ｒ ｌ ｌ ｌ

，
Ｉ

Depa■
‐ 。
tme謂 府潔[肝 謝糧:『 き ve._nl■ e戴

NATIONALIPOLICE COWlゝ 41SSION

NAT10NAL HEADQUAttRS PHILIPPINE NAT10NAL POLICE
LEGAL SERVICE
Camp Cramc,QuczOn City

PNPLS Lega1 0pinion NO.11‐ 101

#Ⅷ 譜早紺+器etts
群碁l肝 拙∬11]11:ml鷺 PttTl師 蹴 服

酬 l鮒 督
r鰊 蝋 幣
irnplementatiOn of the attrition program :n
p「 omotiOn. ￨′ ￨

需 笥 1瀾[:淵 I♂ 寵育電 』1謄 1lWby臨

chJr」 ]庁 湘Ⅷ ::腑 ξ Ⅲ° 軋
1場
due b non「 omotioR He
騨:∬∬翻:1胤 l出記l胤 F喩粘品 震
a.
『
Accordingly, sOme of the candidates for attrition either
lacked eligib‖ ity Or have pending adrlninistrative casesi

鴫rttЮ w翼 籠部:t:襴 問 躍」lRtttttξ 駆:Fli糊 1瀾

of personneLpromotedi

He also echoed the fO‖ OWing issues raised by the PNCOS and some PCOS
duttng the lnspectiOn and Management Audit COnducted by NAPOLCOM Region 3:

ヒ:『 」
‖
a tthey cannd ettn he職 iT‖
their children a「 e Sti‖ studying and 1輝 ド∬lpζ酉 i:
benefits for educatiOn oftheir childreni

b. They are anyway satisfactorily performing the duties and

responsibilities assigned to them;

c. , Instead of entailing govern:lent costs to pay for their

attrition, it is better to maintain them becauge they are experienced,
trained and performing police officers, rather than the government
spending for the recruitment and training of their replacement;

d. They beg for the same consideration extended to PNP

personnel who are not college graduates but are protected under RA No.
9708.

Finally, he put forward hi- opinion that the foregoing reasons cited are
meritorious.

On the above premises, the RD, NAPOLCOM RO No. 3 recommended that the
total number of attritable PNP personnel in PRO3, on the ground of non-promotion,. be
determined. tf, after determination, the number is found to be comparable to the number

PNPLS Lega1 0pinion No.11-101 dated December 28′ 2011.・ 11

 σ

of personnel who are college undergraduates but beneficiaries of RA No. 9708, he

further recommended that a similarexempting bill favoring them be likewise proposed.

The issue that needs to be -iccided on is whether or not implementation of the

attrition program in the PNP, particularly attrition due to non-promotion, should be
deferred.

After careful study of the laws, rules and regulations and jurisprudence applicable
to the above subject matter, this Office opines in the negative.

The controversy relied upon as basis for such recommended deferment is

more apparent than real.

As a backgrounder, the original Section 30 of RA No. 6975 laid down the general
qualifications for appointment as officer or member of the PNP. Insofar as education is
concerned, a person must possess a formal baccalaureate degree to be appointed as
an officer. For appointment as non-officer, however, the law required that a person
"must have finished at least secon{ year college or the equivalent of seventy-two (72)
collegiate. units x x x" (Section 30 [dlt-

Since RA No.B551 set out to professio6Blize its officer and non-officer corpsr
Section 14 thereof amended Section 30 [d] of RA No. 6975 by upgrading the minimum
educational qualification for PNCOs. Under the amendment, no person shall be
appointed as non-officer unless he or she possesses "a formal baccalaureate degree
from a recognized institution of learning". To further emphasize the above intent of the
law, Section 30 [] was likewise amended to expressly provide that all the qualiflcations
for appointment "shall be continuing in character and an absence of any one of them at
any given time shall be a ground for separation or retirement from the seruice".

