Things are not getting better when one sees that departments directly under the President’s control are openly clashing with agencies that are under them. In recent times, the internal strife has become the ugly picture that is painted in the public eye.

This kind of rift, however, was blown out of proportion in two high-profile cases.

In the headline-hogging P6.7-billion shabu haul, the interior and local government secretary Benhur Abalos declared in a press coverage that policemen were supposedly involved in a cover-up. The statement, after exploding on national television, created a hole in the rapport between the DILG and the Philippine National Police, an agency under Abalos’ direct direction.

Then came the ruckus that erupted between the justice secretary and the National Bureau of Investigation after it was exposed that a detainee was allowed a guarded exit from the agency’s custody and a gathering of sleuths featured a dancing woman. As in the first instance, the NBI is also a subsidiary of the mother agency, the justice department.

These unwanted clashes, in you will, dig deep into how subordination in government, especially in the way the primary agency handle a case involving its subaltern, affects public perception. When law enforcement agencies, for instance, are inevitably linked to anomalous cases, the downside always ends on the negative territory.

Efficiency in government, especially between belligerent agencies, is viewed damagingly because state functionaries are expected to iron out kinks civilly within their confines. But when the lure of publicity and good credits in the public consciousness come into play, the split is blown out of proportion, especially when the media starts fleshing out the circumstances of the rift.

Internal strife occurs because agencies compete for public adulation, which is actually a good practice if the motive behind it is to improve performance. But conflicts between ‘sibling’ agencies can take a turn for the worse such that lower-level branches take the high ground in doing what they want even if the actions require the approval of the more superior departments.

Already blemished by the partial views it has embraced over the years in politically charged cases, the justice department should instead be revisited its charter and the statutes that created the agencies under it. A stringent appreciation on how internal camaraderie between offices is worked out is essential when existing laws are retooled not to the satisfaction of politicians who legislate laws to their personal advantage.

While a subsidiary agency always eschews or avoids head-on collision with superior departments, such evasive behavior does not necessarily create good will. Often, it creates low morale and ends in lesser expectations. In the short term, for as long as the abhorred secretary or agency head is still there, the level of performance is grudgingly affected.

Mending fences after a discord is an important aspect of governance given that unwanted clashes can escalate into bitter rivalry if nothing is done about them. In the cases cited, the clash is not just between a superior agency and a subsidiary; it is also about a secretary who serves at the pleasure of the President and an agency head who has risen from the ranks.

Governance is a ticklish setup given that partisan interplay always influences the kind of people appointed to handle sensitive positions. In Cabinet-level posts, the primary reason for the appointment of secretaries is often political, no credential. If being a party to a President’s electoral win is looked upon as a qualification, then their privilege to head department is given.

The discord that has shaken the four government agencies, especially in relation to their working relationship, needs immediate repair. And by repair, we refer to fine-tuning the laws that make them operative. Otherwise, the same issues are expected to surface again anything whenever personal agenda are put on line by those who lead the instrumentalities. (PMT)