OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THE METRO TRAFFIC PROBLEM

OTHER SOLUTIONS TO THE METRO TRAFFIC PROBLEM Metro Manila’s traffic congestion is no longer just an inconvenience—it has become a full-blown crisis with severe economic, environmental, and public health consequences. The Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) estimates that the country loses billions of pesos daily due to lost productivity, wasted fuel, and time stuck in traffic. While infrastructure projects such as subways and expressways are often touted as long-term solutions, we must also explore other, less costly and more immediate strategies. Beyond building new roads, we need to rethink policies, behaviors, and enforcement systems. Here are four alternative and complementary solutions that can help mitigate the traffic problem in Metro Manila. 1. Stricter Enforcement of Emissions Laws One underrated but highly impactful approach is the strict enforcement of vehicle emissions regulations. A significant portion of vehicles clogging Metro Manila’s roads are old, poorly maintained, and are smoke-belching. Not only do they contribute to air pollution—exacerbating respiratory illnesses and harming vulnerable populations—but their deteriorating condition also makes them more prone to breakdowns, which cause further traffic delays. Enforcing emission laws more rigorously, including random roadside checks and annual inspections, would reduce the number of unroadworthy vehicles and encourage motorists to maintain their vehicles properly or retire them altogether. This policy simultaneously addresses both traffic and public health concerns. 2. Database of Traffic Violators Technology can play a vital role in enforcing discipline on our roads. A centralized, nationwide database of traffic law violators—linked to their license number and vehicle registration—would help ensure accountability. Through this database, drivers with multiple offenses can face escalated penalties, including license suspension or revocation. The current lack of coordination among enforcement agencies leads to inefficiencies and allows habitual violators to slip through the cracks. Integrating this database with a point system and publicly available records could deter bad behavior and promote more responsible driving. 3. Stricter Driver’s License Issuance At present, the standards for acquiring a driver’s license in the Philippines remain relatively lax. Too many unqualified individuals—some of whom may not even understand traffic signs or defensive driving practices—are given licenses. This contributes to erratic, undisciplined, and unsafe driving, which in turn causes accidents and gridlocks. The Land Transportation Office (LTO) should raise the bar by improving both the theoretical and practical tests, instituting psychological assessments, and requiring mandatory training through accredited driving schools. Quality, not quantity, must be the priority. 4. Higher Insurance Premiums for Errant Drivers Just as in other countries, insurance rates in the Philippines should reflect driver behavior. Motorists who have been involved in accidents or have multiple violations should be charged higher premiums. This will serve as a financial disincentive for careless or reckless driving. On the flip side, law-abiding drivers should be rewarded with lower premiums. Insurance companies, in partnership with government traffic agencies, can implement this system to help influence behavior through market-based mechanisms. In conclusion, solving Metro Manila’s traffic problem requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond physical infrastructure. Discipline, accountability, and enforcement are critical pillars of effective traffic management. These complementary solutions, if executed properly, can bring about real and measurable change in our daily commuting lives—making our cities safer, cleaner, and more efficient for everyone. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-28-2025

WHO SHOULD BE IN THE CABINET-LEVEL ECONOMIC TEAM?

