Malacañang expressed full concurrence Thursday with a historic Supreme Court (SC) directive commanding Congress to enact legislation prohibiting political dynasties, confirming that President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. maintains the measure among his primary legislative priorities.
Palace Press Officer Claire Castro affirmed during a news conference that President Marcos remains firmly committed to seeing an anti-political dynasty law signed before his term concludes.
“Alam na po natin na ito po ang isa sa mga priority bills ng Pangulo. Talagang ito po ay pinapamadali niya at gusto po niya hangga’t maaari sa panahon po niya ay maipasa ang anti-political dynasty law,” Castro stated. (We already know that this is one of the President’s priority bills. He is really pushing for its passage, and he wants the anti-political dynasty law to be enacted, if possible, during his term.)
“So, tama po na sang-ayon ang Pangulo sa desisyon po ng Supreme Court na dapat pong magkaroon ng batas patungkol sa political dynasty,” she added. (Yes, the President agrees with the Supreme Court’s decision that there should be a law on political dynasties.)
When asked whether Malacañang is satisfied with the speed of legislative deliberations, Castro acknowledged that setting the legislative timetable rests strictly with the Senate and the House of Representatives. She added that lawmakers face a heavy legislative workload and numerous national priorities.
“Pero still, lumabas naman din po ang desisyon ng Supreme Court, alam din po nila, gusto din po naman nila na magkaroon po talaga ng anti-political dynasty law,” Castro remarked. (But still, the Supreme Court decision has been issued, they are aware of it, and they, too, actually want an anti-political dynasty law to be enacted.)
The Palace’s backing follows a landmark ruling issued by the Supreme Court from its August 26 en banc session. In its decision, the high tribunal declared that Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Constitution, which mandates that the State “shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law,” is an enforceable constitutional command rather than a simple policy aspiration.
The high court concluded that the 39-year failure of the legislature to pass enabling legislation defining and restricting political dynasties constitutes grave abuse of discretion.