PRESIDENT Marcos has vetoed Senate Bill No. 2449 or the proposed PNP Reform Act two days before it was to lapse into law on July 7.
The President said provisions of the measure “run counter to administrative policy.”
In a veto message to Senate President Francis Escudero dated July 5, Marcos said he was “constrained” to veto the measure because does not meet its objectives to bring the much-needed reforms to the PNP.
“However, it is incumbent upon me as the Chief Executive to ensure that the proposed measure succeeds in delivering much-needed reforms; is compliant and adherent to the civil service laws, the salary standardization policies, and base pay schedules; and conforms with administrative budgetary policies,” Marcos said.
“In addition, the 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 President first vetoed the bill on June 5 but the Senate sent it back to the Office of the President the following day. It was set to automatically lapse into law after 30 days, or on July 7. Marcos sent the veto message last July 5.
Marcos, in his message, listed other reasons he was compelled to veto SB No. 2449.
One is that elevating the status of PNP Academy cadets entry-level renumeration to Salary Grade 21 can distort and cause disparity in the salary of government employees.
“Indeed, the grant of Salary Grade 21 to PNPA Cadets will distort the base pay schedule of the Military and Uniformed Personnel (MUP) 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.
Marcos also said the reorganization proposed in the bill “does not consider the functional relationships of the different offices and fails to clarify reporting lines” since there will be overlapping of functions and redundancies as it aims to institutionalize the Directorial Staffs, Area Police Commands (APCs), Special Offices, and Support Units.
“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.”
“Instead of coordinated working relationships, the result may be bureaucratic inefficiencies. We cannot allow the organization to be bloated and overstaffed with the creation of redundant, overlapping, and ambiguous offices,” he added.
Marcos said giving the APCs more tasks is more of an overlapping function as they have not been deemed effective since their creation.
“Considering that various police offices (regional, provincial, cities, or municipalities) are already covering various aspects of police operations and with the adoption of the Directorate System, the APCs may be superfluous. Besides, let us not wait for the time when there will be mis-encounters among our police forces due to their overlapping functions,” he said.
He said the proposed creation of liaison offices for the Office of the President (OP) and the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) will run counter to the national government’s rightsizing program.
He said the liaison office for the OP may pose security and confidentiality risks to the office, while that liaison office for the DILG “may insulate the PNP chief from the DILG secretary.”
“The PNP being civilian in nature is already under the supervision of the DILG Secretary, who is the Chairman of the National Police Commission (NAPOLCOM) and who acts as an alter-ego of the President. Given this, the President or the DILG Secretary, or their duly authorized representatives, can directly
communicate and coordinate with the Office of the Chief PNP. Creating two separate liaison offices that will each be headed by a Police Brigadier General is plainly unwarranted,” he said.
Marcos said the proposal to enhance the functions of the Internal Affairs Service so it can conduct motu proprio investigation on policemen involved in crimes like murder “may lead to questions” on the independence of the PNP Integrity Monitoring and Enforcement Group which is tasked to gather information and operate against policemen involved in illegal activities.
He said the proposed measure “seemingly tolerates” the possible encroachment by the Napolcom into the Civil Service Commission’s functions since the administrative relationships between the CSC, DILG and the PNP “are not clarified.”
“Lastly, the provision providing for the retroactive application of the bill as to the ‘rights and benefits granted by virtue of appointments, promotions or resignations prior to its effectivity’ is 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,” he said.
“The bill has not added any significant measure that would bolster and enhance the capability of the PNP leadership to implement the highest standards of integrity and accountability in the police force. There can be no true reform if these issues are not prioritized,” he added.
He said the bill missed the opportunity to implement “genuine transformative reforms” that will allow the PNP to be more effective and efficient in the performance of its mandate.
“In view of these considerations, I am constrained to veto the above-mentioned enrolled bill,” he added.