WHO SHOULD BE IN THE CABINET-LEVEL ECONOMIC TEAM? In today’s fast-paced, innovation-driven global economy, the Philippines must rethink how it defines and organizes its core economic leadership. A glaring issue that needs to be addressed is the exclusion of the Secretary of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) from the Cabinet-level economic team. Traditionally, the economic team has been composed of the Secretaries of the Department of Finance (DOF), the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), the Department of Economy, Planning, and Development (DEPDev), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP). While these agencies are essential, they are primarily focused on managing government revenues, spending, and debt. In essence, they are money managers — tax collectors, budget allocators, and loan negotiators. The question now is: Is that enough? These agencies typically concentrate on fiscal policy, monetary stability, and macroeconomic planning. While these are crucial pillars of governance, they are inherently reactive. They deal with what already exists — tax revenues collected, budgets proposed, and debts incurred. In some circles, the ability to borrow large sums of money is even framed as a measure of success, as though debt acquisition equates to economic growth. But real economic progress should not be measured by how much we can borrow, but by how much new value we can create. And that is precisely where the DOST should come in. Science, technology, and innovation are no longer auxiliary elements of economic policy — they are central to it. The modern economy thrives on value creation through innovation: new products, improved processes, disruptive technologies, and digital solutions. These innovations fuel productivity, improve efficiency, and create entirely new industries. In short, they generate real, tangible economic value. Countries like South Korea, Singapore, and even Vietnam have shown how investing in science and technology can transform a nation’s economic trajectory. Their growth is not just due to careful budgeting or clever borrowing, but because they invested heavily in research and development, incubated high-tech industries, and nurtured a culture of innovation. Their economic teams do not consist solely of accountants and financiers, but also of scientists, engineers, and tech entrepreneurs. In the Philippines, the DOST has been quietly doing impactful work — from promoting local R&D, supporting micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) through innovation hubs, to pioneering efforts in renewable energy and digital technologies. However, its absence in high-level economic decision-making means that science and technology are often treated as side issues, rather than central pillars of national development. If we are serious about transforming the Philippine economy, the President must consider institutionalizing the inclusion of the DOST Secretary in the economic team. This move would not only signal a shift toward innovation-led growth but would also ensure that science-based insights inform fiscal priorities, industrial policy, and infrastructure investment. Creating new value means creating new products, services, and systems — and only science, technology, and innovation can deliver that. If we want a future-proof economy, our economic team must go beyond balancing books — it must help build the future. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-27-2025

REVISITING POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING PROTOCOLS

REVISITING POLICE RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING PROTOCOLS Recently retired Philippine National Police (PNP) Chief Rommel Francisco Dayrit Marbil, publicly expressed concern over the seemingly endless stream of misdeeds committed by police officers during his watch. His frustration is understandable—despite disciplinary actions, administrative penalties, and dismissals, errant cops continue to tarnish the institution’s image. But perhaps the real solution lies not in merely reacting to misconduct, but in re-examining the very foundation upon which the force is built: its recruitment and training protocols. At the core of this issue is a crucial question: Who do we allow to become police officers? Recruitment is the first line of defense in ensuring the integrity of the police force. If individuals with questionable backgrounds, weak ethical foundations, or unchecked aggressive tendencies are admitted into the system, it is only a matter of time before they misuse their authority. The old saying, "Do not tempt the mortals," applies. Giving someone a badge and a gun without fully evaluating their mental, emotional, and moral fitness is like handing matches to someone without checking if they have pyromaniac tendencies. In theory, the PNP has a recruitment process that includes physical fitness exams, psychological tests, background checks, and panel interviews. But how rigorously are these being enforced? Are psychological evaluations merely formalities, or are they truly screening out potential liabilities? Are background checks being conducted thoroughly, or are personal connections and influence playing a bigger role in admissions? Even more critical is what happens after recruitment. Training is not just about physical endurance and marksmanship; it must also emphasize values formation, human rights education, community relations, and de-escalation tactics. Unfortunately, reports have emerged over the years about toxic hazing, outdated instruction styles, and rote learning dominating police academies. Worse, there seems to be insufficient post-academy supervision—field training officers are often overwhelmed or inadequately equipped to mentor new officers effectively. Additionally, refresher courses and continuous professional development must be institutionalized. Policing in a democratic society requires not just brute force, but discernment, empathy, and a solid grasp of legal limitations. Without ongoing education, officers may revert to authoritarian impulses or be swayed by the influence of corrupt peers. There must also be accountability in the training hierarchy. Are instructors themselves properly vetted? Are they teaching the correct procedures? Are there evaluations of the training programs to assess their effectiveness in real-world policing? If not, then reform is necessary not just at the bottom, but throughout the chain of command. Perhaps the newly appointed PNP Chief Nicolas Deloso Torre III should prioritize a full audit of both recruitment standards and training protocols. This should be data-driven, transparent, and ideally include consultation with civil society, criminology experts, and the Commission on Human Rights. If the PNP truly wants to regain and sustain public trust, it must ensure that only the most qualified and principled individuals are recruited, trained, and promoted. A stronger, cleaner force begins not in the field—but at the very gates of Camp Crame. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-26-2025

