Why courtesy resignation?

With the directive to submit their courtesy resignations, the fate of eight undersecretaries, 11 assistant secretaries and 12 directors at the Department of Transportation’s central office hangs in the balance.

It’s as if the Sword of Damocles has been unsheathed by the new transportation secretary on the pretext that this would accord him a “free hand to perform the mandate given to him by the President.”

Will the shake-up trickle down the line to the crucial and sensitive bureaus, attached agencies, and government-owned and controlled corporations under the DoTr’s administrative, operational and institutional umbrella?

The whole idea of the top echelons “being groomed to do nothing,” relegated to the background or forced to resign or retire, to be replaced by a “new expert pool” is akin to a disciplinary action that is affecting the morale and welfare of those concerned.

Since the President is halfway through his six-year term, this bureaucratic maneuver amounts to changing horses in midstream, just when transportation projects are hit by right-of-way issues.

We view with a degree of cynicism his apparent dependence on public-private partnerships in the form of “operation and maintenance” contracts and concessions in the transportation sector.

The lack of a vetted “roadmap” that the good secretary should have already worked out indicates he might approach the concerns of stakeholders confronted with festering commuter issues via “piecemeal social engineering.” In short, there will be no utopia or plan on a grand scale. It would be worrisome if along with his cohorts they would try to reinvent the wheel.

Quickly, two serious questions arise. First, when courtesy resignations become the new normal or “standard operating procedure” whenever an egocentric Cabinet secretary is appointed, it becomes a dangerous precedent. It would actually cause unnecessary disruptions to the efficient delivery of public goods and services.

Second, if the good secretary and his cohorts would still have to learn the ropes before positive results can be achieved, then that will surely entail “opportunity losses” or “opportunity costs.” Worse, in the unlikely event a transport facility or service comes undone, trying out new approaches or innovations might pose inherent weaknesses or threats that cannot be predicted ex ante.

Subscribing to the newly signed Public-Private Partnership Code, or Republic Act 11966, might not be easy given inconsistencies and ambiguities between the old PPP law and this fresh code whose ink is still wet. The government must adopt sound infrastructural policy if it’s really bent on favoring private rather than public provisions as there will always be an intrinsic “privatization backlash.”

Furthermore, there’s an inherent “incongruence of objectives” between the government and the market such that private project proponents might become rapacious in raking in profits while the convenience or benefits that end-users should derive will be found wanting.

It bears watching what brand of “regulatory governance” in the transportation realm it’s going to be as it affects motorists and commuters. It’s earnestly hoped that the new secretary will hit the ground running; that he and his select team will introduce truly beneficial, sustainable public conveniences that are worth the money that the end-users are willing to pay.

We expect commendable “steering rather than rowing” to gain immediate momentum. Jump into the PPP bandwagon all right, but fall not down the rabbit hole!