The Tulfos on Trial: Legal Grounds and Political Ramifications of Their Disqualification Case

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — February 18, 2025

CAN the Tulfo clan be legally disqualified from holding office, or is this just another political maneuver? The case against ACT-CIS Rep. Erwin Tulfo, broadcaster Ben Tulfo, and three other family members raises urgent questions about constitutional law, ethics, and the boundaries of political dynasties. This analysis dissects the legal foundations, court precedents, and political stakes at play.

Allegation of Political Dynasty

Constitutional Basis and Legal Vacuum

The petitioner cites Article II, Section 26 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

“The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

While the provision expresses a constitutional intent to prevent political monopolization, it lacks an enabling law to operationalize this mandate. The absence of a specific statute defining and regulating political dynasties renders the prohibition largely unenforceable. This was underscored in Pamatong v. Comelec (G.R. No. 163052, April 12, 2004), where the Supreme Court ruled that the Comelec cannot independently disqualify candidates on the basis of political dynasty in the absence of a governing law.

Thus, while the case raises a valid democratic concern, it is legally insufficient to disqualify the Tulfo clan. Any meaningful prohibition would require congressional legislation defining political dynasties and setting clear parameters for disqualification.

Ethical and Democratic Concerns

Beyond legality, the issue raises ethical questions about fairness and equal access to public service. The Tulfo family’s extensive influence in media and politics may create an undue advantage, reinforcing structural inequality in electoral participation. While Ben Tulfo argues that their prominence is a product of professional merit rather than nepotism, the systemic entrenchment of political families diminishes competition and fosters public distrust in democratic institutions.

Citizenship Issue Involving Erwin Tulfo

Constitutional and Legal Considerations

Under Section 3, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, only natural-born citizens of the Philippines may run for the House of Representatives. A natural-born citizen is one who is a Filipino at birth and does not need to perform any act to acquire or perfect citizenship.

Erwin Tulfo admitted to becoming an American citizen in 1988 but claimed he reacquired his Filipino citizenship in 2022 under Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003). This law allows former natural-born Filipinos who lost citizenship through foreign naturalization to reacquire it upon taking an oath of allegiance.

However, doubts persist as to whether Erwin fully complied with the requirements of RA 9225, particularly the renunciation of foreign citizenship. In Maquiling v. Comelec (G.R. No. 195649, April 16, 2013), the Supreme Court ruled that dual allegiance is problematic as it undermines the exclusive loyalty expected of public officials. If Erwin retained residual rights or obligations as a U.S. citizen, his eligibility could be questioned.

Procedural Due Process

Comelec Chairman George Erwin Garcia has emphasized that the Comelec cannot unilaterally act on a candidate’s eligibility without a formal petition. This aligns with Ang Bagong Bayani-OFW Labor Party v. Comelec (G.R. No. 147589, June 26, 2001), which clarified that the Comelec’s function in accepting certificates of candidacy (COCs) is purely ministerial unless a disqualification case is filed.

As such, Erwin Tulfo’s COC must be initially accepted, with the resolution of his citizenship question contingent upon the pending petition.

Role of the Comelec in Adjudicating Disqualification Cases

Ministerial vs. Adjudicatory Functions

The Comelec’s role is bifurcated into ministerial and adjudicatory functions. During the filing period, its duty is limited to receiving COCs. It can only investigate and rule on disqualification cases when a formal complaint is filed, except in nuisance candidate cases, as held in Lapid v. Comelec (G.R. No. 176970, July 30, 2009).

Since the petition against the Tulfos has been filed, Comelec must now exercise its adjudicatory powers to determine whether the allegations meet the legal standard for disqualification.

Due Process Considerations

In line with Marcos v. Comelec (G.R. No. 189431, October 19, 2009), the respondents are entitled to procedural due process, including the opportunity to refute the allegations and present evidence. The Comelec must balance its role in upholding electoral integrity with ensuring that candidates’ rights are not arbitrarily curtailed.

Political Implications and Possible Scenarios

Potential Consequences

For the Tulfo Clan: If Comelec disqualifies the Tulfo candidates, this could disrupt their growing political influence. Given their high survey rankings, disqualification could alter the 2025 Senate race dynamics and benefit rival candidates.
For Political Reform Advocates: A ruling in favor of the petition could energize legislative efforts to pass an anti-dynasty law. However, a dismissal may reinforce calls to amend the Constitution to include a self-executory provision against dynasties.
For the Marcos Administration: Since Erwin Tulfo is part of the administration-backed slate, his potential disqualification could pose a strategic challenge for the ruling coalition.

Possible Outcomes

Dismissal of the Petition on Legal Grounds – Given the absence of an anti-dynasty law, the political dynasty argument is unlikely to prosper.
Disqualification of Erwin Tulfo on Citizenship Grounds – If the Comelec finds deficiencies in Erwin’s reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, his candidacy could be nullified.
Upholding Candidacy and Strengthening Electoral Reform Advocacy – A ruling allowing the Tulfos to run may increase pressure on Congress to legislate a clear political dynasty prohibition.

Recommendations and Reform Proposals

For the Legislature

Enact an Anti-Dynasty Law – To give full effect to the Constitution’s intent, Congress should pass legislation defining and regulating political dynasties, specifying thresholds for familial relationships and office tenure.
Strengthen Citizenship Qualification Rules – Amend RA 9225 to impose stricter compliance requirements for reacquisition of Filipino citizenship, ensuring renunciation of foreign ties is unequivocal.

For the Comelec

Develop Clearer Guidelines on Candidate Eligibility – The Comelec should proactively issue guidelines clarifying its authority on disqualification issues, ensuring consistent application of legal principles.

For the Public

Demand Electoral Reforms – Voters should push for reforms that promote fair elections and discourage political entrenchment by a few powerful families.
Exercise Discernment in Voting – Beyond legal technicalities, citizens should critically evaluate candidates based on competence, integrity, and genuine public service commitment.

Conclusion

The disqualification case against the Tulfo clan exposes a troubling paradox in Philippine democracy—rules exist, yet enforcement remains elusive. The absence of an anti-dynasty law makes one accusation toothless, while the citizenship issue carries real legal weight. But beyond this individual case, the question lingers: how long can a system claim to be democratic when legal loopholes allow political dynasties to thrive unchecked?