When 12 department secretaries out of 14 presidential appointees were bypassed by the Commission on Appointments, ordinary citizens conclude that they failed the criteria set by CA. What good does a Commission's deliberative selection process serve if the President reappoints them back on the procedural sine qua non?
An excerpt of the agency's mandate so stipulates, thus: "The Commission on Appointments is vested by the 1987 Philippine Constitution with the power to approve or disapprove appointments made by the President of the Philippines, the confirmation of which is required under the Constitution. The Commission's function forms part of the very delicate mechanism of checks and balances established by the Constitution to ensure that the coordinate departments of the government will function in a way that will be most conducive to the public welfare."
Can the common man find ground to believe that CA's stamp of disapproval could be undone when there's more than constitutional clarity, nay proceedings of confirmation, held fair and square?
Huntington's notion that "the interest of the president is consistent with nothing else" cannot be overlaid on the tapestry without the warp and weft threads becoming visible. In a manner of speaking, there is a desired 'flight path' to be followed.
Most well-meaning individuals want the President to succeed amidst little cracks on the huge bureaucratic wall showing signs of vulnerability. The first was in the aftermath of the sugar fiasco that caused three officials to resign. The second was when President's men bypassed by the Commission through a constitutionally-mandated check and balance mechanism also resigned as a matter of coup de grace.
Nobody from those reappointed took the liberty to shy from the president's patronizing gesture in light of the earlier disapproval by the confirming authority of their fitness. No less than the entire economic team save one — "flunked" CA confirmation. It seems awful to imagine if the president should reappoint bypassed appointees x number of times until CA — the accountability checker — gives final consent.
Technically, FM Jr. heeded CA's wisdom in excluding his three subalterns who have fallen from grace from the list of whom he reappointed back. However, it's astonishing that those bypassed by CA still went through the motion of being reappointed when CA's red flag is yet flagrantly hoisted. Is it par for the course?
Those who revere the role reposed to CA argue that the president, in reappointing those already bypassed "subverts" the principle of confirmation mandated by the Constitution.
Furthermore, those who believe that they should be "ineligible for reappointment" would think that — FM Jr.'s individual worldview versus CA groupthink — renders the restraint against possible abuse by a president as "totally inexistent".
With a large number of presidential appointees having been bypassed per CA Scorecard, how far will their badge of legitimacy wane away — them unabashedly holding on — till their next round of 'disappointment'?
The deplorable events transpiring in our midst of hold-over appointees gone wicked should strengthen CA's resolve to screen — all over hell's half an acre — candidates for confirmation in their appointments against non-performing assets, self-maximizers, and over-extended public servants. To paraphrase Machiavelli, we can estimate the intelligence of a ruler by the men he has under him.
Until it carries the stigma as a "horse-trading agency", CA'S crucial role as an "accountability checker" in a supposedly "merit-based" appointment becomes defeated. It must prove sterile from patronage, corruption, and favor-swapping so that the deliberative process of confirmation achieves its sacred goal.
While the 19th Congress has not as much attempted to override vetoed bills, it did well in rejecting appointments through the CA's confirmation process — a constitutional check of the legislature over the executive. When it does, it "shall be discharged with impartiality, without partisan consideration and with only one impelling motive, which is the harmonious and efficient functioning of the government".
It's time for presidential appointees to serve at the consent of the Commission more than at the pleasure of the president.
