Rough Cuts | Why do they oppose arming prosecutors?

Believe you me on this!
Three young “job order” employees of the Land Transportation Office (LTO) assigned in the field are now “millionaires” in their own right, in only after a little over a year in their job.

According to our informant who was one member of their group assigned in the cyber campaign of a candidate for a national office, the three guys are “madiskarte,” or those who are innovative in their job.

Our informant told us that one good thing going for the three guys other than being innovative in their ways is that they possess masculine physique and are good “communicators.”

Well, before you readers of ours jump into some conclusions, these guys do not mulct money from motorists unlike some of their kind. Our source said that they flag down vehicles whose drivers have infractions with traffic rules. But not just any vehicle – mostly they stop latest model SUVs. And not just any driver; they are very selective. They flag down SUVs driven by ladies — beautiful ones, especially their pockets.

And since these LTO “job order” personnel cannot just apprehend anyone without clear violation, they make sure that indeed a violation or violations are committed before they strike.

Here comes the reckoning time. If the lady driver has no license, or driving with only a Student Permit, the “innovative” LTO “job order” employees “threaten” the erring lady driver of having the driven vehicle impounded, the right penalty for such infraction.

This is where the ingenuity of the concerned LTO guys comes in. They offer the lady driver concessions. They would promise to forget about the impounding penalty on condition that they get the mobile number of the lady driver. Add to it the information that the erring driver is single, the pursuit starts. And the three guys succeeded. They eventually married their “preys.”

Added our informant who admitted he is extremely jealous of the “accomplishment” of his three former colleagues in the campaign scheme, the “victims” are daughters of well-heeled parents or executives of large corporate conglomerates.

Yes, they did not mulct money from motorists. However, we still believe that using their “job order” authority to take advantage of traffic rule violators by exculpating them on their own is just the same – committing illegal acts in relation to the performance of duties.

Now don’t ask us who these scalawags of the different genre. Who knows, the top executives of the LTO might have even acted as their “Ninongs sa Kasal.”

This news is to us, something very funny – perhaps even a fallacy.

We are referring to the report that some senators are strongly opposed to the proposal of Department of Justice Secretary Menardo Guevarra to allow government prosecutors to bear firearms.

According to the report Senators Franklin Drilon, Aquilino Pimentel III, and Grace Poe insist it would be much better if the Justice Secretary should instead demand from the police to “do better,” or call for help from their more advance international counterparts “if necessary.”

Wow! How ironic. These lawmakers would rather fully entrust the safety of the lives of prosecutors to the police? They are not there all the time. Worst, their movement is also the one being closely monitored by criminals who have the intention to commit crimes against certain persons, prosecutors included.

Really we cannot figure out the rationale of the senators’ opposition to the arming of prosecutors. Why would they not want the prosecutors to carry a gun when even ordinary citizens who have the means and the connections can buy as many guns they wish; issued licenses and even given permit to carry any and all of the guns they possess?

They also want the police leadership to train its detectives to be better in solving crimes.

Really? Should crime solution be given more emphasis than prevention or deterring the commission of crimes?

Frankly, if someone has the plan to attack a prosecutor or any citizen of this country, he’d surely entertain some degree of hesitation if he has in his mind the thought that his target also has the means to fight back or even outdraw him.

Besides, is it not a citizen’s right to protect himself from harm? What more if that citizen happens to be a prosecutor whose primary responsibility is to bring criminals to conviction by the courts.

Now, should we wonder why there are a lot of people risking apprehension of illegal possession of guns?

-30-

Posted in Opinion