EVERYONE SHOULD REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, HE SHOULD NOT REPORT TO HIMSELF

EVERYONE SHOULD REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT, HE SHOULD NOT REPORT TO HIMSELF

What I am about to suggest is not about what is right or wrong. It is about what is good—and what could be better. It may sound disruptive to some, but it is certainly not destructive. On the contrary, it may even be constructive, if only we are willing to rethink how power, accountability, and time are managed at the very top.

Let me be clear at the outset: the President should preside over Cabinet meetings. That is non-negotiable. The Cabinet exists to advise the President, and the President must lead it. But below the Cabinet, should the President preside over every other high-level meeting and council? That is where I think we need to pause and reflect.

At present, the President of the Philippines is the Chairman of at least six core strategic bodies: the Economy and Development Council (formerly the NEDA Board), the National Security Council, the Legislative-Executive Development Advisory Council, the Climate Change Commission, the National Space Council, and the National Solid Waste Management Commission. These are not minor committees. These bodies deal with the economy, national security, legislation, climate change, space policy, and waste management—arguably some of the most complex and technical concerns of the government.

Here is the simple question that nags me: if the President chairs all these bodies, to whom does he report to? Surely not to himself.

As Head of State and Head of Government, the President should not report to anyone else within the Executive Branch. That is precisely why accountability below him should be crystal clear. Someone must be clearly responsible for outcomes, failures, delays, and performance—and that someone should report to the President.

This is why I am suggesting that the President appoint separate chairmen for these councils.

The Secretary of the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDEV) can chair the Economy and Development Council. The National Security Adviser can chair the National Security Council. The Executive Secretary can chair the LEDAC. As for the Climate Change Commission, the National Space Council, and the National Solid Waste Management Commission, their existing heads can serve as concurrent Chairmen.

If we do this, all six Chairmen will report directly to the President. Accountability becomes clearer. Reporting lines become logical. And the President regains something extremely valuable: time and focus.

Yes, I understand the argument for the President chairing these bodies. In a presidential system, the President’s presence cuts through inter-agency turf wars. It sends a signal of priority. It ensures final authority. But let us be honest: in practice, the President rarely sits through all these meetings. Most of the work is already delegated. What remains is a structure that looks centralized on paper but is diffuse in accountability.

The President already faces constitutional checks—from Congress, the Supreme Court, and ultimately the people. What we need to strengthen now is internal executive accountability. Someone should be able to say, “Mr. President, here is what we committed to, here is what we achieved, and here is where we failed.”

This proposal is not about diminishing presidential power. It is about sharpening it. Leadership is not weakened by delegation; it is weakened by overload. A President who tries to chair everything risks overseeing nothing deeply.

I hope no one takes these suggestions the wrong way. I am not questioning authority. I am questioning efficiency, clarity, and accountability. In the end, everyone should report to the President—but the President should never have to report to himself.

RAMON IKE V. SENERES

www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com senseneres.blogspot.com 09088877282/03-20-2027

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