CHAPTER I

Introduction and Background

The Problem and its Setting

Introduction

The investigation is about the Government Cost of Employed Private Security

Guards in the selected municipalities/cities on government offices. Safe guard the
premises with 24/7 Private Security Agencies together with their guards is their concern.
Police are excellent protectors for private communities and centers. However, relying on
public security may not be enough. A police officer cannot be available to guard the
entire premises on a constant basis and other calls and crimes may take precedence.
This is why many government officer in the Philippines turn to private security guards to
handle their 24/7 hour security needs. A private security guard can guard the premises
of government offices day and night and work with police to make sure that they are
safe. In the event of an emergency, a private security guard will ensure an immediate
response. Whereas, Philippine Association of Detective and Protective Agency
Operators (PADPAO), in its efforts to professionalize the industry, is desirous of
standardizing the contract rate for security guards services, which rate must be adequate
and conformity with current labor and social legislation. The wages and other benefits
due to a security guard are covered by the labor code of the Philippines, as amended by
laws and which is based on the minimum wage and allowance benefits required by law.
The researcher is very much interested in determining the Government cost of Employed
Private Security Guards in the selected municipalities/cities on government offices and
so he conducted this research.

Background of the Study

The study is all about the cost of government employment of private security
guards in government offices especially in the municipalities/cities of every selected
locality. The researcher would like to determine the cost of government employment of
private security guards in the government offices and the importance of their service in
government offices instead of having police enforcement and local enforcer in its every
locality.
 The researcher would be able to investigate how much is the contract of private
security agencies in the government offices, including the salary given to every security
guard posted in government offices. The researcher would identify the legal basis of
contract of private security guards base on the merit under the law of labor code of the
Philippines. The researcher would also be able to know how the private security
agencies rendering services, entered in the government offices.

Importance and Significance of the Study

There has been limited attention and interest given to the government cost of
employment of private security guards of selected municipalities/cities in government
offices. It is one of the reasons why we devote to study, as well as for the following
objectives:

a.) To determine the cost of contract between government offices and private security
agencies.
b.) To emphasize the importance of private security guards in the government offices.
c.) To identify the legal contract based on RA 5487 (Private Security Agency Law).

We believe that by identifying the cost of government employment of private

security guards in the government offices including the salary given to every security
guard posted in every government offices. The researcher would be able to
investigate and determine whether the legal contract cost in paying private security
guards is implemented. Hence, the importance of the study.

Scope and Delimitation

This study would be conducted to determine the cost of government employment

of private security guards in selected five municipalities/cities in Metro Manila. The
findings would apply only to the data gathered from the private security guards
respondents, 2008-2009. The aspects looked into the legal contract of employing private
security guards in government offices.

General purpose : To determine the employment cost of private security guards posted
in five selected municipalities/cities.

Subject matter : The cost of government employment of private security guards in

government offices.
Topics studied : Private security guards in government offices, salary given by the
private security agencies and the legal contract based on RA 5487
(Private Security Agency Law)

Population : Private security guards and government employees

Locale of the study: Selected five municipalities/cities in Metro Manila

Period of the study: School year 2008-2009

Statement of the Problem

1.) The demographic profile of the selected respondents in terms of:

1.1 Age

1.2 Gender

1.3 Educational Attainment

1.4 Name of Agency

1.5 Years of Service

2.) What is the distribution of the private security guards among the five selected
municipalities/cities?

2.1 Municipality/city of Caloocan

2.2 Municipality/city of Valenzuela

2.3 Municipality/city of Quezon City

2.4 Municipality/city of Makati

2.5 Municipality/city of Pasay

3.) Is there a significant cost of government employment of private security guards in the
government offices?
4.) What are the reasons of the respondents on why the city halls are employing private
security guards?

Hypothesis

There is no significant cost of government employment of private security guards

in the government offices.

Definition of Terms

1 Individual applicant (License to Possess) – any person who is applying for or renewing
a license to possess firearms as well as permit to carry firearm outside residence.

2. Juridical Entity (License to Possess) – refers to any entity applying for a license to
possess firearms through its duly authorized representative who is either the proprietor,
manager and/or operator.
3. License – an authority or permit to possess, own, carry, deal, and manufacture
firearms. In the case of private security agencies, company guards and government
security units, this refers to an authority to operate.
4. Authorized Representative – any person designated and authorized by a business
entity or law enforcement unit to apply for and obtain a license to possess, deal and/or
manufacture firearms. With regard to Private Security Agencies, Company Guards and
Government Security Units, this person is the designated proprietor, operator and/or
manager.

5. Warehouse Personnel – any person who is designated and authorized to manage a

private warehouse or storage area of firearms and ammunition or the different vaults of
the firearms dealer and to conduct inventory thereof.

6. Vault Keeper – any person who is designated and authorized by a firearms dealer to
secure and manage his or her own vault in the PNP-CSG-FED warehouse.
7. PNP-CSG-FED Supervised Storage and/or Warehouse – refers to a CSG, FED
supervised and managed warehouse or storage where the different vaults of firearms
dealers are safekept.

8. PTCFOR – a written authority issued to a person by the Chief of the Philippine

National Police or his duly authorized representative which entitles him/her to possess
and carry firearm outside of residence for the duration and purpose specified therein.

9. Security Guard or Watchman – any person who is licensed to render personal service
to secure or watch over a private residence, business establishment, or buildings,
compounds, and other areas and to conduct security inspection thereon. The terms,
“Security Guard and Watchman” are generic and synonymous as far as this definition is
concerned.

10. Security Officer – any person designated by the management of a security agency to
supervise security guards/watchmen detailed in private residences, business
establishments, buildings, compounds or other areas.

11. Private Detective/Investigator – any private individual who does detective or

investigative work in behalf of another person or entity for compensation, reward or
commission, other than members of the AFP, the PNP, the guards of BJMP, municipality
or city jail guards or of any other law enforcement agencies of the government.

12. Private Security Agency – any entity which is either a sole proprietorship, a
partnership or a private corporation which is licensed to recruit, train, and provide
security guards to any person or entity to perform security services or consultation for a
compensation.
13. Company Guard – is a security force maintained and operated by any private
company/corporation utilizing any of its employees to watch, secure or guard its
business establishment premises, compounds or properties.

14. Government Security Unit – is a security unit maintained and operated by any
government entity other than the military or police, which is established and maintained
for the purpose of securing the office or compound and/or extension of such government
facility or utility.

15. Training Instructor – an individual who is accredited by the Philippine National

Police-Civil Security Group-Security Agencies and Guards Supervision Division (PNP-
CSG-SAGSD) to teach security and related subjects in the Commission on Higher
Government (CHED) institutions offering Bachelor of Science in Criminology Courses
(BS Crim Courses), and/or in the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA) licensed Security Guard Training Schools.

16. Training Officer – an individual who is accredited by PNP-CSG-SAGSD responsible

in making training programs for the Security Guard Training Schools and/or CHED
institutions offering BS Crim. Courses.
17. Training Director – an individual accredited by PNP-CSG-SAGSD and responsible in
managing the Security Guard Training Schools and/or CHED institutions offering BS
Crim. Courses.

18. Security Guard Training School – an institution licensed by TESDA and accredited by
SAGSD to conduct pre-licensing, in-service training, supervisory training and other
special courses to and for security guards in private agencies, companies and
government units.