The law recognized that the above amendments will prejudice PNCOs who are
already in the servide at the time of the enactment of RA No. 8551. As such, it added a
proviso to prevent them from being separated or retired under Section 30, which states:

"j) x x x; Provided, rflbt pNp members who are already in the

service upon the effectivity oi'- this Act shall be given at least two (2) more
years to obtain the minimum educational i;ualification x x x"

ln the years that followed, it became evident that the statutory gra@ period was
not sufficient as many PNCOs were still unable to comply. The NAPOLCOM issued
, sevgral resolutions setting new grace periods the objectives of which can be gleaned
, frory'n the following entries in the Fact Sheet of House Bill No. 3618, the precursor of RA
r
)'lb. 9708 (Tab l):
"While it is true that upgrading the educational qualifications would
promote the professionalization of the police organization, adverse
repercussions on its effectiveness would ensue should this impnctical
provision be strictly implemented. For one, a large number of policemen
who has acquired the skills necessary for the job and learned the
,' rigors of the profession through their experience would be separated
resulting in the depletion of a;he police force. ln addition, it would mean
a huge budgetary drain to the gevernment paying for the
separation/retirement benefits of the displaced policemen, when it could
not even presently pay the regular retirees, not to mention the huge cost
of training thousands of incoming personnel." (Emphasis Ours)

Meantime, aside from upgrading the gerreral qualifications to become a PNP

member, RA No. 8551 introduced a new system of attrition for uniformed personnel as a

PNPLS Lega1 0pinion山 。.11_lol dated December 28′ 2011.

means to also professionalize the police corps. One of the grounds for attrition is non-
promotion found in Section 28 of RA No 8551 (Tab K):

"section Attrition by Non-promotion. - Any pNp personnel who

28.
has not been promoted for a continuous period of ten (10) years shalt be
retired or separated."

The pertinent provisions of the IRR of RA No. 8551 further clarifies (Tab L):

"secfion 30. Attrition by Non-promotion. - Any pNp personner who

has not been promoted despife the exisfence of a vacancy for a
continuous period of ten (10) years shall be retired or separated."

In accordance with the law, NAPOLCOM issued Memorandum Circular No.

2008-005 entitled "Prescribing Policies, Procedures and Guidelines Governing the
Attrition System for Uniformed Personnel of the Philippine National Police" (Tab M). lts
IRR was subsequently issued nV tfp PNP on August 7,2OOB (Tab N).

The following excerpt culled from the Minutes of the Meeting of the House
Committee on Public Order and Safety (Tab J) underscored the possible resultant
depletion of police force as a result of the foregoing attrition under Section 28 of RA No.
8551, hence, the reason for the passage of RA No. 9708.

"To the query of Rep. Roilo Gola:, Senrbr Superintendent lJbatde

answered that there are eight thousand six hundred eighty five (B,6gs)
college undergraduate policemen, at the latest count, who are not etigibte
for promotion. There were originally about thirty thousand (30,000) of them
in 1998 when RA 8551 was enacted but about twenty thousand (20,000)
had already retired, resigned or obtained their respective college degrees
during fhe pasf years."

Such was the backdrop against which RA No. 9708 was enacted. Obviously, the
primary purpose forthe enactment of RA No.9708 was lb rlir tte baccaraυ reare degree
re9Jiremettr for ρο″ce 177embers wヵ ο are arready加 的e se″ ice Jpon tte enacrmeη r οf
′
RД Aro.855プ 1 .
An examination of RA No.9708(Tab E)ent性 led“ An Act Extending For Five(5)
Years the Reglementary Pettod for Complying with the mlnimum educational
qualification for appointrllent to the Philippine National Po‖ ce(PNP)and Adiusting the
Promouon System Thereof Amending for the購 口 「pOSe Pertinent P「 ovisions of Republic
Act No.6975 and Republic Act No.8551 and For Other Purposes"and its implementing
rules and regulations(Tab F}is in Order.

