When I was asked, during a press forum last Friday (23 May), whether I thought the President was sincere and acting in good faith in his self-declared “hard reset” of the Cabinet, I said, “I give him the benefit of the doubt, but I doubt the benefit.”

The doubtful benefits became manifest scarcely a day after that. Of the almost 60 courtesy resignations received by Malacañang as of this writing, only five were accepted. Of the five, only one was really a dismissal; all the rest were “reassignments.” The others were either promoted or merely given new Cabinet rank positions. In fact, six key secretaries were retained, including the hated “taxman,” Ralph Recto. In short, practically no one was kicked out — they were either kicked up or kicked in place. If the trend continues, expect no resets, only “bwisets.”

Flush with his retention by the President, the Executive Secretary (ES) clumsily explained that the mass resignations were a way of making the dismissal of certain underperforming Cabinet members “humane.”

In gist, what the ES was saying is that instead of firing those chosen for replacement one by one, thereby possibly humiliating them, the President took the option of asking everyone to resign, and then simply accept the resignations of those deemed unfit to continue.

But the use of the word “humane” was weird, to say the least. Aside from being associated with putting down an ailing dog by way of lethal injection, it evinces a lack of strong and decisive leadership, the kind sorely needed by the administration in a state of utter crisis brought about by greatly declining popular support and a widening credibility gap.

To further dilute the impact of what could have been a great chance to redeem himself, the Palace was quick to point out — almost in the same breath as the announcement of the (non)-reorganization — that none of the firings and reassignments were due to corruption or official misconduct, seemingly ignoring the serious charges of conflict of interest and anomalies in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) exposed by Senator Raffy Tulfo.

Even more lamely, the Palace lastly announced that those removed would just be “resting” — not in peace, we hope, in the morbid connotation of that phrase — and stand a strong chance of being reappointed to Cabinet-rank positions in the future.

To the dwindling segment of the public that still retains some faith in the capability of the President for a redemptive fresh start, such a declaration was, to quote Justice Jackson, “A promise to the ear to be broken to the hope; a fleeting illusion like a munificent bequest in a pauper’s will.” The present administration truly has a talent for “never losing an opportunity to lose an opportunity” (this time, to quote my friend L-Ray Villafuerte).

The present developments in the Cabinet reshuffle have left the people cynical as to whether or not the administration, during the last half of Marcos’s term, can still recover the record-high popular acclaim and political capital it enjoyed in the first year of its rule. We will have to reserve judgment until we see who will be retained or, as in the case of the supposed non-performers, promoted to plum positions abroad or in sinecures created just for them.

In particular, this writer awaits the President’s decision on, among others, Justice Secretary Remulla, whom critics say has weaponized the Department of Justice; Agriculture Secretary Tiu Laurel, who has abysmally failed in attaining security for the most basic of commodities; Presidential Adviser on Poverty Alleviation Larry Gadon, under whose watch self-rated poverty and hunger reached all-time highs; and National Bureau of Investigation Director Jaime Santiago, who has normalized arrests without warrants.

It is hoped, for Marcos’ sake, that the coming days will show us a real reset through resignations, and not a musical Cabinet chairs, mere re-assignations.