If there can be a bright side in anything as dark as the federal investigations of corruption within Honolulu’s law-and-order system, it’s that the revelations have uncovered weaknesses that, without the federal intervention, would be persisting to this day.

For that information to be useful, however, it must lead to lasting reforms and greater transparency — starting with how the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney is managed.

The question arises after last week’s release of court documents alleging then-deputy Prosecutor Katherine Kealoha’s culpability in a drug-dealing case, the latest chapter in a long corruption scandal.

It sheds light on the barricades behind which Kealoha could work in secret. These were built over years, enabled by a general culture of complacency and governmental subterfuge that must be dismantled, brick by brick.

The first step may lie in limiting the term of office for the chief prosecuting attorney. The City Council should consider a charter amendment that would set the limit at two four-year terms. That might help to mitigate the possibility that the top officials become so entrenched that they do not operate in the public interest.

The wide-ranging case unfolds into multiple layers and varying degrees of involvement. It primarily implicates former deputy Kealoha; her husband, former Police Chief Louis Kealoha; her boss, Prosecuting Attorney Keith Kaneshiro; and City Corporation Counsel Donna Leong, the city’s top civil attorney.

The allegations against each person are still being investigated, but the fact that the FBI has uncovered this much should give everyone pause.

Based on the developments so far, however, there also can be hope for the installation of more reform-minded officials across city government, as has already happened with the Honolulu Police Commission.

It all started with charges against the former police chief and others within the Honolulu Police Department for conspiring to frame Katherine Kealoha’s uncle for stealing a mailbox. Ostensibly arising from a family dispute, that bizarre incident led to a federal grand jury being impaneled and then the investigation focused on the Kealohas.

Back then, the police commission had been a more passive body, one that had been inclined to table its own inquiry into then-chief Kealoha and to yield to the feds. New members then were appointed, and the panel pushed for his resignation. Changes led to the hiring of a more reform-oriented chief, Susan Ballard, to replace Kealoha at HPD.

But in the negotiation over his severance package, Leong also was drawn into the fray, questions raised about the authorization for, and source of, his $250,000 payment.

So far, the Kealohas, Leong and Kaneshiro are among those targeted in the FBI probes. Only Kaneshiro is still on active duty, although the state Office of the Attorney General is petitioning the Hawaii Supreme Court to compel him to step down, given the clear conflict of interest.

Kaneshiro’s resistance to pressure to step down may be among the most disturbing aspects of the whole debacle. It has led to a push for his impeachment — a process that has slowed, based on Thursday’s conference in Circuit Court.

Separately, state Attorney General Clare Connors filed the petition for Kaneshiro’s immediate suspension. It cited a complaint by two unnamed employees of retaliation after they had served as witnesses against Kaneshiro before a federal grand jury.

Additionally, the petition includes a statement by Ballard that she is “uncomfortable” with Kaneshiro’s attendance at public safety meetings, and with “sharing confidential information” with him.

It’s encouraging to hear such acknowledgements from the chief, who also has advocated for increased public transparency on disciplinary matters within HPD itself.

Overall, the petition makes a strong argument to separate Kaneshiro from the office he holds, but he has not yielded. The Supreme Court is urged to act in the public’s best interest: to have prosecutor duties in the hands of someone not beset by conflicts.

Having an elected rather than appointed prosecuting attorney does afford the office a critical measure of independence from the political considerations of someone tapped by the mayor and City Council.

But electoral separation is not sufficient. There needs to be a shake-up on a regular basis, before power blocs within a given agency become hardened and corrupt.

Instituting term limits may not preclude bad behavior by the prosecuting attorney or any other elected official, but it should ensure some turnover. Given the low voter engagement in this particular contest, the prosecutor’s name recognition on the ballot gives him or her an almost insurmountable advantage toward re-election.

Term limits would build on the encouraging reforms at HPD and its supervisory commission. But they would be merely the first steps required to weaken the system’s corruptive forces, and to end the abhorrent spectacle of dysfunction the public should no longer have to witness.