19. End-User or consumer – any person or agency or a business entity which requires
the mandatory drug test. At CSG, it refers to either CSG-FED or CSG-SAGSD or both
when processing applicant for license and renewal thereof.

20. Mandatory Drug Test – refers to compulsory submission of an applicant for license to
undergo a drug testing as required by RA 9165.

21. Random Drug Test – refers to compulsory submission of a licensed warehouse

personnel and/or vault keeper, private security personnel and security training personnel
after having been employed to undergo drug testing as required by RA 9165. This is
being conducted to selected individual or group of individuals without following a specific
pattern and without prior notice.
 CHAPTER II

Review of Related Literature and Studies

Foreign Related Literature Studies

One last term to define is cooperative effort. Operation Cooperation, the effort of which
this literature review is a part, examines the following types of cooperation: ongoing,
formal or informal meetings between law enforcement and security organizations to
resolve common problems; promotion and recognition of professionalism in the training
for both security and law enforcement; sharing of information in criminal investigations;
joint planning for special events and emergencies in the community; sharing of research
and resources; and collaboration in prosecuting and convicting perpetrators.

Need for Cooperation

The number of cooperative programs around the country testifies to the perceived
importance of such programs. Why, in particular, is law enforcement - private security
cooperation needed? These are a few of the reasons:
• Calls for police service have increased significantly over the years.
• “Resources to meet the increasing demand have dwindled. In most major cities, police
personnel have declined . . . .”
• Although some crime rates have declined in the last few years, overall rates are still
relatively high, and it seems to “take more officers to make the same number of arrests
as in the ’70s . . . . The result is that police necessarily tend to focus more narrowly on
serious crimes, reducing or even eliminating the watchman and service functions which
they traditionally provided.”
• Some types of economic crime are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of most local law
enforcement agencies. “Local police do not have sufficient investigative resources, nor
do they have the expertise to track down sophisticated criminals. Again, private security
is the immediate recourse open to corporations to prosecute criminals.
• High-tech crimes tend to be “unusually difficult for law enforcement agencies to prevent
and investigate”because they are often unfamiliar, complex, and transjurisdictional. A
cooperative arrangement can “provide a central point of contact between government
and the high-tech industry, which is eager to lend its assistance,”especially expertise and
material resources.
• “When businesspeople are familiar with law enforcement agents, they are more likely to
report crimes—it’s a matter of knowing who to contact. Also among the benefits of
increased reporting are increased leads into other . . . crimes.”
• The business community is a great untapped resource for solving community problems.
Law enforcement should break away from its old mindset that cooperation with the
private sector brings unwanted baggage. When businesses are encouraged by law
enforcement to become active corporate citizens, they can make the community safer
and create a better environment for their employees. Each sector can help the other
fulfill its mission. In fact, given the large overlap of their concerns, “A failure to
communicate is a nonsensical policy that can only hinder the social order.”

History of Cooperation
A certain amount of informal cooperation between law enforcement and private security
practitioners has probably taken place since the beginning of formal law enforcement.
The earliest examples of formal cooperation may be those between the federal
government and security practitioners in the defense industry. Certainly that issue was
the driving force behind the formation of the American Society for Industrial Security in
1955.A subsequent example of formal cooperation developed in the era of skyjacking.
“Local police were stationed at security checks at concourse entrances and arrested
many armed suspects before they reached the planes. Police officials confronted by
manpower crises had to make a choice between staffing beats and positioning officers at
airline security checkpoints. Today, passenger and baggage screening is generally
carried out by private security firms that operate under contract to the airlines and who
can communicate quickly with law enforcement agencies if assistance is needed.”
Later, the Private Security Advisory Council was chartered by the Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration from 1972 to 1977 “to improve the crime prevention
capabilities of private security and reduce crime in public and private places by reviewing
the relationship between private security systems and public law enforcement agencies,
and by developing programs and policies regarding private protection services that are
appropriate and consistent with the public interest.” Among other projects, the council
published advisory reports on false alarms, regulation of private security services, crime
prevention through environmental design, ethics for security managers and employees,
prevention of terrorism, “law enforcement and private security sources and areas of
conflict and strategies for conflict resolution,” scope of legal authority of private security
personnel, model security guard training curricula, and more. By the 1980s, several
formal cooperative programs were in place. In the early 1980s, the Washington Law
Enforcement Executive Forum was formed to address problems facing both law
enforcement and the business community in that state. In 1983, the Dallas Police/
Private Security Joint Information Committee was formed. In 1986, the public sector--
security sector liaison committees of the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA), the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), and American Society for Industrial
Security (ASIS) formed a Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security
Associations. By 1989 the Detroit area boasted at least four formal cooperative
programs. In the early 1990s, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s Operation
Partnership brought together teams of two to four law enforcement and private security
operations from given jurisdictions for three-day training courses. On returning home,
they were asked to submit quarterly reports on the progress of their cooperative
programs. Operation Partnership training covers the history of law enforcement and
private security, business and economics, future trends in law enforcement and private
security, exemplary programs, identification of resources, scanning and assessing the
environment, legal and ethical issues, and how to develop, evaluate, modify, present,
and market an action plan. Academia has expressed interest in its own form of
cooperation for some time. A 1980 paper by a professor of criminal justice called for
academic programs in security studies that would be the equal of criminal justice studies.
“Security and crime prevention studies can make numerous contributions to improved
effectiveness in the control of crimes committed in the Private sector. Accordingly, these
topics should be perceived as fully interactive elements of criminal justice and fully
coequal partners.”

Issues in Cooperation
A recurring theme in the literature is conflict between law enforcement and private
security. “Historically there has been a tension between public police and private security
agents. This tension has several components. First, the roles and functions of public and
private police are often unclear or poorly understood. While much public attention has
been focused on the ‘police’ in recent years, there has been little public assessment of
the privatepolice, despite the fact thatprivate policing has been growing exponentially
over the past decade.”
As early as 1978, the Private Security Advisory Council was able to outline such areas of
conflict as lack of mutual respect, lack of communication, lack of cooperation, lack of law
enforcement knowledge of private security, perceived competition, lack of standards in
security, and perceived corruption on both sides.

Status
Security officers have long been known by the unflattering term “rent-a-cops,” and
lawenforcement officers often hold them in contempt; by contrast, the stature of police
hasbeen high since the professionalization efforts of the 1960s.
The low esteem is partly due to the “lack of selection standards for private guards,
resulting in guards who are not respected by the law enforcement officer, [and the] lack
of standards for training of private guards, resulting in a lack of confidence on the part of
the law enforcement officer that the guard would not be a problem during a criminal
incident.”
In sum, “Many of the problems in communication between police and private security are
rooted in the working officer’s perception of the security guard.”
Law enforcement officials sometimes state that private security is not accountable to
anyone. Others disagree. Private Security is accountable to customers, regulators, and
the market, which penalizes them for failing to meet specific obligations. Also, private
security practitioners can be fired for sub-optimal performance, a threat that few law
enforcement officials face. Like the police, they are also accountable to civil and criminal
law and the media.
In fact, private security sometimes sees law enforcement as the agency that always
comes after the fact, has little accountability for crime, and shows disdain for private
security. Private Security officers indeed receive less training than most police, but even
law enforcement practitioners observe that “the key is to ensure that professional level
training for the specific duties and jobs to be undertaken by the private sector is
provided.”Before law enforcement would feel comfortable contracting out some of its
service to private security “the private sector security industry must be prepared to
accept that only its professional members will be asked to share in the work of the public
police.” The status problem is not new. In a national study during the early 1980s, “Law
enforcement executives and line officers (patrol and detective personnel) both rated the
performance of private security personnel as fair to poor and the overall contributions of
private security as only somewhat effective . . . . Private Security was not perceived as
an equal partner in crime prevention and control, but rather as a junior or silent partner.”
However, some evidence suggests that the relationship may be improving:
A recent survey of 127 police officers and 109 security professionals in Michigan
revealed interesting findings on the relationship between public law enforcement and
private security . . . . Nearly two-thirds of all security respondents have prior law
enforcement experience while 43 percent of police officers worked in the security field
before joining law enforcement agencies . . . . Security professionals were more likely to
believe they were equal partners than were police officers. Police officers were more
likely than security professionals to rank the police/securityrelationship positively. . . .
Security professionals appear more optimistic and hopeful than police officers in
evaluating various strategies for improved relations. The strategies considered include,
among others, improving interagency communications, creating joint databases, training
exchanges, and conducting regular meetings of agency representatives . . . . Both police
and security professionals predicted greater cooperation between the two sectors in the
future.

