The call for courtesy resignation of all Cabinet officials and presidential appointees is not just timely. It is long overdue. For the past two years, the Marcos Jr. administration has struggled to deliver some kind of best practice in governance, coasting along from one problem to another, one crisis to the next. Much of the blame lies with a Cabinet or core team that looked disconnected from the President’s own vision and the country’s immediate needs.
The criteria used by Malacañang in forming the presidential core team from the get go was clearly flawed. While loyalty and personal rapport have their place, they cannot substitute for competence, integrity, and deliver the results needed. The mediocre performance of the administration in the midterm polls must have impressed on PBBM that it is time for a reset. And he is right.
The president, and presumably his wife who appears to be hands on in influencing the selection process, needs to set a high bar for himself in reorganizing his core team. Clear, measurable metrics for performance—whether in economic growth, infrastructure development, or social services—must guide the evaluation and selection of appointees. Comfort and familiarity should be discarded as a criteria for appointments.
The practice common in government of reliance on loyalty over capability has led to appointees lacking the skill and experience to manage the complexities of their roles. Take the Executive Secretary, for instance. While undoubtedly a brilliant lawyer, his lack of experience in the rough-and-tumble world of political maneuvering has left him ill-equipped to serve as the President’s first and last line of defense. The Office of the President demands a seasoned strategist, not just a legal mind.
Similarly, the recent appointment of the Presidential Communications Office (PCO) Secretary raises serious questions about the administration’s vetting process. The appointee, reportedly recommended by those close to the Marcoses, was a liability from the outset, as he is evidently lacking in skills and experience needed to manage a large organization. The appointment reflects a failure of due diligence.
The problem lies in the administration’s approach to governance. The values, mindset, and strategies employed in the first three years have not delivered the desired results. Appointing allies as political payback or selecting individuals based on personal comfort has weakened the government’s ability to address pressing challenges. With less than three years left before 2028, PBBM must pivot to a new approach—one that prioritizes competence, integrity, and measurable outcomes over loyalty or familiarity.
There is still time, though precious little, to turn things around. The administration must seize this opportunity to rebuild its Cabinet and its support structure with individuals who can deliver results and restore public confidence.
