Ad hoc President’s men fan outrage

Alarms continue to be sounded over the growing number of Cabinet posts held by provisional appointees, raising concerns those serving at the President’s pleasure may have greater loyalty to the appointing power than to the people and the Constitution.

Public governance and legal experts have criticized the Marcos administration for allowing a record 40 percent of heads of critical government agencies to serve in acting or ad interim capacity, bypassing what they stressed was an important checks-and-balances mechanism in the Commission on Appointments.

St. Benilde School of Diplomacy and Governance Dean Gary Ador Dionisio said that while there is no constitutional prohibition on the temporary arrangement, it signals institutional uncertainty, meaning priorities and big-ticket programs are not fixed.

“To be able to effectively carry out the strategic programs of this government in terms of economic recovery and continuity, infrastructure development, and strengthening the health system, a set of permanent leaders is necessary for stability,” Dionisio said.

His colleague, lawyer Cyril Lubaton, a professor at St. Benilde’s School of Diplomacy and Governance, believes a large number of Cabinet officials serving in acting capacity will not, in itself, paralyze the government, but if the arrangement becomes widespread and prolonged, “it can affect the quality, consistency, and credibility of governance.”

“Long-term temporary postings can create policy uncertainty,” Lubaton said.

“An acting secretary who knows that his or her tenure is temporary may understandably be more cautious about major structural reforms, difficult personnel decisions, and programs whose benefits will be realized several years later,” he added.

If a significant number remain under temporary status for prolonged periods, legitimate questions can arise about whether the constitutional confirmation mechanism is being fully allowed to perform its checking function.

It can affect whole-of-government coordination. A Cabinet depends not only on its legal authority but on its political authority — the ability of one secretary to make commitments to another department, Congress, LGUs, investors and stakeholders with confidence that the policy will remain in place.

“The impact ultimately depends on the individual official, the clarity of the President’s mandate, the strength of the bureaucracy underneath them, and how long the temporary arrangement lasts. The concern, therefore, is cumulative rather than individual,” Lubaton said.

Crux is accountability

Meanwhile, almost half of the Cabinet operating in an acting capacity raises serious concerns about accountability and checks and balances, University of Santo Tomas Political Science Department Chair Dennis Coronacion said.

The Constitution explicitly mandates the Commission on Appointments to vet these high-ranking officials to ensure that they are qualified and untainted. When an acting capacity becomes long-term, it bypasses this crucial vetting process.

This can weaken the national government because the secretaries wield massive authority and manage billions in public funds without legislative scrutiny.

Jose Maria College School of Law Dean Israelito Torreon said continuity keeps the government running, and stability allows it to govern strategically. The challenge is ensuring that temporary appointments serve the first without eventually undermining the second.

A Cabinet with a large share of acting secretaries is not, by that fact alone, legally ineffective. The limits matter, however.

Secretaries are meant to undergo CA scrutiny under Article VII, Section 16 of the Constitution.

When many remain in acting capacity for long periods, they bypass that public vetting. Their continued tenure depends entirely on the President’s designation, which encourages caution over reform.

The Supreme Court has also noted that a secretary’s job demands full-time, focused attention, which prolonged interim arrangements do not always deliver.