Competition
Another barrier comes from market competition. Some observers feel that as private
security grows, law enforcement (especially overtime and off-duty work) may have to
shrink. Thus, law enforcement practitioners may fear that cooperating with private
security will erode their own responsibilities and opportunities. In fact, the knife cuts both
ways. When police provide guard duty for pay, some securitycompanies see that practice
as government-subsidized competition. A 1996 lawsuit filed in federal court by four
private security companies in Virginia accused the state and seven localities of violating
the Sherman Antitrust Act and of price-fixing. “Since the police officers are using their
uniforms, badges, guns, and cars supplied by the government for off-duty private
security work], it creates unfair competition. The government basically is subsidizing
private business,” said a lawyer representing the security companies. The suit was
dismissed but at this writing is on appeal in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in
Richmond.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William C. Cunningham and Todd H. Taylor, Private Security and Police in America: The
Hallcrest
Report I (Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1985), p. 189.
Mahesh K. Nalla and Donald Hummer, “Relations Between Police and Security in
Michigan,” report
published by the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, 1997.
Greene, Seamon, and Levy, p. 6.
“Summary of a Feasibility Conference,” p. 12.

Ignorance
To a great extent, law enforcement practitioners are unaware of the role and resources
of private security. Why? “The private sector has put forth little effort to educate the
police as to the impact of corporate losses and how the impact is passed on to the
citizen/customer, nor the loss/benefit ratios utilized in determining the acquisition and
commitment of security resources.” Further, “there is a definite perception of differing
motivating factors (profit vs. the protection of citizenry), when, in actuality, both law
enforcement and private security are motivated by a very common factor—loss
prevention.”

False Alarms
False alarms both divide and unite law enforcement and private security. On one hand,
alarms are a private security activity that has become a law enforcement headache.
“Unnecessary calls for police service due to false burglar alarms have grown into a
tremendous problem. Burglar alarms serve as useful deterrents to crime, but the amount
of time and money police spend responding to the 7 million to 15 million or more false
alarm calls every year has become intolerable to many law enforcement agencies.
Projected growth in the use of alarms portends a worsening problem.”
On the other hand, the issue has created several occasions for cooperation among local
law enforcement agencies, alarm companies, International Association of Chiefs of
Police, National Burglar and Fire Alarm Association, Central Station Alarm Association,
and Security Industry Association.

Refusal to Recognize Authority

Sometimes private security would like to participate more fully in stopping crime but is
prevented from doing so. “Armed private security officers in Northern Virginia have the
power of arrest, yet are prevented from carrying out that authority by magistrates and
commonwealth attorneys who are reluctant to accept an official summons issued by a
security officer. Security is a legitimate crime-fighting body—separate from public law
enforcement yet dependent on its cooperation.”

Government’s Relationship with Business

In some places, government is unfriendly to business; in others, the relationship is more
cooperative. The latter type of relationship led to the development of one of the most
successful, longest-lived law enforcement- private security cooperative programs, the
Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum (WLEEF), which includes law
enforcement leaders of that state’s major cities and counties, state and federal law
enforcement professionals, and “captains of industry.” The rationale behind WLEEF is
that “although there are those who would impugn it and attach negative images to the
concept, ours is a democracy supported by capitalism in a free enterprise system.
Therefore, it is important that law enforcement be sure that its relationships transcend
not only our neighborhoods and various units of government, but that we develop a
viable interface in the commercial sphere in the State of Washington.”

Constitutional Issues
An issue that does not necessarily cause conflict but may complicate cooperation has to
do with legal accountability. In some ways, private security’s legal accountability may not
be as great as that of law enforcement. On the other hand, when private security acts
alongside or under the direction of law enforcement, it may be acting under “color of
state law,” meaning it must meet the same legal standards that apply to law
enforcement.

Joint Council’s Issues

Finally, the Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security Associations raises
important issues by asking the following questions, to which it suggests all the answers
are “yes”:
• Should the law enforcement officer see his or her private security counterpart as a peer
professional?
• Should the law enforcement and property protection objectives of law enforcement be
supported by involved corporate and private security agency leaders?
• Can the net cost for both private and public security be reduced through coordinated
actions?
• Can the corporation’s profit line be increased through cooperative relationships with law
enforcement?
• Can corporate citizenship be enhanced through cooperative actions with law
enforcement?
• Is there an element of risk on the part of a corporation in joining hands with a law
enforcement agency?
• Is there an element of risk on the part of the law enforcement agency in providing
police resources and criminal history record information to the private sector?

Cooperative programs Types of Cooperation

fall into the following broad, somewhat overlapping categories:
informal, formal, contractual, familiarity/goodwill, topic-specific, and umbrella.
Formal versus Informal
Setting up by-laws, sectors, committees, and funding is very difficult and time-
consuming.
For that reason, some groups of law enforcement and private security officials opt to
cooperate informally. For example, a New Jersey partnership created by AlliedSignal,
Inc., is informal and unnamed. “Begun in 1996, the partnership has evolved into an
informal network that allows local, state, and federal law enforcement officials based in
the area to meet with security professionals and top executives in some of the county’s
[Morris County, NJ] Fortune 500 companies.” The partnership holds three to four
breakfast meetings or other get-togethers per year. “The sessions have no formal
agenda. After a speaker speaks, participants can give or receive advice on security
projects or discuss how corporate security professionals can help police solve or prevent
criminal activity . . . The meetings have also been used by security professionals to
discuss common problems, such as how several companies with employees overseas
could work together if their
workers had to be suddenly evacuated from international trouble spots.” By contrast,
some groups opt to organize formally, usually in the hope that structure will increase
longevity. One such group is the Virginia Police and Private Security Alliance (VAPPSA),
which sponsors educational presentations at its meetings, works to apply problem-
solving approaches to public safety issues, conducts shared training programs,
maintains a public/private information and resource network, and tracks and tries to
influence legislation. VAPPSA features by-laws, membership dues, voting and nonvoting
membership categories, a board of directors, and half a dozen formal committees.
Interestingly, “the VAPPSA members who initiated the group did not realize how much
time it would take to establish by-laws, create a formal structure, remedy legal
entanglements, and create momentum . . . . The founders realized early on that their
attention could easily be diverted from the original vision and get lost in the swamp of
organizational development.” On the plus side, VAPPSA has remained in existence since
1991.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minutes and statements from the Joint Council of Law Enforcement and Private Security
Associations, 1986-87.
David R. Green, “Joining Forces Against Crime,” Security Management, May 1998, pp.
95-98.

