THERE is a quiet irony unfolding in the House of Representatives, and it is one that many political observers would rather not confront.
At a time when the political brand of the Marcos family is routinely framed by reformists as the embodiment of everything that they claim to oppose, it is Rep. Ferdinand Alexander Araneta Marcos III, more popularly known as Sandro Marcos, who has been behaving in a manner that affirms, rather than degrades, the institution of Congress.
And conversely, a number of younger legislators who arrived under banners of reform, disruption and moral urgency are beginning to display the very tendencies they once claimed to resist.
This is not a defense of a surname. It is an observation about conduct.
Sandro Marcos’ recent legislative initiatives are neither populist gimmicks nor viral stunts. The proposed no-work-no-pay scheme for members of Congress is a direct challenge to the normalization of absenteeism and performative legislating. The push to abolish the travel tax addresses an archaic revenue mechanism that penalizes mobility, discourages tourism, and disproportionately burdens overseas Filipinos and middle-class travelers. His version of an anti-dynasty bill, whether it prospers or not, acknowledges that the issue must be addressed institutionally rather than reduced to slogans.
These are not radical measures. But they are serious ones. And seriousness, in today’s Congress, is already a reform.
More telling, however, is what Sandro Marcos has not done. He inhibited himself in the impeachment proceedings involving his father, the president of the Republic. No theatrics. No legalistic contortions. No self-justifying speeches. Just restraint.
In Philippine political culture, we have a word for that: delicadeza.
Contrast this with the conduct of other members of his generation who entered Congress branded by themselves or by their supporters as reformists and moral disruptors.
Take Rep. Leandro Leviste. His initial interventions against alleged flood control corruption and the exposure of bribery involving a Department of Public Works and Highways official were undeniably impactful. The Cabral Files, whatever their ultimate legal fate, punctured a system long protected by silence. That kind of intervention is not trivial.
But reformist credibility is not sustained by exposés alone. It is sustained by consistency, restraint and ethical symmetry. As scrutiny deepened, Representative Leviste’s own record came under examination: solar energy contracts entangled in regulatory violations, a fine imposed by the Department of Energy, and an ongoing Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
Questions have also been raised about the ethical handling of a congressional franchise granted to his own company, a matter that goes to the heart of elite privilege and conflict of interest. A reformist cannot demand institutional accountability while pleading personal exceptionalism. Moral authority is fragile. It collapses when transparency becomes selective.
Then there is Rep. Francisco Barzaga, whose “meowing” debut in Congress initially passed as youthful novelty. For a brief moment, it seemed like a harmless rebellion against staid parliamentary norms. But novelty without discipline curdles quickly. What followed was not reform but nuisance, culminating in an ethics citation and suspension by his own peers, now extended for another 60 days. Barzaga was reminded that Congress is not a TikTok feed. The House is not an open mic night.
Legislators are not elected to be mascots of irreverence, but stewards of lawmaking. Youth is not a license for institutional vandalism.
Perhaps the most troubling contrast lies in the case of Kabataan Party-list Rep. Renee Co.
As one of the sponsors of the second impeachment complaint against the president, Representative Co has argued that she sees no reason to inhibit herself from deliberations in the House justice committee because she is, after all, a member of that committee.
Legally, she may be correct. Institutionally, she is deeply mistaken.
Impeachment is not an ordinary legislative function. It is a quasi-judicial process that demands not only adherence to rules, but also the appearance of fairness. Sponsorship of a complaint is an act of advocacy. Deliberation requires impartiality. The refusal to inhibit collapses that distinction and signals a disturbing comfort with role confusion.
The argument “I am entitled because I am a member” reduces impeachment to a numbers game rather than a constitutional responsibility. It erodes public confidence in a process already viewed with suspicion.
Here again, the irony sharpens: The scion of a political dynasty, whose family name many reflexively associate with institutional abuse, demonstrates restraint, while a self-declared, militant reformist exhibited procedural overreach. This inversion should unsettle us.
What we are witnessing is not merely individual misconduct. It is a generational pattern emerging among some younger legislators who mistake disruption for reform, exposure for governance and entitlement for moral clarity.
Reform is not loudness but discipline. It is not branding but behavior, and not immunity from scrutiny but submission to it.
Institutions do not decay only because of old elites clinging to power. They also decay when younger actors arrive convinced that virtue is self-certifying, intentions excuse excess and righteousness overrides rules.
Congress needs legislators who understand limits, and not saviors.
In this respect, Sandro Marcos’ performance is instructive. He has not sought to dominate narratives. He has not performed moral superiority. He has proposed legislation, inhibited when necessary and stayed within institutional bounds.
That this is now considered exceptional says more about Congress than about him. The real question, then, is not why Sandro Marcos is “surprisingly” institutional. It is why so many who promised to renew and reform Congress are so casually willing to cheapen it.
If reformist politics means permanent outrage, selective ethics and performative defiance, then the House will remain noisy and hollow.
The danger is not youthful passion. It is moral impatience untethered from institutional responsibility. When reform is reduced to performance, Congress becomes a stage rather than a deliberative body. When ethics are invoked selectively, accountability turns into factional weaponry. And when restraint is mocked as weakness, the institution itself is left exposed.
Reform demands restraint, consistency and respect for process. In this regard, Sandro Marcos emerges as an unexpected light legislating with restraint and discipline while some of his generation, who are self-styled bearers of change, dim that light through privilege, noise and moral self-righteousness.
The author is a professor at the University of the Philippines Los Baños and vice chairman of the board of state-run PTV Network Inc.
