In Kapatiran Party v Congress (Aug. 26, 2026, per J Ramon Paul L. Hernando, en banc), the Supreme Court unanimously held that the 39-year inaction of Congress to pass an antidynasty law constitutes grave abuse of discretion. The ruling is a firm command to Congress to enact the law in compliance with its constitutional duty to “… prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.” (Article II, Sec. 26).
DARINGLY, THE COURT ALSO SUGGESTED, WITHOUT MANDATING, that the dynastic prohibition should extend to the fourth civil degree or to first cousins. It stressed, “[b]y expressly prohibiting political dynasties, the Constitution recognizes that they are more of a scourge than a blessing.”
With due respect to the framers of the Constitution, I do not believe that dynasties are inherently evil and should be banned absolutely. I think the desire to pass on one’s legacy, wealth, profession, or office is a natural instinct. And to be fair, voters cannot be blamed for repeatedly choosing familiar surnames not only of dynasties but also of celebrities, movie stars, and sports legends.
It is simply human nature to choose personalities known to us and to refrain from voting for the unknown. The challenge is to provide a system by which the qualified unknowns are given a fair opportunity to be recognized for their expertise and potential to become good public servants.
Even the Court’s decision recognized that “… a family name is a valuable asset.” Unfortunately, when the asset is malignantly used to secure public office through fair or foul methods and is reserved only for family members, whether qualified or not, a public office becomes a private affair. In my humble view, political families can transition from entrenched dynasties to traditions of enduring public service. How? Let’s find the answer in the corporate world.
SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS TITANS BEQUEATH their huge conglomerates to their children but only after rigorous preparation, stellar education, and early training. Let me cite some examples.
First, take the formidable SM group. The late Henry Sy Sr.’s succession strategy centered on early immersion, hands-on education, actual training, and hardscrabble struggles for his children to rise from the bottom of the corporate pyramid. His eldest daughter, Tessie Sy Coson, began learning retail at age 13. She later completed her commerce degree locally at Assumption College to ensure she understood the pulse, depth, and energy of the various levels of the Filipino market.
I should know. I was her professor in commercial law subjects. She wanted to be a lawyer, but “Tatang” directed her to work as a cashier in their old shoe store in downtown Manila that eventually grew to be the largest department store chain in the country.
This combination of immersion and local schooling equipped her with resilience and cultural insights. When I was given the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice Award by Pope Francis, I lauded her from the pulpit, saying that “despite her storied achievements and being the nation’s wealthiest woman, she remained simple, modest, unaffected and unassuming.”
Second, the late George S.K. Ty, founder and chair of Metrobank, never left succession to chance or pure entitlement. Long before they occupied executive positions, his sons Arthur, at 13, and Alfred, at 11, were required to work during their summer vacations. Their rigorous training was rooted in discipline, humility, and a relentless work ethic. By demanding that his heirs earn their stripes, George Ty proved that an enduring legacy relies on earned competence, not on inheritance.
Then, look at the Ayala conglomerate. As the country’s oldest business house founded in 1834, it has thrived for eight generations. Lately, under the visionary leadership of Don Jaime Zobel de Ayala and later of his sons, Jaime Augusto (or Jaza) and Fernando, heirs had to earn their way up.
Jaza stressed that an institution requires “progressive professional leadership” where family members recognize and give way to corporate expertise, seniority, and governance. Professionals are meticulously chosen as CEOs of major companies, such as Ayala Corp. (Cesar “Bong” Consing), Bank of the Philippine Islands (T.G. Limcaoco), and Globe Telecom (Carl Cruz), while family heirs, such as Mariana Zobel de Ayala and Jaime Zobel Urquijo, work from the ground up.
THESE CORPORATE GIANTS ARE BOUND BY A COMMON DENOMINATOR: the elders require their heirs to serve a cause larger than themselves. As Lance Gokongwei, a Wharton summa cum laude graduate and the chief heir of his legendary father John Gokongwei, stressed, “The business is not there to serve the family. The family is there to serve the business.” I believe the same should be true for politics. The government is not there to serve dynasties. Dynasties are there to serve the government.
The best form of teaching is leadership by example. When the elders are corrupt, the heirs inherit corrupt ways. But when the elders are truthful and fair, the heirs likewise inherit truthfulness and fairness in public service and/or in business. In Filipino, “Kung ano ang puno, ganoon din ang bunga!”
Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com
