MANILA — Malacañang is defending President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.’s continued use of acting Cabinet secretaries, saying the appointments are legally permissible and within the President’s constitutional authority.
The Palace’s position comes amid renewed scrutiny over the number of government departments being headed by officials serving in an acting capacity rather than as permanent, Commission on Appointments (CA)-confirmed secretaries.
The issue has become increasingly contentious as Congress tackles major government priorities, including the proposed 2027 national budget, putting a spotlight on who has the authority to lead key executive departments.
The Philippine News Agency reported on September 3 that Malacañang defended the legality of Marcos’ acting-secretary appointments.
Palace: Marcos has the authority to appoint acting officials
Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary and Palace Press Officer Claire Castro has repeatedly maintained that Marcos is exercising a power available to the President under Philippine law.
Castro previously said the President “means no offense” to the Commission on Appointments and is simply exercising his constitutional prerogative to make temporary or permanent appointments.
She also said acting secretaries may serve for up to one year, and that the administration intends to submit appointments to the CA “in due time.”
The Palace’s argument is supported by existing jurisprudence.
In the landmark Pimentel Jr. v. Executive Secretary Ermita case, the Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that the President may appoint department heads in an acting capacity even while Congress is in session.
The Court described an acting appointment as a temporary, stopgap arrangement intended to fill a vacancy until a permanent occupant is appointed.
The ruling also recognized a statutory safeguard: under Executive Order No. 292, a temporary designation cannot exceed one year. The Supreme Court specifically noted that this limitation exists to guard against potential abuse of acting appointments as a means of circumventing confirmation requirements.
But the Commission on Appointments has questions
The controversy centers on the difference between an acting appointment and an appointment subject to confirmation.
Under the 1987 Constitution, the President nominates and, with the consent of the Commission on Appointments, appoints the heads of executive departments.
Acting appointments, however, are different. They can temporarily fill vacancies without being submitted to the CA for confirmation.
That distinction has prompted lawmakers to question whether repeated or prolonged use of acting appointments could weaken the constitutional checking role of the CA.
In March, Senate President Vicente Sotto III said the CA would seek clarification from Malacañang about the status of acting Cabinet secretaries. Senator Imee Marcos and Senator Rodante Marcoleta had raised concerns that keeping officials in acting positions could allow them to avoid the confirmation process.
Imee Marcos calls the practice “over-acting”
Senator Imee Marcos, the President’s sister, has been one of the most vocal critics of the administration’s approach.
She previously questioned why several Cabinet-level officials remained in acting positions and described some as “over-acting” secretaries.
Her criticism centers on the argument that the CA’s constitutional role could be diminished if presidents routinely rely on acting appointments instead of submitting permanent appointments for confirmation.
The criticism is politically notable because it comes from within the Marcos family.
But the legal question is separate from the political dispute: the Supreme Court has already recognized the President’s authority to make acting appointments.
The more difficult issue is whether that authority is being used within the temporary limits and safeguards established by law.
Why the one-year rule matters
The one-year limit is at the heart of the controversy.
The Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling makes clear that temporary designations cannot simply continue indefinitely. The Court specifically cited the one-year restriction in Executive Order No. 292 as a safeguard against abuse.
This means the Palace’s argument is not that acting appointments are unlimited.
Rather, Malacañang’s position is that the current acting officials have not exceeded the applicable limit in their present designations.
Castro made that argument in March, saying the officials then serving in acting positions had not reached one year in their respective posts.
That distinction is important because an official’s total time in government is not necessarily the same as the duration of a particular acting designation.
Several major departments have gone through leadership changes
The issue has unfolded alongside a series of Cabinet changes under Marcos.
Among the departments that have seen acting or temporary leadership arrangements are Budget and Management, Environment and Natural Resources, Labor and Employment and Health, among others.
For example, Juan Miguel Cuna was designated acting DENR secretary in February after Raphael Lotilla was appointed ambassador to the Holy See. The Palace said the change was intended to ensure continuity in DENR operations while the appointment process continued.
More recent changes have also affected the Department of Budget and Management and other major agencies, keeping the question of permanent appointments relevant as government agencies prepare their programs and budgets.
The 2027 budget adds another layer
The controversy is particularly significant because the government is now preparing the 2027 national budget.
Acting department secretaries and other temporary officials remain responsible for presenting and defending agency programs and proposed spending before Congress.
That has prompted questions about whether officials who have not yet gone through CA confirmation should be making major policy and administrative decisions.
Critics argue that congressional scrutiny is an important part of the constitutional system of checks and balances.
The Palace, however, maintains that acting officials can legally perform the functions of their departments while their temporary designations remain valid.
What the Supreme Court actually said
The legal precedent is more nuanced than either side’s political messaging might suggest.
The Supreme Court did not rule that the President can keep acting secretaries indefinitely.
Instead, it held that acting appointments are permissible because department secretaries serve as the President’s alter egos and vacancies must be filled to keep the executive branch functioning.
At the same time, the Court warned that acting appointments can potentially be abused as a way of avoiding the CA confirmation process.
In the 2005 case itself, however, the Court found no abuse because President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo subsequently issued ad interim appointments before the one-year period expired.
That precedent is now being invoked in the modern debate over Marcos’ Cabinet.
The bigger political question
The dispute ultimately goes beyond whether an acting secretary is technically legal.
The bigger question is how often and for how long a President should rely on temporary appointments before the practice begins to undermine the purpose of congressional confirmation.
The Constitution gives the President substantial appointing authority, while the Commission on Appointments exists as part of the system of checks and balances.
Both principles can coexist — but the tension becomes sharper when major departments remain under temporary leadership for extended periods.
For now, Malacañang insists that Marcos is acting within his legal authority and that appointments will eventually be submitted to the CA.
The Supreme Court precedent also gives the President significant room to make temporary appointments.
But the same precedent contains an important warning: the temporary power was never intended to become a permanent substitute for the confirmation process.
WWC ONE MEDIA G.A
Leave a Reply