Political Dynasty Debate Overview

Six. That's the number of months left before the midterm elections, where 55 million voters are expected to troop to the polls. So we'll open this new season with an age-old issue, that of political dynasties. Philippine politics could actually be summed up with a list of names of clans that have held onto power generation after generation. Tonight we ask, should they be allowed to do so? And how in the first place do you even define a political dynasty? And can and should they be banished from the electoral system? I'm Maiki Oretta. Hello and welcome to Square Off, the CBC Law Debates, Season 6. CBC Law Debates Grandfather, son, grandson. Leadership, service to the public, community service, has become a part of Grace, even though she's still young. Husband. brothers and sisters, As long as I'm out of strength in my body, I'll give it all to the Filipino people, especially to the Ilkanos. and sometimes even feuding family members. History has seen how politics has long been a family affair, from one generation to another. While the law clearly prohibits political dynasties, it stops short of defining what a political dynasty actually is. I am against passing a political dynasty law. Because? Because, first, you cannot legislate controlling political dynasties. While some believe children born into political families are raised and trained in matters of public service, others say more than the name, performance matters, and that politicians should be judged based on their track records. Should Congress pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties? Is this even practicable? Or will this just put restrictions and exclude deserving individuals from public office? Argueing for the affirmative side is the University of Santo Tomas. Driven by truth in charity, the contenders from the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomas. A writer, debater and sports enthusiast, John Paul Fabelia reveals that he wants to be remembered as an ambitious young man. Eager and passionate, J.P. calls himself the Prince of Persistence, for he vows to constantly exert enough effort to achieve his goals, come what may. Christine Jane Liu used to be a business reporter, covering the stock, bond, and currency markets for various news agencies. Although Christine finds the job challenging and exciting, she swinged into studying law to live up to her dreams to join the high court. Keen and diligent, experienced debater Paula Beatriz Azurin shares that joining international and local debate competitions is an excellent preparation for life. More than just facts, it entails hard work, commitment, and quick thinking. Team University of Santo Tomas. Committed, compassionate, competent. Taking on the negative side is the De La Salle University. From the university guided by religion, morals and culture, the mighty green archers of De La Salle University, Manila. Small but terrible, tough and competitive, that's how people describe Clarissa Sarmiento. However this skilled and seasoned debater shares that, contrary to what the others perceive her to be, she is sweet, fun-loving and compassionate. Outgoing and people-oriented, his ability to move, motivate and capture an audience landed Rene Pilapil Jr. seat in the De La Salle University faculty. But Chip's dream of occupying a post in the judiciary pushed him to take up law. Determined and motivated, Martin Christopher Uy expressed an interest in public service at an early age. Martin entered law school in pursuit of a better Philippines and an aspiration to lead the country one day. Team De La Sol University Manila. Decisive. Determined. Driven. Let's now meet our distinguished judges. First off, we have Attorney Nina Rances, a partner at the Aguilar Rances Divinigracia Law Office. Next, we have Attorney Pancho Omali from CVC Law. And our chief adjudicator for tonight, Judge Divine Lopez Pelino of the Pasay Regional Trial Court, Branch 231. The word war begins when Square Off, the CVC Law Debates, returns. Please stay tuned. Music Using a modified Oregon-Oxford format, the debate is between two sides, the affirmative and the negative, with three members each. Each debater from the affirmative side argues either. the necessity, beneficiality, or the practicability of the proposition, while the counterpart debaters on the negative side oppose these arguments. Each debater is given four minutes to deliver a constructive speech and rebuttal but the previous argument. Each debater is given two minutes to interpolate or cross-examine the opposing debater. Only categorical questions may be asked. Each of the three judges may ask one question of each speaker within that speaker's time limit. The chief adjudicator rules in the event of ties, objections, or contestations. The judges' total scores determine the best speaker and the winning team. Tonight's proposition, let it be resolved that Congress should pass a law that would identify, define, and prohibit political dynasties. Starting off for the affirmative side is Paula Azarin. Paula, you have four minutes to argue the need for Congress to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties. Your Honors, good evening. As much as we would like to argue the conventional perception of the law, The novelty of the issue at hand compels us to innovate standard concepts of law in order to give life and meaning to the Constitution. The issue in this debate is simple, whether Congress should define and identify political dynasties. For the purpose of this debate, the common concept of a political dynasty will be used. A political dynasty exists where family members up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity either successively or simultaneously run or occupy public offices. In the Philippines, 94% of all provinces are considered as dynastic regions in a study conducted by Dr. Timerio Rivera. The Asian Institute of Management Policy Center found that 70% of legislators of the 15th Congress belong to political dynasties. It was also found that dynastic politicians were wealthier by an average of 10 million pesos compared to non-dynastic politicians in the country. in Congress, and that they obtained electoral wins by larger margins. The same study also yielded the observation that dynastic provinces were poorer compared to non-dynastic provinces. Dynastic jurisdictions had a poverty incidence of 24.15 as against 18.95 of non-dynastic jurisdictions and a poverty severity of 2.31 against 1.86. The average income of these dynastic jurisdictions are lower than those of non-dynastic jurisdictions. With this, there is a necessity to enact a law because we are at a loss as to what a political dynasty is. This is the gap that has facilitated the proliferation and entrenchment of political dynasties. This same gap has weakened the political and electoral system as these dynasties have been established because of this particular gap. Yes, ma'am. Are political dynasties fundamentally wrong? According to the Constitution, they are fundamentally wrong, Your Honor. Although efforts have been made to stem political dynasties, the bills needed to identify them have never seen the light of day. You have bills from the 13th Congress up to the present, the 15th Congress, where they are still at the committee level. It's been 25 years since the 1987 Constitution, and there is still no law to give meaning to Section 26, No Article 2 of the Constitution. And never mind that Congress is constitutional. constitutionally mandated to enact a law. It's been 25 years. 25 years is an unreasonable length of time for Congress to craft a simple definition, but it's certainly enough for political dynasties to establish themselves in their respective provinces. A law needs to be enacted as the very existence of a political dynasty is an affront not only to Article 2, Section 26, but also to Article 2, Section 1 as well. A republican and democratic state affords a system of free and equal access to opportunities for public service. A political dynasty, on the other hand, maintains control over political power, economic resources, and political machineries over a particular region. It deters other equally qualified, if not better, candidates from running for office. Second of all, under the same section, Article 2, Section 1, sovereignty resides in the people and all government power emanates from them. A political dynasty takes away the power from the people and vests it in the hand of those political dynasties. And what happens at the end of the day? These political dynasties establish themselves in these provinces and thus the constitutional mandate that power resides in the people is violated. And the concept that the power should be vested in the people is a democratic... is a basic principle of democracy and republicanism. If it is in the hands of these political dynasties or these feudal families, this is reminiscent of a monarchy, and such is contrary to what a democracy is, such that the democracy and republicanism that is espoused in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is violated. And this is one of the principal tenets that define our entire country at the end of the day. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, there is a need to enact a law to protect not just an individual vote or a public office, but to prevent the deterioration of crucial democratic institutions. And with that, we say that the law needs to be enacted. First, negative speaker Chip, you have two minutes to cross-examine her. Good evening, Madam Speaker. The definition that you gave a while ago for a political dynasty. Let me just clarify this fact. Is this correct that you took this definition from the pending Senate bill? No. That was filed by Miriam. It's a commonly held concept of what a political dynasty is for an average reusable person. Were you able to read the Senate bill that is pending? Would you agree that that definition is quite similar to the definition that was given by Senator Santiago in her Senate bill, 2625? 2625? No. It's actually quite similar. But let me just ask, are you aware that there is a definition for a political dynasty from Black's Law Dictionary? Yes, but it's not incorporated in our constitution or is it incorporated in our laws? But you would agree that Black's Law Dictionary has been proven to be... It may be a definition. But you would agree that... It may be. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. Would you agree that Black's Law Dictionary is somehow authoritative as it has been used by the Supreme Court in certain cases? It may be. It depends on the Supreme Court. It depends on the discretion of the Congress. But that would be a qualified yes, at least. Let me move on to my next question, Madam Speaker. You cited Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution a while ago. This is the last phrase of Article 2, Section 1. that all um government authority emanates from the people, does that mean that the people are empowered to select their own leaders? Yes. And do you believe that, or do you agree that drafting a law defining and prohibiting a political dynasty will result in qualifications for people who decide to run for political? There are valid qualifications that are scattered all over the Constitution. You have Article 5. But an additional qualification in this case would require an amendment of the constitution, would you agree? This is a constitutionally mandated qualification by the constitution itself. Do you agree that unduly limiting their choice runs counter to the idea of a democracy? Unduly limiting the choice of the electorate runs counter to it? Okay, time's up guys. Chip, you have four minutes to rebut Paula and argue why there is no need to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties in the Philippines. Good evening. While conceding that Section 26 is not an enforceable right, we believe that Congress should not draft a law banning political dynasties. As defined in Black's Law Dictionary, a political dynasty is either a succession of rulers in the same line or family, or a powerful or influential family which continues in existence for a considerable time. By this, it becomes clear that the concept of a political dynasty is ambiguous, and the argument for the drafting of a law prohibiting it will stand on no other leg aside from the equally ambiguous policy of Section 26. In contrast, we will prove that the argument against such a law is based on more significant reasons. To begin, I will first subscribe to one of the chief principles of constitutional construction, and that is to provide an interpretation that will uphold the framers' intent. The records of the Commission reveal that Section 26 prohibits political dynasties because they can be used in circumventing the three-term rule by fielding sons or daughters who will easily yield to moral influence. Therefore, the policy was made not because political dynasties are wrong per se. but because they can become an obstacle to the real intent of Section 26, which is to provide equal access to opportunities for public service. This objective has been cited by constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas and has been used by the court in the leading case of Pamatong v. Komalek. And with this intent in mind, let me move on to our reasons. First of all, a law prohibiting political dynasties is unnecessary in accomplishing equal access. The fear that a political patriarch will use his influence to stay in power, will not be eliminated by banning his family from running altogether. This is because the Patriarch could just as easily field his aides or drivers, who by reason of their loyalty may prove to be an even worse kind of instrument for perpetuating political power. In fact, this ambiguity cuts both ways. The well-documented father and son feud of the Villas Fuertes and Camarines Sur shows us that even familial ties cannot be a strong basis to assume a strong political influence. Second, and perhaps more importantly, such a law is contrary to the fundamental principles of a democratic and republican system of government, contrary to what the first speaker has said a while ago. By imposing an additional qualification on persons who desire to run for public office, this law unduly limits the right of these persons to be voted for. It will deny them equal protection by segregating them from the rest of society. Are you saying then that that constitutional prohibition is actually unconstitutional? It will result in an unconstitutional law if it was enacted in, if it was enforced in a way that will enact a law banning political parties. But there is a way around it. By imposing, again, this additional qualification, these people will be denied equal protection. Moreover, such a law unduly limits the freedom of choice of the electorate. In a recent study published by the PPSA, Some provinces who have established political clans actually have a high Human Development Index score, suggesting that even political families can be beneficial to a community. Depriving this electorate of the choice to decide, or the chance to decide, whether or not they deserve this kind of leadership is unacceptable. A law prohibiting political dynasties, once again, is unnecessary and detrimental to our society. If we want to guarantee equal access, we need to... Aim for electoral reforms that would eliminate the abuse of power and not the right to run for public office. To level the playing field, we need to enact a system of voters education that would provide sophisticated political knowledge and not limit our understanding even further. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the real responsibility of the state under section 26. It is not to draft a law which is unjust and without a practical basis. I would like to end with the words of Dean Raul Pangalangan in one of his writings on election law. And I quote. Okay, sorry Chip, your time's up. Paula, you now have two minutes to cross-examine him. In the general Philippine experience of what political dynasties are, do you have figures that actually show that these political dynasties are good for them? In a recent study that was published by the PPSA, there is actually proof that a high HDI score can be found in some cases. That is false, Your Honors, because there was a recent study conducted by AAMPC stating that these poverty incidences or these poverty rates were actually higher in dynastic jurisdictions rather than in non-dynastic jurisdictions. Do you believe that the prohibition against political dynasty is an additional disqualification? It will result in a disqualification. But it's already in the Constitution, is it not? But it is not in the form of a disqualification yet. How can the Constitution contradict itself? Well, it will not contradict itself yet unless we enact a law that follows what it says. This is a provision that requires an enabling law. That is correct. Yes. So it requires an enabling law. That is correct. So if this provision requires an enabling law, Congress needs to enact an enabling law to give life to this provision. If it will result in an unconstitutional law, then Congress can refuse to do it. How can it result in a constitutional crisis or in a constitutional ambiguity when it's already consisted with the constitutional provisions that are laid down in Article 2, Section 1? Because it will result in an additional qualification which was not laid down in Article 6, 7, and 8. Especially with... Especially when there are Disqualifications that are Scattered all over the Constitution You have Article 5 The right to suffrage Which is already limited By those who are Allowed to vote Even the right to be Voted for is limited That's why You have nuisance candidates, is it not? Nuisance candidates are not provided for under the constitution, it is actually just a policy that was allowed by the courts. You have those persons who are able to read and write at least 40 years old, those are qualifications that are in the constitution. Those are qualifications, that is correct. Those are qualifications, so these political dynasties can... can substitute or can operate as a disqualification. That would be an additional qualification that was not provided for in the Constitution. How can it be an additional qualification when it's already in the Constitution? It's not in the form of a disqualification. Paula, shift your chimes up. Second affirmative speaker, JP, you now have four minutes to argue why it would be beneficial to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties. Good evening, Your Honors, ladies and gentlemen. The other side of the House had an admission that by... enacting a law that would prohibit political dynasty, it would result into an unconstitutional act. But when the affirmative bench says that Congress should pass a law because clearly it is a constitutionally mandated duty of Congress, and the Constitution should be construed as a single document and it can never contradict its very provisions. So given the characterization of the necessity to enact an... to enact an anti-dynasty law, allow me to dwell on the benefits of the proposition. Number one, it is beneficial because it will improve the quality of Philippine democracy by increasing the level of political participation. We base this on the premise that in democratic theory, a functioning democracy is maximized on three essential parts, accountability, representation, and participation. Participation is manifested in the form of electoral exercise, either to vote or be voted for. Now, the prevalence of political dynasty weakens political competition and signals the deterioration of political participation. How is that so? The incumbency advantage enjoyed by dynastic candidates actually discourages and excludes those non-dynastic candidates to enter into the political arena. In essence, there results a monopoly of political power. So what happens is that these... The monopoly of this political power results into policies which actually protect the interests of the few. And in order to perpetuate more themselves in power, these political dynasties spearhead populist programs which are not sustainable at the end of the day. In order to prove this assertion in the study conducted by Asian Institute of Management, it said that as a general rule, a survey of the dynastic provinces, they have higher cases of poverty, and unemployment over those non-dynastic areas. So by enacting an anti-dynasty law, we widen the opportunities, we level the playing field, and we give opportunities to promising candidates. Because again, we want to prevent a concentration of political power because we believe that no one is indispensable in running the affairs of the country. On to my second benefit, on how it is beneficial because it will create a more responsible electorate. In the anti-dynasty bill filed by Senator Santiago, she posed that one of the reasons why these political dynasties continue to thrive is because of a cultural mindset. And voters, out of convenience, look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favors and elect relatives of these politically dominant families. So we want to break this electoral culture. How so? By opening up opportunities to a new breed of politicians. Because all things being equal, if we remove the undue advantage enjoyed by dynastic candidates, the electorate will be forced to know more about their candidates. So at the end of the day, we give more value to the sanctity of the right to suffrage. So we do not owe... Yes, Your Honor? Are you then saying that the problem lies with the electorate but not really with the candidates? No, not... Thank you for the question. Not necessarily the problem lies with the electorate. but by giving By enacting anti-dynasty law, we start first from the top by eliminating those options, which would in turn result into a more responsible electorate. So we did not only give spirit to the constitutional provisions and the intention of the framers to prevent political dynasties, but we also reinforced the concept of a genuine democracy and republicanism that us enshrined in the constitution. So with that, we really believe that it is necessary to enact a law and it will be beneficial for us to have one. Thank you. All right. Thank you, JP. Second negative speaker, Claire. Two minutes now to cross-examine him. Hi. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Good evening. Okay. So you mentioned a while ago that passing an anti-political dynasty bill is constitutionally mandated by the government, right? Yes. Okay. So you said it will increase the number of participation. Yes. Isn't it that we have qualifications in the different provisions of the Constitution? Do you think that passing an anti-political dynasty bill would encroach disqualifications in the Constitution? No. Well, going back to what I've said, you said that it will increase the number of participation, right? Yes. So are you aware in the recent ruling of Pamatong v. Komelek, where it stated that the Congress is not intended to compel the state to enact measures that would accommodate... as many people as possible in the public office. So, Section 26, Article 2, Section 26, is not merely encouraging everyone to run in the public position, right? Well, it's not necessarily correct. It's just a yes or no, sir. So, qualified, no? Okay. So, do you agree with me that Section 26 is... It's clearly stating that to run to public office is not a constitutional right. It's more of a privilege, both a privilege and a right. So it's both a privilege and a right? Subject to conditions. Because what you were saying a while ago, to allow everyone to run in the office, it's like you're saying that to run in a public office is a constitutional right. What you're trying to say is that by eliminating this political dynasty... It's just a yes or no, sir. So what's the question again? Okay, so you are saying that a while ago that it is a constitutional right to run in the public office. No, because again it is subject to limitations, to qualifications. Okay, so that's all. Thank you. Okay, Claire, four minutes now to rebut JP and argue why it would not be beneficial to pass a law that defines and prohibits political dynasties. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Political dynasty has long been a standing issue in the Philippines. The constitution clearly prohibits it. But was it even a good remedy to have the courts act on issues such that are purely legislative matters? In response to the present issue of whether or not Congress may be compelled to exercise their legislative power by the judiciary through a petition filed with the Supreme Court, we respond in a negative. This House believes... that the Congress may not be compelled to exercise their legislative powers to pass an anti-political dynasty bill by filing a petition with the Supreme Court. Simply for two main reasons. First, the Supreme Court is co-equal with the legislative and cannot order a co-equal branch of government of what law to pass. And second, Granted that there are exceptions to such doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in the present case. On the first proposition, we believe that the Constitution has created the three branches of government co-equally. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court, especially in the case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, where it is said that one of the fundamental doctrines of a Republican government is the separation of powers. Furthermore, it emphasizes its importance in this, I quote, The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government. It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. It is in our concession that the separation of powers is a well-known doctrine which cannot be trifled with through a petition to compel the performance of the primary functions of each branch. The Constitution has laid down the duties and responsibilities of each branch and it did not fail to emphasize that they are equal. So if you cannot compel Congress to enact a law, do you believe that the Supreme Court should define what a political dynasty should be? No ma'am, the Supreme Court. It's just that I'm saying that the Supreme Court cannot encroach on such duties that are primarily legislative in character. The Constitution has laid down duties and responsibilities of each branch, and it did not fail to emphasize that they are equal and cannot be supreme over the other. Thus, in the case of Alejandrino v. Quezon, The court ruled that the Supreme Court cannot compel the performance of a duty purely legislative in their character, which therefore pertain to their legislative function and over which they have exclusive control. The courts cannot dictate action in disrespect without gross usurpation of power. If the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to define political dynasties, can the Supreme Court compel Congress to at least consider defining political dynasties? Well, it's still discretionary, sir. It's still discretionary in the Congress to define the law since the language of Section 26 is discretionary. Okay, going back. Even if one of the purposes of such doctrine is to have an elaborate system of checks and balances, which provides certain exceptions, it cannot be applied in this case. The matters are purely legislative in character. Now on our second point, Your Honor, granted that there are exceptions to said doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in this case. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court specifically allows the people to file a case. a petition for mandamos in which the supreme court may compel any government to perform an act required which is neglected to perform it is in our concession that such writ is not applicable in this case article 2 section 26 prohibits political dynasties however it does not provide a deadline for certain law to define the said provision a petition for mandamos can be filed when the government unlawfully neglects a required duty that it should be done Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Pamatong v. Komelik, as I have mentioned a while ago, Section 26 is not intended to compel the state to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office. The Constitution has left the discretion to the Congress when it comes to exercising its legislative powers. Compelling the Congress would mean usurpation of these powers. Also, filing a petition from Endangos to compel the exercise... Okay, time's up, Claire. JP, two minutes now to cross-examine her. Good evening, Ms. Speaker. Good evening. Is it your position that we cannot compel the Supreme Court? But in any of our speeches, the constructive, did we mention that we can compel the Supreme Court through a mandamus? Did any of us mention that? Well, that's the issue that was presented here. No, but I'm asking, yes, I understand that, but did any of us bring up the idea that we can actually file a mandamus to the Supreme Court? No, but I was citing a... So, clearly, Your Honors, because that... This argument will not fly in this debate because it's not responsive to really what is being called. That's not one of the main issues. We just dwell on the main issue. Yes, thank you. So is it your position that political dynasties are fundamentally wrong? No? No. So there are dynasties which are good. Dynasties per se is not bad, correct? Yes. So are you aware of the study conducted by the Asian Institute of Management about the political dynasties in 15th Congress? Please enlighten me. So are you aware that in that study, they use socio-economic and demographic properties of profiles of legislators and correlate this with criteria of development, poverty incidence, unemployment. So are you aware that 70% of the 15th Congress belongs to political dynasties? And also, are you aware that in that same study, generally the rule is that political dynasties, dynastic provinces have higher poverty incidence and unemployment. So clearly, your honors, while there may be exceptions of good political dynasties... So, sir, what's your question? So, are you aware of the findings, or do you deny the findings that as a general rule... that dynastic provinces have higher poverty incidence. Do you deny that assertion? Well, yeah. Yes. But purely... In the study, therefore, it is very clear how this study correlated that while there might be exception of dynasties, but the general rule is that... Okay, time's up. Third affirmative speaker, Christine, you have four minutes to argue the practicability of passing a law that defines and prohibits political dynasties. Good evening. To recap, 7 out of 10 members of the 15th Congress belong to political dynasties. 94% of our provinces are ruled by political dynasties. Incidentally, the Philippines remains to be a third world country. There are two attempts, two attempts have been made to ban the perpetuation of families in the government. Both of them failed. And sadly, Madam Speakers, members of the political dynasties have already entrenched themselves deeply in both the executive and the legislative branches. Hence, what do we do? We go to the Supreme Court, the last bulwark of democracy. But obviously, the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress by mandabo because this is violative of the separation of powers. The standard, therefore, of the affirmative is simple. What the Supreme Court should do is to declare the inaction of Congress as amounting to malice and hence unconstitutional. This will send a strong message to Congress and will leave no room for doubt that their continued inaction constitutes neglect of a constitutionally mandated... of a constitutional mandate and hence a betrayal of their very duty as members of the legislature. This is based on the proposition that Section 26, Article 2 provides for a clear mandate and imposes not just a power but rather a duty on Congress to craft the law. The difference between a duty and a power is that a duty can never be abdicated. To bolster these arguments, let's look at the wording of the provision itself. The law, whenever a law pro- Whenever law provides that a legislative act is necessary, the provision is qualified by either as provided for by law or as may be defined by law. When we say as provided for by law, and there is a material difference between these two. Because when we say as provided for by law, the supposition is that there is still no law. To provide, after all, means to give. And when we say as may be defined by law, there is already a mandate or a clear judgment. but what is lacking is simply the details to enforce that mandate. When you define what the word define means, it means to fix or lay down the parameters. What has to be defined therefore is not what the law is or what the law should be but rather the operative concepts of the law who will be covered up to what degree of consanguinity and the likes. When we look at the entire constitution, there are only two provisions where the phrase as may be defined by law was used. The first one was the section Section 26, Article 2, which provides for two mandatory duties. Guarantee equal access to opportunities for public office and prohibit political dynasties. The second one is Section 22 of Article 18, dealing with idle and abandoned lands for land reform. In both sections, the constitutional framers use the mandatory word, shall. And in Section 22 of Article 18, there was a question as regards RA3844 because it was argued that the law did not provide for expropriation but only for temporary planting. But at the end of the day, it was ruled that there is no need for such because Section 22 specifically authorizes expropriation. A question, Christine? Yes. Is it possible to operationalize the prohibition against political dynasties if there is no law defining what political dynasties is? Madam Speaker, that's why we need to craft a law. defining political dynasties. By declaring the inaction of Congress as unconstitutional, we empower the people and we give them something to hold on to and use against Congress. Now, if the people feel that the inaction is unconstitutional as declared by the Supreme Court, then the people themselves may go to the court and say that this constitutes a betrayal of public trust. We leave them to such. If the court gives that declaration, is that practical? Yes Madam Speaker, we say that that is practical because there is no encroachment. At the end of the day, you don't compel Congress but rather you leave it to the hands of the people themselves. What you only provide is that the inaction is unconstitutional. Whatever the people will do, it's up to them. at the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Commissioner Sarmiento said that the prohibition was included in 1987 to command the state to prohibit... Sorry, Christine, your time's up. Third negative speaker, Martin, you have two minutes now to cross-examine her. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Madam. Madam Speaker, are you against political dynasties? The Constitution is against political dynasties. Okay. So for the sake of this debate, obviously you are. So do you believe political dynasties are inherently evil? The Constitution says yes. Okay. Is murder inherently evil? Yes. Is theft inherently evil? Malayin se. Is rape inherently evil? Malayin se. So would you agree with me that the basis of inherent evil is the very nature of the act? Yes or no? No, you cannot associate the Constitution and the revised penal code. Madam Speaker, just say yes or no. You cannot compare. Okay, let's move on to the next question. So being in a political family, is it wrong? No. No, yes. But wanting to be a politician, for example, just like my dad or my grandfather, does that make it wrong? No. Does it make me necessarily bad? No. Now, do you believe that really creating a law to ban a person from doing so is necessary? Because the Constitution does state it. No, it's a yes or a no question, ma'am. It is necessary because the Constitution says it. Do you really believe that creating a law to ban a person from doing so is necessary? Yes. Is it not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are bad? That's why we need to have a law defining what a political dynasty is. Ma'am, is it not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are bad? No. It's not? It's not? No. Alright, thank you so much, ma'am. Alright, Martin, you have four minutes to rebut Christine and advance your argument. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight's debate is about a topic that has gripped the country since time immemorial. It's about the perennial problem of political dynasties. But let me ask you this, is it really a problem? Our first speaker explained to you that Section 26 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution is not an enforceable right, and that in fact it is only a state policy. Our second speaker, on the other hand, has effectively proven that Congress may not and cannot be compelled by the judiciary to create a law which would define and prohibit political dynasties because creating a law is a purely discretionary act of Congress. I am here today to explain to you that it is impracticable for such law to be passed. And assuming, in our guendo, that such a law has been passed, it in itself unduly limits the constitutionally protected political rights of Filipino citizens to be voted for and to vote. But it actually would not have any effect on what could happen in Philippine politics in general. The constitution has already set forth certain qualifications and disqualifications for people who aspire to join government or be elected into public office to serve the Filipino people. In the- In the case of those wishing to be elected, such qualifications are enshrined in the Constitution, specifically Section 2 of Article 7, Section 3 and 6 of Article 6, and Section 3 of Article 10. I will also remind you there are already set rules, such as the Omnibus Election Code, the Common Law Resolutions, and the Local Government Code, to name a few. Case in point, let's assume that the law was passed. What would then stop a person from endorsing a friend? Or someone... It's not related to him, but within the scope of his influence, to the office supposedly where his family members were banned. Has a certain Fabian Wehr come to mind? What we have to understand is that the reason why political dynasties need not be defined nor prohibited is because there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The constitution itself tells you that the power to elect these people is in our hands. To quote from Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them. You know these so-called political dynasties will not be there if the people had not elected them there in the first place. The reality of it is that the creation of such a law will not stop the propagation of political dynasties in the country. It will just be a catalyst to spur the creative minds of these power-hungry politicians. Look. when one group of people of a certain class commits a mistake or does something wrong. Yes, Your Honor. Yes. Mr. Speaker, are you saying that Congress should just ignore Section 26, Article 2? Your Honor, it is not an ignorance because we already know what political dynasties are. To define it, we just limit the act. We put the walls to the act. And what if these politicians come up with another ingenious plan to go against that? Will you create another law? It is just very cumbersome. So I was saying earlier, when one group of people of a certain class commits a mistake or does something wrong, do we automatically punish the entire class for that mistake or that wrongdoing? Of course we don't. That would be unfair and unjust. What I'm trying to say here is that we should not ban the method of execution. Rather, we should focus on abolishing the illegal act altogether. The illegal act here is the abuse of the electoral process. And yes, the method of execution is the political dynasty. But I will remind you that not all political dynasties are bad. To quote Mr. William Esposo in his column in the Philippine Star, political dynasties do not equate to a legal problem. In principle, there is nothing wrong with political dynasties. And that's why in the US, they celebrate political dynasties like that of the Kennedys of Massachusetts. So long as the Filipinos can vote freely, nobody can question the emergence of political dynasties. That is the reality. End of quote. So in sum, there are just three main points we would like to stress here. First, it is not necessary to pass that law because equal access to elective opportunities can be better provided through electoral reforms. Second, judiciary can never compel Congress to exercise its discretion in passing a law. And third, even if the law were there, it would really not make any difference. The only way to change this sad reality is not by creating a new law that would actually be cumbersome in execution, but it is in having an intelligent electorate and an electoral process that is not abused. Thank you. Alright, thank you, Martin. Christine, two minutes now to cross-examine him. Just to clarify, what you're saying is that political dynasties should not be banned? Exactly, yes. So what's your interpretation of Session 26 when the Constitution specifically states that it should prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law? That's why we're talking about not passing a law but creating electoral reforms. It's up to Comelect to be done to do that. Okay, when you say a law, your definition of a law is that an administrative agency should be the one crafting the law. But earlier we were talking about Congress passing a law. No, that's exactly the point. So what you're saying is that an administrative agency, or a comelec in this case, should be the one crafting the law? The reform, yes. That's what you're trying to say. Okay, let's go on to... statutory construction. Is it not true that when you interpret the Constitution, it should be interpreted in its entirety and not on a per-provision basis? Of course, yes. So if the Constitution provides that there are qualifications, and the Constitution also states that people are free to run and be voted for, then these two should be harmonized. Yes. So in effect, there could be no there could be no conflict if one of the qualifications as set forth by the Constitution is that political dynasties will be banned. Of course there will be a conflict. Okay, let's go on to your last point. What you're saying is that these politicians can nevertheless use their drivers or maids to run for public office. Mind you, I never said that, but okay in that sense, yes. So in effect, what you're saying is... If we cannot do something about it, we just let it be. We do not let it be. We prohibit it through electoral reforms. Remember, the debate here is about creating a law. And we're telling you, it's not the way to do it. There are many other ways to fight for the spirit of this provision in the Constitution. We want to prohibit political dynasty. There are many other ways to do it. Creating a law will be cumbersome. Like what I was telling earlier, if you create the law, you will put parameters on the political dynasty. So there are other ways. Okay guys, time's up. Thank you all very much. May we now invite both sides to cross the house as our judges tally the scores. Square Off, the CBC Law Debates will return after these messages. Let's now hear what our judges think about the performances of our two teams. Attorney Ranzas, how did you think the affirmative side the University of Santo Tomas did tonight? First of all, I would like to congratulate the team for a job well done. I can see that you did very good research and I greatly appreciate your use of statistics and studies. So keep it up. Thank you. And Attorney O'Malley, what can you say about the negative side of the De La Salle University? I'm gratified that they at least resorted to the records of the constitutional deliberations, which I think will provide the basis for ultimately how this case will be decided, or this issue will be decided. Thanks. Well, we'll bring you the results next. Please stay tuned for that. Square Off, the CBC Law Debates will return after this short break. Music Welcome back and now for the results. Let's hear from our chief adjudicator, Judge Divine Lopez-Pelino. Your Honor, who did the judges pick for best speaker? Before we announce the winners, we just congratulate all the debaters. You did a good job. But as the cliche goes, of course, there should only be one best speaker and there should also be one winning team. So with regard to the best speaker. We had a difficult time choosing the best speaker. One of the basis for choosing this speaker is that this speaker is good in interpolation. This speaker speaks impressively and carries the point of the team side. So who of these debaters impressed you guys the most? Okay, so our choice for best speaker is from De La Salle University, Martin Christopher Uy. Congratulations. Congratulations, Martin. And the team that won tonight's debate? Well, as I have said before, congratulations. You have done a great job. But, of course, there's only one team that should win tonight, and that is De La Salle University. Thank you. Congratulations to the De La Salle University for winning the first round. Next week, law students from St. Louis University Baguio and Silliman University will battle it out for round two of Square Off the CBC Law Debates Season 6. I'm Maike Areta. Thank you for watching.

