Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D.

1
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

COURSE : PUBLIC SAFETY JUNIOR LEADERSHIP COURSE

SUBJECT : DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY

MODULE III (LEADERSHIP)

=======================================================================

1. What is Command Responsibility?

– The International Criminal Court or ICC, defined it as the

responsibility/accountability of an official or superior (military commander or
civilian leader) for acts, crimes or offenses committed/omitted by their
subordinates, who are subject to their effective control or supervision, of which
their subordinates were about to commit or have committed; and

- That this official or superior did not take measures to prevent such
commission of negative acts or having knowledge about such acts
committed/omitted, wherein he/she did not act to prevent and punish the
subject subordinates.

- Historically, the doctrine of command responsibility traces its roots to

the laws of war and armed combat espoused by ancient civilizations. In a 1439
declaration of Charles VII of Orleans, for instance, he proclaimed in his
Ordinances for the Armies:

[T]he King orders each captain or lieutenant be held responsible for

the abuses, ills, and offences committed by members of his company, and that
as soon as he receives any complaint concerning any such misdeed or abuse,
he bring the offender to justice so that the said offender be punished in a
manner commensurate with his offence, according to these Ordinances. If he
fails to do so or covers up the misdeed or delays taking action, or if, because
of his negligence or otherwise, the offender escapes and thus evades
punishment, the captain shall be deemed responsible for the offence, as if he
has committed it”.

The first treaty codification of the doctrine of command responsibility

was in the Hague Convention IV of 1907.7 A provision therein held belligerent
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 2
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

nations responsible for the acts of their armed forces, prefiguring the modern
precept of holding superiors accountable for the crimes of subordinates if they
fail in their duties of control, which is anchored firmly in customary international
law.

- In the Philippines, command responsibility was first used as legal

parameter system on the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita, he being the
Supreme Commander of the Axis power in the Philippines. He was found
guilty and meted with a death penalty, despite his claims and arguments that
he did not know anything about the atrocities committed by his subordinates
and that he did not order them to do so. Yet, he was made accountable and
eventually liable because the court said that he should have known and/or
should have done something to stop the terroristic acts of his men, but he
chose to keep a blind eye on all those crimes. Also, there is a challenge of the
accountability and liability of Emperor Hirohito, who is the Commander-in-
Chief of the armed forces of Japan; and not merely a titular/ceremonial head,
but played an active role as Commander-in-Chief in many wars that Japan
engaged against its neighboring countries.

- During Vietnam War, Capt. Ernest Medina was the Commander of a

Company which massacred the villagers of Mai Lai in Vietnam, from which
accordingly ordered his men to wipe out the VietCongs in Mai Lai which he
believed to be one of their strongholds, and one (1) Lieutenant William Calley
Jr., a platoon leader, belongs to this Company. Trial records says that when
the company arrived at Mai Lai, much to their frustration, they only found one
VietCong and all the rest are women, children and elderlies. It is said that it
was Calley who ordered his men to kill all civilians (he believed are VietCong
sympathizers). Calley was court-martialed and later, Medina was included
because Calley contended that it was Medina who ordered to kill all civilians.
Medina denied this accusation contending that it was Calley who actively
participated in the slaughter.

- Medina was found not guilty. Calley was sentenced to life

imprisonment but the penalty was reduced to 3 and 1/2 years of “house
arrest.” Many believed that Calley was just a scapegoat and that the trial was
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 3
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

just a sham because if Medina was found not liable, how much more the US
President who fully sanctioned the Vietnam missions. The US policy of waging
a war against the VietCongs was not the President’s act alone. It was a
State`s act. The President sought the consent and approval of the US
Congress (Senate and House of Representatives).

- So, if we indict the President, we should indict the whole State of the
United States of America. Again, we come again to the principle of State non-
suability. In addition, Medina and Calley are Americans and tried on an
American soil for acts committed against a foreign country. There is already a
discrimination as such unlike with that of Yamashita. These boys may have
been regarded as heroes by their countrymen. If they have been tried in a
VietCong court, for sure the death penalty is the only punishment available.

- By history, it is known to be the Superior responsibility, the

Yamashita Standard, or the Medina Standard.

2. What is Executive Order No. 226 dated February 17, 1995?

- As the law defined it as the:

“INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF "COMMAND

RESPONSIBILITY" IN ALL GOVERNMENT OFFICES, PARTICULARLY AT
ALL LEVELS OF COMMAND IN THE PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE AND
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES”

WHEREAS, strict and effective management and control of an

organization by the supervisor is critical in ensuring responsive delivery of
services by the government, especially in police matters;

WHEREAS, a supervisor/commander is duty-bound and, as such, is

expected to closely monitor, supervise, direct, coordinate, and control the
overall activities of his subordinates within his area of jurisdiction, and can be
held administratively accountable for neglect of duty in taking appropriate
action to discipline his men;
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 4
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

WHEREAS, in order to ensure a more effective, sustained, and

successful campaign against erring government personnel, it is imperative that
the doctrine of "command responsibility" be institutionalized and strictly
applied in all government offices and at all levels of command in the PNP and
other law enforcement agencies.