Contractual
Some cooperative programs go beyond being formal to being literally contractual. Such
programs are typically business improvement districts (BIDs) or other forms of
privatization. BIDs can be formed in several ways. “In New York, the formation of a BID
can be initiated by property owners, by a local development corporation or a Chamber of
Commerce, by a local Community Board or that area’s City Council member, or by the
mayor or a mayoral agency. Any commercial, retail, or industrial area in New York city
may apply for BID status through any such sponsor.” Once the BID is approved by the
government, a special assessment is added to the property tax bills of all businesses
within its geographical area. The money is collected by the government, then returned to
the BID for the purposes stated in the BID’s official plan. Typically, BIDs use the money
for capital improvements, marketing of the area, sanitation, and security.. Often, the
security contractor hired by the BID contacts the police when an arrest needs to be
made, and its security officers serve as extra eyes and ears for the police. In return, the
police sometimes provide training and crime information to the security contractor or to
in-house security departments of businesses that belong to the BID. BIDs divide public
safety responsibilities in this way: “The public police have typically regulated social order
outside of buildings, while the private police have typically regulated order within a
building or within building complexes. More importantly, whether recognized or not, these
groups interact in fundamental ways all of which contribute to the ‘security net’ within
central business districts. In essence the ‘horizontal and vertical’ safety of any center city
business area is greatly enhanced with cooperative public and private police
arrangements. In other cases, law enforcement agencies or local governments actually
contract out work that was formerly performed by law enforcement. Such arrangements
necessarily involve cooperation between law enforcement and private security. For
example, to relieve its police department from the burden of investigating some 500 bad-
check complaints each year, the city of Kentwood, Michigan, contracted with a private
firm to do the work. The result is that investigations are no longer backlogged, merchants
have an effective means for recovering their losses, and police have more time for their
other duties. One of the most famous instances of contracting out involves the
Corrections Corporation of America, which builds and operates prisons. One observer
notes that “contracting out enables police officers to concentrate on the tasks for which
they are trained and can be most effective . . . [freeing up] a well-trained, professional
police force from administrative and routine duties to concentrate on tackling crime . . . .”

Familiarity and Goodwill Programs

Some cooperative programs exist mainly to familiarize individual law enforcement and
private security professionals with each other.
Law Enforcement Appreciation Nights. Typically, the liaison committee in a private
security organization will host an annual law enforcement appreciation night. For
example, the Law Enforcement Liaison Committee of the Greater Milwaukee Chapter of
the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS) holds annual law enforcement
appreciation nights for about 100 police chiefs, sheriffs, and executives of federal law
enforcement agencies in southeastern Wisconsin. The first benefit of such meetings is
that key parties get to know each other. The second benefit is the actual cooperative
work that develops from those relationships. For example, a member of the chapter
assisted the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Department on security surveys, security
policies and procedures, and security awareness to help the department in its new role
of providing security at several county facilities.

Directories
The ASIS Greater Milwaukee Chapter publishes a directory of all Wisconsin police chiefs
and state and federal law enforcement contacts. The chapter distributes the directory to
ASIS members and law enforcement agencies.

Awards
An effort similar to law enforcement appreciation nights is the awarding of honors by
security organizations to law enforcement. It is cooperation in the sense that security
thereby encourages law enforcement to perform in ways that benefit private security For
example, the John J. Duffy Memorial Award, given by the National Council of
Investigation and Security Services to the Threat Management Unit (TMU) of the Los
Angeles Police Department in 1997, “spotlighted the effectiveness of the police program.
But it also underlined the necessary dialog between law enforcement and private
security and the complexities of stalking crimes.” NCISS lauded the TMU for
aggressively enforcing the anti-stalking laws on the books instead of working for the
closure of public records, which would hinder private investigations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Stewart, p. 14.
Ronald L. Kuhar and Jon C. Paul, “The Milwaukee Experience,” ASIS Dynamics,
July/August 1996, pp. 5-7.
Directory, ASIS and Wisconsin Chiefs of Police Association, 1995.
“Security Group Honors Anti-stalking Police Unit,” SECURITY, July 1997, pp. 7-8.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Umbrella Programs
Many cooperative programs are best described as umbrella programs, as they are
designed to develop law enforcement – private security relationships, teams, and task
forces that address a wide range of concerns. One of the most notable is the
Washington Law Enforcement Executive Forum, mentioned earlier, which, among other
activities, funds a statewide loaned-executive program to enhance management of local
police agencies; provides support for the Law Enforce-
ment Executive Journal, the nation’s first law enforcement/business publication;
sponsored legislation on the regulation and training of private security personnel and on
computer crime; and created an “Economic Crime Task Force to assess the nature and
extent of white-collar crime in the state, develop strategies to reduce such crime,
promote appropriate legislation initiatives and revisions, and collect and disseminate
information on economic crime.”
Similarly, the Downtown Detroit Security Executive Council (DDSEC), which includes
corporate security executives and local, state, and federal law enforcement
professionals, tackles such projects as identifying security problems from police reports
and incidents reported to private security and promoting crime prevention through
environmental design in new construction and renovation projects. Likewise, the
Business/Law Enforcement Alliance (BLEA), created in 1994, is a formal partnership
between California businesses and city, county, state, and federal law en-forcement
agencies. An arm of the California Peace Officers Association, it includes some 200
participants from various industries and law enforcement and has a 10-member board of
directors. BLEA’s purpose is to create a link between the California business community
and law enforcement so that both can work together to solve specific problems in the
state. “The organization’s leadership recognizes, for example, that some law
enforcement agencies do not have the specialized expertise, tools, or time to investigate
and prosecute certain high-tech offenders.” BLEA is currently working on three projects:
reducing check fraud, stopping the theft of rental equipment, and reducing false alarms.
It may soon develop alliances with trade organizations to combat audio and video piracy.
Another umbrella program is the Baltimore County Police and Private Security
Association, which meets once a month, has a newsletter, organizes joint training, works
on legislation and reducing false alarms, addresses specific crimes (such as graffiti),
organizes training of security officers to make better witnesses, and conducts other
activities. The Area Police-Private Security Liaison Program (APPL), formed in 1985,
consists of high-ranking New York City Police Department members and respected
security directors in New York City. “The program’s main goals are to engage in
cooperative efforts to protect people and property, exchange information to aid in the
accomplishment of mutual goals, [and] eliminate the ‘credibility gap’ between police and
private security.” Police members provide information on local crime trends, patterns,
and incidents; offer expertise to help private security protect assets and clientele; and
provide an atmosphere conducive to trust and cooperation. Private security members
learn how to cooperate with and help the police, and they offer expertise in technology,
building security and aset protection.
The group holds quarterly regional meetings with speeches on specific topics. Members
train each other and work together on legislation. In Missouri, the Creve Coeur Joint
Crime Prevention Program consists of the Creve Coeur Police Department, Monsanto
Corporate Security and St. John’s Mercy Medical Center Safety and Security
Department. It has initiated a community-wide project to develop a mobile crime
prevention display and command center trailer for the education and safety of the
community. It holds Neighborhood Watch appreciation awards dinners to recognize
citizens of the community for their efforts in assisting the police and preventing crime.
Other activities include a bike rodeo with a crime prevention theme; crime prevention
booths at local festivals; participation in National Night Out; Halloween parties for
children; crime prevention displays at program members’ sites; one-day seminars at
program members’ sites on sexual assault, burglary prevention, drug and alcohol abuse,
traffic safety, vacation safety, and security checks; and a phone notification system to
alert neighborhood and business watch groups about crimes.Some umbrella programs
operate on the national level. For example, the Private Sector Liaison Committee of
IACP has produced, for national distribution to law enforcement And private security
practitioners, several resource and guideline documents. Examples include “Non-Sworn
Alarm Responder Guidelines: Guidelines for Employers and Law Enforcement” and
“False Alarm Perspectives: A Solution-Oriented Resource.” Other papers have
addressed product tampering, workplace drug crimes, and workplace violence. Recently,
such efforts have been able to reach a wider audience by being posted on the Internet
(www.amdahl.com/ext/iacp), which was itself an instance of cooperation, as the site
space was donated by Amdahl Corporation. Similarly, since the early 1980s, the Law
Enforcement Liaison Committee (LELC) of ASIS has promoted cooperation by
sponsoring seminars and presentations on (1) security and police issues, such as
improving communications and working relationships; (2) trends in outsourcing and
privatization; (3) training law enforcement personnel about private security functions; and
(4) encouraging the establishment of law enforcement and security partnerships. In the
late 1980s the LELC produced a video describing the roles and typical functions of
private security. The video was distributed to virtually every major police training
academy in the United States. The LELC has also worked to develop a closer
association with such law enforcement organizations as IACP and the National Sheriffs’
by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association. In 1997, the LELC provided the initiative for a national project (supported
Anthony M. Voelker, “Area Police–Private Security Liaison Program,” New York City
Police Department document. Circa 1988.
“1991 Annual Report,” Creve Coeur (Missouri) Joint Crime Prevention Program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

