You are of the position that the Secretary Therefore, you are referring to lack of
should not be held liable, correct?
knowledge of the operation on the day itself, correct? And your basis is that the Secretary had Are you aware that the Mamasapano clash no knowledge of the operation, correct? lasted for 12 hours? Are you aware that 9 months ago there Are you aware that immediately before the was a command conference regarding the clash started the SAF sent a text message plan to arrest the terrorists in Camp to their superior? Crame? Are you aware that the Secretary was Are you of the position that there is nothing present in that conference? that the Secretary could have done during that span of 12 hours? Yes. So counsel are you not contradicting Yes. So counsel are you saying that once yourself when you say that the Secretary a firefight starts nothing can change? Is should not be held accountable since he that not a faulty position, counsel? was not informed when in fact he was? No. So counsel you are saying that the Secretary could have done something, correct? That he can interfere because its part of his job, correct? So is lack of knowledge an excuse? Will the Secretary not act because he is accountable? Given that he knew of the plans, being the Are you aware that 392 troops were Presidential adviser of local governance, is transferred? he not duty bound to advise the President on the possible ramifications of carrying And you are saying that this was done out the plan? without the approval of the Secretary, correct? Isnt this indicative of the incompetency and lack of foresight of the Secretary? That he is unable to do his job? Should he not be held accountable if he cannot effectively perform his function? No. So counsel now you are aware that the secretary was present and the defense of lack of knowledge will not hold because after that conference the secretary had every right to demand information, does he not have that right?
We both agree that the Secretary was
present in a conference 9 months ago regarding the plan to arrest the terrorists, correct? When we say terrorists, is this not related to threats to national security?
A threat to national security is a big deal,
correct? Since it is a big deal, and since the PNP is under the portfolio of the DILG, is the Secretary not bound to demand that he be informed about the developments of this particular case?
No. Is this not indicative that he is not
concerned about national security? Is this not violative of the standard that is prescribed for public officers under the constitution? Yes. Because he supervises the PNP, correct? Because if he does not supervise, he is not doing his job, correct? If he is not doing his job, it is nonfeasance, correct? And nonfeasance is frowned upon by the courts.
You are of the position that the Secretary
should not be held accountable because he does not control the tactical aspect of the operation, correct? Are you aware that the Secretary was appointed because he was qualified to do the job and that he possess the knowledge required to oversee his department, including the PNP? Are you aware that the Secretary is also one of the decision makers? When we say knowledge, we are only speaking about general knowledge and not tactical knowledge correct? But still, the Secretary has knowledge, correct? Is the Secretary not duty-bound to advise the PNP chiefs regarding the other aspects of the operation such as coordination with other departments? So you are arguing that the PNP is a separate and distinct from DILG when in fact it is not and when in fact they are duty bound to coordinate most especially with local officials in Mamasapano.
You are invoking RA8551 as a ground for
the Secretary not to be held accountable, correct? Particularly the amendment to S12, correct? Because it says that the DILG shall be relieved of primary responsibility regarding national matters, correct? That the PNP is primarily responsible, correct? Are you aware that the title of S12 reads the relationship between the DILG and the DND? Are you aware that is clearly states that: The DILG shall be relieved of the primary responsibility? And that the PNP under the DILG shall support the AFP under the DND, correct? This means that the primary responsibility is transferred to DND, not the PNP, correct? Your understanding of the provision is faulty, counsel because primary responsibility is not transferred to PNP but to DND.
Are you aware of A11 of the 1987
Constitution? It states that a public officer is a public trust, correct? It also states that a public officer shall serve with the highest degree of integrity and efficiency, correct? Are you aware of the case of Sangco vs. Palileo? In this case, the SC held that even a City Court Janitor is expected to serve with the highest degree of integrity and efficiency. Will you agree with me in saying that the Secretary falls under this provision? If he serves short of the highest degree, this means that he will be held accountable, correct? Is it not that the Secretary should be held accountable because he did not ask about the progress of the operation? Because when you fail to ask, you are not doing your job. If you are not doing your job, you are not serving with the highest standard. And hence you should be accountable.
When the Secretary accepted his
appointment, he warranted that he is qualified and well-equipped for the position, correct? There is a presumption of competence, correct?
Under the law, public officers are
accountable for misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, correct?
It is also presumed that he has the
knowledge and technical expertise, correct? One of the purposes why the Secretary was appointed is to help advise the President because he is more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the department, correct? Therefore it was his duty to advise the President on matters concerning the implementation of the warrant of arrest, correct? If he fails to do so, is this not an omission?
If the Secretary fails to perform a duty
mandated by law, this is considered nonfeasance, correct? It means he will be accountable, correct?
Nonfeasance arises from the failure or refusal of
a public official to perform a duty mandated by law, correct?
Are you aware that it is a function of the
DILG to supervise the PNP? And also to ensure public safety?
If the Secretary fails to supervise the PNP
or to ensure public safety or to give his insight, is this not the same as nonfeasance? If he fails to perform his function, is he not Does it not then follow that the Secretary accountable to the people for should be held accountable? nonfeasance?