ceres

𝗛𝗮𝗹𝗮, 𝗻𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗸𝘁𝗮𝗻 𝗱𝗮𝘄 𝘀𝗶 𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗮 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗸𝗼! 𝗜-𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲 𝗸𝗼 𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗱𝗮𝗵𝗶𝗹 𝗸𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶, 𝗸𝗮𝗸𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗶𝘆𝗮 𝗮𝗸𝗼 𝗻𝗴 𝗟𝗶𝗯𝗲𝗹. 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶 𝗿𝗮𝘄 𝗻𝗮𝗴𝘂𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗵𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮 𝘆𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗶 𝗸𝗼. 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝗮𝗺𝗮 𝗯𝗮 𝗺𝗮𝗴𝗯𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗴 𝗸𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼? Sa ilalim ng “𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭,” hindi itinuturing na mapanira ang isang opinyon o komento, basta ito ay nakabatay sa mga totoong pangyayari, at tungkol ito sa mga isyung may interes ang publiko. Bilang isang 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗼 𝗽𝘂𝗯𝗹𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝗶𝗴𝘂𝗿𝗲, hindi puwede ang balat-sibuyas, at dapat marunong kang tumanggap ng mga kritisismong tapat o patas. At para naman 𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗸𝗼𝗸𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼, hindi bawal ang pumuna. Siguraduhin lang na ito ay totoo at hindi malisyoso. Pwede rin basahin sa link na ito ang kaugnay na Desisyon ng Korte Suprema kung paano ginamit ang salitang “𝐃𝐨𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐅𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭”: elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/th… #SupremeCourtPH #SCphExplainers #SCphLegallySpeaking

The #SupremeCourtPH 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤, during its session on August 26, 2026, unanimously declared that Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution requires Congress to enact a law prohibiting political dynasties, holding that Congress’ failure to do so for 39 years constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court directed Congress to comply with its mandatory constitutional duty to enact an anti-political dynasty law at the earliest opportunity, define political dynasties, and determine the scope of the prohibition. In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 granted the consolidated petitions in G.R. Nos. 263934, 272370, and 279201 for certiorari and mandamus. The petitions challenged Congress’ prolonged failure to pass a law defining and prohibiting political dynasties. The Court strongly urged Congress to heed its constitutional duty with utmost urgency, as it declared that the latter has “the MANDATORY CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY to enact the law on the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties as expressly provided for in Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution.” It stated that the Congress “MUST HENCEFORTH AND WITH UTMOST URGENCY ENACT THE APPROPRIATE ANTI-POLITICAL DYNASTY LAW AT THE EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY.” Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution provides that “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” The Court held that this provision is not merely an aspiration but a constitutional command. The use of the word “shall” makes clear that the State has a mandatory duty both to guarantee equal access to public service and to prohibit political dynasties. The Court also held that the phrase “as may be defined by law” does not give Congress the choice whether to prohibit political dynasties. Rather, it gives Congress the authority to define what constitutes a political dynasty and determine the scope of the prohibition. The Court further said that Congress’ prolonged failure to enact an anti-political dynasty law constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The Court took judicial notice of the numerous anti-political dynasty bills filed but left unacted upon since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution. It also considered studies on the prevalence of political dynasties and their relationship with socioeconomic conditions in the country. The Court noted that political dynasties have remained widespread and have extended even into the party-list system. Despite changes in the composition of Congress over the years, no comprehensive anti-political dynasty law has been enacted, implying either a lack of interest, avoidance for convenience, or service of self-interest. Although the Constitution does not set a deadline for Congress to enact the law, the Court held that this does not allow Congress to postpone its constitutional duty indefinitely. The Court found that 39 years is beyond a reasonable period to carry out the constitutional command. Congress’ continued inaction therefore constitutes a continuing violation of its constitutional duty. Read the full text of the Press Briefer at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17324…. Read the full text of the Decision at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen’s Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17319…. Read Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17320…. Read Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17321…. Read Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh’s Separate Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17322… Read Associate Justice Raul B. Villanueva’s Separate Concurring Opinion at: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=17323…. Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-a….