to develop guidelines for establishing and improving partnerships between public law
enforcement and private security.

Trends
The literature reflects a number of trends that are affecting or will affect cooperation
between law enforcement and private security. The most powerful trend is the continued
growth of the private security industry, both in real terms and relative to law enforcement.
In 1987 the director of the U.S. Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
wrote that “cooperation becomes increasingly essential with the growth of the private
security industry.” In policing, “resources to meet the increasing demand have dwindled.
In most major cities, police personnel have declined, and the number of police
employees per 1,000 population dropped 10 percent between 1975 and 1985. Shrinking
tax revenues throughout the country and outright taxpayer revolts . . . have curtailed
growth in government. Police, like other public administrators, have become familiar with
cutback management.”Another trend is the change in law enforcement’s approach to
much of its work. The philosophies of community policing, neighborhood-oriented
policing, and problem-oriented policing all call on law enforcement to cooperate with the
community, which includes private security. Similarly, “where law enforcement is actively
involved in crime prevention activities, cooperation with private security is better because
the interests of the two agencies are more closely aligned.” For example, at the Detroit
Police Department, security industry representatives sit on the Chief’s Crime Prevention
Advisory Committee. In addition, increasing professionalism in private security has
slowly been improving law enforcement’s attitude toward security practitioners, and
“each successful contact aids in establishing further ties and acts as a building block for
increased communication and joint programs.”
Another trend is the private sector’s increasing need to prosecute. “[C]orporations have
been deterred from criminally prosecuting their employees by the prospects of bad
publicity, unsympathetic juries, counter lawsuits, and other real and perceived problems.
Instead, employers frequently settle for the offender’s dismissal or resignation. The
current reluctance of the business world to fight its internal crime wave with a joint
private-public offensive cannot last forever, however. The entrance of the high-tech
white-collar criminal, whose skillful predations can prove disastrous for a corporation, will
likely be the most significant catalyst bringing together the private sector and the various
components of the criminal justice system for mutual assistance.”
Also driving cooperation is the evolutionary loss of preexisting relationships. “Informal
levels of communication and cooperation are dissipating as private security firms
promote managers more from within rather than from the field of law enforcement. The
‘good ole boy’ network cannot be relied upon for communication in future years.”
Finally, the issue of privatization is likely to continue to drive cooperation. According to a
former director of NIJ, “nearly as much money is now paid by governments to private
security companies as is spent for public law enforcement by the federal and state
governments combined.” There are many examples of privatization requiring
cooperation between law enforcement and private security. “Instead of using regular
police officers for security and crowd control at its civic center and other city-owned
buildings, Phoenix contracts that service to Anderson Agency, Inc. . . . The company’s
marketing director says lower costs are not the only benefit the city receives from its
private security force. ‘Our men are trained to prevent things from happening, while
police officers are trained to stop crimes in progress or solve them after they have
happened.’ . . . In New York City, badge wearing employees of a private company patrol
streets in search of cars with outstanding parking tickets.”

The Future
An experienced participant in law enforcement–private security collaborations makes
these comments about the possible future of cooperation: This interaction will probably
produce different benefits for each participant, including enhanced professionalization of
public law enforcement. Corporate people eventually will learn to operate more
comfortably with some of the openness and public accessibility required of criminal
justice agencies. Private sector executives will also learn to interact with people who are
action-oriented, who show a great deal of initiative, and whose freshness in attacking
problems is devoid of some of the intrigue and subtleties that frequently are found in the
corporate bureaucracy. On the other side, law enforcement officials will be exposed to a
higher degree of organizational sophistication. They will learn to view corporate problems
through the eyes of chief executive officers, upwardly mobile corporate managers, and
stockholders . . . . They will learn, too, that realistic planning and effective marketing are
basic to survival. The police managers also will become sensitized to the fact that
corporate entities, unlike police agencies, must measure up to competing firms or go out
of business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter A. Holmes, “Taking Public Services Private,” Nation’s Business, August 1985, pp.
20-22.
Shanahan, “Private Enterprise and the Public Police: The Professionalizing Effects of a
New Partnership,” p. 455.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Local Related Literature and Studies

.
GUIDELINES GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT AND WORKING CONDITIONS
OF SECURITY GUARDS AND SIMILAR PERSONNEL IN THE PRIVATE SECURITY
INDUSTRY.
.

For the purpose of ensuring the private security personnel of their rights to the minimum
benefits mandated by law, these guidelines are hereby issued for compliance of all
concerned.

SECTION 1. Coverage. - This issuance shall apply to all private security agencies or
operators, their principals or clients, all companies allowed to directly employ security
guards and to all security guards, whether agency or company employees, for
compliance and entitlement, respectively, to existing labor standards laws and benefits.

Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - For the purpose of this Guidelines, the following terms are
defined:

a. "Principal" refers to any employer, company or establishment to whom a security job,

service or work is provided by a security service contractor, whether or not the
arrangement is covered by a written contract.

b. "Security service contractor" is synonymous with a private security agency which

means any person, association, partnership, firm or private corporation, who contracts,
recruits, trains, furnishes or posts any security guard or similar personnel to individuals,
corporations, offices and organizations, whether private or public, for their security needs
as the Philippine National Police may approve.

Sec. 3. Employment status.

3.1 Employer-employee relationship. - The security service contractor is the employer of
its security guard and similar personnel. The principal where the security guards are as-
signed is considered an "indirect employer" for unpaid wages and other wage related
benefits based on the joint and several liability of the principal with the service contractor
under the Labor Code, unless the private security agency is owned, managed or
controlled by the prin-cipal or the facts show that the principal controls the manner by
which the security service is performed or where the security guard is directly hired by
the establishment.

