There’s a reason tanods can’t carry guns
There are obviously a lot of questions that demand clear answers in connection with the shooting to death of a man in Ermita by a tanod of that barangay. But the main question that needs to be asked is why the tanod had a gun. As a citizen, the tanod had the right to have a gun, provided he is able to secure a license to own one. But it is one thing for a tanod to own a gun and another to carry it around, regardless of whether he had another license to do so as well.
A tanod, being essentially a law enforcer, performs certain peace and order functions. But that does not automatically qualify him to be armed. There is a good reason why, despite having been in existence for decades, the government has never come around to allow tanods to bear arms. And that is because for one to be able to carry something as deadly as a gun in the performance of peace and order functions, one has to be particularly trained and fit for the job.
There are specific skills that need to be acquired for a peace-keeping officer to be allowed to carry a gun. There are specific rules of engagement that need to be memorized to guide that peace officer when to use his weapon. There are also psychological tests that need to be taken and passed before a peace officer can be deemed fit to be armed.
In sum, a tanod just is not a policeman, no matter how much his functions may resemble one. And the main difference between the two, as stated in the foregoing paragraph, is simply too great for anyone to be confused about. Not only does a tanod have no authority whatsoever to carry a gun, he is in fact unfit to do so as a peace officer.
But apparently the tanod involved in the Ermita shooting did carry a gun. Otherwise he would not have shot the man, who it had been reported was already in custody for an offense that was as yet unspecified as this was written. There are even bigger questions arising from the incident, such as why the man was shot, and why there was an attempt to cover his mouth with tape.
But all other questions will have to be secondary to the main one about the gun. Because without the gun there would have been no shooting. It could not have been coincidental that the tanod just happened to have a gun on that day. All things considered, it is very possible that the tanod had a gun at all times that he was a tanod. And it could not have been a secret to others. Higher officials of the barangay must have known. And they all hold the answer to why the tanod had a gun.