This iaw amended Section 30 o)of RA No.6975(Tab G),as amended by RA

No.8551,lo wit{Tab H):
″
secriOη ′
.SecriOn 30σ,Of Reρ trb′ ′
c/1cr Aro.697a as amer7ded by
Sec″ oη ブイOF Reρ ″bric Acr ⅣO. 855′ ′た〕わereby′ レrfher amended lo read
as fo〃οttsr

″
SEC.3θ .Cereraノ Q“ ali■ca“o,s forハ ρροJJ7rr77e″ 1-Alo ρerson stta〃
be aρ ρo′ nfed as ο icer or member offtte PAIP υnfess he or sf7e ρossesses
「ηυ″,9″ aliicarior7si χχχ
ftte forroⅣing′ ηrinル

rdJ νυ
“ ο
sf ρssess aゎ ma′ 絆ccaね υ
reaゎ degree from a
recognized ttstturion οf′ earη ′
ngi x χχ・

PNPLS Legal Opinion No. 11-101dated December 28,20L1.

ヽ︱

't,'
"(D For a new applit;ant, must iot be /ess fhan twenty-one (21)
nor more than thirty (30) years of age: Provided, That except for the last
qualification, the above-enumerated qualifications sha// be continuing in
character and an absence of any one of them at any given time shalt be a
ground for separation or retirement from the seruice: Provided, further,
That PNP members who are alreadv in the service upon the effectivitv of

than fifteen (15t vears of seruice and who have exhibited exemplarv
performance as determined bv the C},rimission. shall no lonqer be

reauirement. x x x (Underlining Ours)

The relevant provisions of the IRR of RA No. 9708, on the other hand, states:

"j. For a new applicant, must not be /ess fhan twenty-one (21)
nor more than thirty (30) years of age; Provided that except for the last
qualifications, the above enumerated qualifications shall be continuing in
character and absence of any one of them at any given time shalt be a
ground for separation or retirement from the seruice: Provided,. further,

Provided, furtherryore, That for concerne.d.,pNP members renderino more

t". reauirement.*
lNt
ノ

xxx
The PNP shall submit to the Commission the |ist of PNP members
who have rendered more than fifteen (15) years of seruice for purposes of
determining exemplary performance. upon such determination, the

non-promotion. x x x" (Underlining Ours)

As narrated by RD, NAPOLCOM RO No. 3, PNP personnel who are college

graduates or holdets of baccalaureate degrees, ;ut who were not promoted for a period
of ten years from January 11, 1999 which is thH"effectivity date of the IRR of RA No.
8551, were issued notices of attrition. He relayed their sentiment that while "the attrition
provision is intended to professionalize the police x x x it would appear that the
personnel who are undergraduates enjoy security of tenure than the degree holders." lt
seems that RD, NAPOLCOM RO tio. 3 intends to use this sentiment as basis to
recommend deferment of implementation of the attrition program.

This Office does not agree.

"The key to open the door to what the legislature intended x x x ls ifs purpose or
the reason which induced it to enact the statufe" (Agpalo, Statutory Construction, 3'd
Edition, 1995, p. 105) (Tab O). "The intention of the legislature in enacting a lawis fhe
law itself' (Vol. ll Sutherland, Statutory Construction, pp. 693€95 cited in Torres, et al.
vs Limjap, G.R. No. 34385, September 21, 1931) (Tab p).

PNPLS Lega1 0pinion N。 .11_lol dated Decembe「 28′ 201ト

 f
tsll /

p
P "T,ii?"'J"%:#i r;"H$il,,rd0"r,,fl,:[J,:Ji:
PhtL 725 citing U.5. v. American Tracking n.ro"i"tLn,
3

Guided by.the above principle of statutory construction, this Office opines

that by
lifting the baccalaureate degree requirement, nn No. gTog and its IRR did not
necessarily intend to-grant security of tenure to undergraduate pNp
members who have
rendered more than fifteen (15) years of service. Th; law only deems
them exempteJ
from attrition due to non-promotion because the logical effect oi not oeing
forced to earn
a degree anymore is their consequent ineligibility for promotion They can
no
considered for career advancement because ihey would have licked longer be
qualifications for promotion in pNCO rank
one of the
"must be a baccalaureate degree ho[der,'.
them exempted from attrition due tp non_p
degreeS any fi.lrther, these concr=,.",:.;cd p
continue with their stay in the service a
compulsory, but must bear its consequen(
limited opportunities for better assignments
and having to retire only in their present rank.