TOWARDS SHARPER AND FASTER GOVERNANCE

TOWARDS SHARPER AND FASTER GOVERNANCE Let’s give good intentions a chance. In a recent statement, Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin described President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s cabinet reshuffle as a “bold reset,” signaling a shift in the administration’s approach to governance. According to Bersamin, this move is meant to usher in a new phase—one that is sharper, faster, and more fully focused on the people’s most pressing needs. While some observers remain skeptical of whether this vision will be realized, the President’s words and actions offer a glimmer of optimism that deserves attention. In an age where trust in government is fragile and many Filipinos have grown disillusioned by slow or ineffective public service; the promise of sharper and faster governance is more than just rhetoric—it’s an aspiration for meaningful change. But what does “sharper” and “faster” really mean in the context of governance? “Sharper” implies clarity of purpose, decisiveness, and precision in policymaking and execution. It means fewer vague directives and more measurable objectives. In a sharper government, every department knows its role, and every agency has a clearly defined mission. There is no room for guesswork or bureaucratic muddling. It calls for leadership that cuts through red tape and focuses on delivering outcomes rather than simply processing paperwork. “Faster,” on the other hand, speaks directly of efficiency. It is a cry against the sluggish pace of project rollouts, infrastructure implementation, and public service delivery. Filipinos are tired of waiting—for better roads, for more classrooms, for affordable healthcare, and for responsive disaster relief. To be fast is to be responsive, proactive, and agile: traits that the public sector must now urgently adopt. To the President’s credit, the call for realignment came with action. The call for courtesy resignations among his cabinet members—controversial as it may be—at least indicates that the administration is prepared to make difficult decisions to achieve its goals. While some may view it as political maneuvering, others see it as a necessary step toward performance-based leadership. Yes, there are valid concerns. Skeptics question whether this reset is driven by genuine reform or political consolidation. They wonder if underperforming officials will simply be reshuffled instead of replaced. These questions are fair, and transparency is essential moving forward. However, if the administration follows through with clear Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), accountability mechanisms, and open communication, this reset could set a precedent for more responsive and responsible governance. Admittedly, many Filipinos are feeling disillusioned. Rising prices, inadequate social services, and political noise have dimmed public trust. But in this context, even a spark of hope can be powerful. If the President is serious about realigning his administration with the needs of the people, then we should give this recalibration a fair chance. As citizens, we are not called to blind loyalty, but to hopeful engagement. Sharper and faster governance is not just a slogan—it is a challenge. And if the administration is truly ready to rise to it, then we, too, must be ready to hold them to it—with both support and scrutiny. After all, we have nothing to lose—and perhaps, everything to gain. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-25-2025

WHAT DOES THE CABINET CLEANSING MEAN?

WHAT DOES THE CABINET CLEANSING MEAN? Executive Secretary Lucas Bersamin recently described the cabinet reshuffle initiated by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. as a form of “cleansing.” This choice of words, while possibly intended as metaphorical or symbolic, carries with it heavy connotations. Naturally, the public is left to ask: what exactly is being cleansed? Does this imply the presence of incompetence, underperformance, or worse—corruption—within the President’s official family? The original context of the cabinet revamp, as earlier stated by the Palace, was to “recalibrate” the administration—a seemingly more neutral term that suggests adjusting strategies and personnel to better align with the administration’s evolving priorities and the expectations of the Filipino people. This recalibration, we were told, aimed at achieving a faster, more efficient, and more results-driven government. It was framed as a technical and strategic move rather than a punitive or disciplinary action. Yet now, with “cleansing” introduced into the political vocabulary, it risks giving the impression that certain officials were removed not for being slow or underperforming, but for being unethical or untrustworthy. This narrative unfairly casts a shadow on those who were let go—particularly on former DENR Secretary Toni Yulo-Loyzaga, a well-respected figure in environmental governance. She was reportedly not even afforded the opportunity to explain or defend her record publicly. By framing her departure within a so-called “cleansing,” the administration opens itself to criticism that it has, wittingly or not, smeared the reputations of individuals without evidence of wrongdoing. It’s also worth examining how the other cabinet changes have been treated. Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) Secretary Jerry Acuzar, for instance, was reassigned instead of being removed, despite having been widely reported as having “overpromised and underdelivered” on housing targets. If his shortcoming was primarily speed and execution, then is this considered a lesser offense than whatever Secretary Loyzaga was perceived to have done—or failed to do? Or does this reveal an uneven standard of accountability? Interestingly, the appointment of Foreign Affairs Secretary Maria Theresa “Tess” Lazaro has been met with praise. Her rise to the position is being viewed as a reward for her loyalty to the service and her good track record of diplomacy. Yet even her promotion raises a question: if some are being “cleansed,” are others being “purified” or rewarded on purely political grounds? Using the word “cleansing” in government reshuffles is dangerous because it is imprecise and suggestive. It invites speculation, casts doubt on the integrity of those replaced and often does so without transparent justification. If the real goal of this cabinet revamp is to improve governance through a merit-based evaluation of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), then let it be known as such. Government should strive for clarity, fairness, and transparency—particularly when public servants’ reputations and careers are at stake. Ultimately, Filipinos deserve to know: was this a recalibration, a reshuffle, or a purge? Words matter—especially when they affect public trust in governance and the dignity of those who serve. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-24-2025

ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS

ELECTRIC PLATE NUMBER IDENTIFIERS The term “No Contact Apprehension Policy” or NCAP has become a widely discussed issue in the Philippines, particularly in relation to traffic enforcement in Metro Manila and other urban centers. However, a closer look at the term reveals a significant misnomer: there is no actual apprehension taking place. In traditional traffic enforcement, apprehension involves a physical stop or an interaction between the traffic enforcer and the motorist. Under NCAP, that interaction doesn’t happen. Instead, the technology does all the work. What we’re really dealing with is a form of automated identification—and it would be more accurate to call it the Electronic Plate Number Identifier (EPNI). NCAP relies heavily on Optical Character Recognition (OCR), a technology that scans and reads the alphanumeric characters on vehicle license plates. Once the characters are read, the system cross-references the plate number with the database of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) to identify the registered owner. From there, traffic violations captured by closed-circuit television (CCTV) or surveillance cameras are matched with the vehicle's registration, and a notice of violation is sent directly to the registered address or through an online platform. This technology is not particularly new. In fact, it is quite like the technology used in the Vote Counting Machines (VCMs) during Philippine elections. In the VCMs, the OCR mechanism reads the “shaded dots” on the ballots to count the votes. In the EPNI, it reads “printed characters” on license plates to identify the vehicle owners. Both rely on image processing and automated interpretation. The similarity in technology, however, ends with the application: VCMs are used to count votes, EPNI (or NCAP) is used to issue penalties. While the technology is accurate and efficient, its implementation must be grounded in due process and fairness. Many motorists have voiced concerns about being unaware of their violations until weeks or even months later—by which time the penalty has already escalated due to late fees. In some cases, registered owners who no longer own the vehicle receive violation notices, creating a cascade of legal and logistical problems. This clearly shows that the accuracy of OCR is only as reliable as the accuracy of the LTO’s registration database. Moreover, even if the identification is technically sound, motorists should always retain the right to contest violations. This is a fundamental aspect of due process. While digital governance is crucial for modernization, it should not come at the cost of fairness. There must be a clear and accessible mechanism for appealing or questioning charges, ideally one that is user-friendly and does not require long queues or complex documentation. Ultimately, the goal should not only be enforcement, but also behavioral change. Transparency, public trust, and efficient dispute resolution must accompany technological implementation. If rebranded as “Electronic Plate Number Identifier” (EPNI), the policy may more accurately reflect its function and remove the confusion created by the term “apprehension.” In embracing automation, government authorities must remember that technology should serve the people—not punish them. With proper oversight and transparency, EPNI can be a step toward smarter, safer roads. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-23-2025

