Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman George Erwin Garcia advised the House Committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms on Tuesday, Jan. 27 to create a clear-cut and easily implementable Anti-Political Dynasty Law.

Garcia, one of the attending resource persons during Tuesday's committee hearing, made this pitch to congressmen, even as he highlighted the major difficulties in enforcing such measures in the context of the local electoral system.

"The bill must be brief, broad, and definite. Kindly please do not allow the Comelec to have that leeway in the interpretation of the law you will be making," he told the House panel chaired by Lanao del Sur 1st district Rep. Zia Alonto Adiong.

"That would be problematic. That would be brought to the Supreme Court (SC). Your law may not be questioned before the SC, but our IRR (implementing rules and regulations) may be questioned before the SC," Garcia said.

According to him, Comelec could end up getting charged with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, resulting to the non-implemetation of the Anti-Political Dynasty Law that, in case one gets enacted in the current 20th Congress.

"Sana bigyan niyo po kami ng ilang minuto para maipaliwanag yung mga magiging problema ni Comelec if there will be a law such as this...yung crux of the controversy is in the enforcement and implementation perhaps because they failed to realize na hindi ganun kadali na necessarily," Garcia said.

(We ask that you give us a few minutes to explain the problems that Comelec would face if a law like this were enacted. The crux of the controversy lies in its enforcement and implementation perhaps because they failed to realize that it isn’t necessarily that simple.)

"So dapat po (So it must be) brrief, broad, and definite. As much as possible, the Comelec will not be left to interpret what is your desire as provided in the provisions of the law," he added.

At least 21 anti-political dynasty bills have been referred to the suffrage committee. The measure has been tagged as priority of the administration.

Garcia identified the Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Reform Law and the Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) Election Code as examples of definite, easily implementable laws that have to do with the anti-political dynasty provision of the 1987 Constitution.

During the committee deliberations, Garcia highlighted the SC ruling on the 2009 Penera vs Comelec case as something that could potentially throw a monkey wrench into the crafting of an anti-political dynasty law.

In its decision, the high court interpreted Section 14 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9369 (Election Automation Act of 2007) as follows: "All of you are candidates only at the start of the campaign period."

"Sino po ba ang ating gustong i-disqualify dito o i-cancel ang candidacy? Yun po bang candidates, o yun po bang na-elect na na kandidato? Magkaiba po ang implication...how do you disqualify somebody who is not yet a candidate?" Garcia asked.

(Who exactly are we seeking to disqualify here, or whose candidacy are we seeking to cancel? Is it the candidates, or those who have already been elected? The implications are different...how do you disqualify someone who is not yet a candidate?)

Saying it another way, Garcia said the committee must resolve the question of whether disqualification applies before the election or after the election.

"Therefore," he said, "Mukhang kakailangan po natin na baguhin din yung probisyon ng RA No. 9369 on when a candidate is a candidate under the law...kasi useless po itong usapan tungkol sa issue ng dynasty kung hindi natin alam kung kailangan naman sila idi-disqualify."

(It seems we will also need to amend the provisions of RA No.9369 regarding when a person is considered a candidate under the law. Otherwise, this entire discussion on dynasties is useless if we do not even know at what point they should be disqualified.)

Garcia also said that the remedy of the disqualification of an election candidate is different from the cancellation of his or her candidacy.

"May problema po kami...sa lahat po ng 21 bills, magkakaiba po ang remedies na inooffer ng bawat isa. Tignan niyo po--ang ginamit ng iba, disqualification; ang ginamit ng iba, cancellation. Magkaiba po ang implication ng disqualification at cancellation," he noted.

(We also face another problem...across all 21 bills, each one offers different remedies. Look closely—some use disqualification, others use cancellation. But disqualification and cancellation carry different implications.)

As to the prohibition on the degree of relationships among poll bets, Garcia reckoned: "That's an absolute discretion of Congress."

At any rate, Comelec fully backed the House's push to pass the long-sought measure. "The Comelec is supportive of any measure that will finally institutionalize the anti-political dynasty provision of the Constitution. There's no question about it, susuporta po kami 100 percent (We will support it 100 percent)."