THE ONGOING Philippine National Police (PNP) change process involving police generals and police colonels is an opportunity for improved accountability and transparency, as well as respect for the limited discretion of mayors and governors to choose their local police chiefs from shortlisted nominees, consistent with the Local Government Code and the laws governing the PNP.
But there are also other concerns that the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) and other agencies should address with clarity to avoid confusion in the process and not put at risk the safety and security of the public.
One, is the adjudication committee an instrumentality of the National Police Commission, and has it been formally constituted as a Napolcom instrumentality?
The Napolcom is the body and its processes are prescribed in the laws of the PNP. Mayors are deputies of the Napolcom and as such should be given the chance to submit comments on the mayors’ respective police chiefs. If the Napolcom has not yet done so, then it should formally constitute the adjudication committee and task it to vet the generals and colonels.
Two, it must be noted that vetting the generals and colonels is also the constitutional mandate of the Commission on Appointments, so the CA and Congress could have some say on how the PNP generals and colonels are vetted this time around.
Third, the Department of Justice and the DILG must clarify whether the commander-in-chief authority applies to the PNP or not. A formal legal opinion from the DOJ would help clarify this and other legal issues on how the PNP generals and colonels are screened.
It is a common understanding that the PNP is a civilian police force but the PNP’s return to military-like ranks may have brought the PNP back to its former military character.
The DILG and DOJ must clarify these things.
