Has the Commission of Appointments Become A Secret Society?

The recent rejection of arguably the BEST DSWD Secretary in Philippine history by the Commission of Appointments was remarkable in so many ways. As usual it also seemed to shine a spotlight on the obscure political maneuverings of its members in spite of their best efforts to hide in anonymity.

What seems to stand out like a sore thumb is the UTTER LACK of explanation or grounds for the rejection of Taguiwalo. While some kind of reasonable issue might have been brought up for the rejection of Gina Lopez, there did not seem to be any outstanding objection against Judy except for her adamant refusal to involve politics in the delivery of services of the DSWD.

The only available videos of the confirmation hearings on YouTube show mostly Senators questioning Taguiwalo in a generally friendly manner while every single Congressman/woman, of the few who posed questions, was noticeably cold and distant. Only Wes Gatchalian had a semblance of a smile. It would appear that the Secretary was quite knowledgeable and forthcoming in ALL her answers despite some questions that did not seem to have anything to do with her job or qualifications.

It is to be noted that the Commission on Appointments Chairman in this 17th Congress is Senate President Koko Pimentel, the president of the PDP, with 7 PDP Congressmen as members, the most of any party. The second most dominant party is the Liberal Party with 5 members - 4 Senators and 1 Congresswoman. Curiously enough, together with the PDP contingent they would form a majority of 13 if they voted as one, particularly when drafting the new rules they promulgated only last March 7 2017.

Strangely enough even as he heads the party under whose banner President Duterte ran, it is under Pimentel's stewardship that:

1. The Commission adopted the 3 strike rule which allows an appointee only 2 bypasses before a final decision is made.
   In the past, it was unlimited. Why erstwhile and supposed allies of the President would choose to adopt this rule 8 months into the Duterte administration is quite mystifying.

2. Whereas the new CA rules promulgated on March 7 2017 state:

SECTION 23. VOTING. Voting by the Commission on
any nomination or appointment submitted for confirmation
shall be by viva voce; except, upon request of any member,
the voting shall be nominal, or by ballot during caucus.

the CA apparently again amended the rules to change it to secret balloting with counting of votes stopped once the minimum number needed for a majority decision is reached. There can be no other explanation for this except to make it difficult for people to ascertain how anyone really voted and allow the two-faced hypocrites to claim differently from how they voted.

The rules also state nothing about giving any grounds for whatever decision they may make. This is totally contrary to the interests of transparency and gives rise to speculations of ulterior motives, particularly since it was only in this Congress that these rules were applied.

BUT why should the vote of ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL BE A SECRET RATHER THAN A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD? That is why they are called PUBLIC officials isn't it? Or maybe they should now be called secret officials? I believe this has something to do with the apparently outmoded principle of ACCOUNTABILITY of the legislature.

In comparison, the Supreme Court always makes public how it's members voted and why.

The current rules as they are gravely undermine the powers of the Presidency as well as the principle of co-equality. The reason for the traditional rule of unlimited bypass and reappointment was to allow the President a free hand in choosing his alter-egos in the various departments while affording Congress a means to reject a doubtful appointee FOR DUE CAUSE should the appointee prove to be undesirable over the course of his tenure. It was not meant to allow the CA to use its approval to bully or demand favors from the appointee or the President, for political motives or simply to settle personal grudges which is apparently the case in this instance.

Considering that a great majority if not ALL the congresspersons in the CA seemed to have a rather dim view of Taguiwalo because of her resistance to their strident demands during the budget hearings that they be the final arbiters of who the recipients of government aid should be, this would appear to be the reason for her rejection by them in spite of her unprecedented performance at the DSWD. Quite remarkably, NO ONE made this an issue during the confirmation hearings.

But since even if all the congressmen voted for rejection, they would still need at least one senator to vote with them, the question is what possible reason could a senator have?

Apparently it seems to be her being recommended by the NDF and her political past, despite her declarations of having cut any formal ties with them. It seems that the military-minded and the Red-scared mentalities of some Senators would not allow them to appreciate her exemplary achievements in just one year on the job. This is rather hypocritical for many of them who have checkered pasts of their own as well as a dearth of real achievements compared to the time they have been in office.

It is a measure of their thick skulls and skins that even widespread popular clamor for the confirmation of Taguiwalo could not sway enough of them from their selfish agendas. It seems that the congressmen figured that they had their districts well in hand so that public outrage would not really affect their chances of re-election while the Senators figured that the anonymity of the secret ballot would spare them from condemnation.

The irony is that they have confirmed so many others in the past who have done far, far worse. Never in the history of the Philippines has there been such an unprecedented rejection of so many appointees for all the wrong reasons.

So much for having competent, honest and effective government officials. So much for confirmation in the name of the general welfare.

The lack of transparency due to secret voting and lack of justification for rejection is an abomination to democracy.

The 3 strike rule has upset the delicate balance of co-equality among the 3 branches of government by effectively holding hostage the ENTIRE executive branch to the whims and caprices of the legislature. While I am not a lawyer and may be mistaken, I would venture that to say it seems to be an UNCONSTITUTIONAL and unwarranted encroachment and/or grave usurpation of the authority of the President.

Can I elicit a legal opinion from the lawyers out there?