Legacy worth fighting for
The President should make this the defining political reform of his administration — and begin with a personal sacrifice.
Text size
The President should make this the defining political reform of his administration — and begin with a personal sacrifice.
I recently had a long conversation over coffee with the chair of one of the country’s leading conglomerates. We discussed the enormous challenges confronting the Philippines — the economy, institutions, poverty, competitiveness, and public confidence.
Then he posed a question: What is the greatest legacy our President could leave, with less than two years remaining? His own answer was simple: To make the constitutional promise to prohibit political dynasties a reality.
Over breakfast last Sunday, I shared this proposition with an entrepreneur and a Harvard-trained former Cabinet member and member of Congress. They agreed, but added a qualification: an anti-dynasty law cannot stand alone.
It must be one of several broader reforms — campaign-finance reform, party-list reform, rules against premature campaigning, transparency in political spending, stronger political parties, and an empowered Commission on Elections (Comelec).
The Constitution has been waiting for Congress to act for nearly four decades. What has been missing is not constitutional authority. It is political will.
President’s defining act of statesmanship
The President should make this the defining political reform of his administration — and begin with a personal sacrifice.
Imagine him saying: “I am asking Congress to pass a genuine Anti-Political Dynasty Act. I am prepared to accept its consequences even if it affects my own family. I will not ask for an exemption or for Congress to protect my relatives. Public office must not become a family inheritance.”
That would transform the debate. He would no longer be asking others to sacrifice what he would not. Start with me.
Make it a real Anti-Dynasty Law
The country should not settle for a law that merely prevents a husband and wife, or parent and child, from holding two offices simultaneously while allowing a larger political clan to control multiple offices through other relatives and proxies.
The objective is to prevent the concentration of political power, not to punish a surname.
Congress should consider restrictions covering close relatives — potentially to the third degree of consanguinity and affinity — and preventing the simultaneous accumulation of national and local elective positions by one political family.
Marcos’s own family should be subject to the same rules, or an even stricter voluntary standard.
Shepherd Congress
The challenge is getting both houses of Congress to pass it.
Five priorities would be enough: an Anti-Political Dynasty Act; campaign-finance reform; partylist reform; a prohibition against premature campaigning; and stronger political parties.
The principle should be simple: the rules must equally apply to all.
Close the premature campaigning loophole
Campaign finance reform must accompany it.
Modern campaigning begins long before the official period. Billboards, television, social media, “public service” advertisements, and political gatherings create name recognition months or years earlier, giving wealthy candidates and political families an enormous advantage.
Congress should establish a clear principle: once a person files a Certificate of Candidacy, that person should immediately be subject to essential campaign rules, particularly finance disclosure, spending limits and advertising restrictions.
If you declare yourself a candidate, you should be regulated as one.
Comelec should have the authority and resources to monitor spending before and during the campaign period, including digital advertising and coordinated third-party spending.
Campaign finance disclosure should move toward real-time transparency: Who contributed? How much? Who spent it? Where did it go? Who paid for the advertisement?
Records should be public and searchable, with meaningful penalties for violations.
The party-list system should genuinely represent sectors that struggle for representation—not become another vehicle for political families and established interests.
Funding, leadership, and nominees’ affiliations should be transparent, with safeguards against dynastic capture.
We need stronger political parties. Voters should say, “I support this party because of its platform,” rather than, “I support this family.”
Our democracy must move from surnames toward programs and institutions.
Legacy that matters
Presidents measure their legacy in roads, bridges, buildings, investment, and growth. These matter. But there is another kind of legacy: institutional legacy.
Major infrastructure may be difficult to complete before 2028. Investigations and cases will also take time because justice requires due process. But institutional reform is different.
If this President could make it harder for political families to monopolize public office while making elections more transparent and competitive, he would accomplish something that may outlast any infrastructure project.
Imagine a Philippines where an ordinary citizen can run for office without having to compete with a political clan that has occupied the district for generations.
Imagine political parties that stand for programs, a party-list system that genuinely represents sectors, and every candidate’s funds visible to every voter. That would be a real national reset.
Marcos’s greatest political sacrifice may be his greatest legacy if he breaks up the dynasties, cleans up campaign finance, reforms the party-list system, strengthens political parties, and empowers the Comelec. And makes the rules apply first to those closest to power.
If he shepherds Congress toward that objective—without exemptions or partisan escape hatches—he may leave something consequential.
He may leave behind a democracy in which no Filipino family can ever again claim the Republic as its inheritance.
Interestingly, our conversations did not end with coffee or breakfast. They stretched into lunch and, eventually, merienda. One sentiment remained: this can still be done.
The President still has an opportunity to bring Congress together around reforms waiting nearly four decades.
It will not be easy. Those who benefit from the existing system will resist. That is precisely why presidential leadership matters.
The President must champion reform and submit himself and those closest to him to the same rules.
Perhaps, by the time this administration ends, those conversations over coffee, breakfast, lunch and merienda will no longer be about what could happen. They could become conversations about what did happen.
That the Philippines finally chose institutions over dynasties, programs over personalities, and public service over political inheritance.
It is still possible. And it is a legacy worth fighting for.