3.2 Probationary employment. - The probationary period of a newly hired security guard
or similar personnel in the private security industry shall not exceed six (6) months. While
engaged on probationary basis, his/her services may be terminated for failure to meet
the reasonable standards or criteria made known by the security agency/employer to the
guard at the time of engagement or for just cause/s.

3.3 Regular employment. - Any security guard or similar personnel in the private se-
curity industry who is allowed to work after the probationary period shall be considered a
regular employee.

Sec. 4. Service contracts. - The security service contractor and/or the principal shall
produce or submit the original copy of their service contract when directed to do so by
the Regional Director or his/her duly authorized representative. The service contract
shall stipulate, among others:
a. A statement that the security guards/personnel shall be paid not less than the
minimum wage and other benefits under the Labor Code and other existing laws;

b. An escalation clause to immediately effect the common provision in the wage orders
that the prescribed increase in the wage rates of the workers shall be borne by the
principal or client of the service contractors and the contracts shall be deemed amended
accordingly.

c. A statement that security service contractor and/or the principal shall comply with
Social Security, Employees Compensation, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation and
Home Development Mutual Fund laws on employees' coverage or membership.

d. The kind or nature of security service.

e. The schedule of payment of 13th month pay per P. D. 851 and re-tirement pay per R.
A. 7641.

Sec. 5. Employment contracts. -

5.1 The security service contractor shall provide his security guards, detachment
commanders/supervisors and other security personnel, a copy of the employment
contract duly signed by the parties which shall contain the terms and conditions of
employment, such as those provided under Section 5 hereof.
5.2 For every assignment of a security guard/personnel to a principal, the duty detail
order shall contain the following, among others:

a. Description of job, work or service to be performed

b. Hours and days of work, work shift and applicable premium, overtime and night shift
pay rates.

Sec. 6. Terms and conditions of employment. -

6.1 The security guards and similar personnel in the employ of any private security
agency or company should be duly licensed and must have passed the physical and
neuro-psychiatric examinations required by the PNP. They are entitled to the mandatory
benefits under the Labor Code and other existing laws, including coverage by SSS,
ECC, Philhealth and HDMF.

6.2 The basic wage rate of security guard/personnel shall not be less than the minimum
wage rate for the non-agricultural sector in the Region where he/she is assigned,
regardless of the nature of business of the principal, or in the Region where the security
guard has been engaged, whichever is higher.

Where a security guard/personnel is recruited through a branch office in another Region

where the principal is likewise located, the non-agricultural minimum wage rate
applicable in the workplace of the principal shall govern.

Security guards or other personnel employed and/or assigned by a security service

contractor in one Region but who are transferred, moved or assigned to another Region
shall be paid based on the more beneficial wage rate.

In case of transfer or reassignment to another principal within a Region, the wage rates
may be adjusted provided that the same shall not be less than the applicable regional
minimum wage rate.

6.3. Statutory Benefits. - The security guards/personnel are entitled to not less than the
following benefits depending on the working hours, work shift and workdays under the
given conditions, which benefits should be included in the cost distribution in the service
contract:

a. Basic salary for all actual workdays and for the ten regular holidays (as holiday pay)
which must not be lower than the minimum wage rates above described and to be
computed by using the factors recommended herein or by more favorable practice of the
employer. In addition, one hundred percent (100%) of the basic salary is due whenever
work is rendered on a regular holiday.

b. Allowance in addition to the basic salary, if any, is prescribed by the applicable

Regional Wage Order.
c. Premium pay of 30% of the daily rate for work on special days and rest days, which is
increased to 50% whenever work is performed on coinciding rest days and special days.

d. Overtime pay for work rendered in excess of eight (8) hours a day, equivalent to at
least 25% of the regular wage rate on ordinary days and 30% on regular holidays,
special days and rest days.

e. Night shift pay equivalent to 10% of the regular hourly rate for work rendered between
10:00 pm to 6:00 am of the following day.

f. Five (5) day service incentive leave for every year of service which benefits can be
availed of during days of absence and, if not used, are convertible into its cash
equivalent. A proportionate leave benefit per month may be derived by dividing 5 days by
12 months times the daily rate.

g. Paternity leave of seven (7) days with full pay. This leave shall be granted before,
during or after childbirth or after spontaneous miscarriage by his legal spouse. The
paternity leave with pay is granted for only four deliveries, including miscarriage.

h. 13th month pay which is 1/12 of the total basic salary earned within a calendar year.

6.4 Recommended Computation of Equivalent Monthly Rates

Using the applicable daily wage rate (ADR) and a factor representing the number of paid
days in a year, the following procedures are recommended to facilitate computation of
equivalent monthly rates (EMR).

For those who are required to work everyday including Sundays or rest days, special
days and regular holidays:

EMR = (ADR x 391.5) / 12

where 391.5 is derived from:

302.0 - ordinary working days

18.0 - 9 regular holidays x 200%
2.6 - a regular holiday on last Sunday of August x 200% + (30% of 200%)

66.3 - 51 rest days x 130%

2.6 - 2 special days x 130%
391.5 days considered paid in a year

For those who are considered paid on all days including unworked Sundays or rest days,
special days and regular holidays:

EMR = (ADR x 365) / 12

where 365 days derived from:

302 - ordinary working days

2 - special days
51 - rest days
10 - regular holidays
365 days

For those who do not work and are not considered paid on Sundays/ rest days:
EMR = (ADR x 314.6) / 12

where 314.6 is derived from:

302.0 - ordinary working days
2.6 - 2 special days (if worked) x 130%
10.0 - regular holidays
314.6 days considered paid in a year

For those who do not work and are not considered paid on Saturdays and Sundays or
rest days
EMR = (ADR x 262.6) / 12

where 262.6 is derived from:

250.0 - ordinary working days

2.6 - 2 special days (if worked) x 130%
10.0 - regular holidays
262.6 days

By using the above indicated factors, the basic wage for the worked days and holiday
pay for the 10 regular holidays are included in the monthly rates. Thirty percent (30%)
rest day premium has been integrated in factor 391.5 for all the Sundays/rest days in a
year includ-ing the last Sunday of August and in factors 314.6 and 262.6 for the two
special days (November 1 and December 31) under Executive Order No. 203 of 1987.

Not included in the above formula is the premium pay due an employee whenever work
is rendered on an ordinary working day proclaimed by the President as a special day
(that is other than Nov. 1 and Dec. 31).

