Marcos veto finds many flaws in PNP reform bill
INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. has vetoed the proposed law reorganizing the Philippine National Police (PNP) for containing provisions that he says will not jibe with his administration’s policies and objectives.
“While this administration recognizes the laudable objectives of the bill, I cannot approve it because the provisions run counter to administrative policy and efficiency,” Mr. Marcos said in his veto message dated July 5 and posted on the Senate website.
He said he wanted to ensure that it would deliver much-needed reforms, comply with civil service laws, salary standardization policies, and base pay schedules, and conform with budgetary policies.
“[T]he bill must be supportive of the programs and policy aspirations of the present and future administrations, among which is the proposed National Government Rightsizing Program,” he added.
The measure seeks to amend Republic Act No. 8551, or the PNP Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, and RA 6975, or the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Act of 1990.
It is also the final copy of the bicameral conference committee report on the disagreeing provisions of House Bill No. 8327 and Senate Bill No. 2249 on PNP restructuring that Congress ratified in March.
Among the President’s misgivings was the potential distortion in pay due to a provision that would substantially raise the salary of Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) cadets to the point of exceeding that of a police lieutenant.
“The grant of Salary Grade 21 to PNPA cadets will distort the base pay schedule of the Military and Uniformed Personnel by creating disparity among the several government cadetship programs. At any rate, the grant is visibly higher than the base pay the cadets will receive after graduation and appointment as police lieutenants,” he said.
Under RA 11466, or the Salary Standardization Law of 2019, the fourth tranche of pay increases to be implemented this year means those with Salary Grade 21 will have a base pay of at least P63,997.
READ: PNP reform bill advances
The President also noted that the bill proposed the setup of several offices, such as directorial staff, area commands, special offices, and support units, but did not consider their functional relationships or clarify reporting lines.
“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,” he said.
‘Bloated, overstaffed’
“Instead of coordinated working relationships, the result may be bureaucratic inefficiencies,” Mr. Marcos added. “We cannot allow the organization to be bloated and overstaffed with the creation of redundant, overlapping, and ambiguous offices.”
As an example, he cited the “Area Police Commands” that were created to plan and supervise inter-regional police operations and disaster response under a system patterned after the military.
Mr. Marcos said the effectiveness of these units “has not been demonstrated, but they have instead been criticized as redundant positions” as there are already police offices at the regional, provincial, city, and municipal levels.
“The Area Police Commands may be superfluous. Besides, let us not wait for the time when there will be misencounters among our police forces due to their overlapping functions,” he said.
Unnecessary office
The President also described as “plainly unwarranted” the provision creating two separate PNP liaison offices, each to be headed by a police brigadier general.
He said one of them, the Liaison Office for the Office of the President, “may pose security and confidentiality risks to the OP,” while the other, the Liaison Office for the Department of the Interior and Local Government, “may insulate the PNP chief from the DILG secretary.”
He said the PNP was already under DILG supervision, with the interior secretary serving as chair of the National Police Commission (Napolcom) and the President’s alter-ego, and that the President already had a direct line of communication with the PNP chief.
Mr. Marcos also cited the importance of ensuring independence and impartiality in appointing members of the PNP’s Legal Service Unit or the Internal Affairs Service (IAS).
In the IAS, he said, its inspector general is a civilian but its deputy inspector general and regional internal affairs officer are both star-ranked generals.
He also cited the possible encroachment by Napolcom into the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) functions under the bill.
The measure was also not clear about the administrative relationships among the CSC, DILG and PNP, like those relating to disciplinary actions, he said.
‘Ambiguous… vague’
Mr. Marcos also shot down the provision on the bill’s retroactive application of rights and benefits due to appointments, promotions, or resignations, calling it “ambiguous and at the same time vague.”
“It needs clarifications and omits comprehensible standards. For instance, what are the rights and benefits contemplated and how can the rights and benefits be retroactively applied to individuals who had already been separated from service? The provision may breed confusion,” the President said.
“With all due respect to Congress, this bill should not be a missed opportunity 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,” he said.
Bato’s lament
Reacting to the President’s veto, Sen. Ronald “Bato” dela Rosa, a former PNP chief and sponsor of the Senate version of the bill, said it felt as though the efforts made by Congress and other agencies that worked together to draft the measure were just put to waste.
READ: Dela Rosa ‘disheartened’ by Marcos’ veto of PNP reform bill
“It’s sad to admit it, but it seems like all the hard work, not only of the Congress but also of the DILG, Napolcom and PNP in drafting the bill, were wasted,” Dela Rosa said in a statement. —WITH A REPORT FROM TINA G. SANTOS
