A barangay official in Pampanga had
been criticized recently when a photograph showed him carrying a long firearm
while manning traffic along a portion of the national highway.
Sun
Star Pampanga reported that the barangay
official justified his actions by saying that he was just responding to a
robbery incident where a couple were shot and robbed by robbers riding in
motorcycles.
 |
| Photo credit news.am. |
Besides "barangay executives
may carry firearms during hot pursuit operations" he further justified.
Which I believe to be partly correct
because the law indeed allows barangay chairmen to bear arms, subject to
appropriate rules and regulations.
But brandishing a firearm by someone
not properly identified in a national highway could not only cause alarm to
passing motorists but could also be technically wrong, or even illegal. A national highway is no longer barangay
territory although it may be passing through a barangay.
The barangay chairman in question cited
Section 389 of the Local Government Code which states that "In the
performance of his peace and order functions, the punong barangay shall be entitled to possess and carry the necessary firearm within his territorial
jurisdiction, subject to appropriate rules and regulations".
Speaking of “appropriate rules and
regulations”, what are these rules? And
who issue the rules?
One time I saw a barangay chairman signed
documents on the firearms issued to him by the provincial capitol. Was the provincial government the one issuing
the firearm or was it just merely facilitating it for the PNP?
In another instance, I witnessed the
issuance of shotguns several years back by a senator (now a congressman) to the
barangays of a town. I learned that this
was from his CDF funds or more notoriously known as “pork barrel”. This former senator turned congressman is the
father of an ex-congressman who is currently subject of a COA investigation.
But that is another story.
My point here is this, are congressmen
allowed too to issue high-powered firearms such as shotguns to barangays?
Unfortunately, one of these shotguns
was not used according to “appropriate rules and regulations”. It even cost the life of a barangay
constituent.
A barangay chairman of the town who
received one of these shotguns allowed a tanod
in his barangay to use it in his regular patrols. Take note that Section 389 specifically prescribes
that only the chairman is authorized
to carry firearms.
One time the barangay hall received
a call that a drunk was creating trouble in the neighborhood. When the tanod
arrived at the area to pacify the troublemaker, he was attacked by the drunk with
a bolo. Acting in self-defense, he was
forced to use the gun on the man, according to those who witnessed the incident.
The man died instantly from the shotgun’s blast to his face.
Because of this incident, this tanod who’s obviously just doing his job
is now facing charges and is only out on bail.
Not because rules on handling firearms in the barangay was the issue. He’s in trouble because of the election ban
on carrying of firearms during an election period! Talking of technicalities.
Anyway, this issue of carrying
firearms by barangay officials makes me ask questions.
What should be the protocols? Are barangay chairmen the only ones that
should be allowed by law to carry firearms?
Should it not extend to qualified tanods
as well?
When you hear about sightings of
armed men roaming around in your neighborhood in the middle of the night and
the tanods are helpless to do
anything about it, you might say yes to the idea.
Considering the shortage of
policemen in our country, arming the tanods
could be one great way of preventing crimes in our communities.
But then again utmost care must be
taken when we allow this.
First, there must be a “rethinking”
in the way we recruit, train and deploy tanods
or village watchmen or barangay police or whatever, before we ever think of the
idea of arming them.
 |
| Photo credit sz-n.com |
Unlike in advanced countries with relatively
low crime rates such as Switzerland where it is required for everyone to own
and be well trained in handling of firearms, we are not yet ready and are too
“primitive” for this.
Oh well, maybe it’s just wishful
thinking, but what a nice wishful thought.
Imagine, not even Hitler dared in
World War II to invade this country of well-trained militias and where
requiring everyone to have a firearm and be good at using it is the rule rather
than the exception.
No wonder most of the Popes
throughout history trust only the Swiss guards to protect them.
