Why did President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. veto the proposed law reorganizing the Philippine National Police?
For more than one good reason, but in the end, because it runs counter to his administration’s policies and objectives.
What did the Chief Executive want the proposed law to achieve?
That it would deliver much-needed-reforms; comply with civil service laws, salary standardization policies, and base pay schedules; and conform to budgetary rules.
That’s not all.
The proposed law should be supportive of the policies and programs of not just the present but future administrations as well, including national government rightsizing.
The measure seeks to amend Republic Act 8551, or the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, and RA 6975, or the Department of the Interior and Local Government Act of 1990.
It was approved by the bicameral conference committee that reconciled the discordant provisions of House Bill 8327 and Senate Bill 2249 on PNP restructuring that Congress ratified in March this year.
The President cited specific provisions in the proposed law he wanted legislators to remedy.
One, the possible distortion in pay scales because of a provision that would substantially raise the salary of Philippine National Police Academy cadets to the point of exceeding that of a police lieutenant.
The grant of Salary Grade 21 to PNPA cadets would distort the base pay schedule of military and uniformed personnel by creating disparity among several government cadetship programs.
Two, the Chief Executive took a dim view of the proposal to create several offices, such as the directorial staff, area commands, special offices, and support units, but did not consider their functional relationships or clarify reporting lines.
He emphasized that different offices performing the same or related functions, all headed by high-ranking officials, will definitely be counterproductive and will defeat the purpose of enhancing the span of supervision and administrative control of the PNP chief.
Three, the President described as “plainly unwarranted” the provision creating two separate PNP liaison offices, each headed by a police brigadier general.
One of these, the Liaison Office for the Office of the President, could pose security and confidentiality risks to the OP, while the other, the Liaison Office for the Department of the Interior and Local Government, could insulate the PNP chief from the DILG secretary.
Four, the measure should ensure independence and impartiality in appointing members of the PNP’s Legal Service Unit or the Internal Affairs Service.
At present, its inspector general is a civilian but its deputy inspector general and regional internal affairs officer are both star-ranked generals.
Five, the bill as written could lead to the possible encroachment by Napolcom into the the Civil Service Commission’s functions.
The measure was also not clear about the administrative relationships among the CSC, DILG and PNP, including those relating to disciplinary actions, he said.
Six, the bill’s provision on the retroactive application of rights and benefits due to appointments, promotions, or resignations is “ambiguous and vague.”
The President urged lawmakers to instead craft a bill to implement genuine transformation reforms that will allow the PNP to be more effective and efficient in the performance of its mandate to maintain peace and order, protect lives, and ensure public safety.”
In short, our senators and congressmen should now go back to the drawing boards and write a bill that will allow the PNP to more efficiently perform its basic mission “to serve and protect.”
