You are of the position that the Secretary should not be held liable, correct?Therefore, you are referring to lack of knowledge of the operation on the day itself, correct?

And your basis is that the Secretary had no knowledge of the operation, correct?Are you aware that the Mamasapano clash lasted for 12 hours?

Are you aware that 9 months ago there was a command conference regarding the plan to arrest the terrorists in Camp Crame? Are you aware that immediately before the clash started the SAF sent a text message to their superior?

Are you aware that the Secretary was present in that conference?Are you of the position that there is nothing that the Secretary could have done during that span of 12 hours?

Yes. So counsel are you not contradicting yourself when you say that the Secretary should not be held accountable since he was not informed when in fact he was?Yes. So counsel are you saying that once a firefight starts nothing can change? Is that not a faulty position, counsel?

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 Presidential adviser of local governance, is he not duty bound to advise the President on the possible ramifications of carrying out the plan?Are you aware that 392 troops were transferred?

And you are saying that this was done 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?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?

When we say terrorists, is this not related to threats to national security?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?

A threat to national security is a big deal, correct?When we say knowledge, we are only speaking about general knowledge and not tactical knowledge 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?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.

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 invoking RA8551 as a ground for the Secretary not to be held accountable, correct?Are you aware of A11 of the 1987 Constitution?

Particularly the amendment to S12, correct?It states that a public officer is a public trust, correct?

Because it says that the DILG shall be relieved of primary responsibility regarding national matters, correct? That the PNP is primarily responsible, correct?It also states that a public officer shall serve with the highest degree of integrity and efficiency, correct?

Are you aware that the title of S12 reads the relationship between the DILG and the DND?Are you aware of the case of Sangco vs. Palileo?

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?In this case, the SC held that even a City Court Janitor is expected to serve with the highest degree of integrity and efficiency.

This means that the primary responsibility is transferred to DND, not the PNP, correct?Will you agree with me in saying that the Secretary falls under this provision?

Your understanding of the provision is faulty, counsel because primary responsibility is not transferred to PNP but to DND.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?Under the law, public officers are accountable for misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance, correct?

There is a presumption of competence, correct?Nonfeasance arises from the failure or refusal of a public official to perform a duty mandated by law, correct?

It is also presumed that he has the knowledge and technical expertise, correct?If the Secretary fails to perform a duty mandated by law, this is considered nonfeasance, 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?It means he will be accountable, correct?

Therefore it was his duty to advise the President on matters concerning the implementation of the warrant of arrest, correct?Are you aware that it is a function of the DILG to supervise the PNP? And also to ensure public safety?

If he fails to do so, is this not an omission?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 accountable to the people for nonfeasance?Does it not then follow that the Secretary should be held accountable?