ORGANIZATIONQUALIFICATION

1. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, the PNP chief answers to the SILG. In turn, the SILG answers to the President.

2. PNP is under the portfolio of the DILG. If Purisima is not calling the shots, the DILG should have monitored it because it is a function of the SILG to report to the OP.

3. PNP is under DILG because there was a problem with coordination. Hence, DILG is in charge of coordination.1. It is presumed that the SILG accepted the position because he has the technical knowledge of that portfolio.

2. The purpose why the SILG was appointed is to help because they are knowledgeable about the ins and outs of the department.

3. If we look at the functions of the DILG, it involves policy determination and coordination. In essence, the SILG has a say if not the last say because it is his department.

4. The SILG is also an adviser.

5. He is still accountable to president and people.

6. The SILG represented that he can do the job. He was appointed. There was a search committee. There was a letter of intent.7. The SILG was on the job since 2012.8. When the President decides about the PNP, it is still the portfolio of the SILG. Three years of training and expertise. He has a duty to tell the effects of the presidents decision.9. Highly technical policy determination.10. Making policy means expertise.11. Confidential, policy determining, highly technical .Know the field to determine policies.12. Most qualified years of training competence sound decisions action we do not expect ignorance.

In Igoy v. Soriano, the Supreme Court has declared that any act, which falls short of the exacting standards for public office shall not be countenanced. The standards are already set by Article 11 Section 1 of the Constitution: public officers and employees shall serve with the highest or the superlative degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency, and shall remain accountable to the people. In Benaojan v. Lacson, the SC held that it is unfaithful to the constitution if we fail to ignore or treat lightly the clear and unrebutted betrayal of the public trust committed by a public officer. The people expect that the incompetent must be weeded out from the government in order to maintain and preserved inviolate the respect and confidence of the sovereign people. In Paredes v. Moreno, the shortcomings of a public officer warrant a sanction to serve as deterrent not only to him but also to other public officers who shall commit the same or any and all forms of official misconduct which undermine the people's faith in their fitness for public service. Such sanctions may include removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution depending on the what the evidence warrants.