Indeed, the enactment of RA No. 9708 had both favorable and unfavorable
consequences to those who are within the purview of its coverage. But
its favorable
consequences to PNP members with more than fifteen (15) y""ri in the
service, and
who opted to remain coflege undergraduates, cannot oe invot<ed by those who
are not
within the contemplation of RA No. 9708 if only to thwart tne im'ptementation
of the
attrition system. The concept of equal protection of the laws dictaies that
all persons
similarly situated should be treated alike as to rights conferred, responsibilities
i,i.rposeo,
beneflts enjoyed and consequences to be burdened with.

11 summary,"the following ur8hi" classet ef pNp personnel

ｂ Ｎ

who will be afflected

ｙ 。  ノ

t!9j.1ntem:nlltpn of attrition que to non-pnomotion vis-a-vis the provisions of RA

9VOB and its IRR:

a. Those who have rendered less than 15 years of service and

who were still undergraduates at the time of the effectivity of RA No. g7og.

b' Those who were still undergraduates but who have already
rendered more than 15 years of service at the time of the effectivity of RA
ノ
No. 9708;
/´
' c. Those who have rendered more than 15 years of service but
who were already studying, at the time of the effectivity of RA No. g70g,
and/or who have earned their degrees after the effectivity of RA No. gTOg
but who have not been promoted for a continuous period of 1O years;

The FIRST class of affected D;'iP persorltfl,, obviously, cannot benefit under RA
No' 9708 and its lRR. The baccalaureate oeliee requirement, insofar as they are
concerned, was not lifted by RA No. 9708. ln fact, they were "given five (5) years
to
obtain the minimum educational qualification preferabiy in larri enforcement related
course" to be reckoned from the date of effectivity of the iaid RA". As things now stand,
llt"V T"V be subject to attrition proceedings in the future due to non promotion should
they fail to earn their baccalaureate degreei, after the lapse of the 5 year grace period.

The SECOND class of affected PNP personnel are already exempted from
attrition due to non-promotion as intended by RA No. g70g and its lRR.

PNPLS Lega1 0pinion向 0.11_101 dated December 28′ 2011.

 l, 「

The LAST class of aflected PNP personnel cannot be exempted from attrition
due to ootl prolTlotion under RA No. 9708 and its lRR. lt was never the legislative intent
to include them within the purview of these laws. lf it were so, it should have been
expressly provided. Having chosen to pursue a college degree indicates their desire for
career advancement through promotion. As such, they are presumed to have known
that other qualification standards pertaining to training and eligibility must still be
complied with. To be sure, RA No. 9708 did not intend to lift the baccalaureate degree
requirement, as a qualification standard for promotion, and neither did it intend to forego
with the required training and eligibility to be promoted. Not having been promoted since
January 11, 1999, though, they are now being subjected to attrition proceedings to
determine the reasons for their failure to comply with required qualification standards,
other than education, corresponding to the supposed ranks to which they should have
been promoted i.e., training and eligibility. (Tab R)

In an earlier legal opinion, thig'Office had the occasion to emphasize that:

"NAPOLCOM MC No. 2008-005 was issued by the Commission in

the exercise of its power over the PNP. x x x Both NApoLcoM MC No.
2008-005 and its IRR have already been published. As such, for all intents
and purposes, said Circular and its lRF. have already taken effect. The
PNP cannot, on its own, choose not to implement its provisions. x x x
There is a need for a Resolution to be issued by the Commission directing
that the implementation of NAPoLcoM MG No. 2008-00s be hetd in
abeyance.' (Tab S)

Notwithstanding this earlier opinion, this Office now views it more prudent for
PRO3 to continue with the attrition proceedings it already commenced and allow the
proceedings of the PRO Screening Committee to take its full course, in accordance with
NAPOLCOM Memorapdum Circular, No. 2008-005 and its lRR, instead of rashly
entertaining putting off implementatioh of tl e attrition program. Rather than speculate
on the attritability, "non-attritability !i' real status of the candidates for attrition, the
Screening Committee should be given the opportunity to perform its function ,.to
investigate and assess a personnel action on attrition and submit, through the
secretariat, its findings to the concerned Attrition Board". lmplementation of NMC
No. 2008-005 and its IRR should be given a chance both by the PNP and the
NAPOLCOM.JniS can only be done if the $creening Committee will be allowed to
complete i ngs as follows:

