LEGAL ISSUES AND CONCERNS AFFCTING THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PUNITIVE APPROACH OF THE PNP INTERNAL CLEANSING STRATEGY AGAINST PNP UNIFORMED PERSONNEL
Type
Thesis
Authors
Category
PSOAC
[ Browse Items ]
Abstract
THE CASE
The PNP Internal Disciplinary Mechanism or PNP Memorandum Circular 20 2020 was enacted to address the issues concerning PNP personnel getting involved in illegal activities. It is a three-pronged approach, to instill in all PNP personnel a strong sense of commitment, dedication and responsibility to police work geared towards a God-Centered, service oriented and family-based life.
One of the approaches is the Punitive Approach which is the “iron-hand” of the internal cleansing strategy and it follows due process in investigating and imposing appropriate sanctions on erring PNP personnel.
The Punitive Approach is mainly governed by NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular (NMC) 2016-002 titled: Revised Rules of Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service (IAS).
Fundamentally, and administrative complaint against an erring PNP personnel initially commences by the filing of a written sworn treatment before the Disciplinary Authority where the complaint was filed has jurisdiction and thereby docket the same for pre-charge investigation, or formal charge in cases before the PLEB, or refer it to the appropriate disciplinary authority; or treat it as a grievance/request for assistance and refer to the connected office.
Subsequently, a pre-charge investigation shall be conducted and upon the approval of the pre-charge investigation report finding probable cause, the case shall be elevated for summary hearing proceedings.
The foregoing process, briefly explained, are the gist of the procedure that needs to be complied with during the conduct of the disposition of an administrative case filed against erring personnel. Non-compliance with these procedures will most probably result in the dismissal of the case and exoneration of a liable respondent thereby defeating the purpose of the PNP internal cleansing program.
On the contrary, when correctly observed, may aid the PNP Internal Disciplinary Mechanism to attain its purpose to enhance internal discipline specifically in the prosecution and adjudication (Punitive Approach), to instill in all PNP personnel a strong sense of commitment, dedication, and responsibility to police work geared towards a God-centered, service-oriented, and family-based life.
As per research, from the year 2020, there were 1180 decided PNP administrative cases decided by the C. PNP. The percentage of the respondents who were found liable was 47% (599) compared to the cases where the respondents were not found liable under 53% (621)
Out of the 621 cases where the respondents were not found liable, 480 cases were dismissed due to lack of substantial evidence, 129 were exonerated of their respective administrative charge, 2 were remanded, and 10 were excluded as they were not included in the formal charge.
In the 480 dismissal cases abovementioned, 1 case was dismissed because of the death of the respondent, 14 cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 455 cases were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, 5 cases were dismissed on the ground of res judicata/barred by prior judgement, 5 cases for unverified reasons.
Although 20 cases were reversed or partially granted through Motions for Reconsideration in the year 2021, 385 cases were considered final and executory. 23 cases were canceled (fine, dismissal, and suspension) and 3 cases where respondents were reprimanded through/on appeal.
In general, the dismissal of the administrative complaint, reversal or modification of the initial sanctions against erring personnel, and other similar incidents resulting in the issuance of inaccurate penalty are oftentimes attributable to the failure of the concerned PNP personnel to observe the necessary processes or formalities before the filing of an administrative complaint, failure to establish liability by substantial evidence during the conduct of summary hearing proceedings, insufficiency of evidence, violation of due process and other similar lapses.
The PNP Internal Disciplinary Mechanism or PNP Memorandum Circular 20 2020 was enacted to address the issues concerning PNP personnel getting involved in illegal activities. It is a three-pronged approach, to instill in all PNP personnel a strong sense of commitment, dedication and responsibility to police work geared towards a God-Centered, service oriented and family-based life.
One of the approaches is the Punitive Approach which is the “iron-hand” of the internal cleansing strategy and it follows due process in investigating and imposing appropriate sanctions on erring PNP personnel.
The Punitive Approach is mainly governed by NAPOLCOM Memorandum Circular (NMC) 2016-002 titled: Revised Rules of Procedure before the Administrative Disciplinary Authorities and the Internal Affairs Service (IAS).
Fundamentally, and administrative complaint against an erring PNP personnel initially commences by the filing of a written sworn treatment before the Disciplinary Authority where the complaint was filed has jurisdiction and thereby docket the same for pre-charge investigation, or formal charge in cases before the PLEB, or refer it to the appropriate disciplinary authority; or treat it as a grievance/request for assistance and refer to the connected office.
Subsequently, a pre-charge investigation shall be conducted and upon the approval of the pre-charge investigation report finding probable cause, the case shall be elevated for summary hearing proceedings.
The foregoing process, briefly explained, are the gist of the procedure that needs to be complied with during the conduct of the disposition of an administrative case filed against erring personnel. Non-compliance with these procedures will most probably result in the dismissal of the case and exoneration of a liable respondent thereby defeating the purpose of the PNP internal cleansing program.
On the contrary, when correctly observed, may aid the PNP Internal Disciplinary Mechanism to attain its purpose to enhance internal discipline specifically in the prosecution and adjudication (Punitive Approach), to instill in all PNP personnel a strong sense of commitment, dedication, and responsibility to police work geared towards a God-centered, service-oriented, and family-based life.
As per research, from the year 2020, there were 1180 decided PNP administrative cases decided by the C. PNP. The percentage of the respondents who were found liable was 47% (599) compared to the cases where the respondents were not found liable under 53% (621)
Out of the 621 cases where the respondents were not found liable, 480 cases were dismissed due to lack of substantial evidence, 129 were exonerated of their respective administrative charge, 2 were remanded, and 10 were excluded as they were not included in the formal charge.
In the 480 dismissal cases abovementioned, 1 case was dismissed because of the death of the respondent, 14 cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, 455 cases were dismissed for lack of substantial evidence, 5 cases were dismissed on the ground of res judicata/barred by prior judgement, 5 cases for unverified reasons.
Although 20 cases were reversed or partially granted through Motions for Reconsideration in the year 2021, 385 cases were considered final and executory. 23 cases were canceled (fine, dismissal, and suspension) and 3 cases where respondents were reprimanded through/on appeal.
In general, the dismissal of the administrative complaint, reversal or modification of the initial sanctions against erring personnel, and other similar incidents resulting in the issuance of inaccurate penalty are oftentimes attributable to the failure of the concerned PNP personnel to observe the necessary processes or formalities before the filing of an administrative complaint, failure to establish liability by substantial evidence during the conduct of summary hearing proceedings, insufficiency of evidence, violation of due process and other similar lapses.
Number of Copies
1
