When Speaker Faustino “Bojie” Dy III and Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander “Sandro” Marcos filed the Anti-Political Dynasty Bill in December 2025, many were naturally skeptical, as the two come from enduring political clans themselves.

Was it all for show, many wondered, following the rapidly sinking trust meter wrought by the flood control controversy that not only exposed a stealing spree via a project-laden government department, but also showed how present systems appear to enable graft and corruption instead of controlling them.

But the House committee on Suffrage and Electoral Reforms did hold its initial deliberations on the anti-political dynasty bills Tuesday, 27 January, compelled perhaps by President Marcos Jr.’s directive to prioritize the measure to restore public trust in government.

Speaker Dy has vowed to pursue it, determined to bring fair competition and integrity to public service.

The 29th Speaker of the House of Representatives’ father was a long-time governor of Isabela, serving from 1971 to 1986 and from 1988 to 1992, and also served as mayor of Cauayan from 1964 to 1971. His brothers Faustino Jr., Benjamin, Caesar and Napoleon have also held top positions in the province. The next generation is already starting to lead their own districts as either mayor or representative.

Speaker Dy, meanwhile, rose from the ranks, starting as barangay captain in 1992, then becoming mayor, governor, representative, governor, vice governor and, in a series of politically colored events, Speaker of the House.

The Dys are among the families in the Philippines entrenched in politics. What exactly is his view on the bill, among many similar measures, that should challenge our elective officials’ resolve to bring about change?

Government media reports cited a 2012 study published in the Philippine Political Science Journal showing that “from 1995 to 2007, an average of 31.3 percent of all congressmen and 23.1 percent of governors were replaced by relatives.”

Dy’s House Bill (HB) 6771 is designed to “operationalize constitutional provisions intended to prohibit political dynasties.” It is, he said, “a central pillar of his reform agenda.”

If both the executive and legislative bodies are serious about this, it will be another peg in the “unity” call of the Marcos Jr. administration.

However, this will entail not just immense grit on their part, but also a thorough review of the Constitution, so that “a constitutional obligation that has remained untouched for nearly four decades” will be fulfilled.

To ensure “other” Filipinos are given a chance to serve on an even playing field will entail, most importantly, many hard questions and more humility than our Congress currently shows.

Article II, Section 26 of the Constitution mandates that “[t]he State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law.”

Yet laws can be vague and hardly known by the electorate, let alone comprehended enough to elicit action against perceived irregularities. This has enabled dynasty families to grow and prosper.

What could happen in a Filipino political scene where “spouses, siblings and relatives within the fourth civil degree of an incumbent elected official would be barred from simultaneously holding specified elective posts?”

It makes sense to choose leaders based on merit rather than family name because then the work will have more chances of getting done.

Is it even possible?