- Under Sec. 1. Neglect of Duty means any government official or

supervisor, or officer of the Philippine National Police or that of any other law
enforcement agency shall be held accountable for "Neglect of Duty" under the
doctrine of "command responsibility" if he has knowledge that a crime or
offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his
subordinates, or by others within his area of responsibility and, despite such
knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action either before,
during, or immediately after its commission.

- Furthermore, Sec. 2. Presumption of Knowledge provided that a

government official or supervisor, or PNP commander, is presumed to have
knowledge of the commission of irregularities or criminal offenses in any of the
following circumstances:

a. When the irregularities or illegal acts are widespread within his area
of jurisdiction;

b. When the irregularities or illegal acts have been repeatedly or

regularly committed within his area of responsibility; or

c. When members of his immediate staff or office personnel are

involved.

“Neglect of Duty” refers to the omission or failure to perform a job duty with
the usual care or attention required. It can encompass various situations,
including:

1. Omitting or Failing to Perform a Job Duty: When an individual fails

to carry out a task or responsibility that is part of their job role.
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 5
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

Case Example:

The Philippine Supreme Court has addressed the matter of omitting or

failing to perform job duties in various cases. Let’s delve into a specific
case:

In G.R. No. 211239, decided on April 26, 2021, the Court dealt with
the dismissal from government service of two respondents: Mirofe C.
Fronda and Florendo B. Arias1. These individuals were among the
employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
who faced criminal and administrative charges. The charges included
dishonesty, grave misconduct, gross neglect of duty, and conduct
prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

Here are the key details from the case:

Florendo B. Arias served as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Assistant

Director of the Bureau of Equipment (BOE) at the DPWH. His
responsibilities included approving disbursement vouchers (DVs) for
repairs and equipment purchases. During the period from January to
December 2001, he signed and recommended numerous requisitions
for supplies and equipment1.

Mirofe C. Fronda held the position of Supply Officer IV in the

Comptrollership and Financial Management Service of the DPWH. Her
duties involved reviewing and improving supply management practices.
She monitored prices for motor vehicles belonging to the DPWH during
the same period1.

The case centered around allegations that Conrado Valdez, a Clerk III,
requested and signed job orders for emergency repairs of DPWH
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 6
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

service vehicles. Notably, Valdez was not the end-user of these

vehicles, which violated DPWH Department Order No. 33, Series of
1988. The complaint highlighted Valdez’s involvement in making
requests for repairs on vehicles that did not exist or had not been
issued to any official1.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of Fronda and

Arias from government service. The decision emphasized the lack of
direct evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged conspiracy
to defraud the government1.

This case underscores the importance of diligence and accountability

in performing job duties, especially in public service. Gross negligence
can have serious consequences, and public officials must uphold their
responsibilities to the best of their abilities1.

For further legal details, you can explore the full decision in G.R. No.
211239 on the Lawphil Project website.

2. Inappropriate Behavior While on Duty: This includes actions such as

being discourteous to co-workers or supervisors, disrupting the work
environment, or engaging in criminal behavior while on duty.

Case Example:

In G.R. No. 178454, decided on March 28, 2011, the Court dealt with
the conduct of Filipina Samson, a government employee who held the
position of department head of the Population Commission in Trece
Martirez City, Cavite1.

Here are the key facts from the case:

Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 7
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

Issue: Filipina Samson agreed to assist her friend, Julia A. Restrivera,

in registering the latter’s land under the Torrens System. Respondent
Restrivera provided ₱50,000 to cover initial expenses for titling the land.
Failure to Perform Duty: Despite accepting the payment, Filipina
Samson failed to accomplish the task because it was later discovered
that the land was government property.

Violation of Code of Conduct: The Court found Filipina Samson

guilty of violating Section 4 (b) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6713, also
known as the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees. Her actions deprived the government of the
benefit of committed service, and her acceptance of payment created a
perception that she was a fixer1.

Penalty: Initially, the Ombudsman suspended her from office for six
months without pay. Upon reconsideration, the penalty was reduced to
three months suspension without pay1.

This case underscores the importance of public officials maintaining

the highest standards of conduct while performing their duties.
Inappropriate behavior can have serious consequences, and public
trust must be upheld at all times.

3. Intentional or Reckless Failure to Carry Out Required Duties: When

someone deliberately neglects their responsibilities, either intentionally
or recklessly.