Tonight we ask, should they be allowed to do so? And how in the first place do you even define a political dynasty? And can and should they be banished from the electoral system?

I'm Maiki Oretta. Hello and welcome to Square Off, the CBC Law Debates, Season 6. CBC Law Debates Grandfather, son, grandson. Leadership, service to the public, community service, has become a part of Grace, even though she's still young. Husband. brothers and sisters, As long as I'm out of strength in my body, I'll give it all to the Filipino people, especially to the Ilkanos.

and sometimes even feuding family members. History has seen how politics has long been a family affair, from one generation to another. While the law clearly prohibits political dynasties, it stops short of defining what a political dynasty actually is.

I am against passing a political dynasty law. Because? Because, first, you cannot legislate controlling political dynasties.

While some believe children born into political families are raised and trained in matters of public service, others say more than the name, performance matters, and that politicians should be judged based on their track records. Should Congress pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties? Is this even practicable?

Or will this just put restrictions and exclude deserving individuals from public office? Argueing for the affirmative side is the University of Santo Tomas. Driven by truth in charity, the contenders from the Royal and Pontifical University of Santo Tomas.

A writer, debater and sports enthusiast, John Paul Fabelia reveals that he wants to be remembered as an ambitious young man. Eager and passionate, J.P. calls himself the Prince of Persistence, for he vows to constantly exert enough effort to achieve his goals, come what may. Christine Jane Liu used to be a business reporter, covering the stock, bond, and currency markets for various news agencies.

Although Christine finds the job challenging and exciting, she swinged into studying law to live up to her dreams to join the high court. Keen and diligent, experienced debater Paula Beatriz Azurin shares that joining international and local debate competitions is an excellent preparation for life. More than just facts, it entails hard work, commitment, and quick thinking.

Team University of Santo Tomas. Committed, compassionate, competent. Taking on the negative side is the De La Salle University. From the university guided by religion, morals and culture, the mighty green archers of De La Salle University, Manila. Small but terrible, tough and competitive, that's how people describe Clarissa Sarmiento.

However this skilled and seasoned debater shares that, contrary to what the others perceive her to be, she is sweet, fun-loving and compassionate. Outgoing and people-oriented, his ability to move, motivate and capture an audience landed Rene Pilapil Jr. seat in the De La Salle University faculty. But Chip's dream of occupying a post in the judiciary pushed him to take up law.

Determined and motivated, Martin Christopher Uy expressed an interest in public service at an early age. Martin entered law school in pursuit of a better Philippines and an aspiration to lead the country one day. Team De La Sol University Manila.

Decisive. Determined. Driven. Let's now meet our distinguished judges. First off, we have Attorney Nina Rances, a partner at the Aguilar Rances Divinigracia Law Office.

Next, we have Attorney Pancho Omali from CVC Law. And our chief adjudicator for tonight, Judge Divine Lopez Pelino of the Pasay Regional Trial Court, Branch 231. The word war begins when Square Off, the CVC Law Debates, returns. Please stay tuned.

Music Using a modified Oregon-Oxford format, the debate is between two sides, the affirmative and the negative, with three members each. Each debater from the affirmative side argues either. the necessity, beneficiality, or the practicability of the proposition, while the counterpart debaters on the negative side oppose these arguments.

Each debater is given four minutes to deliver a constructive speech and rebuttal but the previous argument. Each debater is given two minutes to interpolate or cross-examine the opposing debater. Only categorical questions may be asked.

Each of the three judges may ask one question of each speaker within that speaker's time limit. The chief adjudicator rules in the event of ties, objections, or contestations. The judges' total scores determine the best speaker and the winning team.

Tonight's proposition, let it be resolved that Congress should pass a law that would identify, define, and prohibit political dynasties. Starting off for the affirmative side is Paula Azarin. Paula, you have four minutes to argue the need for Congress to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties.

Your Honors, good evening. As much as we would like to argue the conventional perception of the law, The novelty of the issue at hand compels us to innovate standard concepts of law in order to give life and meaning to the Constitution. The issue in this debate is simple, whether Congress should define and identify political dynasties.

For the purpose of this debate, the common concept of a political dynasty will be used. A political dynasty exists where family members up to the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity either successively or simultaneously run or occupy public offices. In the Philippines, 94% of all provinces are considered as dynastic regions in a study conducted by Dr. Timerio Rivera.

The Asian Institute of Management Policy Center found that 70% of legislators of the 15th Congress belong to political dynasties. It was also found that dynastic politicians were wealthier by an average of 10 million pesos compared to non-dynastic politicians in the country. in Congress, and that they obtained electoral wins by larger margins.

The same study also yielded the observation that dynastic provinces were poorer compared to non-dynastic provinces. Dynastic jurisdictions had a poverty incidence of 24.15 as against 18.95 of non-dynastic jurisdictions and a poverty severity of 2.31 against 1.86. The average income of these dynastic jurisdictions are lower than those of non-dynastic jurisdictions.

With this, there is a necessity to enact a law because we are at a loss as to what a political dynasty is. This is the gap that has facilitated the proliferation and entrenchment of political dynasties. This same gap has weakened the political and electoral system as these dynasties have been established because of this particular gap. Yes, ma'am.

Are political dynasties fundamentally wrong? According to the Constitution, they are fundamentally wrong, Your Honor. Although efforts have been made to stem political dynasties, the bills needed to identify them have never seen the light of day.

You have bills from the 13th Congress up to the present, the 15th Congress, where they are still at the committee level. It's been 25 years since the 1987 Constitution, and there is still no law to give meaning to Section 26, No Article 2 of the Constitution. And never mind that Congress is constitutional.

constitutionally mandated to enact a law. It's been 25 years. 25 years is an unreasonable length of time for Congress to craft a simple definition, but it's certainly enough for political dynasties to establish themselves in their respective provinces.

A law needs to be enacted as the very existence of a political dynasty is an affront not only to Article 2, Section 26, but also to Article 2, Section 1 as well. A republican and democratic state affords a system of free and equal access to opportunities for public service. A political dynasty, on the other hand, maintains control over political power, economic resources, and political machineries over a particular region.

It deters other equally qualified, if not better, candidates from running for office. Second of all, under the same section, Article 2, Section 1, sovereignty resides in the people and all government power emanates from them. A political dynasty takes away the power from the people and vests it in the hand of those political dynasties. And what happens at the end of the day? These political dynasties establish themselves in these provinces and thus the constitutional mandate that power resides in the people is violated.

And the concept that the power should be vested in the people is a democratic... is a basic principle of democracy and republicanism. If it is in the hands of these political dynasties or these feudal families, this is reminiscent of a monarchy, and such is contrary to what a democracy is, such that the democracy and republicanism that is espoused in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution is violated.

And this is one of the principal tenets that define our entire country at the end of the day. That is why, ladies and gentlemen, there is a need to enact a law to protect not just an individual vote or a public office, but to prevent the deterioration of crucial democratic institutions. And with that, we say that the law needs to be enacted.

First, negative speaker Chip, you have two minutes to cross-examine her. Good evening, Madam Speaker. The definition that you gave a while ago for a political dynasty.

Let me just clarify this fact. Is this correct that you took this definition from the pending Senate bill? No. That was filed by Miriam.

It's a commonly held concept of what a political dynasty is for an average reusable person. Were you able to read the Senate bill that is pending? Would you agree that that definition is quite similar to the definition that was given by Senator Santiago in her Senate bill, 2625? 2625? No.

It's actually quite similar. But let me just ask, are you aware that there is a definition for a political dynasty from Black's Law Dictionary? Yes, but it's not incorporated in our constitution or is it incorporated in our laws?

But you would agree that Black's Law Dictionary has been proven to be... It may be a definition. But you would agree that... It may be.

I'm sorry, Madam Speaker. Would you agree that Black's Law Dictionary is somehow authoritative as it has been used by the Supreme Court in certain cases? It may be.

It depends on the Supreme Court. It depends on the discretion of the Congress. But that would be a qualified yes, at least.

Let me move on to my next question, Madam Speaker. You cited Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution a while ago. This is the last phrase of Article 2, Section 1. that all um government authority emanates from the people, does that mean that the people are empowered to select their own leaders?

Yes. And do you believe that, or do you agree that drafting a law defining and prohibiting a political dynasty will result in qualifications for people who decide to run for political? There are valid qualifications that are scattered all over the Constitution.

You have Article 5. But an additional qualification in this case would require an amendment of the constitution, would you agree? This is a constitutionally mandated qualification by the constitution itself. Do you agree that unduly limiting their choice runs counter to the idea of a democracy? Unduly limiting the choice of the electorate runs counter to it?

Okay, time's up guys. Chip, you have four minutes to rebut Paula and argue why there is no need to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties in the Philippines. Good evening.

