Anti Dynasty

W/N THE PETITION OF ANTI-DYNASTY CAN SUCCEED BASED ON THE
CURRENT STATE OF STARE-DECISIS ON THE MATTER

I. Let’s first define what is Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases
when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with
similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds
courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.
Now, can the Petition of Mandamus filed by the four lawyers asking the Supreme Court
to compel the legislature to act on the anti-dynasty succeed?
II. Answer: No
III. Explanation: SC RULINGS BASED ON PETITION OF MANDAMUS

Alejandrino v. Quezon G.R. No. 22041
Philippine Supreme Court decisions dating back from 1924 in the famous case of
Alejandrino v. Quezon states that :
Mandamus will not lie against the legislative body, its members, or its officers, to
compel the performance of duties purely legislative in their character which
therefore pertain to their legislative, functions and over which they have exclusive
control. The courts cannot dictate action in this respect without a gross
usurpation of power.
Antoniette V.C. Montesclaros, et.al. v. COMELEC G.R. No. 152295
In the more recent case of Antoniette V.C. Montesclaros, et.al. v. COMELEC, et.al.
(G.R. No. 152295, July 2, 2002) the Supreme Court further elaborated on what the
separation of powers between the Supreme Court and the Philippine Congress would
mean:
Under the separation of powers, the Court cannot restrain Congress from
passing any law, or from setting into motion the legislative mill according to its
internal rules. Thus, the following acts of Congress in the exercise of its
legislative powers are not subject to judicial restraint: the filing of bills by
members of Congress, the approval of bills by each chamber of Congress, the
reconciliation by the Bicameral Committee of approved bills, and the eventual
approval into law of the reconciled bills by each chamber of Congress. Absent a
clear violation of specific constitutional limitations or of constitutional rights of
private parties, the Court cannot exercise its power of judicial review over the
internal processes or procedures of Congress.
The Court has also no power to dictate to Congress the object or subject of bills
that Congress should enact into law. The judicial power to review the
constitutionality of laws does not include the power to prescribe to Congress
what laws to enact.
In this case, the Supreme Court resisted a similar mandamus petition to enact a
law allowing petitioners, regardless of their age, to vote and be voted for in the
July 15, 2002 SK elections. The Supreme Court explained why :
To do so would destroy the delicate system of checks and balances finely crafted
by the Constitution for the three co-equal, coordinate and independent branches
of government
Penson vs COMELEC G.R. No. 211636

Penson asked the high court last to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the poll body to
implement a ban on political dynasties as provided in Article II Section 26 of the
Constitution, which reads: The state shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for
public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.
Penson, who launched his movement, said there is a need for the high court to act on
the issue since both houses of Congress have failed for a long time to perform their
constitutional duty to provide a clear definition to political dynasties and implement the
ban.
He alleged that such a failure on the part of the Senate and House of Representatives -
which he named respondents - is clear violation of right to procedural and substantive
due process that deserves judicial action.
But the high court ruled that it is evident from the plain wording of the provision
against political dynasties that it is not self-executing but simply a statement of a
general principle which further requires a law passed by Congress to define and
give effect thereto.
In reiterating its ruling on Biraogo, said mandamus is not applicable on the
Penson petition. It noted that mandamus is applicable only to ministerial duties.
Ministerial duties refer an act or duty which an officer or tribunal performs in a
given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the mandate of a
legal authority.
WHETHER STARE DECISIS ON THE ANTI-DYNASTY LAW ISSUE CAN BE

OVERTURNED BASED ON THE CASE OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY,
AND THE OPINION OF JUSTICE PUNO IN LAMBINO V. COMELEC
I. Opinion of Justice Puno

Justice Puno in the case of Lambino v.COMELEC contended that, “The doctrine of
stare decisis does not bar the reexamination of Santiago.”
Two strains of stare decisis have been isolated by legal scholars.23 The first, known as
vertical stare decisis deals with the duty of lower courts to apply the decisions of
the higher courts to cases involving the same facts. The second, known as
horizontal stare decisis requires that high courts must follow its own precedents.
Prof. Consovoy correctly observes that vertical stare decisis has been viewed as an
obligation, while horizontal stare decisis, has been viewed as a policy, imposing choice
but not a command.
The Petition of Mandamus to compel Congress to enact a law regarding anti-
dynasty will fall under the horizontal stare decisis since the given case talks
about whether the Supreme Court should be bound to its previous ruling that it
cannot compel the Congress to pass a law that would enact anti-dynasty. Since
this is a horizontal stare decisis, it is not the obligation of the Court to adhere to
its previous ruling because its previous decisions are just mere policies. It is at
the discretion of the Supreme Court whether they will overturn their previous
ruling..
In soothing prose, Brandeis stated: "Stare decisis is not . . . a universal and
inexorable command. The rule of stare decisis is not inflexible. Whether it shall
be followed or departed from, is a question entirely within the discretion of the
court, which is again called upon to consider a question once decided.
In general, courts follow the stare decisis rule for an ensemble of reasons, viz: (1) it
legitimizes judicial institutions; (2) it promotes judicial economy; and, (3) it allows for
predictability. Contrariwise, courts refuse to be bound by the stare decisis rule where (1)
its application perpetuates illegitimate and unconstitutional holdings; (2) it cannot
accommodate changing social and political understandings; (3) it leaves the power to
overturn bad constitutional law solely in the hands of Congress; and, (4) activist judges
can dictate the policy for future courts while judges that respect stare decisis are stuck
agreeing with them.
The Court’s hesitation to order Congress to legislate is understandable as a general
matter. There are, however, critical ways in which the political dynasties issue may be
different, and may justify the Court adjusting its separation of powers analysis
The Court could argue that intervention is justified because the system of checks
and balances is itself so corrupted by the continued success of political
dynasties. Political dynasties are dangerous because they elevate family ties
over intra-branch loyalty, which compromises the oversight controls different co-
equal branches have over one another. For example, impeachment proceedings
in Congress over an executive official may be undermined if that official has a
child or spouse serving in the Senate. The Framers arguably recognized this
need for recalibrating checks and balances. (In relation to: It cannot
accommodate changing social and political understandings)
Second, the Court could say that the political dynasties issue is different because
the Court would not be ordering Congress to act on the basis of what the Court
believes is the appropriate subject of legislation, but what the constitution names
as necessary object of legislation. Unlike in Montesclaros, where Congress had
the discretion to decide whether or not it would pass any legislation at all,
Congress is constitutionally mandated to prohibit political dynasties. The Court
could argue that a mandate in the case of political dynasties does not constitute
usurpation of legislative power by the judiciary because the Court is not imposing
any legislative agenda of its own.

Anti Dynasty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti Dynasty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anti Dynasty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

W/N THE PETITION OF ANTI-DYNASTY CAN SUCCEED BASED ON THE

CURRENT STATE OF STARE-DECISIS ON THE MATTER

III. Explanation: SC RULINGS BASED ON PETITION OF MANDAMUS

Penson vs COMELEC G.R. No. 211636

WHETHER STARE DECISIS ON THE ANTI-DYNASTY LAW ISSUE CAN BE

I. Opinion of Justice Puno

You might also like