congress’s refusal to enact an anti-political dynasty law after
almost forty years has constituted grave abuse of discretion.

The Supreme Court in its landmark decision, consolidated cases G.R. No. 263934
(Kapatiran Party vs. Congress), G.R. No. 272370 (Trinidad vs. Congress), and G.R. No. 279201
(1 Sambayan Coalition vs. Senate and House of Representatives) filed for the petition of the writ
of certiorari and mandamus were resolved. The decision written by Associate Justice Ramon
Paul L. Hernando, granted the petitions or certiorari and mandamus, and issued an emphatic
order for Congress to pass the law against political dynasties immediately and with all possible
haste. Most importantly, the high court discarded the old legal doctrines that provided protection
from legislative inaction through its rejection of its earlier decision in the cases of Biraogo vs.
COMELEC and Guingona vs. House of Congress, wherein the anti-dynasty provision was non-
self-executing. In effect, the Court said that the unsigned resolutions do not represent the original
intention of the framers of the Constitution and the socio-economic condition of the country at
present. The Court further explained that the word “shall” denotes a mandatory duty while the
phrase “as may be defined by law” does not allow the Congress to make any choice on whether
to prohibit or not; it only gives the power of defining what political dynasty means. There is no
specific period of time indicated in the Constitution for the implementation of a constitutional
directive but 39 years is too long already.

Although the Court made use of its exceptional authority of mandamus, it was careful
enough not to overstep in delineating the limits of its judicial activism by pointing out that it
cannot impose what the law says, its definitions, and its parameters since it is Congress alone
that has the sole right to decide on how a certain law should be written. As to the petition against
the Commission on Elections in G.R. No. 277747 (Alminaza v. COMELEC), it was denied since
the Supreme Court held that the COMELEC cannot make a disqualification of candidates on
account of political dynasties without any enabling law.

Regardless it cannot be helped that the landmark ruling came together with vigorous
dissenting and concurring opinions pointing out the consequences of political families in the

country. Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen stated that the political dynasty
contributes to the perpetuation of the inequality, deprives voters of choices and creates patronage
and corruption, whereas Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva emphasized that without
legislative structural measures, political problems affecting millions of Filipinos will never be
solved. However, even though Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh agreed that legislative
inactivity amounted to grave abuse of discretion, she dissented from mandamus, arguing that the
courts do not have the authority to impose its own legislative schedule. Overall, the decision
made by the Supreme Court constitutes a historic paradigm shift in the field of Philippine
constitutional law by making equal access to public office a right.

REFERENCE: PRESS BRIEFER – September 16, 2026 – Supreme Court of the Philippines
https://share.google/Bdr02uYQUcG3HW13t