President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s move to certify four governance-focused bills as priority measures signals a rare moment when the political establishment appears willing, at least on paper, to confront its own excesses.

The proposed Anti-Dynasty Law, the Independent People’s Commission Act, reforms to the Partylist System, and the Citizens Access and Disclosure of Expenditures for National Accountability (Cadena) transparency measure represent an ambitious slate aimed at tightening political accountability and restoring credibility in institutions long eroded by patronage, opacity and impunity.

Among the four priority bills, the Anti-Dynasty Bill inevitably draws the fiercest scrutiny. For decades, political dynasties have dominated every level of power, from barangay halls to Congress, crowding out competent newcomers and cementing local monopolies disguised as public service.

The Constitution itself mandates the State to prohibit political dynasties — but because Congress is filled with members who would be directly affected, meaningful legislation has been perpetually stalled. This is why the certification of priority, even if belated, is symbolically significant. It pressures lawmakers to explain why a constitutional promise remains unfulfilled 38 years after it was written.

But sentiment cuts both ways. Some argue that outlawing dynasties interferes with free choice: why should the government prevent voters from electing a capable mayor’s sibling or a reform-minded governor’s son? That argument has rhetorical weight, but it ignores the structural inequalities that make elections anything but a level playing field. Family control over networks of patronage, local security forces, campaign financing, and even violence creates a political marketplace where voters often have to choose from a narrow, curated menu.

Still, even without an Anti-Dynasty Law, voters retain immense collective power. They can choose to trust — or reject — political families. They can judge leaders based on competence rather than lineage. The absence of legislation is not an excuse for political resignation. The ballot has always been the public’s strongest instrument, and Filipinos have shown they can and do withdraw their support from leaders who underperform. Ultimately, a cultural shift toward merit-based voting will weaken dynasties faster than any statute.

The three other reform bills seek to improve the broader architecture of governance. An Independent People’s Commission can professionalize oversight and reduce the influence of partisan appointees.

Partylist reform is long overdue. The system meant to amplify marginalized voices has been hijacked by traditional politicians, business interests, and surrogates of powerful clans. Strengthening accreditation rules and tightening definitions of “marginalized” should return the mechanism to its original spirit.

Meanwhile, the Cadena Act, which expands transparency in the use of public funds, directly empowers citizens and watchdogs. In a country where corruption thrives in the shadows, transparency is not a luxury — it is a precondition for trust.

As a Poll Starter, these bills are not silver bullets. They will not instantly erase patronage politics or cure the deeper weaknesses of governance. But they can restart long-stalled reforms and inject a measure of accountability into a system that desperately needs it.

Whether these reforms become turning points depends on two actors: Congress, which must show political courage; and the Filipino voter, who must choose leaders based not on surnames but on service, integrity and competence.

Even the best laws cannot substitute for an electorate willing to demand better.