Mayors in charge of anti-crime efforts
IT was obvious President Duterte was exasperated. In all his speaking engagements before local officials last week, he just couldn’t hide his dissatisfaction over the seemingly uncaring attitude of many local executives toward rampant criminality.
“There seems to be a misunderstanding which has been going on for so long a time… Well, hindi naman lahat (although not all), but most of the local government units seem to be nonchalant,” the President lamented in a speech in Zamboanga del Sur on June 26.
He said “there’s rampaging crime out of control” as he revealed that “March 23 to 27 showed 6.6 percent of the Filipino families reported victimization or were the victims rather of crimes such as robbery, break-ins, carnapping, car theft, physical violence within the past weeks.” He explained that “while the survey saw a decline in the number of Filipinos who fear walking on the streets at night and that robbers might break in into their homes, a majority still believe that such is likely to happen.”
The President urged LGUs, which are under the general supervision of the Executive Department, to see to it that all laws are faithfully executed within their areas of jurisdiction. “Ang problema, ngano ako ang tanang labad sa ulo aning atong katilingban (The problem is, it seems like all the headaches in our society are mine),” he lamented in another speech in Cagayan de Oro City.
In his speech before the Vice-Mayors League of the Philippines on June 28 in Panglao, Bohol, the President announced he had ordered Interior and Local Government Officer-in-Charge Eduardo Año to audit cities and municipalities with high crime incidence, and that mayors would be charged. “I will file a case against you – serious neglect of duty or simple neglect, or gross ignorance of the law, or oppression, for simply doing nothing,” he said, adding that negligent mayors would be stripped of their power over the police.
President Duterte is absolutely right in going strong against negligent or nonchalant local executives. Unbeknownst to many is the fact that the local officials – especially city and municipal mayors – are in-charge of crime prevention and maintenance of peace and order within their respective areas.
This is because the mayors, in accordance with the law that established the PNP (RA 6975), have “operational supervision and control” over police units within their jurisdiction, having been deputized as representatives of the National Police Commission which exercises administrative control over the PNP. The mayors are duty-bound to exercise such power except during the 30-day period before and after elections.
The governor, on the other hand, has the power to choose the PNP provincial director from a list of three eligible police officers recommended by the PNP regional director. Also, as chairman of the provincial peace and order council, the governor “shall oversee the implementation of the provincial public safety plan, which is prepared taking into consideration the integrated community safety plans.”
Section 51 of RA 6975 defines operational supervision and control as “the power to direct, superintend, oversee and inspect the police units and forces. It shall include the power to employ and deploy units or elements of the PNP, through the station commander, to ensure public safety and effective maintenance of peace and order within the locality.”
The law states: “For this purpose, the term ‘employ’ and ‘deploy’ shall mean as follows: ‘Employ’ refers to utilization of units or elements of the PNP for purposes of protection of lives and properties, enforcement of laws, maintenance of peace and order, prevention of crimes, arrest of criminal offenders and bringing the offenders to justice, and ensuring public safety, particularly in the suppression of disorders, riots, lawless violence, rebellious seditious conspiracy, insurgency, subversion or other related activities. ‘Deploy’ shall mean the orderly organized physical movement of elements or units of the PNP within the province, city or municipality for purposes of employment as herein defined.”
The law further provides that the mayor, in coordination with the local peace and order council of which he is the chairman, shall “develop and establish an integrated area/community public safety plan embracing priorities of action and program thrusts for implementation by the local PNP stations.”
RA 6975 is clear on the role of mayors. They are supposed to be on top of every situation involving public safety and they are duty-bound to utilize the police force within their jurisdiction in providing the most basic of public services – maintenance of peace and order and ensuring the safety of citizens. The governors, on the other hand, are duty bound to ensure that municipal and component city mayor, carry out their function under the law.
Therefore, if a particular locality is a perennially crime-prone area, the mayor is also to blame for failing miserably to fulfill the primary responsibility of protecting citizens. And the governor is also to blame for the mayor’s failure to effectively fight crime in the municipality that is part of the province.
It must be stressed, however, that citizens can do a lot to help fight crime and strengthen the criminal justice system, especially in the aspects of reporting crime, gathering evidence, and identifying perpetrators through valuable information elicited from the community.
And citizens can ultimately use the power of the ballot against mayors and their governors who continue to fail miserably in their task to protect life and property.