6.5 Other Mandatory Benefits. In appropriate cases, security guards/similar per-sonnel

are entitled to the mandatory benefits as listed below, although the same may not be
included in the monthly cost distribution in the contracts, except the required premiums
for their coverage:
a. Maternity benefit as provided under the SS Law;

b. Separation pay if the termination of employment is for authorized cause as provided

by law and as enumerated below:

Half-Month Pay Per Year of Service, but in no case less than One Month Pay, if
separation is due to:
1. Retrenchment or reduction of personnel effected by management to prevent serious
losses;

2. Closure or cessation of operation of an establishment not due to serious losses or

financial reverses;

3. Illness or disease not curable within a period of 6 months and continued employment
is prohibited by law or prejudicial to the employee's health or that of co-employees; or

4. Lack of service assignment for a continuous period of 6 months.

One Month Pay Per Year of Service, if separation is due to:

1. Installation of labor-saving device, such as replacement of employees by
equipment/machinery;

2. Redundancy, as when the position of the employee has been found to be surplusage
or unnecessary in the operation of the agency;

3. Impossible reinstatement of the employee to his/her former position or to a

substantially equivalent position for reasons not attributable to the fault of the employer,
as when the reinstatement ordered by a competent authority cannot be implemented due
to closure or cessation of op-erations of the establishment/employer, or the position to
which the employee is to be reinstated no longer exists and there is no substan-tially
equivalent position to which he/she can be assigned.

c. Cash income benefits under the State Insurance Fund in case of work-related
sickness or other contingencies.

d. Retirement pay granted by R. A. 7641 to any security guard/personnel who retires

under an applicable employer plan or policy.

For this purpose, the security service contractor shall create or put up a trust fund for
retirement benefit. The Trust Fund Agreement shall be executed by and between the
trustor and trustee in favor of the employee-beneficiary for payment of re-tirement benefit
in accordance with R. A. 5487 and R. A. 7641.

The Fund shall be administered and maintained by a trust company, bank, in-vestment
house, pre-need company or corporation duly authorized to perform trust function
exclusively for collective investment or re-investment of certain money received in its
capacity as trustee, or similar arrangement as may be agreed upon in ac-cordance with
law.

As such, any payment for retirement benefits collected in advance by the contractor from
the principal/s shall be deposited by the contractor/trustor to the trustee in favor of the
security guard as benefit upon retirement or when his/her employment is terminated due
to authorized causes.

e. Other benefits granted by law, individual or collective agreement or company policy or

practice.

Sec. 7. Deductions from salary, - No deduction shall be made from the salary of the
security guards/personnel, except for:
a. SSS contribution
b. EC contribution
c. HDMF contribution
d. Philhealth contribution
e. Withholding tax from income, provided a proper withholding tax receipt is issued to the
employee before the filing of income tax return every year
f. Union dues, if applicable
g. Other deductions authorized by
Sec. 8. Liability and responsibilities of contractors and clients/principals.
8.1 Joint and several liability. - When the security service contractor fails to pay the
wages of its security guards/personnel, the principal shall be jointly and severally liable
with the security service contractor to the extent of the work performed by such em-
ployees under the contract, in the same manner and extent that the principal is liable to
its direct employees.

If there are wage increases or adjustments after the execution of the service contract,
the prescribed increases in the wage rates of guards shall be borne by the principal and
the service contract shall be deemed amended accordingly. In the event that the
principal fails to pay the prescribed increases, the security service contractor shall be
jointly and severally liable with the principal.

The security guards' contractual relationship is with their employer, the security ser-vice
contractor. Thus, their immediate recourse for payment of wage increase before litigation
is with their direct employer, the security service contractor. In order for the security
service contractor to comply with the new rates, the consideration paid by the principal
for the security guards' wages has to be adjusted in conformity with the mandated wage
increase. In case of finding of violations on wages and other labor standards due the
security guards, the DOLE Regional Director shall serve summons to both the security
service con-tractor and the principal to determine the extent of liability of the parties.

8.2 Solidary liability. - For purposes of immediate relief, the principal shall be deemed as
the direct employer of the security guard/personnel in any of the following cases, and
therefore shall be solidarily liable for whatever monetary claims the security
guard/personnel may have against his employer:

a. When the security service contractor is found to be engaged in labor-only contract-ing;

contracting out of work which will either displace its employees or reduce their regular
work hours or any other prohibited activity;

b. When the security service contractor is declared guilty of unfair labor practice, i.e.,
contracting out of a job, work or service being performed by union members when such
will interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of their rights to self-
organization; or

c. When a violation of the relevant provisions of the Labor Code has been established by
the Regional Director in the exercise of his/her enforcement powers.

The principal shall also be deemed solidarily liable with the security service contractor to
the extent of accrued claims and benefits that the latter may owe to its security
guards/personnel in the following instances:

a. When the license or business permit of the security service contractor is cancelled,
revoked or not renewed by the competent authority, or

b. When the contract between the principal and the security service contractor is
preterminated for reasons not attributable to the fault of the latter.

8.3. Responsibilities and Obligations of Security Service Contractors and Principals in

the Execution of Service Contracts. - The service contracts or agreements between a
security service contractor and its principal/s shall ensure compliance with the minimum
wage and other labor standards under the laws, including the mandatory coverage by
the SSS, EC, Philhealth and HDMF.

Government agencies or instrumentalities engaging security services from private

security agencies shall likewise observe compliance with all labor laws and shall require
the security service contractor to submit, among others requirements and as part of their
bid, an under-taking to pay their workers the above benefits.

8.4. Keeping of records. - The principals as indirect employers shall keep and maintain
their own separate records or files on the assignment of security guards in their premises
during the period of the service contract, which shall be open for inspection and
verification by this Department. The security agency, however, as the direct employer
shall observe the rule on general record keeping under the Labor Code, as amended.

Sec. 9. Right to security of tenure and due process. -

9.1 Security guards and similar personnel who have become regular employees shall
enjoy security of tenure in their employment as provided by law. Their services can only
be terminated for just or authorized causes after due process.
Termination for a just cause or causes as stated in Art. 281 of the Labor Code does not
entitle the security guard/personnel to separation pay, unless otherwise provided in the
em-ployer policy or individual contract or collective agreement.

9.2 Notice of Termination. - In case of termination of employment due to authorized

causes provided in Art. 283 and 284 of the Labor Code and in the succeeding
subsection, the employer shall serve a written notice on the security guard/personnel
and the DOLE at least one (1) month before the intended date thereof.

9.3 Reserved Status. - A security guard or similar personnel may be placed in a workpool
or on reserved status due to lack of service assignments after expiration or termination
of the service contract with the principal where he/she is assigned, or due to the
temporary suspension of agency operations.

No security guard or personnel can be placed in a workpool or on reserved status in any

of the following situations: (a) after expiration of a service contract if there are other
principals where he/she can be assigned; (b) as a measure to constructively dismiss the
security guard; and (c) as an act of retaliation for filing complaints against the employer
on violations of labor laws, among others.

If, after a period of 6 months, the security agency/employer cannot provide work or give
an assignment to the reserved security guard, the latter can be dismissed from service
and shall be entitled to separation pay as described in subsection 5.6.

Security guards on reserved status who accept employment in other security agencies or
employers before the end of the above six-month period may not be given separation
pay.

9.4. Preventive suspension. - Subject to the constitutional rights of the workers to

security of tenure and the right to be protected against dismissal except for a just and
authorized cause and without prejudice to the requirement of notice under Art. 282 of the
Labor Code, a security guard/personnel may be preventively suspended if his continued
employment poses a serious and imminent threat to life or property of the employer, its
principal or the guard's co-workers.

No preventive suspension shall last longer than thirty (30) days. The security agency
shall thereafter reinstate the security guard/personnel in his/her former position or it may
extend the period of suspension, provided that during the period of extension, the
agency pays the wages and other benefits due the guard/personnel.

The employer shall designate a day, time and place within the period of preventive
suspension, with notice to the employee, to hold a fact-finding investigation thus
enabling the suspended employee to be heard and assisted by a counsel or
representative, if he/she so desires, of the charge against him/her and thereby be
exonerated; or, upon the employee's failure to vindicate himself/herself, to find the
employee guilty and thereby, to terminate his/her employment. Such termination,
however, shall not prejudice the right of the employee to ques-tion the severance of
relationship in the appropriate forum.

