Did Metro mayors blink? - My Viewpoint

Despite all that handshaking at the Rembrandt Hotel, not too many are convinced that the Metro Manila mayors have no more beef with Police National Capital Region chief, Chief Supt. Edgardo Aglipay. The mayors had complained that they were not consulted when their local chiefs of police were removed from their posts and given new assignments. Nor were they consulted about the replacements of the sacked police chiefs. Aglipay insists that the mayors were either consulted, citing Mandaluyong as an example, or that he tried to consult some mayors but was reduced to twiddling his thumbs for hours before arrogant secretaries. The mayors, at first, still wanted him sacked. After the Rembrandt meeting, they withdrew the demand.

Aglipay explains that in the current campaign to clean up the police force of scalawags, there is no room for any pussy footing around. Quick and decisive action is required. He clarifies that the officers who replaced certain chiefs of police because of the latter's inefficiency or involvement in anomalies were installed only in an acting capacity. When permanent replacements are eventually considered, the mayors will exercise their prerogative of choosing among five candidates recommended by the NCR chief, as the law requires.

The Rembrandt entente notwithstanding, there is more than meets the eye in this controversy. One indication was PNP Chief Ping Lacson's charge that the move of the Metro mayors was instigated by Metro Manila Development Authority chairman Jejomar Binay. Although the latter was somewhat vindicated when Marikina Mayor Bayani Fernando stepped up to acknowledge that he had made the proposal to have Aglipay removed, people are wondering about what's really brewing between Lacson and Aglipay. Lacson, moreover, showed uncommon noblesse oblige when he rushed to Aglipay's defense, saying he would resign if his NCR director were fired. Lacson admits Aglipay was merely following his orders when he removed or reassigned the non-performers.

What really piques the mayors, I believe, is that Lacson's "revamp" or "reshuffle" is happening so wide and fast there is not enough time for genuine consultation. What this specifically means in this context is that the mayors aren't able to help or intercede for beleaguered police chiefs who they honestly believe are doing well or are innocent of the charges against them. Let's face it, mayors and their police chiefs usually develop a close working relationship. They have to, since they are both responsible for peace and order in the community. This joint accountability is one reason why mayors are given authority to choose their chiefs of police from among a list of five eligibles submitted by the provincial or NCR director.

If police chiefs are sacked without the concurrence of the mayor, the latter not only loses face. The implication is that he too is responsible, if not quite for complicity, then at least for his ignorance or negligence in not realizing that his chief of police was so incompetent, ineffective or corrupt.

The other unspoken issue is that Lacson and his NCR chief are allegedly clearing the boards so that their own people can come in. But R.A. No. 6925, in my view, does not prohibit the PNP chief and his regional directors from doing exactly that, whatever you might think of their real motives. The participation of local officials, through "operational supervision and control", does not detract from the power and responsibility of the PNP chief and his regional director to "command and direct" the entire police force. The PNP chief and his directors also have summary dismissal and other disciplinary powers. In this sense, Gen. Aglipay is correct in maintaining that the requirements of administrative due process do not oblige him to delay necessary actions such as removal, reassignment or redeployment of officers. He doesn't have to wait until local officials give their concurrence with such actions.

Depending on where you sit, you might say Lacson is following a policy of bata-bata or favoritism, or that he is insulting the mayors by peremptorily taking out people in whom local executives may have built trust and confidence. From another point of view, Ping may be said to be simply improving the service by infusing new blood, new ideas, new enthusiasm. Some say that in doing what they're doing, Ping and Egay have run over some "favorites" of the mayors, if you get my drift.

It remains to be seen whether the Rembrandt meeting will settle these issues. Lacson and Aglipay will continue to remove or reassign police chiefs they consider non-performing, but have agreed to send letters to the mayors concerned informing them of the action to be taken. The mayors, apparently, will then have an opportunity to oppose the move. What happens after that is anybody's guess. If Aglipay sacks the police chief anyway, over the objections and against the appeals of the mayors concerned, will that be the end of the matter? Will the mayors take that sitting down?

This battle of titans isn't over by a long shot. Abangan.