While conceding that Section 26 is not an enforceable right, we believe that Congress should not draft a law banning political dynasties. As defined in Black's Law Dictionary, a political dynasty is either a succession of rulers in the same line or family, or a powerful or influential family which continues in existence for a considerable time. By this, it becomes clear that the concept of a political dynasty is ambiguous, and the argument for the drafting of a law prohibiting it will stand on no other leg aside from the equally ambiguous policy of Section 26. In contrast, we will prove that the argument against such a law is based on more significant reasons. To begin, I will first subscribe to one of the chief principles of constitutional construction, and that is to provide an interpretation that will uphold the framers' intent. The records of the Commission reveal that Section 26 prohibits political dynasties because they can be used in circumventing the three-term rule by fielding sons or daughters who will easily yield to moral influence.

Therefore, the policy was made not because political dynasties are wrong per se. but because they can become an obstacle to the real intent of Section 26, which is to provide equal access to opportunities for public service. This objective has been cited by constitutionalist Joaquin Bernas and has been used by the court in the leading case of Pamatong v. Komalek.

And with this intent in mind, let me move on to our reasons. First of all, a law prohibiting political dynasties is unnecessary in accomplishing equal access. The fear that a political patriarch will use his influence to stay in power, will not be eliminated by banning his family from running altogether. This is because the Patriarch could just as easily field his aides or drivers, who by reason of their loyalty may prove to be an even worse kind of instrument for perpetuating political power. In fact, this ambiguity cuts both ways.

The well-documented father and son feud of the Villas Fuertes and Camarines Sur shows us that even familial ties cannot be a strong basis to assume a strong political influence. Second, and perhaps more importantly, such a law is contrary to the fundamental principles of a democratic and republican system of government, contrary to what the first speaker has said a while ago. By imposing an additional qualification on persons who desire to run for public office, this law unduly limits the right of these persons to be voted for. It will deny them equal protection by segregating them from the rest of society. Are you saying then that that constitutional prohibition is actually unconstitutional?

It will result in an unconstitutional law if it was enacted in, if it was enforced in a way that will enact a law banning political parties. But there is a way around it. By imposing, again, this additional qualification, these people will be denied equal protection.

Moreover, such a law unduly limits the freedom of choice of the electorate. In a recent study published by the PPSA, Some provinces who have established political clans actually have a high Human Development Index score, suggesting that even political families can be beneficial to a community. Depriving this electorate of the choice to decide, or the chance to decide, whether or not they deserve this kind of leadership is unacceptable.

A law prohibiting political dynasties, once again, is unnecessary and detrimental to our society. If we want to guarantee equal access, we need to... Aim for electoral reforms that would eliminate the abuse of power and not the right to run for public office.

To level the playing field, we need to enact a system of voters education that would provide sophisticated political knowledge and not limit our understanding even further. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the real responsibility of the state under section 26. It is not to draft a law which is unjust and without a practical basis. I would like to end with the words of Dean Raul Pangalangan in one of his writings on election law.

And I quote. Okay, sorry Chip, your time's up. Paula, you now have two minutes to cross-examine him. In the general Philippine experience of what political dynasties are, do you have figures that actually show that these political dynasties are good for them?

In a recent study that was published by the PPSA, there is actually proof that a high HDI score can be found in some cases. That is false, Your Honors, because there was a recent study conducted by AAMPC stating that these poverty incidences or these poverty rates were actually higher in dynastic jurisdictions rather than in non-dynastic jurisdictions. Do you believe that the prohibition against political dynasty is an additional disqualification?

It will result in a disqualification. But it's already in the Constitution, is it not? But it is not in the form of a disqualification yet. How can the Constitution contradict itself?

Well, it will not contradict itself yet unless we enact a law that follows what it says. This is a provision that requires an enabling law. That is correct. Yes. So it requires an enabling law.

That is correct. So if this provision requires an enabling law, Congress needs to enact an enabling law to give life to this provision. If it will result in an unconstitutional law, then Congress can refuse to do it. How can it result in a constitutional crisis or in a constitutional ambiguity when it's already consisted with the constitutional provisions that are laid down in Article 2, Section 1?

Because it will result in an additional qualification which was not laid down in Article 6, 7, and 8. Especially with... Especially when there are Disqualifications that are Scattered all over the Constitution You have Article 5 The right to suffrage Which is already limited By those who are Allowed to vote Even the right to be Voted for is limited That's why You have nuisance candidates, is it not? Nuisance candidates are not provided for under the constitution, it is actually just a policy that was allowed by the courts.

You have those persons who are able to read and write at least 40 years old, those are qualifications that are in the constitution. Those are qualifications, that is correct. Those are qualifications, so these political dynasties can... can substitute or can operate as a disqualification.

That would be an additional qualification that was not provided for in the Constitution. How can it be an additional qualification when it's already in the Constitution? It's not in the form of a disqualification.

Paula, shift your chimes up. Second affirmative speaker, JP, you now have four minutes to argue why it would be beneficial to pass a law that would define and prohibit political dynasties. Good evening, Your Honors, ladies and gentlemen.

The other side of the House had an admission that by... enacting a law that would prohibit political dynasty, it would result into an unconstitutional act. But when the affirmative bench says that Congress should pass a law because clearly it is a constitutionally mandated duty of Congress, and the Constitution should be construed as a single document and it can never contradict its very provisions. So given the characterization of the necessity to enact an...

to enact an anti-dynasty law, allow me to dwell on the benefits of the proposition. Number one, it is beneficial because it will improve the quality of Philippine democracy by increasing the level of political participation. We base this on the premise that in democratic theory, a functioning democracy is maximized on three essential parts, accountability, representation, and participation.

Participation is manifested in the form of electoral exercise, either to vote or be voted for. Now, the prevalence of political dynasty weakens political competition and signals the deterioration of political participation. How is that so? The incumbency advantage enjoyed by dynastic candidates actually discourages and excludes those non-dynastic candidates to enter into the political arena. In essence, there results a monopoly of political power.

So what happens is that these... The monopoly of this political power results into policies which actually protect the interests of the few. And in order to perpetuate more themselves in power, these political dynasties spearhead populist programs which are not sustainable at the end of the day.

In order to prove this assertion in the study conducted by Asian Institute of Management, it said that as a general rule, a survey of the dynastic provinces, they have higher cases of poverty, and unemployment over those non-dynastic areas. So by enacting an anti-dynasty law, we widen the opportunities, we level the playing field, and we give opportunities to promising candidates. Because again, we want to prevent a concentration of political power because we believe that no one is indispensable in running the affairs of the country.

On to my second benefit, on how it is beneficial because it will create a more responsible electorate. In the anti-dynasty bill filed by Senator Santiago, she posed that one of the reasons why these political dynasties continue to thrive is because of a cultural mindset. And voters, out of convenience, look up to these ruling families as dispensers of favors and elect relatives of these politically dominant families.

So we want to break this electoral culture. How so? By opening up opportunities to a new breed of politicians.

Because all things being equal, if we remove the undue advantage enjoyed by dynastic candidates, the electorate will be forced to know more about their candidates. So at the end of the day, we give more value to the sanctity of the right to suffrage. So we do not owe... Yes, Your Honor?

Are you then saying that the problem lies with the electorate but not really with the candidates? No, not... Thank you for the question. Not necessarily the problem lies with the electorate. but by giving By enacting anti-dynasty law, we start first from the top by eliminating those options, which would in turn result into a more responsible electorate.

So we did not only give spirit to the constitutional provisions and the intention of the framers to prevent political dynasties, but we also reinforced the concept of a genuine democracy and republicanism that us enshrined in the constitution. So with that, we really believe that it is necessary to enact a law and it will be beneficial for us to have one. Thank you. All right.

Thank you, JP. Second negative speaker, Claire. Two minutes now to cross-examine him.

Hi. Good evening, Mr. Speaker. Good evening. Okay.

So you mentioned a while ago that passing an anti-political dynasty bill is constitutionally mandated by the government, right? Yes. Okay. So you said it will increase the number of participation. Yes.

Isn't it that we have qualifications in the different provisions of the Constitution? Do you think that passing an anti-political dynasty bill would encroach disqualifications in the Constitution? No.

Well, going back to what I've said, you said that it will increase the number of participation, right? Yes. So are you aware in the recent ruling of Pamatong v. Komelek, where it stated that the Congress is not intended to compel the state to enact measures that would accommodate...

as many people as possible in the public office. So, Section 26, Article 2, Section 26, is not merely encouraging everyone to run in the public position, right? Well, it's not necessarily correct. It's just a yes or no, sir.

So, qualified, no? Okay. So, do you agree with me that Section 26 is...

