Focusing on form rather than on substance

May we refer to Miko Morelos’ report on the alleged plan of the Metropolitan Manila Development Authority to call its traffic enforcers “constables.”

The MMDA chair gave the reason for wanting to use “constables”—“not simply to give a nice British sheen to his blue uniformed men but also to enhance professionalism…. We want our personnel to be easily identified and to get more respect.”

Many former and incumbent officers who served the Philippine Constabulary and the Philippine National Police were surprised, some were appalled and all of them readily objected to the plan.

History books, Wikipedia included, amply show that in both historical and modern usage “constable” is universally associated with police and law enforcement officers.  In the Philippine setting, it is exactly the same and should be given appropriate respect as the title of a professionally trained public servant subject to the rule of law and public accountability.

Throughout its 90 years of existence, from the time it was established by the authority of the Philippine Commission in August 1901 until the National Defense Act of 1935 was promulgated by Gen. Douglas McArthur, the Philippine Constabulary was a police organization, with its “constables” tasked “to enforce the law and maintain peace and order.”

This responsibility remained constant in subsequent milestones of the PC’s history—under President Manuel L. Quezon’s Executive Order 11 (Jan. 1, 1936) which made the PC a division of the Philippine Army; under President Sergio Osmeña’s EO 21 (Oct. 28, 1944) which placed the PC on active service of the Philippine Commonwealth Army; under President Elpidio Quirino’s EO No. 389 (Dec. 23, 1980) which again defined the PC’s main function, and up to Jan. 29, 1991, when the new Philippine National Police was formed by merging the Integrated National Police into the Philippine Constabulary.

Indeed as former PNP chief  Edgar Aglipay and incumbent PNP chief Director General Nicanor Bartolome correctly pointed out in their separate letters, the use of “constable” (which connotes authority to “enforce the law and maintain peace and order”) by MMDA traffic enforcers would be misleading and engender confusion on the nature and extent of their authority, and might even lead to abuse of such authority.  It will also be a completely unwarranted and unnecessary deviation from a time-honored tradition.

There is no question, as the MMDA Chair  Francis Tolentino said, that there is a need to “upgrade the skills” and “instill proper decorum and discipline” among its traffic enforcers, but certainly calling them “constables” is hardly the way to do it.  What we have here again is an unfortunate fixation on form instead of substance.

—NICK LAGUSTAN,

spokesman of

former President Fidel V. Ramos