The reorganization of the top echelon of the Executive Department nearly halfway through its term has raised three issues that are vital to the orderly, rapid and sustainable development of the economy.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. recently asked the members of his Cabinet and the other top officials of his administration to submit courtesy resignations, a move avowedly intended to bring about a revitalization of his administration, which came into office on June 30, 2022.
Since then, several Cabinet members have been either fired, demoted or transferred. The fates of a number of other top officials hang in the balance.
The reorganization of Mr. Marcos’ administration has come near the mid-point of his six-year term. The Chief Executive has admitted that he initiated it in response to the disappointing showing of his Alyansa Para sa Bagong Pilipinas – only five of each twelve candidates won seats – in the recent Senate election. The electorate has registered its dissatisfaction and the government must respond appropriately, Mr. Marcos said.
The reorganization of the top echelon of the Executive Department nearly halfway through its term has raised three issues that are vital to the orderly, rapid and sustainable development of the economy of this country.
The first issue harks back to one of the most hotly-debated ideas in the 1970-1972 Constitutional Convention, to wit, the ideal length of the term of the President of the Philippines. The debate was between the retention of the 1935 Constitution’s eight-years (two four-year terms) of office and those who favored a switch to a longer solitary (six years with no re-election) term. The essence of the latter’s position was that four years was too short a term for a good Chief Executive and eight years – assuming re-election – was too long a term for a bad Chief Executive.
The idea of linking length of term with quality of performance should be applied not only to the President of the Philippines but also to the members of his official family. As with a good President, a good Cabinet member should be regarded as having six years within which to deliver a good performance.
The second issue raised by President Marcos’ mid-term revamp of his officialdom is the reason for undertaking a revamp. As stated above, President Marcos pointed to the results of the 2025 Senatorial election as the cause of the revamp. Reorganizing a Cabinet for its improvement should be undertaken for its own sake, not as a reaction to defeat at the polls. Improving a Cabinet should be a continuing process.
The third issue raised by President Marcos’ mid-term reorganization of his administration relates to the phrase ‘the best and the brightest’. A President’s Cabinet is supposed to be a collection of the best and the brightest that the nation has to offer. It is not supposed to be a place of accommodation, the assembly point for political appointees and people whose professional and personal credentials are less than first-rate. The men and women who are appointed to Cabinet and other top-level positions at the start of an administration are expected to be exemplars of personal probity and professional capability. Cabinet reshuffles – such as the wholesale reshuffle that is taking place – result when they are not such exemplars.
One final thought. There is a counterpart of the law of gravity in the governance of a nation. Three years is not a long time and there is only so much that a less-than-superhuman individuals can accomplish within that time-frame, even with the noblest of intentions. (llagasjessa@yahoo.com)
