SLOWNESS OR LAZINESS IN THE CABINET?

SLOWNESS OR LAZINESS IN THE CABINET?

President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s moves to ask for courtesy resignations from his Cabinet has stirred much discussion, particularly on whether this signals frustration with underperformance. A senator even remarked that the President made the right decision because some Cabinet officials are reportedly just “paupo-upo,” implying that they are sitting around, doing nothing. While such a statement makes for a sharp soundbite, it may be a misleading and overly simplistic take on the complex inner workings of the executive branch.

Cabinet officials, unlike legislators, hold operational leadership over government departments and agencies. Their performance is judged not only by public appearances but also by internal milestones, policy implementation, and institutional reform. The idea that they are doing “nothing” is a strong accusation that requires proof. Unlike senators or congressmen who may face criticism for minimal legislative output, Cabinet members operate in a results-driven ecosystem—where they are expected to deliver programs, execute the President’s agenda, and respond swiftly to crises.

What may be closer to the truth is that some Cabinet officials are slow, rather than lazy. This distinction is important. Laziness suggests unwillingness, lack of discipline, or indifference. Slowness, on the other hand, may arise from bureaucratic entanglements, poor systems, lack of inter-agency coordination, or simply being overwhelmed by the scale of governance challenges. In other words, slowness can often be a symptom of structural problems, not personal failure.

President Marcos himself did not directly accuse any Cabinet member of being lazy or incompetent. His statement about “recalibrating” the administration signals a desire to realign performance with expectations, particularly in the second half of his term when the public increasingly demands concrete results. Recalibration may involve reassignments, replacements, or even restructuring—especially in areas where progress has stalled or bottlenecks have persisted.

It’s also worth asking: what exactly does the President mean when he says he wants “faster execution” and a “results-first mindset”? Governance today demands agility. The challenges of economic recovery, digital transformation, infrastructure development, and social welfare require leaders who can act decisively. In this context, “slowness” is not just a performance issue—it can be a political liability.

However, we must be careful not to conflate slowness with ineffectiveness. There are domains—like education reform, healthcare system upgrades, and agrarian modernization—where results naturally take longer to manifest. Leaders in these sectors must be evaluated not just by speed, but also by the quality and sustainability of their work.

What the country truly needs is a Cabinet Performance Monitoring System (CPMS) that measures Cabinet output objectively based on timelines, deliverables, and real-world impact. Without such a system, decisions to reshuffle or replace officials may appear arbitrary or politically motivated.

In sum, while there is merit in seeking a more responsive and energetic Cabinet, we should not reduce the discourse to a binary of “lazy” versus “hardworking.” The real issue is whether the administration has the mechanisms to track, support, and optimize the performance of its leaders. Only then can we expect a Cabinet that moves—not just quickly—but also wisely and effectively.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres
iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com

06-21-2025