Subtle coercive violation of security tenure
“The call for courtesy resignation is an admission that those calling for it do not have the goods to remove the errant police officers.
Who exactly thought of the idea of calling for the courtesy resignations of 956 full colonels and generals in the Philippine National Police, which has been reduced to 953, owing to the retirement of three of them, to clean the ranks of the top hierarchy of the police force from trafficking in illegal drugs, is not clear.
Whoever thought of it appears to be either lacking in creative thinking as well as in common sense, or is exhibiting a palpable ignorance of the Constitution and administrative law, or both.
The callers of the courtesy resignation say they discovered that about nine high-ranking members of the PNP are involved in illegal drugs. To rid the PNP of these police scalawags and give the organization a fresh and clean image, they are asking 953 of them to submit their courtesy resignations. Huh? To yank out nine police officers, you put in peril the jobs of 944 others who are not on the hit list and therefore presumably are doing their work by their lawful duties. That is convoluted logic.
Since the nine police scoundrels are already known to them, why not focus on removing them in a manner provided by law, or in any other creative manner that does not run afoul of due process of law?
The call for courtesy resignations is an admission that those calling for it do not have the goods to remove the nine errant police officers by way of filing administrative charges against them for their removal and/or prosecuting them criminally and placing them behind bars where they belong.
It is also an admission that there is a failure in leadership and internal management by those who run the PNP.
It is likewise an admission of the absence of political will — the kind that the former President Rodrigo Roa Duterte exhibited in his presidency – on the part of the official(s) who run the Philippine National Police and/or who heads the department that has the PNP under the former’s jurisdiction.
The call for the courtesy resignations of the top-ranking officials of the PNP is a subtle coercive violation of their security of tenure which is constitutionally guaranteed.
Designating courtesy resignation as an appeal and not a directive does not remove the coercive nature of the call for courtesy resignation, given the power and influence of the superiors over their subordinates.
The fear of reprisal coming from the higher authorities by those who refuse to submit their resignation cannot be overlooked or ignored. Such fear cannot be contained by an appeasing guarantee to them that: “If you have nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear. If you are not involved in illegal drugs you will be reinstated.” That’s pure bull s_ _ _! And they know it.
The authors of this uncreative, if not a repulsive idea, are reminded of Section 1, Article III, of the Constitution which states:
“SECTION 1.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
The PNP officers who submit their courtesy resignations, when the same are accepted, will be removed from their positions.
Is not that depriving them of their employment without due process? Is not that a violation of their security of tenure?
“Whoever thought of this idea is either lacking in creative thinking and common sense or exhibiting palpable ignorance of the Constitution and administrative law.
( To be continued )