Case Example:

In G.R. No. 235573, decided on November 2020, the Court dealt with
the conduct of Reynaldo Valencia y Vibar. He was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the culpable felony of reckless imprudence
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 8
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

resulting in homicide. This offense was defined and penalized under

Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The qualification arose from his
failure to promptly provide assistance to the victim after an accident1.

Here are the key details from the case:

Incident: A vehicular accident occurred, resulting in the death of a

pedestrian. Reynaldo Valencia, the driver of the vehicle, failed to render
immediate assistance to the victim.

Legal Consequences: The Court held that Reynaldo’s inaction

constituted reckless imprudence. His failure to lend on-the-spot help to
the victim contributed to the tragic outcome.

Penalty: Reynaldo Valencia was found guilty and faced the appropriate
legal consequences for his negligence.

This case underscores the importance of fulfilling one’s duties

responsibly, especially when lives are at stake. Public officials, in
particular, must exercise diligence and care in their actions to prevent
harm to others1.

4. Failure to Perform a Duty Owed to Someone Else: This can occur in

various contexts, such as professional obligations or personal
responsibilities.

Case Example:

G.R. No. 211239 (April 26, 2021):

The case involved two respondents: Mirofe C. Fronda and Florendo B.

Arias, both employees of the Department of Public Works and Highways
(DPWH).
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 9
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

Arias, as the Officer-in-Charge (OIC)-Assistant Director of the Bureau of

Equipment (BOE), approved disbursement vouchers (DVs) for repairs and
equipment purchases.

Fronda, as the Supply Officer IV, monitored prices for motor vehicles
belonging to the DPWH.

The complaint alleged that Conrado Valdez, a Clerk III, requested and signed
job orders for emergency repairs of DPWH service vehicles, even for vehicles
that did not exist or had not been issued to any official.

The Court of Appeals reversed their dismissal from government service, citing
a lack of direct evidence establishing their involvement in the alleged
conspiracy to defraud the government1.

G.R. No. 190524 (February 17, 2014):

In this case, petitioner Atty. Michaelina Ramos Balasbas accused

respondent Patricia B. Monayao, then employed by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development (DSWD), of misrepresentation, fraud, dishonesty,
and refusal to implement a Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) Order in a land dispute.

The Court emphasized the need to protect public officers and employees
against unsubstantiated charges that hinder the effective performance of their
duties2.

Civil Code Article 27:

This article states that any person suffering material or moral loss due to a
public servant or employee’s refusal or neglect, without just cause, to perform
their official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against
them3.

These cases highlight the importance of diligence, integrity, and

accountability in performing official duties. While public officials must
discharge their responsibilities faithfully, they should also be shielded from
baseless accusations that hinder their effectiveness.
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 10
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

In summary, neglect of duty involves failing to meet expected standards of

performance or conduct in a given role or situation. It can have serious
consequences, especially in professional settings.

5. What is the significance of REPUBLIC ACT N0. 9851, December

11, 2009, to the PNP organizations?

- The act entitled “AN ACT PENALIZING CRIMES AGAINST

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, GENOCIDE AND OTHER
CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, ORGANIZING JURISDICTION,
DESIGNATING SPECIALS COURTS, AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES,
ignited the intensified application of the command responsibility purposes
due to nationwide “disappearance” cases that get international attentions
from which the PNP formulate the agency order for this purpose. It gives
birth to the C, PNP Memorandum dated January 10, 2011 e“Guidelines on
the Accountability of the Immediate Officer for the Involvement of His
Subordinates I Criminal Offenses and Implementation of 3-Strike Policy.”

A. This policy and guidelines include:

i. Set the guidelines in holding Immediate Officer (IO) accountable

for the involvement of their subordinates get involved in three (3)
criminal offenses during his tenure;
ii. Guidelines to promote the culture of mentoring leadership
among supervising officers and to instill into the mind of the
commanders that they are responsible and accountable for the
actions of their subordinates;
iii. Guideline to governs the imposition of Doctrine of Command
Responsibility against all Immediate Officers (IO) over the
actions of their subordinates. As leaders, they are responsible
for what their personnel do or fail to do;
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 11
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City

iv. Policy on making the Immediate Officer to take appropriate

actions against erring personnel within twenty- four (24) hours
from the time of incident, or if not, IO will be relieved
immediately;
v. Policy on submitting a report and account the erring subordinate
and present subordinate to immediate disciplinary authority
within 24 hours;
vi. Policy on IOs shall be independently and separately charged
(administratively) for every criminal offense committed by his
subordinates; and
vii. IO to immediately conduct Pre-Charge Evaluation for Grave
Misconduct and likewise initiate criminal investigation and to file
appropriate charges to erring subordinates.
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 12
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 13
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 14
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City
Prof. ANJU O. VILLANUEVA RN, LPT, Ph.D. 15
Guest Lecturer
Regional Training Center CALABARZON
RTC4A Annex, Brgy Anos, Tayabas City