WHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL Commission drafted what is now referred to as the 1987 Constitution, the purpose was to come up with a binding legal framework for strict implementation.
Forty-two years after, salient provisions have remained unenforced in view of what appears more like a direct mockery of the law of the land in the guise of the “absence of a legislation” affirming the legitimacy of the 1987 Constitution.
With another election taking place soon, the issue on political dynasties resurfaced anew as “familiar” surnames have literally dominated the list of candidates vying for both national and local elective offices.
Under the 1987 Constitution is a provision prohibiting political dynasties – the act of allowing political clans to transform bailiwicks into an empire of sorts.
DECIMATE THEIR SPECIES
According to my friend, lawyer Eric Mallonga, there is a way to compel the implementation of the constitutional provision restricting political dynasties since there’s a slim chance that Congress would come up with a legislation.
For one, no politician in his right mind would do something that would decimate their species and extinguish a kingdom from which they make a fortune.
Eric’s take: the Supreme Court can state that the general intention of the constitutional ban on political dynasties in government is “ readily implementable or enforceable.” He calls it a Common Law, which means it is for the courts to define the meaning of dynasties following the “common sense” of reasonable men who are citizens.
‘With another election taking place soon, the issue on political dynasties resurfaced anew as “familiar” surnames have literally dominated the list of candidates…’
DEFINING DYNASTIES
According to Mallonga, a former state prosecutor, “there are some who are too legally rigid” on the “need for a more detailed provision that should be defined in Implementing Rules and Regulations of the regulating agency or office.”
He calls such as “Civil Law,” which means that “definitions in an organic law do not suffice for the implementation thereof,” hence, the further need of Implementing Rules to define dynasties, its extent, and coverage (appointive, elective office).
There are also questions as to how far are the relations between clan or family members for a dynasty to be considered relevant to prohibit a person from running or being appointed to public office.
To some extent, Eric could be right. Judges and Justices have never been held back in their interpretations of the law, whether from the common or civil law backgrounds.
“If the Supreme Court does not make any decision thereupon because of the lack of further definitions in supporting laws or implementing rules, it fails its functions to determine and discern the gravity of an organic or main law, which is the Constitution itself.”
A FORMIDABLE NETWORK
The very essence why the framers of the 1987 Constitution included restriction on political dynasties is to allow not just the best and the brightest but to pave the way for genuine public servants.
There’s one glitch though. Sincerity is not enough to win an election. Politics is just for those who have more than enough resources to defray the cost of launching an effective campaign and bankroll the cost of maintaining a formidable network.
As Eric would put it, the Justices must discern, as wise men and women, where the future of this nation lies.