Ъ . Procedure before ffie Scree ning Committees:

xxx

-
lnitial Assessment and lnquiry Upon receipt of a
personnel action on attrition, concerned Screening Committee witt
review, investigate and assess the same to determine the probable
exisfence of a mean-c ."f attrition and submit to the concerned
Attrition Board its findings and forward all relevant documents x x x:

a) Ihe Screening Committee shall, within five (S)

days upon receipt, notify the respondent of such personnel action
on aftrition and direct him/her fo nnswer the action within tive (S)
days upon the receipt;

b) Failure of respondent to file an answer within

the reglementary peiod shall be considered as a general denial of
the charges; and

PNPLS Legal Opinion No. 11-10L dated December ZB, ZOLI.

 り PttCeed lrilわ 的e ttvesfigalbn and subm′ f

e seCrelariat Wilわ 加 ″Ve fり days

″ndη gs rO tte Bο a“∝ 的 roυ gわ 的
ngぴ 的
ゎ“〃 b舗
e answ∝
ねツ 穏留ず翼店t務 編 ∬
琳 1龍 fttTρ 淫 c Q pam b Й l RR d NMC NQ
『
2008-005)

in the same way,the PRO PNCO Attritioll Board should be allowed to exercise
its rrlandate to check the findings of the PRO Screening COnlrrlittee and deliberate and

D「 OCeedings as fo‖ ows:subnlittedbythesaid

型 鼎 ilell『 ξ‖:]「 F::X甜 li甘 [li:」 :￨￨lfthelistofpersonnel

"G. Convening of the Attrition Board

Within three (3) aa

Head Secretariat shall immediat
#
ht to be present and to be heard. ln the
Iatter case, the attrition proceedings may then proceed ex-parte.
xxx

d. Nature of the Proceeding

l.Theproceedingisgenerallysummaryinnature.lhe
presentation of witnesses may be allowed only upon the discretion of the
Chairman of the Board. Documenfs presenfed during the proceeding may
be examined by the other party.Sworn statements/affidavits of wifnesses,
aftert/proper identification and affirmation on the truth of the contents
thefeof, shatl take the ptace of their oral testimony." x x x
..1

f the members present constituting a

resoluiion. x x x" (Sec 7, Paras c, d, and

ings of these bodies should focus on the

determination of whether or not the elements of attrition, based on non-
r fromotion, concur. The pertinent provisions oi rne IRR of NAPOLCOM
Memorandum
bircular No. 2008-005 provide the tests of determination:

"d. Attrition bY non-Promotion-

PNP member who has not been promoted for

A a
continuous period of ten (10) years shall be retired or separated.

To warrant attrition by non-promotion in rank, the following

elements must concur:

1. A PNP member has not been promoted in rank for a

continuous period of ten (10) years and there are existing vacancies for
regular promotions;

2. Non-promotion in rank is :'u,e to the failure of the PNP

member concerned to satisfy the minimum qualification standards and/or
compiy with other requirements for promotion to the next higher rank;

PNPLS Lega1 0plnion So.11-101 dated December 28′ 2011.

 ´´
・
「
, ' I
)

3.
is within the in rank even if he/she
d his/her non-inclusion
in the promo himself/herself.

8551
"na d!";:;I"Iirw
Regurations rmprementing R4
1;_::iy;::i:;; T:E' :r"i,;:
?; :: y:,
r/o. gssl oiin lanuary 11, 1ggg.,
lf, after screening and going th
would be found out that the reison for
in the list of candidates for attrition is

on the other hand, if it would be found out

the required mandatory training, then the Boardthat the reason is lack of eligibility or
snoulo first determine if failure tci
to tne concerned pNp member o"roi" he may be
fgilL#:.,Tl};fli:

Respectfully submitted.

ATTY F UYAMi,JR,CEO VI
Police Chi

PNPLs Legalopinion No. 11-101dated December

2g,20L1,.