PROS AND CONS OF THE CABINET CLUSTERS SYSTEM

 PROS AND CONS OF THE CABINET CLUSTERS SYSTEM

At first glance, the Cabinet Clusters System looks like one of those reforms that actually make sense. Instead of every Cabinet secretary lining up at the President’s door, departments are grouped into thematic clusters—economic development, human development, infrastructure, security, climate change, and participatory governance. Coordination, in theory, becomes smoother. Decision-making, in theory, becomes faster. And yes, generally speaking, there are more pros than cons.

One major advantage is that the system has a clear legal basis. Executive Order No. 43 (2011) created the Cabinet clusters to improve policy coordination, while Executive Order No. 24 (2017) reorganized them and even expanded their scope by adding the Infrastructure Cluster and the Participatory Governance Cluster. This is not some ad hoc arrangement; it is institutionalized. That alone is a big plus in a bureaucracy that often runs on personalities rather than systems.

Another strong point is that the clusters already exist and are operational. These are not paper clusters. Meetings are held, resolutions are issued, and programs are supposedly monitored. Each cluster is also mandated to have its own Secretariat, drawn from lead agencies such as NEDA, DSWD, DENR, DPWH, or DILG. On paper, this setup should ensure continuity, documentation, and follow-through—things our government sorely needs.

From a governance perspective, clusters help break down silos. Economic policy, for example, cannot be left to one department alone. Agriculture, trade, finance, and labor must talk to each other. The same goes for climate change, disaster risk reduction, and infrastructure. Complex problems require coordinated solutions, and clusters are designed precisely for that.

But here is where the cracks begin to show.

While the clusters exist, they are practically invisible to the public. It is surprisingly difficult—almost impossible—to contact them directly. The official listings usually publish only the names of member agencies. The names of Secretariat officers and staff? Not there. Mobile numbers? Email addresses? Also not there. It almost feels as if the clusters are not meant to be contacted at all.

This is deeply ironic, especially when we talk about the Participatory Governance Cluster. What exactly does “participatory governance” mean if ordinary citizens, civil society groups, academics, or even concerned professionals cannot easily reach the Secretariat? Participation cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires access, transparency, and open channels of communication.

Perhaps I am hoping against hope, but how I wish it were possible for citizens to suggest agenda items to cluster meetings. Is that really too much to ask? It may sound like I am dreaming, but is it not true that participatory governance is a pillar of open governance? If clusters are meant to improve policy coherence, why exclude ideas from outside government—especially when many good ideas come from the ground?

To be fair, there are indirect ways to reach the clusters, usually through the public assistance desks of lead agencies like DSWD, NEDA, DPWH, or DILG, or through the Presidential Management Staff. But indirect access is not the same as transparent access. It discourages engagement and reinforces the perception that governance is an exclusive club.

So where does that leave us?

The Cabinet Clusters System is a good idea. It has structure, legal grounding, and practical advantages. But it can be better. Publishing the names and contact details of Secretariat offices would be a simple, low-cost reform. Creating a formal mechanism for receiving public suggestions—even if only advisory—would give real meaning to participatory governance.

Clusters should not just coordinate among themselves. They should also listen. After all, governance is not only about managing departments; it is about serving people. And people cannot participate in what they cannot even reach.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-17-2027

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES?

HOW IS THE CRIME RATE COMPUTED IN THE PHILIPPINES? When we talk about the crime rate in the Philippines, we often assume that the figures we see are accurate reflections of reality. But have we ever paused to ask—how exactly is the crime rate computed? Where does this data come from, and how reliable is it? The computation of the crime rate in the Philippines is officially handled by the Philippine National Police (PNP). The formula itself is straightforward: Crime Rate = (Total Reported Crimes / Total Population) x 100,000 This simple equation gives us the number of crimes per 100,000 people, allowing for fair comparison across regions and time periods. However, the reality behind these numbers is more complex than it appears. Data from the Ground The foundation of our national crime rate is empirical data collected at the grassroots level—from individual police stations scattered across the country. Every reported crime is logged in local police blotters, forming the buil...
Read more

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS

GREY AREAS IN GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS Dear Mr. President: May I ask who is going to be the arbiter or referee whenever there are overlaps in functions between two or more government agencies? I imagine that there would be no problem if these agencies would just cooperate and collaborate with each other, but what if they are unable to settle their differences and they would just end up throwing blame at each other or finger pointing at each other? Allow me to cite some examples. Who is supposed to take the lead in waste to energy projects? Is it supposed to be the DENR that is supposed to handle waste? Or is it supposed to be the DOE that is supposed to handle energy generation? Or is it supposed to be the DILG since it is the one that could direct or influence the waste to energy projects of LGUs? Who is supposed to take the lead in producing and promoting the use of biofuels? Is it supposed to be the DA, since the production of biofuels is supposed to be all about planting biofuel ...
Read more

BATTLING A MENTAL HEALTH EPIDEMIC

BATTLING A MENTAL HEALTH EPIDEMIC It is already a well-established fact that the Covid-19 pandemic also triggered what could be called a mental health pandemic. It does not mean however that since the Covid-19 pandemic has practically slowed down, that the mental health pandemic has also slowed down. For the record, no one has officially declared the mental health problem is already a pandemic, but I suggest that we already make that declaration, so that we could respond to the problem with the attention that it needs. As far as I know, no one has declared that the Covid-19 pandemic is officially over, with most governments merely saying that it is now reduced to being a manageable epidemic, whatever that means. What is clear however, is that no one has also declared that the mental health pandemic is also over, in fact many governments would even hesitate to call it an epidemic. The fact remains however that globally, 1 out of 8 are affected according to the WHO, and locally, at least...
Read more