It's clearly stating that to run to public office is not a constitutional right. It's more of a privilege, both a privilege and a right. So it's both a privilege and a right? Subject to conditions. Because what you were saying a while ago, to allow everyone to run in the office, it's like you're saying that to run in a public office is a constitutional right.

What you're trying to say is that by eliminating this political dynasty... It's just a yes or no, sir. So what's the question again? Okay, so you are saying that a while ago that it is a constitutional right to run in the public office.

No, because again it is subject to limitations, to qualifications. Okay, so that's all. Thank you. Okay, Claire, four minutes now to rebut JP and argue why it would not be beneficial to pass a law that defines and prohibits political dynasties. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

Political dynasty has long been a standing issue in the Philippines. The constitution clearly prohibits it. But was it even a good remedy to have the courts act on issues such that are purely legislative matters? In response to the present issue of whether or not Congress may be compelled to exercise their legislative power by the judiciary through a petition filed with the Supreme Court, we respond in a negative. This House believes...

that the Congress may not be compelled to exercise their legislative powers to pass an anti-political dynasty bill by filing a petition with the Supreme Court. Simply for two main reasons. First, the Supreme Court is co-equal with the legislative and cannot order a co-equal branch of government of what law to pass.

And second, Granted that there are exceptions to such doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in the present case. On the first proposition, we believe that the Constitution has created the three branches of government co-equally. It has been recognized by the Supreme Court, especially in the case of Francisco v. House of Representatives, where it is said that one of the fundamental doctrines of a Republican government is the separation of powers. Furthermore, it emphasizes its importance in this, I quote, The separation of powers is a fundamental principle in our system of government.

It obtains not through express provision but by actual division in our Constitution. It is in our concession that the separation of powers is a well-known doctrine which cannot be trifled with through a petition to compel the performance of the primary functions of each branch. The Constitution has laid down the duties and responsibilities of each branch and it did not fail to emphasize that they are equal. So if you cannot compel Congress to enact a law, do you believe that the Supreme Court should define what a political dynasty should be? No ma'am, the Supreme Court.

It's just that I'm saying that the Supreme Court cannot encroach on such duties that are primarily legislative in character. The Constitution has laid down duties and responsibilities of each branch, and it did not fail to emphasize that they are equal and cannot be supreme over the other. Thus, in the case of Alejandrino v. Quezon, The court ruled that the Supreme Court cannot compel the performance of a duty purely legislative in their character, which therefore pertain to their legislative function and over which they have exclusive control.

The courts cannot dictate action in disrespect without gross usurpation of power. If the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress to define political dynasties, can the Supreme Court compel Congress to at least consider defining political dynasties? Well, it's still discretionary, sir. It's still discretionary in the Congress to define the law since the language of Section 26 is discretionary.

Okay, going back. Even if one of the purposes of such doctrine is to have an elaborate system of checks and balances, which provides certain exceptions, it cannot be applied in this case. The matters are purely legislative in character.

Now on our second point, Your Honor, granted that there are exceptions to said doctrine, such exceptions will not apply in this case. Section 3, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court specifically allows the people to file a case. a petition for mandamos in which the supreme court may compel any government to perform an act required which is neglected to perform it is in our concession that such writ is not applicable in this case article 2 section 26 prohibits political dynasties however it does not provide a deadline for certain law to define the said provision a petition for mandamos can be filed when the government unlawfully neglects a required duty that it should be done Furthermore, according to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Pamatong v. Komelik, as I have mentioned a while ago, Section 26 is not intended to compel the state to enact positive measures that would accommodate as many people as possible into public office. The Constitution has left the discretion to the Congress when it comes to exercising its legislative powers. Compelling the Congress would mean usurpation of these powers.

Also, filing a petition from Endangos to compel the exercise... Okay, time's up, Claire. JP, two minutes now to cross-examine her. Good evening, Ms. Speaker.

Good evening. Is it your position that we cannot compel the Supreme Court? But in any of our speeches, the constructive, did we mention that we can compel the Supreme Court through a mandamus?

Did any of us mention that? Well, that's the issue that was presented here. No, but I'm asking, yes, I understand that, but did any of us bring up the idea that we can actually file a mandamus to the Supreme Court?

No, but I was citing a... So, clearly, Your Honors, because that... This argument will not fly in this debate because it's not responsive to really what is being called.

That's not one of the main issues. We just dwell on the main issue. Yes, thank you. So is it your position that political dynasties are fundamentally wrong?

No? No. So there are dynasties which are good.

Dynasties per se is not bad, correct? Yes. So are you aware of the study conducted by the Asian Institute of Management about the political dynasties in 15th Congress? Please enlighten me.

So are you aware that in that study, they use socio-economic and demographic properties of profiles of legislators and correlate this with criteria of development, poverty incidence, unemployment. So are you aware that 70% of the 15th Congress belongs to political dynasties? And also, are you aware that in that same study, generally the rule is that political dynasties, dynastic provinces have higher poverty incidence and unemployment.

So clearly, your honors, while there may be exceptions of good political dynasties... So, sir, what's your question? So, are you aware of the findings, or do you deny the findings that as a general rule... that dynastic provinces have higher poverty incidence.

Do you deny that assertion? Well, yeah. Yes.

But purely... In the study, therefore, it is very clear how this study correlated that while there might be exception of dynasties, but the general rule is that... Okay, time's up. Third affirmative speaker, Christine, you have four minutes to argue the practicability of passing a law that defines and prohibits political dynasties.

Good evening. To recap, 7 out of 10 members of the 15th Congress belong to political dynasties. 94% of our provinces are ruled by political dynasties. Incidentally, the Philippines remains to be a third world country. There are two attempts, two attempts have been made to ban the perpetuation of families in the government.

Both of them failed. And sadly, Madam Speakers, members of the political dynasties have already entrenched themselves deeply in both the executive and the legislative branches. Hence, what do we do? We go to the Supreme Court, the last bulwark of democracy. But obviously, the Supreme Court cannot compel Congress by mandabo because this is violative of the separation of powers.

The standard, therefore, of the affirmative is simple. What the Supreme Court should do is to declare the inaction of Congress as amounting to malice and hence unconstitutional. This will send a strong message to Congress and will leave no room for doubt that their continued inaction constitutes neglect of a constitutionally mandated...

of a constitutional mandate and hence a betrayal of their very duty as members of the legislature. This is based on the proposition that Section 26, Article 2 provides for a clear mandate and imposes not just a power but rather a duty on Congress to craft the law. The difference between a duty and a power is that a duty can never be abdicated. To bolster these arguments, let's look at the wording of the provision itself. The law, whenever a law pro- Whenever law provides that a legislative act is necessary, the provision is qualified by either as provided for by law or as may be defined by law.

When we say as provided for by law, and there is a material difference between these two. Because when we say as provided for by law, the supposition is that there is still no law. To provide, after all, means to give. And when we say as may be defined by law, there is already a mandate or a clear judgment.

but what is lacking is simply the details to enforce that mandate. When you define what the word define means, it means to fix or lay down the parameters. What has to be defined therefore is not what the law is or what the law should be but rather the operative concepts of the law who will be covered up to what degree of consanguinity and the likes.

When we look at the entire constitution, there are only two provisions where the phrase as may be defined by law was used. The first one was the section Section 26, Article 2, which provides for two mandatory duties. Guarantee equal access to opportunities for public office and prohibit political dynasties.

The second one is Section 22 of Article 18, dealing with idle and abandoned lands for land reform. In both sections, the constitutional framers use the mandatory word, shall. And in Section 22 of Article 18, there was a question as regards RA3844 because it was argued that the law did not provide for expropriation but only for temporary planting. But at the end of the day, it was ruled that there is no need for such because Section 22 specifically authorizes expropriation.

A question, Christine? Yes. Is it possible to operationalize the prohibition against political dynasties if there is no law defining what political dynasties is? Madam Speaker, that's why we need to craft a law. defining political dynasties.

By declaring the inaction of Congress as unconstitutional, we empower the people and we give them something to hold on to and use against Congress. Now, if the people feel that the inaction is unconstitutional as declared by the Supreme Court, then the people themselves may go to the court and say that this constitutes a betrayal of public trust. We leave them to such. If the court gives that declaration, is that practical?

Yes Madam Speaker, we say that that is practical because there is no encroachment. At the end of the day, you don't compel Congress but rather you leave it to the hands of the people themselves. What you only provide is that the inaction is unconstitutional. Whatever the people will do, it's up to them.

at the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission. Commissioner Sarmiento said that the prohibition was included in 1987 to command the state to prohibit... Sorry, Christine, your time's up.

