Imagine a ship
in the middle of a storm. The captain has fallen ill, the first mate is away,
and the vessel must cut through the raging waters or risk destruction. Maritime
law may prescribe who ideally sits as captain, but in the urgency of the
moment, the crew appoints the most capable officer on deck—perhaps not the
highest in rank, but undeniably the one who can steer the ship to safety. No
one aboard disputes his authority. No one questions his command. Because in
times of necessity, position and leadership take precedence over formal rank.
This analogy reflects the current discourse surrounding the Philippine National Police (PNP), particularly the question of whether a three-star general may be designated as Chief PNP despite the statutory requirement that the permanent Chief hold a four-star rank. The debate has become emotionally charged, legally muddled, and politically amplified. Yet, the issue is neither novel nor mysterious. It is a fundamental distinction embedded deeply in Philippine administrative law: the difference between “designation” and “appointment.”
As an
academician, researcher, political analyst, and long-time mentor to leaders in
public safety and law enforcement, I have witnessed how misunderstandings of
these two concepts often complicate transitions in government institutions. An
appointment, according to the Supreme Court, is the formal and permanent act
through which an individual is vested with authority in a public office (Luego
v. Civil Service Commission, 1986). It is substantive in nature and cannot be
granted unless the candidate meets all legal qualifications. In the context of
the PNP, Section 26 of Republic Act No. 6975 (1990), as amended by Section 25
of Republic Act No. 8551 (1998), states unequivocally that the Chief PNP must
hold the rank of Police Director General, the equivalent of a four-star
general. This is a statutory requirement for appointment, not a flexible
guideline.
Designation,
however, exists for a different purpose. It is temporary, administrative, and
revocable. The Supreme Court has clarified that designation merely imposes
additional duties without conferring the permanent title to the office (Civil
Service Commission v. Joson, 2014). Furthermore, in Carpio-Morales v. Court of
Appeals (2015), the Court emphasized that designation does not grant security
of tenure, nor does it require full compliance with all statutory
qualifications applicable to permanent appointments. It is, in essence, the
legal equivalent of placing the most capable officer at the helm during the
storm: necessary, expedient, and legitimate.
This
distinction is particularly important when the rank necessary for
appointment—the four-star designation—is frozen, under administrative review,
suspended, or unavailable. During such periods, no permanent Chief PNP can
legally be appointed, because doing so would plainly violate statutory
requirements (RA 6975; RA 8551). Yet the organization cannot remain leaderless.
Chain of command demands continuity, especially in an institution responsible
for national security. Thus, designation becomes the only constitutionally and
administratively sound mechanism to preserve leadership stability.
A three-star
general—such as Gen. Nartatez—may therefore legally be designated as Chief PNP,
even without the four-star rank. The law does not prohibit this. What the law
prohibits is issuing a permanent appointment without the statutory rank
qualification. Designation fills the gap, bridges the transition, and maintains
command without undermining the rule of law. The Civil Service Commission
(2017) also recognizes designation as a tool for continuity of governance,
especially when legal qualifications for formal appointments cannot yet be met.
The history of
Philippine uniformed services affirms this practice. The Armed Forces of the
Philippines has repeatedly designated officers as AFP Chief before they
received their fourth star. The PNP has likewise appointed Officers-in-Charge
and Acting Chiefs during politically sensitive periods, organizational
restructuring, or rank freezes. These are not aberrations—they are established
administrative norms in public service management.
From a
governance perspective, leadership legitimacy in uniformed services arises from
authority, trust, and continuity, not merely from the number of stars on a
shoulder board. Rank is a reflection of career progression, but command is a
function of responsibility, competence, and the mandate of the appointing or
designating authority. To insist on strict rank-based appointments during
periods when rank elevation is temporarily impossible is to risk paralysis at
the top of the police hierarchy—something that could compromise public safety,
national security, and institutional cohesion.
In conclusion,
the current legal framework clearly supports the designation of a three-star
general as Chief PNP, provided that the designation does not attempt to
masquerade as a permanent appointment. The requirement of a four-star rank
applies specifically to appointments, not designations. As the PNP undergoes
institutional transitions, reforms, and leadership changes, the public must
understand this nuanced but crucial distinction. Anchoring leadership decisions
on legality, operational necessity, and institutional continuity ensures not
only adherence to the law but also the stability and effectiveness of the
nation’s primary law enforcement institution.
Just like the
officer who takes the helm of the ship in the storm—not because of rank, but
because of necessity—the designated Chief PNP leads not through insignia, but
through mandate, duty, and trust.
References
Carpio-Morales v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 217126–27 (2015).
Civil Service Commission. (2017). Revised Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (RORAOHA). Quezon City: CSC.
Civil Service Commission v. Joson, G.R. No. 192948 (2014).
Luego v. Civil Service Commission, G.R. No. L-69137 (1986).
Republic Act No. 6975, An Act Establishing the Philippine National Police Under a Reorganized Department of the Interior and Local Government (1990).
Republic Act
No. 8551, Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998
(1998).
