SHOULD the Philippine National Police (PNP) be deputized to enforce special laws falling within the jurisdiction of other government agencies and offices? This is the question that many in the Philippine business community are asking after the spate of controversial “raids” by PNP units of several establishments and warehouses for various offenses ranging from violations of the Tariff and Customs Code to infractions of the Intellectual Property Code.
Indeed, it is not unusual for deputized PNP operatives to wear different hats—as customs agents tracking and seizing smuggled goods to copyright inspectors confiscating unlicensed software and counterfeit goods. Supporters of this expanded role of the police argue that it promotes compliance with special laws while critics say the PNP has used (or abused) its deputization to harass legitimate businesses.
Under Republic Act 6975, as amended, the PNP is tasked to enforce laws and ordinances to protect lives and property and to maintain peace and order. But the powers of the PNP are no longer limited to these traditional police matters. The same law also empowers the police to “perform such other duties and exercise all other functions as may be provided by law” under what the PNP coined as its “deputized statutory power.”
Because of this “deputized statutory power,” the PNP claims that it can enforce “laws under the jurisdiction of various departments and/or offices of the government where the PNP will be deputized under the principle of intra-coordination between and among offices/departments of the government.” And herein lies the crux of the controversy.
The term “statutory power” means the power derived from laws enacted by Congress. The PNP thus correctly refers to its “deputized statutory power” as the power “to perform other duties and functions as may be provided by law”—such as the power and function of the PNP to act as deputies in enforcing election laws, when so authorized by COMELEC under the Administrative Code of 1987.
On the other hand, does the “deputization” of PNP operatives under the principle of intra-coordination, amount to a “deputized statutory power” as would validly authorize the PNP to enforce special laws not within its primary jurisdiction? It appears that this type of “deputization” is not derived from law but rather, from cooperative agreements between different agencies within the executive branch of government. In most cases, the “deputization” of PNP operatives is done through a Memorandum of Agreement between the PNP and the deputizing government department or agency. Being a mere agreement, it does not have the effect or status of a law or statute. And more often than not, a PNP unit or regional/provincial office is deputized with the same broad powers as the government department or agency charged to enforce a special law.
It is not surprising though that some government agencies and offices have resorted to deputizing the PNP due to the lack of resources or manpower in enforcing and apprehending violators of these special laws. But civil libertarians argue that by abdicating its broad enforcement powers to the PNP, these government agencies and offices have given the police not only an unfettered discretion to implement laws beyond its expertise or competence but also an unbridled license to indiscriminately (or purposely, as some quarters suggest) target businesses that can easily come across.
Already there are reports that some unscrupulous elements of the PNP have used this “deputization” to extort pay-offs from businesses under the threat of a “raid.” Other traders complain that some deputized PNP units have initiated “raids” based on questionable or flimsy grounds using warrants secured through perjured police “assets” or informants, without the knowledge or conformity of the deputizing government agency or office, and worse, despite having complete and valid permits, licenses or clearances for their goods or activities.
Unless uniform and clear cut standards and guidelines on the deputization process (including the scope of the enforcement powers and authority of deputized PNP units) are laid down, the pervasive fear of falling prey to a so-called “legalized shakedown” will continue to dampen the business and investment climate in the Philippines. In line with President Aquino’s pledge of “tuwid na daan,” isn’t it about time that DILG Secretary Jesse Robredo and DILG Undersecretary for Peace and Order Rico Puno started setting things in order?
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