Third negative speaker, Martin, you have two minutes now to cross-examine her. Good evening, everybody. Good evening, Madam.

Madam Speaker, are you against political dynasties? The Constitution is against political dynasties. Okay.

So for the sake of this debate, obviously you are. So do you believe political dynasties are inherently evil? The Constitution says yes. Okay.

Is murder inherently evil? Yes. Is theft inherently evil? Malayin se.

Is rape inherently evil? Malayin se. So would you agree with me that the basis of inherent evil is the very nature of the act?

Yes or no? No, you cannot associate the Constitution and the revised penal code. Madam Speaker, just say yes or no.

You cannot compare. Okay, let's move on to the next question. So being in a political family, is it wrong?

No. No, yes. But wanting to be a politician, for example, just like my dad or my grandfather, does that make it wrong?

No. Does it make me necessarily bad? No.

Now, do you believe that really creating a law to ban a person from doing so is necessary? Because the Constitution does state it. No, it's a yes or a no question, ma'am. It is necessary because the Constitution says it. Do you really believe that creating a law to ban a person from doing so is necessary?

Yes. Is it not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are bad? That's why we need to have a law defining what a political dynasty is. Ma'am, is it not a sweeping generalization to say that all political dynasties are bad? No.

It's not? It's not? No. Alright, thank you so much, ma'am. Alright, Martin, you have four minutes to rebut Christine and advance your argument.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Tonight's debate is about a topic that has gripped the country since time immemorial. It's about the perennial problem of political dynasties. But let me ask you this, is it really a problem? Our first speaker explained to you that Section 26 of Article 2 of the 1987 Constitution is not an enforceable right, and that in fact it is only a state policy.

Our second speaker, on the other hand, has effectively proven that Congress may not and cannot be compelled by the judiciary to create a law which would define and prohibit political dynasties because creating a law is a purely discretionary act of Congress. I am here today to explain to you that it is impracticable for such law to be passed. And assuming, in our guendo, that such a law has been passed, it in itself unduly limits the constitutionally protected political rights of Filipino citizens to be voted for and to vote.

But it actually would not have any effect on what could happen in Philippine politics in general. The constitution has already set forth certain qualifications and disqualifications for people who aspire to join government or be elected into public office to serve the Filipino people. In the- In the case of those wishing to be elected, such qualifications are enshrined in the Constitution, specifically Section 2 of Article 7, Section 3 and 6 of Article 6, and Section 3 of Article 10. I will also remind you there are already set rules, such as the Omnibus Election Code, the Common Law Resolutions, and the Local Government Code, to name a few. Case in point, let's assume that the law was passed.

What would then stop a person from endorsing a friend? Or someone... It's not related to him, but within the scope of his influence, to the office supposedly where his family members were banned.

Has a certain Fabian Wehr come to mind? What we have to understand is that the reason why political dynasties need not be defined nor prohibited is because there is nothing inherently wrong with them. The constitution itself tells you that the power to elect these people is in our hands. To quote from Section 1 of Article 2 of the Constitution, sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

You know these so-called political dynasties will not be there if the people had not elected them there in the first place. The reality of it is that the creation of such a law will not stop the propagation of political dynasties in the country. It will just be a catalyst to spur the creative minds of these power-hungry politicians. Look. when one group of people of a certain class commits a mistake or does something wrong.

Yes, Your Honor. Yes. Mr. Speaker, are you saying that Congress should just ignore Section 26, Article 2? Your Honor, it is not an ignorance because we already know what political dynasties are.

To define it, we just limit the act. We put the walls to the act. And what if these politicians come up with another ingenious plan to go against that?

Will you create another law? It is just very cumbersome. So I was saying earlier, when one group of people of a certain class commits a mistake or does something wrong, do we automatically punish the entire class for that mistake or that wrongdoing?

Of course we don't. That would be unfair and unjust. What I'm trying to say here is that we should not ban the method of execution. Rather, we should focus on abolishing the illegal act altogether.

The illegal act here is the abuse of the electoral process. And yes, the method of execution is the political dynasty. But I will remind you that not all political dynasties are bad. To quote Mr. William Esposo in his column in the Philippine Star, political dynasties do not equate to a legal problem.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with political dynasties. And that's why in the US, they celebrate political dynasties like that of the Kennedys of Massachusetts. So long as the Filipinos can vote freely, nobody can question the emergence of political dynasties.

That is the reality. End of quote. So in sum, there are just three main points we would like to stress here. First, it is not necessary to pass that law because equal access to elective opportunities can be better provided through electoral reforms.

Second, judiciary can never compel Congress to exercise its discretion in passing a law. And third, even if the law were there, it would really not make any difference. The only way to change this sad reality is not by creating a new law that would actually be cumbersome in execution, but it is in having an intelligent electorate and an electoral process that is not abused.

Thank you. Alright, thank you, Martin. Christine, two minutes now to cross-examine him.

Just to clarify, what you're saying is that political dynasties should not be banned? Exactly, yes. So what's your interpretation of Session 26 when the Constitution specifically states that it should prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law? That's why we're talking about not passing a law but creating electoral reforms. It's up to Comelect to be done to do that.

Okay, when you say a law, your definition of a law is that an administrative agency should be the one crafting the law. But earlier we were talking about Congress passing a law. No, that's exactly the point.

So what you're saying is that an administrative agency, or a comelec in this case, should be the one crafting the law? The reform, yes. That's what you're trying to say.

Okay, let's go on to... statutory construction. Is it not true that when you interpret the Constitution, it should be interpreted in its entirety and not on a per-provision basis? Of course, yes.

So if the Constitution provides that there are qualifications, and the Constitution also states that people are free to run and be voted for, then these two should be harmonized. Yes. So in effect, there could be no there could be no conflict if one of the qualifications as set forth by the Constitution is that political dynasties will be banned. Of course there will be a conflict.

Okay, let's go on to your last point. What you're saying is that these politicians can nevertheless use their drivers or maids to run for public office. Mind you, I never said that, but okay in that sense, yes. So in effect, what you're saying is... If we cannot do something about it, we just let it be.

We do not let it be. We prohibit it through electoral reforms. Remember, the debate here is about creating a law. And we're telling you, it's not the way to do it.

There are many other ways to fight for the spirit of this provision in the Constitution. We want to prohibit political dynasty. There are many other ways to do it.

Creating a law will be cumbersome. Like what I was telling earlier, if you create the law, you will put parameters on the political dynasty. So there are other ways. Okay guys, time's up.

Thank you all very much. May we now invite both sides to cross the house as our judges tally the scores. Square Off, the CBC Law Debates will return after these messages.

Let's now hear what our judges think about the performances of our two teams. Attorney Ranzas, how did you think the affirmative side the University of Santo Tomas did tonight? First of all, I would like to congratulate the team for a job well done.

I can see that you did very good research and I greatly appreciate your use of statistics and studies. So keep it up. Thank you. And Attorney O'Malley, what can you say about the negative side of the De La Salle University? I'm gratified that they at least resorted to the records of the constitutional deliberations, which I think will provide the basis for ultimately how this case will be decided, or this issue will be decided.

Thanks. Well, we'll bring you the results next. Please stay tuned for that.

Square Off, the CBC Law Debates will return after this short break. Music Welcome back and now for the results. Let's hear from our chief adjudicator, Judge Divine Lopez-Pelino.

Your Honor, who did the judges pick for best speaker? Before we announce the winners, we just congratulate all the debaters. You did a good job.

But as the cliche goes, of course, there should only be one best speaker and there should also be one winning team. So with regard to the best speaker. We had a difficult time choosing the best speaker. One of the basis for choosing this speaker is that this speaker is good in interpolation.

This speaker speaks impressively and carries the point of the team side. So who of these debaters impressed you guys the most? Okay, so our choice for best speaker is from De La Salle University, Martin Christopher Uy. Congratulations.

Congratulations, Martin. And the team that won tonight's debate? Well, as I have said before, congratulations. You have done a great job.

But, of course, there's only one team that should win tonight, and that is De La Salle University. Thank you. Congratulations to the De La Salle University for winning the first round.

Next week, law students from St. Louis University Baguio and Silliman University will battle it out for round two of Square Off the CBC Law Debates Season 6. I'm Maike Areta. Thank you for watching.

Transcript for:Political Dynasty Debate Overview

Transcript for:
Political Dynasty Debate Overview