On Wednesday, I attended two conferences on security and peace, one on the military’s Internal Peace and Security Plan (IPSP) and the other on police matters.

The Bantay Bayanihan (BB) National Conference was a “policy forum to discuss the challenges and prospects in security policy reform.” As the organizers described it, “Borne out of a civil society initiative, Bantay Bayanihan performs oversight role on the Philippine military’s Internal Peace and Security Plan (IPSP) Bayanihan and is a network that aims to advance security sector reform in the country.”

The Group Advisory Council (GAC) of the Criminal Investigations and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police (PNP), meanwhile, had its regular meeting. This was more focused on getting inputs from its advisory council on how to improve operations and, consequently, its image and the trust of the citizens they are mandated to protect.

Internal peace and security can only be attained if the military and the police are effective and work together to protect citizens and state. In fact, in a meeting of the BB NCR network prior to the conference, it was already noted that the “PNP/DILG had not shown deep commitment.” I found it unfortunate that the PNP was not adequately represented at the Bantay Bayanihan conference, if at all.

First, let me share my take on PNP matters. We all know that our police do not have the best reputation. An old joke goes: a soldier is arrested for not paying his bill at a restaurant. What was the charge? Impersonating a police officer.

Another old joke: at an international police conference, three officers compared notes. The British said, “Bobbies are so efficient that we are at the scene of the crime 15 minutes after we receive the report.” The American boasted, “Our cops are so efficient that we arrive five minutes after we receive the report.” Not to be outdone, the Pinoy police officer said, “Our pulis are so efficient that we are there before the crime is committed!”

In the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, for instance, most citizens who have knowledge of a crime would rather not report it for many reasons: lack of trust in the system, fear of retaliation (suspicions that the police may be in cahoots with criminals), the police station is too far and the procedures too time consuming. The PNP officials are aware of this and have been trying to reform their institutions. Undermanned, undertrained, ill equipped, our police are nevertheless moving to gain the trust of citizens.

The CIDG is the police arm that ensures the successful prosecution of those who violate the law through effective investigation and evidence gathering. If the government is not successful in arresting criminals and gathering the evidence needed for prosecution, then the foundation of a peaceful society is weakened

At the CIDG-GAC conference, our discussions revolved around the improvement of the system. Again, the problems surfaced: Undermanned, undertrained, and ill equipped. Of the 130,000 plus police manpower, less than 1% are with the CIDG. If the IPSP is to succeed, shouldn’t these police matters also be a priority?

Also, think about it: Who provides intel to the military? (Let’s not talk about informants, many of whom are scalawags.) The military assigned to a conflict-affected area are normally not from that area. Intel therefore comes from the police. I would think that strengthening the links between the two organizations should be a priority.

Bantay Bayanihan was also an initiative triggered by many cases of human rights violations in areas of conflict, mostly committed by our men in uniform. The police are likewise men in uniform, with their share of accusations of human rights violations. It is clear, to me anyway, that a successful IPSP cannot work without the police.

Since 2002, when I returned to the Philippines after a one-year fellowship at the United States Institute of Peace, I have been advocating for a Balikatan-type program for our police. The demands on the Armed Forces would be much less if the local police were competent in internal security.

I mentioned at the BB conference that citizen involvement in internal security is a must. Tell me frankly, are our citizens engaged in securing their community and their State? I don’t think so. First, they must have trust in the system. Without this, they will continue to rely on their own devices, on their clans and warlords, on liberation fronts and insurgents -- a sure formula for the deterioration of internal security.

On a positive note, the uniformed services have been focused on security sector reform. Bantay Bayanihan has done much to bring stakeholders to participate. At the end of the day, we -- the citizens -- cannot afford to be disengaged. If we do, then we have only ourselves to blame when our rights are violated and violence and crimes escalate.

Amina Rasul is the president of Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy. Surveil is her column in BusinessWorld. Comments to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter @aminarasul.