senseneres: DO WE NEED A CABINET COORDINATOR?

DO WE NEED A CABINET COORDINATOR?

There’s a Latin phrase often bandied about in discussions of government protocol: primus inter pares—first among equals. In the US, the Secretary of State, though formally just one among many Cabinet-level officials, enjoys that position in many respects, especially in diplomacy. In the Philippines, the story is more complex—and perhaps overdue for clarifying reform.

What we know, what we suspect

Originally, after the Philippines achieved independence, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs (DFA) held a protocol rank akin to primus inter pares. This made sense because (1) foreign affairs was among the first departments established; and (2) the role resonates with the American model where external relations carry great prestige and influence.

But over time, the role of Executive Secretary was created (formally in 1936, according to sources). Slowly, that position has come to subsume much of what being “first among equals” once implied for the DFA Secretary. The Executive Secretary is often called the “Little President”—a sobriquet that hints at power. Under the Administrative Code (EO No. 292), the Executive Secretary is the President’s “chief alter-ego,” can review and modify decisions of other Cabinet secretaries (on appeal), issue orders in the name of the President, and direct operations of the Executive Office.

The DFA Secretary, meanwhile, remains a major Cabinet member with important duties (foreign policy, international relations). But in matters of internal government coordination or inter-departmental policy coherence, the DFA officer does not preside. The Executive Secretary does—or at least, has the legal and institutional basis for doing so.

Why the question arises: gaps, overlaps, and the need for clarity

Reading protocol is one thing; making the machinery of government work is another. Here are some issues that suggest a Cabinet coordinator (or equivalent) is not just ceremonial but necessary:

Coordination across departments is often weak. Policies from one department may conflict with another. Clusters exist in theory (such as economic cluster, infrastructure cluster, health/social cluster), but how well these are coordinated—especially across bureaucratic lines—varies.
Speed of decision-making often depends on informal channels. If no one has a clear coordinating mandate, decisions stall or bounce around.
Accountability and clarity suffer. When things go wrong—say, in inter-agency programs or crisis response—it’s often hard to say who should have been ensuring alignment.

These are problems of structure, not simply personnel. People can try to fill gaps, but without clearly defined roles, functions, authority, and protocols, they may be blocked, bypassed, or overruled.

The Executive Secretary: de facto coordinator?

Given the legal powers of the Executive Secretary under Philippine law (EO 292), the role already can perform many coordination functions. It can act for the President; it can modify Cabinet secretaries’ decisions; it supervises Executive Office operations.

So, does that mean we really need a separate “Cabinet Coordinator”? Maybe not in formal title—but it may mean that we need someone who is explicitly charged (with clarity) to coordinate the Cabinet, to monitor the clusters, to serve as a hub of inter-departmental liaison. This might be (1) the Executive Secretary themselves, (2) a subordinate (e.g., a Deputy Executive Secretary), or (3) a specially created post.

My opinion: yes, we need a Cabinet coordinator (but not necessarily a new post)

Here’s what I believe:

The title “Cabinet Coordinator” is less important than clarity in function. What matters is that someone is responsible (not merely nominally) for ensuring Cabinet coherence, cluster alignment, avoiding redundancy, and harmonizing conflicting policies.
That someone does not need to be a separate Cabinet-rank secretary. In fact, duplicating Cabinet ranks risks confusion and turf wars. Better to use existing roles but clarify their duties.
The Executive Secretary is the logical candidate: already endowed by law with much of the power; already acts as an access point between departments and the President. What the government needs is a formal assignment of coordinating authority (possibly via an executive order or even amendment of the administrative code) so everyone understands where responsibility lies.

Questions we must ask

Do the cluster heads really have to report to someone beyond the department secretaries to ensure they follow cluster directives?
Does the PMS (Presidential Management Staff) have the capacity and mandate to be the brain or think-tank, and the coordinator? Or are those conflicting roles?
What checks exist to prevent one “coordinator” from becoming too powerful (or undermining departmental autonomy)?

Comparative perspective

Looking at other countries might help:

In the UK, the Cabinet Secretary (civil servant) coordinates Cabinet business and supports the Prime Minister.
In Japan, the Chief Cabinet Secretary has both policy coordination and messaging duties.
In the US, though the White House Chief of Staff is not a Cabinet member, functionally, they coordinate presidential priorities, Cabinet-level decisions, and ensure coherence across the executive branch.

Philippines’ Executive Secretary role is somewhere between the UK and US model—strong, but under-utilized in certain respects.

Suggestions for reform

Clarify via legislation or executive order what “Cabinet coordination” entails: who reports to whom, what oversight there is, how conflicts are resolved.
Formalize cluster coordination with regular meetings, transparent reporting, key performance indicators. Tying budget releases or project approvals to adherence to cluster decisions could help enforce coordination.
Consider appointing a Deputy Executive Secretary or Assistant who is explicitly “Coordinator of Cabinet Clusters”—someone with no ambiguous role but one recognized across all departments as the point person.
Improve information systems to facilitate real-time inter-agency cooperation (data sharing, communication lines). If ordinary citizens coordinate by networks and social media, the government also needs institutional equivalents (though secure and accountable).

In conclusion

Yes—we do need a Cabinet coordinator, not as a symbolic position, but as a practical anchor for coherence in government. The Executive Secretary already could serve—or already is serving in some respects—this role. What is missing is formal clarity, mandated functions, and institutional accountability.

Unless we address this, the ready-made coordination gaps will continue to slow us down, produce contradictory policies, and reduce public trust. Protocol isn’t just about who is seated where; it’s about who is expected to act, to align, and to deliver. Cabinet coordination is too important a function to leave unspoken, inconsistent, or broken.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com

09088877282/02-23-2026