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?