SK reform law is unconstitutional as it violates equal access to opportunity to public service

SK reform law is unconstitutional as it violates the equal access to opportunity to public service

The phrase ‘equal access to opportunity to public service’ is a dichotomous principle of political dynasty which is falsely interrelated by perception.  The first phrase is an inclusive principle while the prohibition of the political dynasty provides an excluding rule.  

The SK reform law is pushed by many solons as it became a famous cause of debate because Sangguaniang Kabataan structure is said to be protecting political families.  The SK Reform Law is said to be the first enabling law of Article II, section 26 of the constitution particularly on the prohibition of the political dynasty.  Political dynasty is still undefined by the law.

Under the rules of statutory construction, it is not the letter but rather the spirit of the law and intention of the Legislature that is important and which matters. 

During the deliberation of the Constitutional Commission on political dynasty, the commission discussed on how this to be constitutionally accorded.  In the deliberation what has been contemplated as a political dynasty is not a prohibition to run by reason of birth lineage.  What was contemplated during the deliberation is the regulation of political dynasty through term limit.  The provision on political dynasties was proposed by Commissioner Jose Nolledo. In part, I quote the commissioner “I believe,… that this prohibition is not actually prohibitory but only regulatory”. I am talking of this in terms of the scope of the term ‘political dynasty’ by saying that a prohibition against political dynasty, is designed to avoid circumvention of the provision limiting reelection of  public officers to give a chance to others in running for public office. I would like to be specific...” It is clear in the statement of the commissioner that the prohibition on political dynasty is not absolute.  It simply pertains on regulating the number of terms which one may stay in public service by reelection.   

Further on the deliberation, Commissioner Blas Ople also suggested that the word “dynasty” was probably being misapplied to distinguished political families.  He further contends that if the right of suffrage should not be abridged so should the right to be voted upon as it is derived from the same concept of the right of suffrage. 

Article 5 section 1 of our constitution states in part that, No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage. Applying statutory construction substantive requirement would include those that are non-discriminatory such as those enumerated under section 2 of the international covenant on civil and political rights - such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

I quote from a supreme court decision, “A similar idea appeared in our jurisprudence as early as 1969, which was Justice Barredo’s concurring and dissenting opinion in Gonzales v. COMELEC: I like to reiterate over and over, for it seems this is the fundamental point others miss, that genuine democracy thrives only where the power and right of the people to elect the men to whom they would entrust the privilege to run the affairs of the state exist. In the language of the declaration of principles of our Constitution, "The Philippines is a republican state. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them" (Section 1, Article II). Translating this declaration into actuality, the Philippines is a republic because and solely because the people in it can be governed only by officials whom they themselves have placed in office by their votes.’  Limiting their option who to vote is a violation of this right.

In a petition recently filed before the Supreme Court, such petition was denied for reason that the said article is non-executing and needs enabling law for it to become justiciable.  Clearly, there are still no laws passed to regulate the intricacies of political dynasty.  It was only said that it is in the SK reform law that a glimpse of the anti-dynasty law is included, which is clearly a violation of equal rights.  The anti-dynasty law is only embodied in the SK reform law, but not yet in other laws governing the election of the ‘adults’.  What is the difference when the youth runs for elective position and an adult runs for an elective position? Why would the ‘anti-dynasty provision is only being prohibited in the SK reform law and not on the Local Government Code of 1991 from where the SK Law stemmed? This is an evident violation of the equal protection clause of the constitution and limiting equal access to opportunity to public service.

In the present political set-up it is apparent that the term dynasty is being interrelated into a negative thing that paralyzes democracy.  But history would tell us that political dynasty is actually a means of stabilization.  The etymology of the term dynasty originates from Greek terms related to the term “dynamic”— the Greek terms are dunamis, which means strength.  From this come the verb dunasthai (to be strong or to be able) and the noun dunasteia, meaning domination, the source of the English word “dynasty.” And the term domination is synonymous with the term Sovereignty.  Hence, history would tell us that dynasty is a good political thing if under a good political set-up.  Therefore it is not political dynasty that causes the anomalies in the government; instead it is the effect of lax governance.  It is not the effect that we have to curtail just so to have the solution to the cause.  

Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, ‘Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without any of the distinctions mentioned in article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions: 

(a) To take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; 

(b) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; 

(c) To have access, on general terms of equality to public service in his country

Article 2 of this covenant states, “Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Further, “the Human Rights Committee has noted that with regard to the implementation of the equal right and opportunity to stand for public office, which ensures that electors have a free choice of candidates, any restrictions on the right to stand for election, such as minimum age, must be justifiable on objective and reasonable criteria” Positive measures must be taken by States to ensure that the criteria for candidacy are reasonable and non-discriminatory. Discrimination against eligible candidates for public office on grounds such as education, residence or descent or political affiliation is prohibited”.  

To this covenant, the Philippine state is a signatory.  

The prohibition on political dynasty is not absolute. The SK reform law inserted a qualification clause that prohibits a son or a daughter whose father or mother or any relative in the 2nd degree to run in the SK election.  This clause does not only violate equal access to opportunity to public service but also to the equal protection clause enshrine in the constitution.  Thus the SK reformed law is clearly unconstitutional.