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR CABINET MEMBERS President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.'s recent cabinet shake-up has generated interest not just because of who stayed and who was replaced, but also because of what the reshuffling says about measuring performance. After what was described as a “recalibration,” six Cabinet members were retained, two were reassigned, two were “promoted,” and one new appointee—Tess Lazaro—was brought in. The big question is: what was the basis for these movements? Were these decisions backed by a clear, objective performance review process? And if so, what were the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) used? In modern governance, performance-based evaluation is not just a best practice—it is a necessity. Cabinet members function as chief executives of their respective departments. Their roles are critical in achieving the administration’s goals, and as such, they should be held accountable using concrete, transparent metrics. The idea of KPIs is not new in government. In fact, the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) and the Performance Governance System (PGS) were designed to encourage results-oriented public services delivery. If a performance review was indeed conducted, the public deserves to know what criteria were used. Was it a simple "pass or fail" system? Or were officials graded based on quantifiable outputs and outcomes, such as project completion rates, budget utilization efficiency, or improvements in service delivery? Were there qualitative assessments too, like leadership effectiveness, crisis response, and inter-agency collaboration? And crucially, who conducted the review—the Office of the Executive Secretary (OES), the Presidential Management Staff (PMS), or an external auditing body? Transparency is key. If this reshuffle was truly performance-driven, the public has every right to ask: will the results be published? Citizens are entitled to know who performed, who underperformed, and why. After all, Cabinet members are public servants paid with taxpayer money, and their departments directly affect national welfare. In private corporations, executive reviews are often internal, but in public service, accountability is a cornerstone of legitimacy. This brings us to the interesting case of Tess Lazaro, the newest face in the Cabinet. By all accounts, she is a competent technocrat with a track record in diplomacy. Her appointment may signal the President’s desire to bring in professionals who prioritize results over politics. If that is the new standard, then it's a step in the right direction. However, this moment also exposes a gap in the current governance approach. There must be a formalized, institutional performance monitoring system for all Cabinet secretaries—something integrated and published, perhaps quarterly or annually. Such a system would not only ensure accountability but would also foster a culture of continuous improvement. In the end, the call for KPIs is not just about evaluation; it's about transformation. It is about setting the tone for a results-driven government—one where service delivery is measured, excellence is rewarded, and the public is always informed. If PBBM wants a “fiercely intense” Cabinet, as Palace insiders suggest, then it must begin with performance indicators that are fierce, fair, and fully transparent. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-22-2025

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

TOWARDS A FIERCELY INTENSE CABINET

TOWARDS A FIERCELY INTENSE CABINET President Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr.’s decision to revamp his Cabinet has sparked both praise and speculation. Some legislators lauded the move, saying it was a necessary step to remove so-called "lazy and corrupt" officials. But is that really the case? Are there Cabinet members who fit that description? While political rhetoric often seeks to dramatize reform, the truth may be far less sensational and more nuanced. It is unlikely that laziness or corruption is the core issue in the current Cabinet. After all, these positions are not only high-profile but also closely scrutinized by the media, watchdogs, and the public. What may be a more accurate diagnosis is that some officials are simply slow—not in intellect or intention, but in execution. In today’s fast-moving, hyperconnected world, sluggish implementation of policies and programs can be as damaging as overt misconduct. A reform that arrives too late is often no reform at all. This seems to be the crux of the President’s dissatisfaction. According to Palace insiders, what PBBM wants is a Cabinet that is “mabagsik”—a Filipino word that translates roughly into fierce, formidable, or intensely driven. In the context of governance, this means a Cabinet that acts decisively, responds rapidly, and operates with a palpable sense of urgency. It is not just about competence, but also about momentum. A “mabagsik” Cabinet does not tolerate complacency. It is a team that pushes the boundaries of bureaucracy, breaks bottlenecks, and cuts through red tape. It is goal-oriented and data-driven, with officials who are present on the ground, engaged with communities, and relentless in achieving results. This is especially necessary as the Marcos administration approaches the midpoint of its term—a phase where delivery, not promises, becomes the public’s main metric of judgment. Perhaps what the President envisions goes even beyond being "fierce." Perhaps he is aiming for a “malupit” Cabinet—a Filipino slang term which, in its modern usage, connotes something extraordinary, awesome, or impressive. He may be searching for a team that not only governs effectively but inspires confidence. One that is “hanep”—a term for something or someone that exceeds expectations. Such a vision is laudable, but it comes with a price. The culture of the bureaucracy must shift to match the tempo. Coordination must be seamless between departments. Monitoring systems must be embedded to track performance in real time. And most importantly, appointments must be based on merit, not merely loyalty or patronage. Recalibrating a Cabinet to become more “intense” is not just a matter of reshuffling people—it requires a complete shift in work ethic, management structure, and accountability mechanisms. It is about creating a team that works smart and fast—while upholding integrity and public trust. If PBBM succeeds in building such a team, it won’t just be fierce. It will be transformational. The country needs not just a Cabinet that works—but one that delivers, innovates, and inspires. In these critical years of governance, intensity may just be the edge that makes the difference between promises made and promises fulfilled. Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres iseneres@yahoo.com, 09088877282, senseneres.blogspot.com 06-20-2025