Messing with ‘chain of command' concept

THERE has never been any dispute about chain of command in the Philippine National Police (PNP).

Under the Constitution, PNP is civilian in character. People who're not in uniform control or supervise the conduct of police members. Yet its personnel follow the chain-of-command concept: "they give orders to those directly below them and receive orders from those directly above them." PNP charts show the command route.

The police structure of authority, after all, is similar to the military's. Cops carry firearms and follow or give orders. On weapons, in many U.S. cities, police are almost as battle-equipped as their armed forces.

Chain of command or its equivalent in civilian management is essential to operate effectively and to determine blame for lapses and errors.

Thus it sounds odd, though not surprising, that at the congressional hearings on the Mamasapano massacre, the nature of PNP hierarchy is used to justify breach of the chain of command.

Argument

Resigned PNP chief Alan Purisima said he didn't break chain of command when he, not the PNP officer-in-charge, was briefed on Mamasapano mission. The concept doesn't apply to PNP, he said. No, Justice chief Leila de Lima said, but she conceded, on Sen. Miriam Santiago's prodding, that it's also used in civilian organizations.

Why are these people messing with the principle that's basic in a police organization? Purisima wants to dodge the charge of usurping authority: pretty much along his line that he only advised, didn't order, SAF chief Getulio Napeñas to shut out the PNP OIC and the DILG secretary from the mission.