(Mark Balmores/ MANILA BULLETIN)

Manila 3rd district Rep. Joel Chua has warned the Philippine National Police (PNP) that it could get in trouble with the law for forcing its personnel to remove visible tattoos on their bodies. 

"It is disappointing that our PNP has this negative mindset about people with tattoos. Tattoos have nothing to do with the job performance of any police or public servant," Chua said in a statement on Wednesday, April 24. 

The lawyer-legislator was referring to PNP Memorandum Circular 2024-023, approved on March 19, 2024. 

"The PNP should discard that policy now before they get into legal trouble for the unconstitutionality of their policy. Tattoos are an art form of expression. The Constitution protects freedom of expression. By all indications, the PNP policy on tattoos is unconstitutional," he said. 

Chua said that there's simply "no legal basis" for the for the removal of visible tattoos among cops. 

"Wala sa Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees (Republic Act No.6713). Wala rin sa batas na nagtatag sa Philippine National Police (RA No. 6975)," he said. 

(This is not in the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. It's also not in the law that established the Philippine National Police.) 

"Wala sa qualifications at disqualifications na nakasaad sa Section 30 ng RA No.6975. Ni hindi nga ipinagbawal o tinutulan ng Supreme Court na magka-tattoo ang mga huwes sa naging desisyon nito sa isang administrative case tungkol sa social media posts ng isang judge sa La Union," he added. 

(It's not among the qualifications and disqualifications stated in Section 30 of RA No.6975. Even the Supreme Court didn't prohibited magistrates from getting tattoos in its decision on an administrative case about the social media posts of a La Union judge.) 

ALSO READ:

https://mb.com.ph/2024/4/24/wala-sa-batas-pnp-may-get-in-legal-trouble-for-policy-vs-cops-with-visible-tattoos-says-solon

"There is a saying in statutory legal construction that essentially means, 'What is not included is excluded.' This dictum applies especially so when there is a detailed enumeration of what is included. In the laws I have cited, tattoos or anything similar to tattoos are not included," Chua said. 

"The only possible reason to use tattoos as basis to exclude or discriminate against anyone is if the tattoo means actual current membership and participation in any active criminal organization. It is the membership in the criminal organization that must be proven first," he noted. 

The solon continued: "Tattoos are not probable cause for that--not even membership in jail gangs because it is the criminal activity that must be proven to actually exist, not the mere presence of the tattoos." 

"Tattoos cannot even be used to discriminate against former convicts who have served their sentences in jail because our laws advance restorative justice and integration into society of ex-convicts. Tattoos should not be used as indirect indicators of possible criminal behavior," he further explained.