You are on page 1of 2

Let me first address some points of rebuttal

:

On to my speech. The negative side firmly stands that it is not necessary to allow police officers to sport
visible tattoos.

First, the status quo has been serving its purpose to maintain the dignified image of the police officers.
Second, There is no need to alter the status quo as the police officers are different breed of men.

As regards the first point, police officers have standards of behaviors that hark back to medieval times
and they are still relevant today such as following orders, wearing approved uniforms and badges, fitting
into an organization and having a regulation haircut. In fact, a police officer’s pledge include among
others obligating himself to maintain a high standard of morality and professionalism, respect for
customs and traditions of the police service, living a descent and virtuous life to serve as an example to
others. In fact, according to several authorities, one of the integral purposes of disallowing this act is to
preserve tradition coupled with the fact that within the police and military arena, the act of police
officers of having tattoos though wearing uniform is a taboo, hence, contrary to their obligation of
preserving their customs and traditions. The ethical standards of the PNP based on morality dictates
that members shall adhere high standards of morality and decency and shall set good examples for
others to follow. Furthermore, the no-tattoo rule complements the PNP’s on going “Tamang Bihis”
campaign which mandates policemen to wear and use only the prescribed uniforms, insignias and other
accourtrements from accredited suppliers. Moreover, it cannot be discounted that lifting the ban on the
said no-tattoo rule will create an impression associated with thugs and law offenders which the PNP
cannot afford especially now that it is working to gain public trust and cooperation in its anti-crime and
anti-illegal drug efforts.

They are honorary and discipline agents of peace and order and public safety. because these standards guarantee that members of police force are not only capable and competent but also adhering to decency. However. The mandate of equal protection is satisfied here. It is afforded only to those who have met the stringent standards of morality. lest the public fail to see the integrity they wish to carry. In fact. Their first duty is to the public. the equal protection clause does not prohibit classification. capability and decency. which does not treat the person differently because of who is or what he is or what he possess. Unlike ordinary citizens.As to second point. . Hence. Self-interest and any superfluous act of self-expression is secondary to the honor and appearance they must so uphold at all times. each individual is dealt with as an equal person in the law. First. at the outset. the imposition of the no-tattoo rule is consistent with the valid classification between police officers and ordinary citizens. The SC in the case of People vs Cayat enunciated that under such clause. it is futile to argue that the prohibition of sporting tattoos for police officers is unfair and discriminatory for there is no violation of a constitutional right involved here. in the first place the must be willing to submit themselves to these standards no matter how strict. police officers are different breed of men. aspiring police officers should have instill the fact that being a member of the police force is more of a privilege than a right.