The above procedure shall likewise be observed by the employer/agency in case the
employment is terminated due to any of the just causes.

9.5. Report of dismissal, termination or retirement. - The security service contractor shall
submit a monthly report of all dismissals or termination, including retirement, effected
during the month to the DOLE Regional Office having jurisdiction over its main or branch
office using the prescribed form and indicating all information as required by DOLE for
policy and statistical purposes.

Sec. 10. Right to self-organization and collective bargaining. -

The security guards and other personnel employed by the security service contractor
shall have the right to form, join or assist in the formation of a labor organization of their
own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining and to engage in concerted activities
which are not contrary to law including the right to strike.

Sec. 11. Penal provision. - Violation of any of the provisions of this Guidelines which are
declared unlawful or punishable by law shall be punished accordingly.

Sec. 12. Effect on existing issuances and agreements. -

This issuance shall serve as a guide for the DOLE and its agencies in the administration
and enforcement of applicable labor and social legislations and their implementing
regulations.

Nothing herein shall be construed to authorize diminution or reduction of benefits being

enjoyed by the security guards and similar personnel at the time of issuance hereof.

This Guidelines supersedes Department Order No. 40 s. 1994 and other existing orders
which are inconsistent hereto and shall take effect immediately.
Synthesis of the Study Research
A.) The government cost of employing private security guards in the government
offices is mandatory for the protection of lives and properties. Local government
offices is hiring private security agencies in the different establishments of the
government offices, for the reason that: Private Security Guards can guard 24/7,
day and night, shift and work with local police and local enforcement to make sure
that everything or everyone is safe. In the event also of emergency, a private
security guard will do an immediate response.
B.) The salary cost of private security guards in the five selected municipalities is
less than the minimum wages were received. At present, there was a
memorandum circular NR I, Series of 2001 passed and approved by the
legislative body regarding the basic salary of every private security guard under
the existing laws of the labor code of the Philippines. The monthly salary rate of
each guard is P14, 000.00 (fourteen thousand pesos) effective February 4, 2002.
Almost all of the private security agencies on the five selected municipalities in
Metro Manila did not comply on the said minimum wage salary existing under the
labor code of the Philippines. To ensure the standard living of every family
especially private security guards. The SAGSD and PADPAO should be and must
be monitoring all agencies to ensure that they are complying with the minimum
wage salary of their private security guards. They must also issue a
memorandum circular to every private security agency operators regarding the
policy of strictly implementing minimum wage salary including allowable benefits
to every private security guard. To adhere strictly with the provision of Section 1,
paragraph C and F of the Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act. No.
5487, as amended by Presidential Decree No. 1919, which among others,
authorize the Chief of the Philippine National police to cancel the license of any
security agency for their violation, as in the following cases: (C) When a security
agency has been found to engage in cut-throat competition by under cutting its
contract rate for a price lower than the standard of minimum rates for security
services adopted by PADPAO, Inc. with the concurrence of the Chief of the
Philippine National Police. (F) When a security agency or company security force
has been found to be violating the minimum wage rates that should be lawfully
granted to their private security / company guards. This memorandum circular
shall be binding upon all private security and detective agencies existing presently
and those to be licensed hereafter in accordance with law.
Conceptual Framework:

The conceptual framework of government cost of employing private security

guards in the government offices can be: the importance of private security guards in
the government offices, the salary cost of private security guards given by the agency,
the contract rate of government offices to the private security agency and the legal
contract of private security guards based on the merit of RA 5487 (Private Security
Agency Law) under the law of labor code of the Philippines.

Paradigm

Inputs Process Outputs

Importance of Private Five selected local Ensure the protection of the

Security Guards posted in municipalities in Metro lives of employees, clients
government offices Manila and properties of the
government.
Professional Private RA 5487 (Private Security
Security Guards and Agency Law) Ensure the standard living
Private Security Agency of families.
Minimum wage of salaries
Salary cost of Private required, allowable
Security Guards given by allowances, benefits and
the Agencies security of tenure.
Construct rate of Private
Security Guards based on
the Merit of RA 5487 under
existing labor code of the
Philippines

Justification of the Study

CHAPTER III
Methodology Research Method

The descriptive method of survey research will be used in this study. The
descriptive survey method research is a fact finding study with adequate and accurate
interpretation of the findings. It describes with emphasis what actually exist such as
current conditions, practices, situations or any phenomena.

Since the present investigation is concerned, the descriptive method survey of

research will be the most appropriate method to use in the topic, “The Government Cost
of Employment of Private Security Guards”.

Respondents of the Study:

 A.) Atty. Joaquin Trinidad is the General Manager and the owner of the Private
Security Agency serving in the city hall of Valenzuela City. Trinsata Private
Security Agency is found at the Sampaloc, Manila. Based on the information I
have gathered from him, there are 24 private security guards posted in the city
hall of Valenzuela and for 8 months they are serving in the said municipality.
According to him, the Agency was entered in the municipality by winning the
“bid”. According to him also, private security guards posted in Valenzuela City
Hall is important for the protection of the lives and property as well as
protection of present Chief Local Executive office, including employees of the
City Hall.
B.) Mr. Leonardo C. Castro is the General Manager as well as the owner of Ex-
bataan Security Agency posted and serving in the City Hall of Caloocan
located somewhere in located. Based on the information I have gathered,
there are 32 private security guards designated in the city hall of Caloocan.
According to him, the agency is almost 4 years serving in the city hall of
Caloocan. The Ex-bataan Security Agency was entered in the municipality by
winning the “bid”. Mr. Leonardo C. Castro said that private security guards
posted in the city hall is very much important not only for the chief local
executives and city hall employees but also for the clients of the said
municipality.

Sampling Technique

Number of Private Security Guards designated in the five selected

municipalities/city halls.
Number 20%
1.) Caloocan City Hall 32
2.) Valenzuela City Hall 24
3.) Quezon City Hall 45
4.) Pasay City Hall 28
5.) Makati City Hall 40
Total: 169

As far as the government employment of private security guards is concerned,

169 is the total population of the private security guards designated in the five selected
municipalities in Metro Manila government offices and is the sample which is
representative.

Development and Validation of Research

The method of collecting data will be the survey method. This is concerned with
looking into the commonality of some elements. Since the present research is about the
government cost of Employment of Private Security Guards in the five selected
government offices in Metro Manila. The normative method of survey research will be
the most appropriate method to use in gathering data. The instrument to be used to
collect data and informations will be the questionnaires as well as an interview for the
selected respondents specifically the private security guards and the owner of the private
security agencies including the Administration staff of the city halls. The researcher will
be able to see and observe that the data and informations gathered from the selected
respondents are true and correct.

Procedure

Statistical Treatment of Data

A.) What is / are the profiles of every private security agency?

Weight No.
5 - Very High Profile
4 - High Profile
3 - Low Profile
2 - Very Low Profile
1 - Poor Profile

B.) How much is the salary of every private security guard in the government offices?
Weight No.
5 - Very High
 4 - High
3 - Low
2 - Very Low
1 - Poor

C.) How much is the contract of every private security guard given by the local
government offices?
Weight No.
3 - Above the minimum wage
2 - Minimum wage
1 - Less than the minimum wage