Tattoos and Latin honors

Tattoos and Latin honors | Daily Tribune

That Philippine National Police (PNP) Memorandum Circular 2024-023, approved last 19 March, is justifiably founded on the belief that as a police organization consisting of uniformed and non-uniformed personnel, the PNP is always governed by rules and regulations. One basic rule not alien to it is the new circular that regulates tattoos for those who already have them but is presumably an “iron-clad” guideline for those planning to join the police corps.

Those with tattoos must declare their details in an affidavit and have the visible ones removed. It is deemed “ugly” to see heavily tattooed police officers. This explains why new applicants or cadets to the Philippine National Police Academy must have no body tattoos.

Strange how some members of the House of Representatives are quick to say that the PNP circular is “unconstitutional” simply because no such provision can be found in Republic Act 6975 that created the PNP.

How convenient to play the legalese trick of a possibly obsolescent dictum of “what is not included is excluded” to render the new policy baseless. Sometimes it’s best to leave the organization alone, especially when it aims to enhance the PNP’s tarnished image, reminiscent of the 34-inch waistline limit imposed by then-PNP chief Ping Lacson.

No matter what some legislators think of the policy, it might look foolhardy to subject it to any kind of congressional oversight. The PNP is well within its prerogative to implement policies it thinks are best for the police service that no one in his right mind would say the regulation on tattoos is such a bad policy.

The PNP is not under the administrative or operational supervision of the House of Representatives and, in deference to the Department of the Interior and Local Government, the HoR must leave it to the DILG to review the circular if a revocation is warranted.

On a lighter note, the Civil Service Commission’s invitation to college graduates with Latin honors to pursue a career in government service is welcome news. Honor graduates will no longer be required to take the career service exam under this special eligibility, except for those covered by “bar, board, or other laws.”

This invitation of CSC Chair Karlo Nograles is based on Presidential Decree 907 of 1976 that grants civil service eligibility to college honor graduates. However, it seems to apply only to bachelor’s degree graduates when all the more it should extend to those with master’s or doctorate degrees. On what contemporary ethical theory is the irrational disfavor based?

Nograles’s invitation proceeds from the notion that academic achievers will “bolster the quality of public service” which could be plain anecdotal if not a mere “theoretical construct.” When the commission opens its doors to those falling under this special eligibility, assuming a significant number would take advantage of it, some externalities never before imagined might result.

Can the government really employ the honor graduates colleges and universities produce every year should they all respond to the offer? Will it not overpopulate or bloat the bureaucracy even more with public servants with Latin honors who would expect higher positions, higher pay, better entitlements and perks?

Take the case of the University of the Philippines Diliman alone where 2,243 graduated with honors: 742 cum laude, 1,196 magna cum laude, and 305 summa cum laude. Can the CSC accommodate them if they respond to the call of the “Good Commissioner?”

One wonders whether the notion that “Latin honors earned in the competitive atmosphere of the academic community are as good as a qualifying mark in a competitive examination to determine merit and excellence for public employment” can still hold water in the context of contemporary times.

A lot has gone under the bridge like the pandemic that produced an exponential number of Latin honorees.